[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
dam-l Epupa FS Update/LS
>From The Namibian:
Epupa study incomplete
WERNER MENGES
THE final report of the feasibility study on the planned lower Kunene
River hydropower scheme is short of agreed steps to soften the negative
effects of the proposed project on the residents of the dam area.
The Namang international consortium of consultants which worked on a
technical and an environmental study on the proposed Epupa hydroelectric
scheme handed the 21-volume final report to Government on December 4.
The final feasibility study report does not include any specific,
agreed measures to minimise the impact of the project in Namibia on the
estimated 12 000 Kunene Region residents who belong to the Himba - who
remain overwhelmingly opposed to the scheme - and other minority ethnic
groups, the report reveals.
The reason for this omission, the consultants explain, is the
breakdown in communication between the consultants and the affected Himba
communities, who
appear to be overwhelmingly against the project and who have expressed
a "vote of
no confidence in the political processes (accompanying the study) in
both Angola
and Namibia".
The social organisation of some Himba communities in the north of the
region and the social balance of the Himba's lifestyle of semi-nomadic
pastoralism could be destroyed by the proposed project, with the result
that impoverished, displaced communities could grow in urban centres and
especially on the edges of Opuwo, the report warns.
WHO'S TO BLAME?
Namang lays the responsibility for this shortcoming in the final
report at the door of its client, the Namibian and Angolan governments,
whose responsibility it was to facilitate the community consultation process.
The previous version of the feasibility study report, the draft final
report which was released in October last year, was marked incomplete on
its covers because it did not contain measures to address the impact of the
planned scheme on the affected Himba communities in the proposed dam areas.
Since the release of the draft report, the Himba to be directly affected by
the building of a dam in their midst have continued to refuse to discuss
such measures with the consultants. Communication on this was finally
halted early this year, says the report.
Namang has however gone ahead and, in the absence of such agreed
measures,
completed the environmental assessment by including chapters on
principles for a social mitigation programme in its place.
In the introduction to the environmental assessment of the Epupa and
Baynes sites the report says, "In the view of Namang there has not been
sufficient dissemination of information concerning the scheme, or local
community consultation, participation and involvement in the details of
site selection and development of an acceptable social mitigation
programme. (...) It will be the task of the two Governments and their
implementing organisation to eventually work out a Social Mitigation
Programme in consultation with the affected local population."
The process towards community based identification of mitigation was
"interrupted by another, political, process completely beyond the control
of Namang," the report explains.
"Namang in no way suggests that the social mitigation/compensation
component of the project is in place or that the people in the direct
impact zone are reconciled to the project. What is demonstrated in the
(Environmental Assessment) is a clear commitment to the principle of
consultation by Namang and a record of the extensive efforts made to
facilitate dialogue with local people."
BAD START
The intended process of consultations between the affected people and the
consultants was bedevilled from the start by inadequate and misleading
communication on the planned project between the Himba and the two
governments as clients for the study, the report indicates.
In Namibia, especially, the project became politicised and debate
about it became distorted by the controversy created around the issue by
the Namibian Himba Chiefs and the government, which in turn had an effect
on the Angolan Himba's reaction to the project plans.
Whereas the Namibian Himba from the outset rejected plans to build a
dam at either the Epupa site some seven km downstream from the Epupa Falls
or at the Baynes site some 40 km downstream from the falls, the Angolan
Himba were initially willing to discuss the possibility of the Baynes
option, although they, too, rejected all talks about the Epupa site.
From the very start, the consultation process got off on a bad note,
with the Himba communities in Namibia misinformed about the true nature and
extent of a possible dam after an information visit by a then Swawek team
to the area before further consultations from 1992. The report notes that
this tour "created misunderstandings more than anything else", and that
"the first contact between between Himba and officials created the
impression amongst some local people that the Himba were to be tricked.
Unfortunately, very little was done in 1992 and 1993 to correct this image."
The report states that since interaction on possible mitigation
measures "is not possible for political reasons, the project has achieved
what can be achieved and reached a logical conclusion. A political solution
has to come prior to continued community interaction for social mitigation."
The details for compensation would have to be negotiated with the
concerned communities, "if and when circumstances change, in accordance
with the generally accepted criteria of bankability".
THE DIFFERENCES
The final report has adjusted the price tag for the scheme's two
options slightly upwards, to a total of 542,81 million US dollars (N$3
256,86 million at yesterday's exchange rate of N$6 per US dollar) for the
Epupa site and US$554,38 million (N$3,326,28 million) for the Baynes site.
A dam at Baynes will cover some 57 square kilometres of land under
water being held back by a dam wall 200 m high - a height which would be a
world record for a dam of its kind. It would also drown some 15 grave sites
and 45 archaeological sites, displace less than a hundred permanent users
and affect about 2 000 permanent users of the area.
At Epupa, though, a dam wall 163 metres high will create a reservoir
covering 380 square kilometres when full. The scenic Epupa Falls will be
permanently drowned by such a dam. The top of the falls will be about 100
metres under the water surface when the dam is full, or about 30 metres
deep at the lowest level at which its proposed 360 megawatt hydropower
plant would be able to operate.
The Epupa dam would displace 1 100 people and affect 5 000 occasional
users of its area, and drown 95 archaeological sites and 160 treasured
Himba grave sites.
It would also have a major impact on the habitat of two critically
endangered fish species, and would in effect destroy the only known habitat
of a third, a new species of Leptoglanis which was discovered only in the
proposed dam's area during the feasibility study period.
The final report's Executive Summary explains that both options have
some serious
shortcomings.
Economically, the environmentally less damaging Baynes options is less
feasible.
Without the benefit of the war-disabled Gove Dam in the Angolan highlands
regulating the flow of the Kunene River, the Baynes option is not
economically
viable or bankable to attract investors. With Gove working, though, a
scheme at
Baynes "can be characterised as a medium risk, economically marginal and
environmentally acceptable option", says the summary.
The Epupa option would be economically viable with or without the Gove
Dam
working properly. However, whereas in the Baynes option the social
consequences
are considered to be "largely mitigable", those likely to be caused by
the Epupa
option - in the shape of changed identities, lifestyles and production
systems - are
described as including some "unmitigable social issues which will have
extremely
serious consequences for a small group of people".
With the Epupa site, the prospects of financing a project look
promising, says the
report. But this is qualified by the statement - "provided that the
identified
environmental impacts are not considered to create unacceptable risks
by investors."