RECORDS OF MEETINGS HELD DURING THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS by uij90909

VIEWS: 26 PAGES: 56

									RECORDS OF MEETINGS HELD DURING THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
PROCESS OF THE SCOPING PHASE FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND
SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF NAMPOWER’S PROPOSED COAL-
FIRED POWER STATION AT WALVIS BAY 4 JUNE 2008 – 15 JULY 2008

*Responses to questions that were not answered at the time of any of the meetings are provided in the Stakeholder
Issue Sheets



Record of a meeting held between Marie Hoadley and Brett Lawson (Ninham Shand) and
R Visagie and T Eiman of Namport in Walvis Bay on 20 May 2008.

NS      There are two things we would like to talk to you about. The first is the coal-fired power
        station, nominally 400MW with a possible expansion to 80MW. We should emphasise
        that it is early days in process in that we do not have a comprehensive set of technical
        information because it is an Independent Power Producer (IPP) approach. NamPower
        needs to consider a range of bids. Ninham Shand has been appointed the lead consultant
        in the process to apply for permitting, and the company has sound experience in the
        energy sector. Marie Hoadley is running the public consultation process and also the
        social impact assessment. We have a strong component on marine ecology, wetlands, air
        quality and all the necessary disciplines for this kind of project.        We this week ran the
        specialist scoping workshop where everyone the table and shared with them the
        information as we have it now. With reference to the IPPs, the iterations that have to be
        gone through mean that we are having difficulty getting a proper technical description. Our
        approach for the moment is to approach things from something of a generic standard, to
        compile a set of generic standards for the various aspects. We are working to an incredibly
        tight time line and hoping to complete the ESIA within six months. All are committed to the
        time scale.
RV      Raymond – The availability of land is a big hiccup. There is a tremendous need for land,
        and we have now put a moratorium on leasing land.
NS      A sub-component of this project is another process which has already progressed. This is
        the black start facility. What NamPower had in mind was looking at a priority project at
        Paratus, i.e. to supply emergency generation in a very short time. The thinking was not to
        go through an entire EIA process. We had a meeting with MET, and they will consider an
        exemption, but would require a scoping report. We had already agreed with NamPower to
        look at the two most critical impacts, i.e. air quality and noise. We think that a strong
        case can be made for not running a full EIA. (NS gave description of the site, it’s history of
        use, the fact that it is a brown fields site) The zoning is right, it is in an industrial precinct,
        and it would be appropriate usage. We do need to determine whether there will be
        cumulative impact.
RV      Are you looking at baseline conditions before proceeding?
NS      Yes. We are looking at 50MW multi-fuelled unit. The technology is so much better
        compared to the old Paratus, all designed to reach World Bank standards. We also use
        the World Bank Pollution Prevention Guideline for Energy Projects. This would ultimately
        serve as a black start for the big power station. These projects must be seen against the
        significant projected growth for this area.
RV      What is the standpoint of the municipality?
NS      They are fine with it and have some questions about public health.
RV      At the moment Namport will need 6 MW for extension, but probably more.
NS   What is happening with Ruacana?
RV   That might take a back seat now with the power station.
NS   The information is that there is a need for base load, not just regionally but nationally. With
     the 50MW, they are also looking at peaking, so they are looking at another 100MW. It is
     not sure where this would be situated. There is also a development looking at slop oil.
RV    If you look at the quantity of slop, you need to query whether there is sufficient oil to
     generate a significant amount of energy. This project has been proposed before, and
     abandoned when the number crunching started, because it did not appear economically
     feasible.
NS   We know that there are developments with regard to energy production out there, moving
     towards some sort of feasibility, not just from the point of view of energy supply and
     demand but also from a spatial planning aspect. Rössing is looking at co-generating and
     possibly Langer Heinrich as well.
RV   We are well aware of these issues. We have had a number of meetings with NamPower
     and the municipality. There is uncertainty about where NamPower is going. Given the
     national need for power, it is felt that they are going too slowly.
NS   To move onto the next issue - we need alternatives. We are looking at various technical
     alternatives, such as pulverized coal and its alternatives, but the big issue is the site. We
     had three sites to start off with. We understand there is to be a new bulk terminal at Site B;
     the municipality has indicated a preference for Site C. However, three did not present a
     wide enough spectrum – there was no compromise site, no trade-off. NamPower agreed
     to the identification of another site, so we looked at the site behind Namcor.
RV   The Namcor project has not started yet. The whole zoning of the northern area of Walvis
     Bay will change, Site B needs to be rezoned, heavy industries is moving in and the
     entrance to Walvis Bay will probably have to be shifted.
     Site D is notional. We looked at all the sites yesterday. If we look for a compromise
     Site D notional – looked at all the site yesterday. If we look for a compromise, it should not
     be close by; it needs to move out away from Narraville, and also so as to ensure that the
     prevailing winds are not a problem. One of the IPPs has an attachment to Site A. We now
     have agreement that we will run the four sites through the screening process.             In the
     longer term it might be cheaper to use site C. Often power stations are developed in
     uninhabited area, then 15 years later they are surrounded by residential area. If there is a
     spatial planning imperative for Walvis Bay, then we don’t want a power station close to the
     town, we want to move it away. The four sites will be put through a vigorous methodology,
     and will include all parameters. Does the array of alternatives make sense to you? Are
     we missing something?
RV   Site A will affect the growth of the port. Site B – you need to look at the growth of
     Langstrand, and with Site D you should bear in mind the long-term development of the
     town. In MY opinion site C is the best one. The two coastal sites would be environmentally
     unacceptable. We are having second thoughts about the bulk handling facility, thinking
     about the long-term strategy of bulk at one particular point. Another idea is to reclaim. .
NS   Ash disposal is a critical element. There will be large volumes. The worst case scenario is
     about a 70 hectares site. Sites A, B and D could not accommodate this, site C could. Site
     C could probably accommodate an ash dump within the proximity of the power station if
     conventional dry stacking is used. We need to look at alternative uses for ash. We believe
     there is a cement factory in the harbour.
RV   Packaging and grinding is done within the port, but processing is done at Otavi. What
     about Site D for ash?
NS   Possibly, but the colour of the ash means that it would have to be covered and
     revegetation is difficult in an arid environment.
RV   You should speak to Andre Neethling at Ohorongo Cement. They are based at Otavi. His
      phone number is 0811 22 3739
NS    Who would the correct person be to contact with regard to the Walvis Bay Corridor Group,
      and can you give us a brief rundown on their activities.
RV    You should speak to Johnny Smith – 0811294168. Basically it is the umbrella body which
      facilitates the growth of Walvis Bay. Because 50% of imports and exports in and out of
      Namibia pass through Walvis Bay, we have started the Corridor Group to find safe
      corridors. Its focus is mainly on rail and road.
      There are a few other things you should look at. Look at the extraction of seawater, the
      impact of emissions on vegetation and high voltage lines across residential areas.
                                               END MEETING



Record of a meeting held in Swakopmund on 20 May 2008 between Ninham Shand
(Marie Hoadley, Public Participation Manager) and Frikkie Holzhausen, Town Engineer,
Swakopmund Municipality.

MH         Explained the purpose of the meeting, and its limitations in view of the early
           engagement and the need for further information on the second project before
           substantive engagement can occur.             The Paratus project was discussed,
           particularly from the point of view of justification to apply for a waiver.
FH         I would be concerned about air quality and the potential impact on
           Swakopmund. Possible water pollution is also a problem. Given the direction
           of the winds, and the off-short currents, Swakopmund is directly in the line of
           fire.
           A discussion of the four potential sites ensued.
FH         There is some infrastructure in the vicinity for the supply of potable water. I am
           not sure where the airport is getting water from. Last year, in November, I
           noticed a pipeline being laid next to the tar road to the airport. I’m not sure what
           the purpose is, but I do know that the airport wants a more dedicated supply.
           So fresh water could be available.
           A discussion of the infrastructure led to consideration of traffic and the road
           behind the dunes.
MH         It has been suggested that NamPower should force heavy traffic to use the road
           behind the dunes rather than the coast road, which brings them through
           Swakopmund.
GH         We spoke to Uli Trumper of the Roads Authority about this issue last year, but
           he indicated that you cannot force people to use an untarred road.
                                             END MEETING
 65 York Street, George, 6529                                                         Tel: +27 44 874 2165
 P O Box 509, George, 6530                                                           Fax: +27 44 873 5843
 South Africa                                                                    Website: www.shands.co.za


4 June 2008                                                                  Our ref: 402633/8.1078

Permanent Secretary
Ministry of Mines and Energy
1 Aviation Road
Windhoek
NAMIBIA

For attention: Mr K Kavetuna, Acting Deputy Director: Energy (email: kkavetuna@mme.gov.na)

Dear Mr Kavetuna

 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR NAMPOWER’S
PROPOSED COAL-FIRED POWER STATION AND EMERGENCY GENERATION FACILITY IN
                             WALVIS BAY

Thank you for meeting with us on 27 May 2008 to discuss the above-mentioned Environmental
and Socio-Economic Impact Assessment (ESEIA). Your attention to the matter is appreciated.

As described in the meeting, the environmental process has been necessitated by NamPower’s
proposed installation of electricity generating capacity in Walvis Bay, comprising the following
elements:

1.    A 400 - 800 MW coal-fired power station with associated coal stockyard, ash disposal facility
      (possibly located at another site) and transport systems to deliver coal and seawater to and
      from the plant;
2.    A 100 MW multi-fuelled (e.g. diesel) black start/emergency generation facility located at the
      coal-fired power station site or in the vicinity of the existing Paratus power station site; and
3.    A 50 MW black start/emergency generation facility that is presently being subjected to a
      separate Scoping study, located at the existing Paratus power station site.

We envisage submitting the Scoping Report for this proposed development to the Ministry of
Environment and Tourism (MET) by 18 August 2008 and the finalized ESEIA Report by 24
October 2008. We will be providing your Directorate with copies of these documents at those
times, to enable you to submit comments as appropriate.

With reference to the 50 MW black start/emergency generation facility at Paratus power station
currently being subjected to a separate Scoping study, we have been informed by MET that our
original intention of referring to it as a waiver application should be amended. It will consequently
be referred to as a Scoping Report, as reflected elsewhere in this letter. This should be submitted
to MET and a copy provided to your Directorate by 7 July 2008. A Background Information
Document dealing with this proposal has been provided to you.

We trust that our meeting and this letter will serve as the necessary notification to your Directorate
of the ESEIA process being undertaken, unless we hear from you to the contrary.

We will keep you informed at appropriate times throughout the ESEIA process and look forward to
working with you on this project. Should you wish to discuss the matter further, or require any
additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Yours faithfully
NINHAM SHAND




Brett Lawson PrSciNat; EAPSA [Cert]
Associate Environmental Practitioner


Cc: Mr J Iita, Permanent Secretary, MME (email: jiita@mme.gov.na)
    Mr D Andreas, MME (email: dandreas@mme.gov.na)
    Mr N Hipangelwa, MME (email: nhipangelwa@mme.gov.na)
 65 York Street, George, 6529                                                         Tel: +27 44 874 2165
 P O Box 509, George, 6530                                                           Fax: +27 44 873 5843
 South Africa                                                                    Website: www.shands.co.za


4 June 2008                                                                  Our ref: 402633/8.1077

Head: Environmental Impact Assessment Unit
Directorate: Environmental Affairs
Ministry of Environment and Tourism
Private Bag 13346
Windhoek
NAMIBIA

For attention: Mr T Nghitila (email: nghitila@dea.met.gov.na)

Dear Mr Nghitila

 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR NAMPOWER’S
PROPOSED COAL-FIRED POWER STATION AND EMERGENCY GENERATION FACILITY IN
                             WALVIS BAY

Thank you for meeting with us on 27 May 2008 to discuss the above-mentioned Environmental
and Socio-Economic Impact Assessment (ESEIA). Your attention to the matter is appreciated.

As described in the meeting, the environmental process has been necessitated by NamPower’s
proposed installation of electricity generating capacity in Walvis Bay, comprising the following
elements:

1.    A 400 - 800 MW coal-fired power station with associated coal stockyard, ash disposal facility
      (possibly located at another site) and transport systems to deliver coal and seawater to and
      from the plant;
2.    A 100 MW multi-fuelled (e.g. diesel) black start/emergency generation facility located at the
      coal-fired power station site or in the vicinity of the existing Paratus power station site; and
3.    A 50 MW black start/emergency generation facility that is presently being subjected to a
      separate Scoping study, located at the existing Paratus power station site.

We envisage submitting the Scoping Report for this proposed development to your Directorate by
18 August 2008 and the finalized ESEIA Report by 24 October 2008.
Although the Environmental Management Act (No. 7 of 2007) has been gazetted, we understand
that enabling legislation has yet to follow and we will thus undertake the ESEIA according to the
requirements of the Environmental Assessment Policy of 1994. However, the standards and
procedures applied by us will comply with global best practice, as well as NamPower’s own
internal standards, and will thus result in a robust product of international standard.

With reference to the 50 MW black start/emergency generation facility at Paratus power station
currently being subjected to a separate Scoping study, we understood from you at the meeting on
27 May 2008 that our original intention of referring to it as a waiver application should be
amended. It will consequently be referred to as a Scoping Report, as reflected elsewhere in this
letter. This should be submitted to your Directorate by 7 July 2008 and we appreciate the
guidance you have provided on this matter.

We trust that our meeting and this letter will serve as the necessary notification and registration to
your Directorate of the ESEIA process being undertaken, unless we hear from you to the contrary.

We will keep you informed at appropriate times throughout the ESEIA process and look forward to
working with you on this project. Should you wish to discuss the matter further, or require any
additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Yours faithfully
NINHAM SHAND




Brett Lawson PrSciNat; EAPSA [Cert]
Associate Environmental Practitioner



Cc: Dr F Sikabongo, MET: DEA (email: freddy@dea.met.gov.na)
 65 York Street, George, 6529                                                         Tel: +27 44 874 2165
 P O Box 509, George, 6530                                                           Fax: +27 44 873 5843
 South Africa                                                                    Website: www.shands.co.za


4 June 2008                                                                   Our ref: 402633/8.107

Senior Manager: Planning and Investigations
NamWater
Private Bag 13389
Windhoek
NAMIBIA

For attention: Mr M Harris (email: harrism@namwater.com.na)

Dear Mr Harris

 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR NAMPOWER’S
PROPOSED COAL-FIRED POWER STATION AND EMERGENCY GENERATION FACILITY IN
                             WALVIS BAY

Thank you for meeting with us on 27 May 2008 to discuss the above-mentioned Environmental
and Socio-Economic Impact Assessment (ESEIA). Your attention to the matter is appreciated.

As described in the meeting, the environmental process has been necessitated by NamPower’s
proposed installation of electricity generating capacity in Walvis Bay, comprising the following
elements:

1.    A 400 - 800 MW coal-fired power station with associated coal stockyard, ash disposal facility
      (possibly located at another site) and transport systems to deliver coal and seawater to and
      from the plant;
2.    A 100 MW multi-fuelled (e.g. diesel) black start/emergency generation facility located at the
      coal-fired power station site or in the vicinity of the existing Paratus power station site; and
3.    A 50 MW black start/emergency generation facility that is presently being subjected to a
      separate Scoping study, located at the existing Paratus power station site.

We envisage submitting the Scoping Report for this proposed development to the Ministry of
Environment and Tourism (MET) by 18 August 2008 and the finalized ESEIA Report by 24
October 2008. We will be providing NamWater with copies of these documents at those times, to
enable you to submit comments as appropriate.
With reference to the 50 MW black start/emergency generation facility at Paratus power station
currently being subjected to a separate Scoping study, we have been informed by MET that our
original intention of referring to it as a waiver application should be amended. It will consequently
be referred to as a Scoping Report, as reflected elsewhere in this letter. This should be submitted
to MET and a copy provided to NamWater by 7 July 2008. A Background Information Document
dealing with this proposal has been provided to you.

We trust that our meeting and this letter will serve as the necessary notification to NamWater of
the ESEIA process being undertaken, unless we hear from you to the contrary. The issues you
raised in the meeting, namely that you would require information on water demand and that
pollution and resource integration should be properly dealt with, have been noted and will be
addressed as the process unfolds.

We will keep you informed at appropriate times throughout the ESEIA process and look forward to
working with you on this project. Should you wish to discuss the matter further, or require any
additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Yours faithfully
NINHAM SHAND




Brett Lawson PrSciNat; EAPSA [Cert]
Associate Environmental Practitioner



Cc: Mr N du Plessis, Environmental Manager, NamWater (email: plessisn@namwater.com.na)




)
 65 York Street, George, 6529                                                         Tel: +27 44 874 2165
 P O Box 509, George, 6530                                                           Fax: +27 44 873 5843
 South Africa                                                                    Website: www.shands.co.za


4 June 2008                                                                  Our ref: 402633/8.1080

Department of Water Affairs
Ministry of Agriculture, Water Affairs and Forestry
Luther Street
Windhoek
NAMIBIA

For attention: Ms Grazy Tshipo (email : tshipog@mawf.gov.na)

Dear Ms Tshipo

 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR NAMPOWER’S
PROPOSED COAL-FIRED POWER STATION AND EMERGENCY GENERATION FACILITY IN
                             WALVIS BAY

Thank you for meeting with us on 27 May 2008 to discuss the above-mentioned Environmental
and Socio-Economic Impact Assessment (ESEIA). Your attention to the matter is appreciated.

As described in the meeting, the environmental process has been necessitated by NamPower’s
proposed installation of electricity generating capacity in Walvis Bay, comprising the following
elements:

1.    A 400 - 800 MW coal-fired power station with associated coal stockyard, ash disposal facility
      (possibly located at another site) and transport systems to deliver coal and seawater to and
      from the plant;
2.    A 100 MW multi-fuelled (e.g. diesel) black start/emergency generation facility located at the
      coal-fired power station site or in the vicinity of the existing Paratus power station site; and
3.    A 50 MW black start/emergency generation facility that is presently being subjected to a
      separate Scoping study, located at the existing Paratus power station site.

We envisage submitting the Scoping Report for this proposed development to the Ministry of
Environment and Tourism (MET) by 18 August 2008 and the finalized ESEIA Report by 24
October 2008. We will be providing the Department of Water Affairs with copies of the documents
at those times, to enable you to submit comments as appropriate.
With reference to the 50 MW black start/emergency generation facility at Paratus power station
currently being subjected to a separate Scoping study, we have been informed by MET that our
original intention of referring to it as a waiver application should be amended. It will consequently
be referred to as a Scoping Report, as reflected elsewhere in this letter. This should be submitted
to MET and a copy provided to the Department of Water Affairs by 7 July 2008. A Background
Information Document dealing with this proposal has been provided to you.

We trust that our meeting and this letter will serve as the necessary notification to the Department
of Water Affairs of the ESEIA process being undertaken, unless we hear from you to the contrary.
The issues you raised in the meeting, namely the permitting requirements for seawater
abstraction and disposal, and the implications for water resources of disposing of ash, have been
noted and will be addressed as the process unfolds.

We will keep you informed at appropriate times throughout the ESEIA process and look forward to
working with you on this project. Should you wish to discuss the matter further, or require any
additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Yours faithfully
NINHAM SHAND




Brett Lawson PrSciNat; EAPSA[Cert]
Associate Environmental Practitioner



Cc: Dr S de Wet, MAWF (email : wets@mawf.gov.na)
    Ms L Namene, MAWF (namenel@mawf.gov.na)
    Mr C Munikasu, MAWF (email : munikasuc@mawf.gov.na)
    Mr G Christelis, MAWF (email : christelisg@mawf.gov.na)
Record of a meeting held between Brett Lawson and Marie Hoadley (Ninham
Shand) and Merylin Leippert of Coastal Tourist Association of Namibia on 23 May
2008 in Walvis Bay.

NS          Introduced the project and functions of the team members. At this stage the
            consulting team was making early contact, as not sufficient detail is available
            yet for more in-depth discussion. NamPower is the proponent, and the role that
            the consulting team plays is independent of the proponent. With regard to the
            Paratus project, This is not a high-profile project, but it is a priority one and the
            exercise that we have gone through in considering an exemption is a defensible
            on. We are looking in particular at air quality and noise, which means that we
            will have hard scientific facts to work on, which is a bit more than is normal in an
            exemption application. For the priority project, Paratus has been there for a
            long time, there was a power station on the site and the infrastructure is all
            there. We are not looking at undisturbed land.
ML          CTAN is not in favour of the waiver. People who do not live here don’t know
            enough – They don’t know the winds and the changing climate we are
            experiencing.
NS          Experts work on the modelling, and they do it scientifically, based on long-term
            weather information. This information is obtained from such sources as the
            municipality and the airport, and long-term averages are used.
ML          We will never agree to an exemption, we want an EIA. We will not agree to a
            waiver. Why must it be a coal-fired power station?
NS          Maybe some clarification is needed. We are not looking at an exemption for the
            new coal-fired power station. That will be subject to the full ESIA process. We
            are looking at an exemption for the upgrading of the Paratus facility.
ML          In that case, I am talking about the wrong thing, but I must point out that your
            information document does not make this clear. It will cause confusion. You
            should also remember that most people don’t read technical documents like
            this, they want to read something they understand immediately.
NS          That is a good point, and taken. (Discussion of the possible sites for the coal-
            fired power station).
ML          Are you aware of the fact that the new industrial area will be behind Dune 7?
            Why not put it there?
NS          Yes, we are aware of that. What about tourism and the use of the area for
            recreation?
ML          There is enough space to give people an alternative. There are three dunes
            that can be used.
NS          How long has that area been used for recreation?
ML          About 25 years, and it will be easy to relocate the recreation area.
ML          For the option in the harbour, do you know that a waterfront is planned, and
            putting up a big power station will interfere with this development? The first site
            is exactly where they waterfront is supposed to be. Ms Asino at the municipality
            will know about it.
NS          No, this is information we did not have, and we will follow up at a meeting with
            the Town Council.
ML          Why are we not getting the extra power from Ruacana and Ipupa? It is not
            correct to say that there is no water. In the last three years we have seen a
            major change in rainfall, and we now have water coming into the Kunene. The
            problem is that Namwater does not do the maintenance, it does not service the
              infrastructure. It makes more sense to service what you have and use it.
              Will the upgrade at Paratus definitely be diesel?
 NS           Multi-fuel, no coal. They can use a variety of fuels, all cleaner than coal, and
              don’t forget that this is new technology, very different from the old power
              station. A whole variety of types of technology is now available for use. The
              appropriate technology to reduce the emissions to accepted international
              standards will be used. There are also efficient ways of controlling noise.
 ML            Noise was not ever really a problem. Air quality was. If we have wet weather
              we have inversion. What is your honest opinion about this? It is comparable to
              uranium mining? Will this not open a can of worms for the people who don’t
              have enough money to do a full EIA, and give them an opportunity to also apply
              for an exemption?
 NS           The fact that NamPower has asked to do this on a previously used area and
              make sure of air quality and noise justifies the exemption process. The new
              uranium mines will not be commencing in the same environment, with the same
              story to tell. They will not be in a position to apply for an exemption.
              NamPower consulted with Peter Tarr about this, and from a procedural point of
              view the exemption application is justified.
 ML           You must talk to Keith Wearne of CETN and Rod Braby of NACOMA
 NS           We are seeing them next week. We think it is necessary to convene a focus
              group meeting of the people involved in tourism. Will you be able to assist with
              this, and also with some baseline information on tourism, such as the number of
              tourists that visit the area and the contribution to the local economy?
 ML           Yes, I can help with all that. To help co-ordinate the meeting, you should speak
              to NACOMA, who have a lot of experience in this regard. I can help with a
              venue here at Langstrand.

                                               END MEETING


Record of a meeting held between Brett Lawson and Marie Hoadley (Ninham
Shand) and D Dreyer, D Uushona, K Asino, Olavi and Indileni Lungameni held on
23 May 2008 At Walvis Bay

NS
Expressed the thanks of the NS team for the time taken to have the meeting.
A brief discussion of Paratus, and the justification for the application for exemption ensued.
The issue of water does need a bit more attention, but this is more a technical issue.
Paratus has a long history. NamPower is looking at coal-fired power station. The size
depends on the capacity of the actual units, possibly ultimately 800 MW. The choice by
NamPower to go for coal-fired should be seen against the need for base load in Namibia,
i.e. the electricity that is needed 24 hours a day. This is without going into the regional
energy imperatives. Gas fired power stations and the Paratus, priority project are used
more for peak periods. Coal is still very appealing for base load generation. China is
building the equivalent of the entire capacity of Eskom every year, and 90% of it is coal.
Coal is problematic because it does have local air quality issues, and it is a contributor to
global warming. We must recognise that, but we are appointed to look at a project. We
need to look at a whole range of things... the proximity of the port for importing coal,
cooling by seawater, strategic issues such as those. Seawater can be used for primary
cooling, but we still need fresh water for the boilers. The process that we are embarking
on will include a wide variety of specialist inputs, noise, air, archaeology, ecology, marine
ecology, visual, etc. This is a good point to talk about the site alternatives. An ESIA always
has to have alternatives, whether site or technologies. One of the first things that we have
to do is screen the sites.
In the port, adjacent to the coal terminal, a bit on the small side, but it can do. There are a
number of issues: proximity to residential areas, ash to be disposed of, there is no space in
the harbour. The advantages are the proximity to the harbour and the sea. We have
heard that there are plans for a waterfront development, and that this site would affect that
development.

TCWB The Council and Namport are in a joint venture to develop the marina, located
between the yacht club and the Pelican Bay Hotel. Ms Asino will send a pdf of the
waterfront. If this site is chosen, it would interfere with the waterfront development.

NS North - a bit beyond and adjacent to Independence Beach. The advantages are that it
is close to the harbour and to the shore line. On the other hand, this is a recreation area
for people of Walvis Bay, particular for those from Kuisebmond.

TCWB There are plans to reinstate the old Walvis Bay road.       The existing road will not
be decommissioned; it is envisaged as a tourist road. We will then have three entry points
to Walvis Bay. A tourist road is envisaged, hence the power station will have a critical
visual impact into the town from the north (Swakopmund). At the moment town planning
is concentrating on development on the western side, but we do not have enough space,
so we may move towards the dunes.

NS If the road is emphasised as a tourist road, there might be a visual impact.
In the heavy industrial zone behind Dune 7 – from an engineering point of view the fact
that NamPower would have to transport coal and water and then return the seawater
would make it quite an expensive site, but we need to think long-term and consider the
longer term benefits for sustainable development. A strong case could be made for it.

TCWB Site 3 (behind Dune 7) is already earmarked for heavy Industrial activities such as
power stations.

DU Another site was required as the first three were somewhat limited. There appears to
be development by Namcor behind the weighbridge, the area that is being considered for
light industrial. A power station is not light industrial, but the site does have something
going for it, although Narraville is a constraint. With the prevailing southerly winds, the firm
base of the construction could limit sand movement, and this could be to the benefit of the
community. No 4 has no sensitive environmental issues.

TCWB Looking at No. 4 from a technical and town planning point of view, we don’t want
heavy industrial development there. With regard to numbers 1 and 2, there are land-use
conflicts. No 3 is economically difficult for any developer to think of, but we do need to
think long-term. The study must establish economic viability, the airport, the railway, etc.
We need to start encouraging developers to go to Site 3. We want wood carvers, welders,
etc. We do not want to bring in heavy industries.

NS With regard to costs, engineering costs are one thing, human costs another. We need
to include the human element as a cost. Eskom doesn’t include the impact on society of
burning dirty coal, so they can claim that they produce very cheaply. We have a couple of
techniques we can use for screening during the site selection.

TCWB Namport is there for business, and it is complaining about not having enough
space, yet it selling property in the port, and applying for leases in other areas where
people live. The local authority is at an advanced stage with the planning of the marina,
but you should look at cumulative impacts. Narraville will be affected by the activities
going on. Site 1 in not an industrial area but zoned as Railway and Harbour, i.e., the issue
of loading/off loading of goods, storing of goods etc. are within the activities of a harbour,
but when it comes to processing, it is not a processing/industrial area.

NS All we are saying is that, from a good practice point of view, we felt that an additional
site should be looked at. If there are any other sites you can suggest, we would be happy
to consider them. The issue of assessing alternative sites is normal.

TCWB If we have to identify another site in the place of your 4, would it work?

NS It would have to be done very quickly. We have to consider equity in the views of other
stakeholders. We have to take substantive issues on board, and to say we are not taking
some issues on board because they are not going to help to process. We can’t pre-empt
anything, and we have to rely on our ability to remain independent. As the municipality,
you have a statutory obligation. If you have other plans for any of the sites, strategic and in
place beforehand, that would be very important input.

TCWB From our professional judgement, we would not recommend anything but 3 from
the environmental and town planning perspective. We will fully support 3.
Look at the size of the site, there is plenty of room. The developers need to be flexible on
the economics, and we should be very strict, right from the beginning.

NS In the end, we must be able to justify our choice of site. Opinions on the best site will
differ, but we must look at the feasibility of each site. It does not make sense to look at
sites that are not feasible. The reality is that it is us sitting around this table, and will have
opposing views. We have to acknowledge that, and the degree of feasibility in each. We
need to be able to justify the end decision.

GENERAL DISCUSSION AROUND ALTERNATIVE SITES AND CURRENT AND
PLANNED LAND-USE.

NS This has been a preliminary discussion, to set the scene. Once we are further into the
project, and have more substantive information, we will need to meet with you again. It is
important that we are in a position that we know what the Walvis Bay Town Council is
planning, what its development plans are. Would it be possible for us to access all
relevant and accessible documents?

TCWB Yes, Gert Kruger will be able to give you these documents.

                                        END MEETING
      Record of a meeting held between Ninham Shand (Marie Hoadley, Public
      Participation Manager) and Rod Braby and Timo Mufeti of NACOMA on 27 May
      2008 in Swakopmund

      MH           Explained the purpose of the meeting. Discussed the Paratus upgrade with
                   regard to the application for exemption.
      RB           Namibian people need to know what is going on. We have received emails
                   trying to raise concern. It would be a bad precedent to set, especially so shortly
                   after the Environmental Management Act has been passed. Although what you
                   say with regard to the need for more energy and the brown fields nature of the
                   development has some truth in it, I think that the people deserve to get an EIA
      TM            We deserve to know what is going on, we don’t want to be surprised. There is
                   a need for more basic and detailed information.
      RB           How on earth can Namibia go for coal-fired power station? The public is
                   confused on that one?
      TM           If I was a municipality, I would need all the facts before I would say okay.
                   A discussion of the sites for the coal-fired power station ensued.
      RB           I tend to think of A and C. A is already an industrialized area and C has a lot
                   going for it as it is out of town and not near a community.
                   A discussion took place about tourism, the role players and the need to bring
                   them on board actively in the process.

                                                    END MEETING



Record of a meeting held between Ninham Shand (Marie Hoadley, Public Participation
Manager, and Hon. SS Nuuyoma, Governor of the Erongo Regional Council on 27 May
2008 in Swakopmund.

MH         Explained the purpose of the visit: the Paratus Project and the waiver process
           that was under way. It was early days to talk in depth about the proposed coal-
           fired power station, but the sites that were being considered were available for
           discussion and questions that could not be answered immediately would be
           responded to at a later period. This was really a courtesy call to explain what
           the consulting team was going to be embarking on.
SSN        I am concerned about the process of a waiver. What if people come to us
           afterwards and ask us why we didn’t look after them, why we allowed this to go
           through? What if the uranium mines say they have no money to do an EIA, and
           then they also get a waiver?
MH         Explained the justification for the waiver. As one of the bases for applying for a
           waiver is the fact that it is a brown fields development, it is not possible that a
           uranium mine will have the same grounds for applying for a waiver. Also, the
           two main concerns of stakeholders, air quality and noise, were being addressed
           by specialist researchers.
SSN        With regard to Site A, you must remember that there is a piece of land in the
           harbour which has been allocated to Botswana.
MH         Yes, we are aware of that.
SSN        Apart from that I cannot make any comment at the moment. You need to make
          arrangements to do a presentation at a meeting of the ERC Management
          Committee when everyone will be there and we can discuss the matter fully.
MH        Yes, I have set the arrangements for that in motion.

                                           END MEETING

Record of a meeting held between Ninham Shand (Marie Hoadley, Public Participation
Manager) and G Shitaleni, Mayor, Swakopmund Municipality, E Demasius, CEO
Swakopmund Municipality and J Ngolombe, member of the Management Board,
Swakopmund Municipality held on 27 May 2008 in Swakopmund

MH        Introduced the purpose of the meeting, which was to introduce the two projects
          and get an early idea of I&AP concerns.
JN        I have a problem with the idea of a waiver. We need a full EIA.
GS        I agree. Does it not warrant a full EIA?
MH        Explained the basis for a waiver application: a brown field site that had
          previously been used for power generation, the immediate need for additional
          power generation, the existence of infrastructure and the identification of two
          critical issues of noise and smell, which goes somewhat further than a waiver
          usually does.
ED        Swakopmund is also affected, we hear Paratus running, and we can smell the
          fishmeal factory, so we share the concerns that you have identified. But there
          is another concern – Paratus is a very old power plant. The extension, i.e. the
          new facility will be of the latest technology. But what about the old one? How is
          that going to be fixed, how will the noise and emissions be addressed? The old
          one must be upgraded.
          Somehow we must force additionally generated traffic to go behind the dunes.
          The traffic impact on Swakopmund will be huge. The road along the coast is
          already the most dangerous stretch of road in Namibia.
MH        Our brief is to assess the impacts of the new facility. If there were cumulative
          impacts from the new and the old facility, then it becomes something that we
          would address. Your comments about the traffic have been noted, and we will
          respond.
ED        With the wind direction, Site B puts Swakopmund directly in line for air pollution.
          At site D, you need to be careful, those dunes are mobile. Site C is the best in
          terms of wind regime, traffic will bypass the town, it is out of town and the east
          wind may affect Walvis Bay slightly. The north and south-west winds will have
          no effect.
MH        There are engineering costs associated with water and coal transport at Site C
          which will be significant.
ED        They will operate 24 hours a day, and they can use a conveyer system to pump
          coal, as well as water, up during the down times, such as at night.
JN        We would need you to do a presentation to the Management Board, where
          everyone can be present to give their input, and by which time you will also
          have more information.
MH        We would be very pleased to have such an opportunity. I will set the
          preparations in motion.
ED         Rössing is also talking of having a sulphur storage facility behind the dunes.
          They are toying with the idea of a stand-by electricity plant, possible diesel run.
          You can confirm this with the Chamber of Mines. This will be an even bigger
          argument for choosing site C.
          After a further discussion about other developments in the region, the meeting
          ended.


Record of a meeting held between Ninham Shand (Marie Hoadley, Public Participation
Manager) and Dr Wotan Swiegers, Chamber of Mines of Namibia, held on 27 May 2008
in Swakopmund

MH        Explained the purpose of the meeting, and its limitations in view of the early
          engagement and the need for further information on the second project before
          substantive engagement can occur.             The Paratus project was discussed,
          particularly from the point of view of justification to apply for a waiver.
WS         I am not at all in favour of a waiver, the principle is wrong, and it will set a
          precedent. Circumstances are evolving which will make it quite possible that
          others will apply for waivers and they will have a precedent to call on. The
          mining sector has decided to do the right thing, that all companies must do a
          sound EIA.
MH        You are not the first I&AP to raise this issue. The grounds for applying for a
          waiver are defensible, given that it is a brown fields project and that it is aimed
          at relieving to some extent the energy needs in Namibia, and in the short term.
          We have also gone somewhat further than the normal application for waiver in
          identifying the issues of concern – these are noise and air quality – and
          appointing specialists to investigate these issues. The reports will be to the
          standard required by a full EIA. Nevertheless, your concern is noted.
WS        Secondly, the upgrade, is it cleaner technology?
MH        Yes, it certainly is, both with regard to noise and air quality. The facility will be a
          multi-fuel one, and a number of fuels, cleaner than oil, can be used. The same
          applies to noise reduction – there are a variety of technologies available.
WS        Everyone recognises the need for power and this might turn the tide in your
          favour with regard to applying for a waiver. Still, an extra 50 MW falls far short
          of what we need.
MH        The Paratus upgrade is not intended to be a permanent or final solution, but a
          boost for energy supply which can be achieved quickly and without significant
          impacts.
          A discussion of the various sites for the coal-fired power station ensued.
          Constraints and opportunities were discussed.
WS        There is definitely room on Site A, but not for an 800 MW station. Site B is
          situated on prime land.
          The one thing that could affect Swakopmund is the air quality standards. We
          have commissioned a report looking at a regional air dispersal model. Airshed
          is doing it, they are also assisting Valencia. Your specialists should link up with
          them, especially as you are also using Airshed.
MH        We have heard talk of the mines getting together and putting up their own
          power station. Can you tell me more about this?
WS         There is no truth in this story. The mines would consider an on-site backup
          facility, and we also have companies like Rössing looking at co-generation from
          the acid plants.
          There are further dimensions to the whole resource cycle – without water, some
          mines won’t come on line, but if we don’t have power, we have no water. We
          need desalination. If we keep on exploiting our aquifers as we are currently
          doing, we could be faced with the ingress of seawater into the reservoirs.
MH        What is the best way to approach the mining companies about the new power
          station? Would it be a good idea to organise a focus group meeting?
WS        The best way to go about it would be to arrange a meeting with Mike Leech. He
          is Chairman of the Chamber’s power committee, and can speak for all the
          mining companies. It would also be a good idea to arrange an invitation for him
          to attend the presentation you will be giving to the ERC.

                                           END MEETING


Record of a meeting held between Brett Lawson and Marie Hoadley (Ninham Shand) and
Keith Wearne, Coastal and Environmental Trust of Namibia in Walvis Bay on 28 May
2008.

NS        Explained the purpose of the meeting and described the power station project.
          The project is an Independent Power Producers project. NamPower won’t build
          it and possibly they won’t run it. Part of the rationale behind choosing Walvis
          Bay as a site for the power station is because coal can be imported relatively
          cheaply. Pulverized fuel would be used, so there would be a mill. The coal is
          fed into a pressurised combustion chamber. Seawater cooling would probably
          be used, but would have to be demineralised.
          There are a variety of alternative technologies in terms of cooling – wet cooling
          has high water demand, these days dry cooling is pretty much the norm.
          Essentially it is a closed system. Cooling and water requirements are obviously
          issues. As far as pollutants are concerned, SOx, NOx and particulates from the
          fly ash are the three most important. With regard to particulates, when the coal
          is combusted heavy ash falls through the bottom of the boiler, and that is
          easy to manage from a human health point of view. Fly ash is a different thing,
          but there are different technologies, such as bag filters, to deal with it. The big
          one is sulphur but there is technology available – flue gas desulphurization is
          expensive but pretty much the norm. NOx are not as much of a problem, this
          can be controlled by low-NOx burners. . With these very pollutants, our
          specialists do detailed modelling of the plume and work to World Bank
          standards. There are issues around the disposal of ash, and we will need to
          look at re-use.     There is a proposal for a cement plant in Karibib, we can look
          at that.
          We have a wide array of specialists who will do in-depth studies of aspects
          such as air quality, groundwater, wetlands, socio-economic and so forth. A
          wide variety of appropriate disciplines will be covered. Namibia’s peak demand
          exceeded 400MW last week.
          Let us discuss alternate sites before strategic issues. When NamPower put the
          tender for the EIA out, they were looking at three sites. One is the site in the
          harbour, behind the present coal-handling terminal. It is small but could
          probably accommodate a plant.               Obviously there are some serious
          environmental constraints there, but from an engineering cost point of view it
          has benefits: proximity to the harbour as far as coal is concerned and also for
          seawater abstraction. The second site is north of Independence Beach beyond
          the naval base. The Municipality has a draft structure plan and there could land
     use issues, but possible advantages from a proposed bulk cargo handling
     facility, Also, in view of proximity to the coast, from an aesthetic point of view
     there will be visual impact. The third site is in a heavy industrial zone behind
     Dune 7.
KW   That site has a lot going for it. There is water, a railway, a road, and the smoke
     stack will not interfere with the town residents. Also, there is recycled water
     available.
NS   In terms of human health, the site has a lot going for it, and if it is far enough
     removed from the dune recreation site, any impacts can be mitigated. We
     would need to look at water volumes and consider whether it makes sense to
     use seawater, and this will be done in considerable detail.
KW   I have been told by an expert that disposal of water into the sea will raise the
     sea temperature by 10 degrees.
NS   Our marine studies are being done by experts, and this aspect will certainly
     receive serious attention. From an engineering cost point of view, site C will be
     expensive.
KW   The public can’t understand why we are going to have a coal-fired power
     station. We have plenty of sun and also wind power. What about carbon
     emissions?
NS   What NamPower is looking at is base load; the technology is such at the
     moment that the renewable energy sources cannot provide base load. The
     legislation that covers EIA is aimed at project level, but this touches on larger
     national/regional issues, so to find a defensible point of departure, we need
     NamPower to explain why coal. Note that coal is cheap to bring in and the Kudu
     Gas project is on hold.
KW   What about uranium?
NS   There are economies of scale involved. As independent practitioners we are
     not able to influence that kind of decision making. I would like to discuss the
     issue of the waiver. Any power station requires electricity to run. If it is off, it
     requires electricity for start-up. So it has to have a black start facility, and this is
     also a necessity for situations where an entire network might be out and need to
     start from cold. NamPower is looking at a small 50MW black start facility but
     because of the demand there is a short-term and more immediate need for
     more electricity. We have been asked to look at a black start facility, and the
     thought is to put in a 50MW multi-fuelled plant at Paratus. Years ago a small
     gas turbine was there, and was removed. Now the intention is to put the priority
     project on the same site, which was a generating facility in the past, and this
     can tie into the whole industrial zone.
KW   What about emissions? There should be some sort of EIA.
NS   We are looking at the critical issues – air quality and noise were identified as
     such - and we are doing specialist studies on those two.
KW    What the specialists should do should be the subject of a public meeting, and
     the people need to be told what the noise and emission levels will be.
NS   The technology is off the shelf kind of stuff, these units have all been designed
     to operate within World Health Organisation standards. We had a meeting with
     MET /DEA yesterday and Mr Ngithila stated that for them to issue a waiver
     there should be a Scoping Report. We will need to go back to NamPower
     which comes back to what I was saying, that NamPower can’t just have it
     signed off and not have it demonstrated scientifically that the impacts don’t
     exceed human health parameters. We have done what is expected of
     environmental practitioners.        If this becomes a scoping issue, we will
     communicate with all the people that we have communicated with up to now.
KW   Why did you hold the meeting in Kuisebmond? People don’t want to go there,
     and the community is not really interested.
NS   It is precisely because Paratus is situated so close to the Kuisebmond
     community that we chose a venue there. Can we get back to a discussion of
     the sites for the big power station? We need to have a place to dispose of the
     ash. Typically ash dumps are placed on prepared surfaces, the ash is dry
     stacked and revegetated. This poses a challenge in an arid environment – the
     issue is on the table. Besides the biophysical implications, there are
     engineering implications in that the ash dump may need to be some distance
     from the site.
KW   With regard to the site on the docks, they have a variety of industries, where
     are they going to find space? And another thing, it is right on top of a residential
     area and the lagoon is right next to it. At Independence Beach there is no
     railway line and the north wind blows straight into Kuisebmond. Behind the
     dunes is the ideal site.
NS   We were uncomfortable with just those three alternatives and we recommended
     to NamPower that they allow us to look at an additional site alternative. The
     problem was that we needed something in between the two coastal sites and
     one inland site, and we identified a site behind the weighbridge.
KW   That is in town, I am not in favour of that. Also, it is next to Narraville.
NS   It is a compromise site, but we need to have it on the table so that we have a
     robust outcome in the final selection. With regard to other sources of energy,
     beside the renewable ones, has anyone come up with anything else?
KW   None of us are specialists, we are looking at people’s health, and we can’t
     really get into technical stuff. We are worried about the waste from using
     uranium.
NS   At one of our meetings, somebody mentioned a wind power pilot project. What
     has happened to that?
KW   It was installed, but about three weeks later some of the equipment was stolen,
     and nothing further has happened.
NS   Discussed the proposal for a focus group meeting of concerned
     environmentalists and tourist sector representatives.
KW   You should contact Mike Lloyd. He is secretary of the Marine Tourist
     Association, and an employee of Mola Mola.                   His email address is
     M.lloyd@namibnet.com

                                      END MEETING
Record of a meeting held between Ninham Shand Consulting (Marie Hoadley, Public
Participation Manager) and L Garoeb, Erongo Regional Council on 16 June 2008 in
Swakopmund.

MH        Introduced the project briefly, and explained the purpose of the visit which was
          to gather baseline information on the state of the region and to get an early
          indication of issues and potential impacts. Has NDP3 been finalised, and has
          the RDP been drawn up? Does the ERC have a regional strategy plan?
LG        In terms of technical issues, NDP3 has been drafted. The regional councils
          have made their inputs, but the Plan still has to be launched. It is an issue of
          funding.      We have a regional strategy plan, and have already held a
          stakeholder’s conference. Our strategic plan has not been operationalized. It is
          currently with the office of the Prime Minister.
MH        How do you view the development of the power station in view of the
          development in the region?
LG        It is welcome with regard to sustainable development, income generation and
          employment creation. While a power station is welcome, the question of what
          kind of power station is a different issue. We need to look at the various pros
          and cons. Where is the coal going to come from? Are we sure of a continuous
          and sustainable supply of good quality coal. We need a reliable supply of
          electricity, but we need it to be affordable. If you import coal at a high price,
          what will the eventual impact on the consumer be in terms of price?          Other
          possibilities are being looked at, wind and wave and solar. Wind and sun are
          free, accessible and sustainable. Is coal the appropriate technology for a power
          station?
MH        NamPower is looking for a source of coal that is accessible, affordable and
          reliable. South Africa, Botswana and Indonesia are being looked at, but the
          source of the coal is not really part of the ESIA, so I don’t have much
          information on that.
          Do you think that if a new power station is erected, underdeveloped
          communities such as the Spitzkoppe and the Topnaars will be electricity?
LG        The question is one of affordability. Of late that community has been looking at
          solar energy projects. Many communities can get electricity under rural
          electrification, but the issue is affordability which means accessibility.
MH        MY impression is that the Spitzkoppe community is a poor one and would
          probably struggle to pay for power.
LG        In depends on what you mean by poor, how you define it. In Namibia, if people
          spend more than 60% of their household income on consumables, they are
          defined as poor. We have projects going on there, such as the small-scale
          mining project. The Electricity Control Board will be in charge and many people
          are concerned about affordability. We can put up as many power stations as
          we want, if people can’t afford it, it is no good. If we target the rural poor, we
          need to look at affordability. For Walvis Bay it would be very good in terms of
          job creation and revenue to the local authority.
MH        What about inward migration and all its attendant problems? There are a
          number of large-scale developments which will attract job-seekers.
LG        As RC we are aware of all the developments. Unfortunately many of these
          developments have a major impact on towns, and as RC we can only assist the
          towns with advice. This is a local authority issue. It does put a strain on
          municipalities.
MH   Do you know what the current population of Erongo is?
LG   According to the Census in 2001 it was107 000, but it must have increased
     much by now. If we could get every job-seeker who comes in to register, we
     would have a much better idea.
MH   Do you know what the current rate of urbanisation is?
LG   No, for that you can go to the local office of the NPC. Also for current
     unemployment figures and literacy rates.
MH   Do you have a sufficient statistical database for development planning?
LG   Planning is difficult with the fluidity and mobility of the population in the region.
     We do not have an adequate statistical database.
MH   The ERC is bidding for additional resources directly from donors such as the
     European Union to augment its resource base and thereby expand investment
     in social development activities of the region. The Council is eager to forge
     public/private partnerships in this regard. Have you been successful in getting
     outside funding?
LG    Yes, we were successful. We got funding for assistance to the small scale
     miners and the oyster projects.
MH   Can you comment on the following, which have been mentioned as constraints
     on the ability of the ERC to carry out its functions? It has to carry out these
     functions in the face of some severe constraints, which include:
     Limited water supply
LG   In the region we concentrate very much on rural areas, that is our direct
     responsibility and the situation changes, depending on whether we have a
     drought or not.
MH   The limited institutional capacity of the Erongo Regional Council and small local
     authorities in the region due to a lack of funds, skills, infrastructure and co-
     ordination: this places a serious constraint on the Regional Development Plan
     and the effective decentralisation of powers and responsibilities by central
     government.
LG   These are problems experienced by every regional council in the country, they
     are not problems n Erongo only.
MH   Limited capacity of vocational training centres and a negative perception of
     vocational training?
LG   No, we are not short of vocational training centres. We have NIMT and some
     training in the fishing industry.
MH   What are the constraints on the ERC?
LG   Funds. We can buy expertise, if it was not that money goes out of the region
     instead of to local communities. We are regarded as one of the best regions, a
     “blue chip” region, but building houses and infrastructure, that is where it counts
     if you don’t have the money. All revenue goes to central government, and what
     we get depends on the Ministry of Finance. We put in our budget, the Ministry
     finally decides. We have equity funds, if you don’t get sufficient funds and you
     have an extra developmental issue, you can apply for extra funds.
MH   Does the RC still get 5% from local authorities?
LG   Yes, of the local authority’s received rates and taxes. This is where the power
     station could benefit the ERC, because our revenue increases as a result of
     more houses being built for workers and more people having to pay rates and
     taxes.
MH   If we look at the ERC as a major role player in the development of Erongo,
     would you describe the following as such?
     Walvis Bay Corridor Group?
          LG – yes, it will benefit the region if it generates income for the region.
           Namport?
          LG Major.
          Minerals sector?
          Yes, they provide employment and also contribute to health and education.
          NIMT?
          Yes, for the education sector. Our schooling is in a critical state. We have no
          room in the schools, classrooms keep getting added, but they can’t cope.

                                         END MEETING

Record Of A Focus Group Meeting Between the Management Committee of the
Town Council Of Walvis Bay and Ninham Shand Consulting (Marie Hoadley, Public
Participation Manager) Walvis Bay, 17 June 2007
17 JUNE 2007

PARTICIPANT/   QUESTIONS          ANSWERS                      COMMENTS/SUGGESTIONS
FOCUS
GROUP
WALVIS BAY     Please elaborate    Ash disposal is still       Clinker ash is currently used
MUNICIPALITY   on Ash Disposal,    under consideration         to stabilize the dunes – hence
(WBM)          where is it         and factors that we         this is a possible use for such
               disposed of, and    will consider are inter     ash (WBM).
               how is it           alia the effect on
               disposed?           fauna, flora,
                                   groundwater tables
                                   etc. However there
                                   are two types of ash:
                                   Fly & Clinker, the
                                   former requires
                                   stabilization, whereas
                                   the latter is inherently
                                   more stable.
                                   NamPower also
                                   investigating possible
                                   uses of ash in local
                                   industry such as
                                   bricks etc or if there is
                                   insufficient demand
                                   then will also look at
                                   how such ash may be
                                   utilised in
                                   rehabilitation of
                                   landscapes etc.
               Why is a coal-      Coal as the source of
               fired power         energy is favourable
               station being       for Namibian
               considered?         conditions in
                                   contextual relation to
                                   other sources. Solar
                     and Wind are
                     currently expensive
                     and inadequate. Gas
                     requires technology
                     and infrastructure that
                     is currently lacking in
                     Namibia. Nuclear
                     requires complete
                     regulatory
                     framework and no
                     local-knowledge or
                     capacity, and it is
                     very expensive.
Cost to the end      The power station
consumer: Why        needs to be in Walvis
in Walvis Bay,       Bay to ensure Grid
and will power       stability. Though the
price increase       costs to end-
significantly, and   consumer are still
how will price be    being investigated
mitigated?           through the use of
                     carbon credits etc to
                     mitigate costs.
                     Environmental factors
                     will determine the
                     type of plant
                     ultimately built, as
                     these factors will
                     influence the
                     combustion
                     techniques and
                     desulphurisation
                     methods considered.
Was the Walvis       NamPower has been
Bay                  in discussions with
Municipality’s       the relevant
Structure Plan       Municipality
considered?          personnel; however
                     Site D was a last
                     minute addition to
                     sites under
                     consideration.
Has NamPower         NamWater’s
met NamWater         Desalination plant at
to discuss           Wlotzskas is not an
combination of       option due to its
desalination with    location, but
power generation     NamPower will
at                   consult NamWater
Wlotzkabaken?        over possible
                     synergies on planned
                     power stations.
What about           CIC has approached        The IPP process is for
utilizing the Coal   NamPower in this          attracting foreign direct
exports of CIC of    regard, and we have       investment into Namibia.
Botswana and         requested coal            (NP)
how good is its      analysis reports.         Suggested contact persons
coal quality?                                  at NamWater: Arno Du
                                               Plessis: GM for Water
                                               Supply/ Martin Harris: Plant
                                               Manager. (WBM)
What about Wind      NamPower is in
Farms?               discussions with 2
                     companies; only 2
                     locations suitable as
                     wind is not always
                     available, and
                     availability doesn’t
                     coincide with peak-
                     demand periods.
                     Wind Power cannot
                     be more than 10% of
                     the country’s power
                     supply, and carbon
                     credits may not
                     necessarily make the
                     price of such power
                     more affordable.
Impact of Coal       NamPower insists on      Recently oil was dumped
as fuel source?      Public Participation     illegally into the dunes, and
Will there be        and to the highest       then burnt as method of
sufficient supply    standards;               cleaning it up. However WB
for the              Kuisebmond               has a unique temperature
foreseeable          Community was            dispersion, thus the black tar
future? What Is      solely targeted          started covering the lichen
the impact of        because they were        fields – therefore please
Van Eck on           community mostly         investigate the impact of the
Windhoek? Will       affected by Paratus      power station on the lichen
there be             extension – though       fields in the moon valley etc.
sufficient public    WBM did help
participation        disseminate
meetings? Such       information about the
meetings should      Paratus Public
be widely            Participation meeting.
advertised – not     Coal supply and
like the recent      security is a key
Paratus Public       element of the
Participation        feasibility study for
meetings that        this proposed power
were not             station. Van Eck was
sufficiently         built in the early
advertised.          1970s, thus it was
                                    prior to environmental
                                    legislation and
                                    regulations. New
                                    Plant will be better
                                    technologically and
                                    less harmful. Van Eck
                                    will not be refurbished
                                    nor utilized once
                                    other generating
                                    plants are available.
              What are the          Construction              Although this is only the
              employee              companies often           scoping phase, NamPower
              requirements for      bring their own skilled   should continue to keep the
              the construction?     labour, though usual      WBM informed of
                                    requirement for low-      developments and progress.
                                    skilled workers.          (Acting CEO – Haingura)
                                    However, there will
                                    be a policy of skills
                                    transfer. Secondary
                                    industries will service
                                    the main power
                                    station construction
                                    and operation –
                                    hence there will be
                                    employment creation



RECORD OF A KEY INFORMANT MEETING HELD BETWEEN NINHAM SHAND
CONSULTING AND WESSELS FERRIS OF NAMPORT IN WALVIS BAY ON 17 JUNE
2008


     Comment/question/issue Response                          Further
     NAMPORT                                                  comments/information

      Why does the Power          NamPower needs to           NamPort welcomes the
      Station have to be          generate power in WB to     power station as it will
      Walvis Bay?                 counter inertia on the      focus on growth in the
                                  Transmission Grid, as       Erongo region and this
                                  well as Port                will bring business for
                                  requirements.               NamPort. (NamPort)

      Where is the limestone      NamPower will import        NamPort will have a few
      required for the Power      the limestone to be used,   projects for land
      station coming from?        but these logistics still   reclamation, but these
                                  need to be determined in    ideas will be
                                  detail.                     communicated to Marie
                                                              Hoadley – and such
                                                              projects may utilize or
                                                         require the use of the
                                                         waste ash. (NamPort)

How big will the site be   Site will be approximately    NamPort has not
for Ash disposal?          70 hectares, and it will be   included Coal handling
                           30m in height and have a      in immediate plans, but
                           life span of 40 years.        will fast-track such
                                                         facility if required.
                                                         (NamPort)

How much power             The envisaged capacity        The Zimbabwe site
generation capacity will   will be between 200MW         within the Port area has
the power station have?    and 450MW, therefore          not been defined, though
And the required land      the land required will        the Botswana site is out
size?                      have to be suitably large     of the Port area and it is
                           enough to cater for           a specific site.
                           construction lay-down.        (NamPort)
                           Once the preferred site
                           has been identified           NamPort has requested
                           through the scoping           100 hectares from WBM
                           report, then the ESEIA        for the revised site
                           will be commissioned on       allocation on farm 39.
                           such site.                    (NamPort)

                                                         The current coal-
                                                         handling facilities will
                                                         need to be upgraded as
                                                         the existing facility will
                                                         not be able to handle the
                                                         required coal volumes.
                                                         (NamPort)

                                                         Coal vessel
                                                         requirements are 10.6
                                                         draft at the current site,
                                                         though the plan is to
                                                         extend to a 13m draft –
                                                         although some ships
                                                         require even more draft.
                                                         NamPort is planning an
                                                         off-shore terminal for the
                                                         new coal-facility.
                                                         (NamPort)

                                                         Any new development
                                                         within the Port area that
                                                         is not a warehouse or a
                                                         container terminal, then
                                                         an EIA will be required
                                                         together with approval
                                                         from NamPort.
                                                                  (NamPort)

                                                                  Zambia, Zimbabwe and
                                                                  DRC all want sites within
                                                                  the Port area, and
                                                                  currently none have
                                                                  been promised a specific
                                                                  site, hence all applying
                                                                  for same piece of land.
                                                                  (NamPort)

                                                                  The Walvis Bay Corridor
                                                                  Group (WBCG) is part of
                                                                  NamPort, it is the
                                                                  marketing arm to entice
                                                                  business from land-
                                                                  locked countries, and is
                                                                  an NGO involving all key
                                                                  stakeholders.

                                          END MEETING



Record of a focus group meeting held between the Ministry Of Fisheries And
Marine Resources (MFMR) and Ninham Shand Consulting on 18 June 2008 in
Swakopmund.

It was decided, before the meeting commenced, that minutes would be taken jointly be MFMR
and Ninham Shand. These notes would be forwarded to Marie Hoadley, who would align the two
sets of minutes and reconcile any conflicts to form a joint record of the meeting. It was agreed
that Dr B van Zyl of MFMR would chair the meeting.

Presentation on the proposed coal-fired power station – Ninham Shand.

Discussion:

COMMENT         QUESTION/COMMENT                            RESPONSE
BY
MFMR            Is the site B selection a fait accompli?    No this is just the scoping phase; there
                                                            is a different forum for the site
                                                            allocation discussions.
MFMR            The specialist studies will be              The specialist will examine all sites to
                performed on all sites or after a site is   certain degree of detail, thereafter once
                selected on that chosen site?               the optimal site has been identified, that
                                                            site will be examined in more detail.
MFMR            Are these the only sites? And only in       These are the only sites in Walvis Bay,
                Walvis Bay? Is the time-frame               and it has to be in WB due to grid
                realistic?                                  stability reasons. The timeframe is
                                                            achievable.
MFMR   Will the conflicting use of land be      Local specialists are familiar with and
       examined? Eg. against the                can advise site usage, as well as co-
       requirements for aquaculture?            existence with other ventures such as
                                                aqua-culture.
MFMR   Who made the decision on sites to be     The Integrated Resource Plan indicates
       used?                                    site requirements, and there was input
                                                from the line ministries.
MFMR   Supposing the ESEIA opposes the          One doesn’t want to pre-empt the
       sites selected, will the project then    discussions, but NamPower will
       proceed anyway?                          examine the scientific data and reasons
                                                and thereafter Government will
                                                ultimately make the decision. However,
                                                the process is transparent, and
                                                specialist reports will be open for
                                                examination. There are so many
                                                variables that need to be thoroughly
                                                examined. Aquaculture has been
                                                specifically considered for co-existence.
MFMR   NamPower has completely derailed         NamPower hasn’t been the sole entity
       the aquaculture industry due to          causing the delay in site usage, as
       inclusion of site B.                     NamPort and the WBM are also unsure
                                                of their requirements. Ninham Shand
                                                has been briefed to provide their advice
                                                within 6-8 months as to whether Farm
                                                39 is suitable or not. NamPower is
                                                facilitating discussions to ensure
                                                progress. . By the end of August, one
                                                should have a good idea of which sites
                                                are suitable or which not.
MFMR   Have the sites already been              No
       guaranteed?
       Has air-cooling been considered for      Water cooling is exorbitant in cost,
       efficiency and costs?                    hence alternatives need to be
                                                considered as well.
MFMR   What is the area of land required?       The area required must cover a
                                                possible 800MW site together with lay-
                                                down area for construction, though one
                                                may consider a separate ash-dump
                                                from power station site.
MFMR   How much water is required for           There are 2 water cycles: Cooling water
       cooling?                                 from the sea, and make-up water which
                                                is potable water required for the steam
                                                turbines.
MFMR   Is there no better solution than coal-   A substantiated and considered
       fired power generation?                  response will be provided in the formal
                                                report. However the brief answer is that
                                                Namibia has no fuel-source security.
                                                Coal as a fuel source has been
                                                considered viable, accessible and
                                                secure. Kudu gas has been
                                                     investigated for the past 30-odd years.
                                                     Nuclear legislation and regulation imply
                                                     long time period and high cost, as well
                                                     being an expensive fuel source
                                                     considering Namibia’s small population.
                                                     Wind requires a thermal power station
                                                     as back-up during unavailability of the
                                                     wind. Sun is also prohibitively
                                                     expensive. And the current power
                                                     stations are not reliable back-up options
                                                     for wind generation.
PRESENTATION BY JOE’S OYSTER COMPANY OF A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
MFMR       The presentation by Joe’s Oyster Co       Inlet system requires water ponds, sand
JOC        doesn’t convince us that land by the      dunes will form natural valleys for
           ocean-front is required, nor that land    settlement ponds, 2m depth required
           near the dunes is unsuitable, thus why for settlement ponds – ponds lined with
           is Farm 39 site important?                rubber lining, water treatment, and
                                                     distances between oyster platforms
                                                     offshore and relocated site near dunes
                                                     is just too far, and this will add extra
                                                     costs. (Philip Steenkamp – JOC)
                                                     Food is scarce globally, thus food
                                                     production projects are important. (Joe
                                                     Gross – JOC)
                                                     Land access is critical to the industry,
                                                     and it is a very young industry. (Larry
                                                     Oellerman – Consultant MFMR)
MFMR        The bigger picture is that there are 40
            applicants for mariculture activities
            and unavailability of Farm 39 land is
            discouraging investors. Also along the
            coastline, we need an area with still
            water. (Larry Oellerman - Consultant)
            MFMR has been negotiating for
            coastal land since 1996, and the
            Walvis Bay Municipality’s Strategic
            Environmental Plan included an aqua-
            culture park. The Minister may declare
            such land an aqua-culture park, and
            we may recommend him to do so. He
            must do so in conjunction with
            NAMPAB – thus if the MME blocks
            such a declaration, then MFMR will
            reciprocate when MME wants to
            declare the use of such land for its
            purposes. (Bronwyn Curry)
MFMR       Emissions from the power station
           could affect the oysters as they are just
           below the water level and as they filter
           water, the emissions may affect the
           oysters.
NAMPOWER   NamPower is interested in the timeline,
           and to see where there are ‘no-go’
           areas and synergies for attention.
           Therefore please get your specialist to
           talk to our specialists during the
           scoping phase, and address us on the
           water requirements, land requirements
           etc. and one can negotiate with IPP’s
           for co-existence. We would also like to
           talk to your EIA consultants when the
           study is executed. Regarding power
           supply, you will have to apply to either
           Erongo RED or NamPower.
           NamPower realizes that whilst
           electricity is a major economic driver,
           other factors are also important, hence
           NamPower wants to accord
           importance to aquaculture and
           therefore find synergies to co-exist to
           mutual satisfaction.
Ninham     What is the number of jobs created?        For every 2 tons of Abalone, one and a
Shand                                                 half jobs are created. (Philip
                                                      Steenkamp – JOC)
MFMR       What about the Power Station               The baseline study is to assess the
           impacting on residential property?         current environment and various
                                                      attendant criteria levels, thereafter one
                                                      will assess how the power station will
                                                      affect same. (MvdM)
MFMR       What about the aesthetics of the           The visual impact specialist will assess
           Power Station?                             such impact on the current
                                                      environment.
MFMR       Will the specialist studies be open for    Yes they will be made available for
           comment?                                   comments.
MFMR       Guano platform is a bird platform, so      This is to be assessed in the baseline
           how will the power station noise levels    study.
           affect the birds?
MFMR       How will further questions from this       By email, then we will have a further
           meeting be facilitated?                    meeting if required.
MFMR       Have the timeline milestones been          We will forward you the proposed
           minuted?                                   timelines.
MFMR       Have the International Protocols been      Yes
           taken into consideration e.g. Kyoto?
MFMR       How does one decide on the final           The Multi Criteria Decision Making tool
           site/optimal site?                         assists us in making such
                                                      determination.

                                    END MEETING
Record of a meeting held between Ninham Shand Consulting and the Mayor, CEO and
Councillors of the Arandis Town Council in Arandis on 18 June 2008

The discussion was preceded by a presentation of the proposed coal-fired power station.

COMMENT BY                 RESPONSE                        FURTHER COMMENT
ARANDIS TOWN
COUNCIL
What impact does Fly       Its hazardous waste, but it     If anyone is interested in the ash,
ash have on the            can be neutralized &            they can register as I&AP and
environment?               utilized in brick-making,       then make a proposal on the use
                           cement etc.                     of such fly ash.
                           Once the specific coal
                           supplier and source is
                           identified, one can then
                           determine the type of ash,
                           and the quality of coal.
Diesel and Fuel costs      Prices will increase, though    SADC region is experiencing
are increasing,            NamPower will smooth out        power shortages, thus addressing
therefore will power       the price-curve, so that the    the power shortages may also
prices also escalate?      consumer isn’t exposed to       promote further mining and this
                           sharp escalations.              will provide employment to our
                                                           residents. (Mayor)
                                                           Chinese investors have
                                                           approached us about building a
                                                           building materials factory.
Apart from the local       Health clinics, regional
authorities who else is    authorities, Ministry of
being included in the      Fisheries, line ministries,
public participation       Mineral sector and various
focus group?               levels of government.
Why Walvis Bay? As         NamPower is grateful to be      When projects occur, one only
mines will require         welcomed to Arandis;            looks at the commercial aspects –
electricity, especially    however certain factors         however it may be advisable to
Rossing, Areva-            such as costs of pumping        involve the communities and this
Uramin, Valencia etc       water for cooling etc.          gives more balance to the
which are near to          require us to be close to the   developer’s perspective. (Florida
Arandis, Why not           coast. Otherwise one has to     Husselmann)
consider Arandis for the   use air-cooled condensers       Power will be expensive, therefore
power station site?        which in turn will consume      it may be advisable for NamPower
                           power from the power            to ensure that there is sufficient
                           station, and thus less power    marketing of the issues involved to
                           produced in generation.         the general public about the
                           Also the coal transport         anticipated price increases. (FH)
                           costs are exorbitant, and       There should also be a discussion
                           the power station would         forum for local authorities to get
                           need to be near the coast       together and discuss such matters
                           and at sea-level for better     and investigate the possible
                           efficiency.                     synergies available to the
                                                           Councils. (FH)
Record of a meeting held between Ninham Shand Consulting and the Mayor, CEO and
Councillors of the Management Board of the Town Council of Swakopmund on 18 June
2008

The discussion was preceded by a presentation of the proposed coal-fired power station project.

Is importing coal the only solution?               Aranos coal is below the Aquifer, so coal
                                                   cannot be accessed. Botswana coal for export
                                                   via Walvis Bay, thus this may be a viable
                                                   supply. However, we are only interested in high
                                                   grade coal which is very expensive and yet it is
                                                   more environmentally friendly.
The potable water that will be used, although a   Approximately 1 litre/second required for a
part of it is being recycled, where is the        400MW power station – though this will all be
additional water required supplied from?          part of the factors being considered.
Uranium Industry is using a lot of potable
water, thus in solving the power crisis, are we
not creating additional problems such as water
usage and scarcity? Huge water requirements
will put further pressure on already strained
water-supply sources. We already operate on
the limit of water resources
Is the coal going to come from South Africa?      South Africa is being considered, however
                                                  Botswana and Indonesia are also being
                                                  considered. However high quality coal is
                                                  required, and only a few collieries can supply
                                                  such coal worldwide, and this coal is also more
                                                  environmentally friendly.
Are the sites under consideration only for the    The sites are for both, however the 100MW can
coal-fired power station coal or for the black-   be added to existing Paratus station. Though
start as well?                                    the preference is for the site with the least
                                                  social and environmental impact.
In order to have a fruitful discussion, would it  We can really only look at ash dump sites once
not have been better to have already identified the optimal site for the power station has been
the potential ash dump sites?                     identified
    What about the Traffic Issue?                Once traffic volume has been identified as a
Secondary traffic issues are what concerns the serious impact a local specialist will be
STC. We want NamPower to put pressure on         appointed to deal with a traffic impact study.
Government to enforce the use of the By-Pass However, during construction the Environmental
road as we don’t get subsidies for road          Management Plan should address additional
maintenance for traffic through Swakopmund       traffic volume.
en route to Walvis Bay.
What about the wind regimes and the effect        A noise specialist will be appointed to deal with
thereof on conveying noise and other pollution    the IPP information, both specific to noise levels
onto Swakopmund, and how will this be             and generic information pertaining to various
mitigated? We already hear the noise of           other emissions. The Emissions will be
Paratus power station, and also receive the       measured and considered against the
fish factory smell.                                 meteorological data for the coastal area. Air-
                                                    cooled condensers will have significant noise
                                                    levels, hence alternatives and cost implications
                                                    will be considered.
It appears most aspects of the ESEIA have           They have been identified to take part in the
been identified, but has the Mining sector been     stakeholder’s meetings. We have already had
consulted as part of the stakeholder’s              a focus group meeting with mining companies
meetings?                                           through the Chamber of Mines
Will the extra influx of workers to the area due    Your points here have been noted, and we shall
to mining sector employment and their               ensure that the cumulative impacts will be
attendant health risks be studied in respect of     studied.
impact on Swakopmund and Walvis Bay?
Should the mines not bear responsibility for
the attendant health risks?
What impact will there be on the groundwater? NamPower intends to ensure that there is no
                                                   impact on the groundwater tables in any way.
Why is NamPower moving away from Kudu              The desktop study shows that grid stability is
Gas? And why is there is sudden rush towards required in Walvis Bay, hence a power station
coal-fired power?                                  must be built here. There are also no gas fields
                                                   close by to Walvis Bay, therefore one has to
                                                   transport the gas from the Kudu gas field by
                                                   LNG or CNG ships to WB – this would escalate
                                                   electricity costs greatly. Nuclear power is still in
                                                   infancy stages, as we do not have the capacity,
                                                   and local legislation needs to be enacted as well
                                                   as observing international regulations –
                                                   therefore longer timeframe and the exorbitant
                                                   production cost do not justify the relatively
                                                   minimal power demand. Thus Coal is the more
                                                   viable power source at this stage. Old coal
                                                   technology will not be used in the new power
                                                   station. Wind data shows that there are 2hrs in
                                                   Luderitz and 2hrs in WB where the wind speeds
                                                   are sufficient to generate power, however this
                                                   time period does not overlap with the peak-
                                                   demand times. In any event when a wind farm is
                                                   not generating power, a back-up thermal power
                                                   station is required to generate required power,
                                                   thus it must idle when the wind farm is running in
                                                   order to ensure that it can immediately pick up
                                                   the slack when required. To idle a coal-fired
                                                   power station is very inefficient and costly. Solar
                                                   power is not yet cost effective on the scale
                                                   required to generate megawatts nor on a large
                                                   scale basis, though it does on the small scale
                                                   such as solar-powered geysers etc.
If we have a power station will we still depend     Addition of new power station will ensure that
on South Africa, or will it only be sufficient for  Namibia is self-sufficient in power generation.
the West Coast area?
Record of a Focus Group Meeting held between Ninham Shand Consulting (Marie
Hoadley, Public Participation Manager) and representatives of the environmental and
tourist sectors: Langstrand, 19 July 2008.

The discussion was preceded by a presentation of the project.




COMMENT                                      COMMENTATOR   Response
Was there a baseline study performed         Participant   Such a study is beyond the scope of the
for the entire coastline of Namibia, and                   current project.
not just the Walvis Bay-Swakopmund
area?
Have you spoken to John Ward for             Participant   This name will be forwarded to the air quality
wind research data?                                        specialist.
Where is the coal coming from?               Participant   NamPower is looking at various sources,
                                                           such as Indonesia, South Africa and
                                                           Botswana.
In the field of specialist studies, why is   Participant   Noted
there no study on the alternatives to
coal-fired power?
We would like to know the alternatives
to coal as a fuel source. We would also
like to see the Terms of Reference for
the study amended to include a study
on alternative power generation
sources, the preference of coal as
opposed to other power generation
sources, and the combination of
renewable and non-renewable power
generation options.
Namibia is importing electricity, and        Participant   The constraints on nuclear power are:
now we are going to import coal also?                             • Namibia still has to develop the
Why not use Uranium seeing as it is a                                necessary legislation,
natural resource?                                                 • complicated international regulations
                                                                     have to be met. For those, capacity
                                                                     has to be built in the country,
                                                                  • economies of scale             to build a
                                                                     nuclear power station are not there,
                                                                  • a back-up/black start facility will still
                                                                     be required to prevent cooling
                                                                     shutdowns,
                                                                  • it takes a long time to develop
                                                                  • it is very expensive.
What is NamPower’s preferred site?           Participant   None, at this stage, all factors are being
                                                           considered and put through the MCDM tool
                                                           till the optimal site(s) is identified.
Ash Disposal will be at a different site?    Participant   The effects of wind on fly ash handling will
                                                           have to be considered in the site selection,
                                                           and the identification of the preferred site for
                                                           the power station will also have to be done
                                                           before a site for ash can be identified.
Why is WB in the Erongo region being         Participant    NamPower needs to generate power in WB
considered?                                                 to counter inertia on the transmission grid.
                                                            Most of the development in Namibia, and
                                                            the greatest demand for energy, in the next
                                                            few years will be on the West Coast, and
                                                          there is no large power producer there.
                                                          Walvis Bay also has a harbour if one is
                                                          needed for import of coal.
What are the minimal emissions            Participant     We will advise you of these.
standards?
Why didn’t NamPower foresee the           Participant
energy crisis?
What about the aquaculture industry?      Participant     We had a meeting with the MFMR
Aquaculture is big industry, and it                       yesterday,      and have      solicited their
cannot be scrapped to make way for                        questions/concerns and shall make available
the power station.                                        to them the specialist studies etc. and
                                                          ensure that opportunities for co-existence
                                                          are explored and promoted if viable.
Why is the coal-fired power appearing     Participant     It is not. As the title of the ESEIA study
to be a foregone conclusion?                              indicates, it is being examined for its viability.
The mines have taken the initiative to                    Solar power is not yet cost effective on the
install solar power at the employees’                     scale required to generate megawatts nor on
housing. Namibia could be a pioneer in                    a large scale basis, though it is viable on the
solar power if NamPower commissions                       small scale such as solar-powered geysers.
solar power stations, and thus we
should lead the way the abundance of
year-round solar exposure.
How long will the coal power station      Participant     The project is still in its feasibility stage and
take to come online?                                      reply to this question is only available once
                                                          the studies are done.
We would also like the cost per KW/h      Participant     Noted
for gas and nuclear power as indicated
on the presentation for coal-fired
power?
What about the Dams upstream on the       Participant
Kunene      river?    Can’t   they   be
rehabilitated to ensure that Ruacana
has year-round water supply to
generate at full capacity?
How much water is used in cooling a       Participant
400MW power station?
We would like to lodge an objection       Frank Löhnert
against the use of site B due to the
visual impact of the power station as
seen from the road and from the
residential developments to north of
site B (Afrodite Beach, Eco-village and
Long Beach), and the road is an iconic
tourism route so one cannot spoil the
view with a power station.
Site B is also upwind from the above
residential developments, in the
context of the prevailing southerly
winds, meaning there are high pollution
impacts of smoke and the threat of
windblown ash and other residues from
waste dumps on site. Nobody wants to
live just downwind from a coal power
station.     Property     values    and
construction activity would be severely
affected.
An objection is also lodged against the   M Koopman       Noted
use of Sites C & D because these sites
can potentially affect the Narraville
Community.
In the REECAP Study: Electricity          Keith Wearne,   We will study the document and give a
Supply & Demand Scenario, Option 8        CETN            considered response
states the best scenario – though no
mention is made of the use of coal as
power source?
The focus group is clearly concerned      Frank Löhnert
with the apparent lack of sufficient
consideration of alternative and more
sustainable    methods      of   power
generation, such as solar and wind
power, at the very least as
complementary means to the core
energy source. While arguments
against renewable energy have been
heard, such as lack of synchronisation
between peak generation and peak
consumption times and higher cost,
surely international experience has
shown that there are profitable
avenues of integrating alternative
energy sources, esp. here at the
Namibian coast, where we have so
much sun and wind. Some of the
higher cost may be offset by
international subsidies, preferential
finance and carbon credits.
The focus group of environmental and
tourism representatives urge for the
mandate of the ESEIA process to be
expanded, and for Nampower to
introduce complementary elements of
renewable energy sources into the
overall planning of power generation
for the immediate and longer term
future, so that future generation
capacity is made up of a mix of energy
sources, which over time and
technological development would rely
increasingly       on        renewable
components.
In conclusion, the coal fired plant
should not be built in isolation but
should from its inception be integrated
with a significant complementary
component of renewable energy
generation, which can be expanded
over time.
Rekord van ‘n vergardering tussen Ninham Shand Consulting en die Burgermeester en
Raadslede van die Munisipaliteit Van Hentiesbaai. Gehou te hentiesbaai op 19 Junie
2008


Verwelkoming:
   • Mev Kramer verwelkom die span van NamPower en stel al die raadslede aan die
      besoekers voor.
   • Marie Hoadley stel die NamPower span voor en verduidelik die formaat van die
      voorlegging: ‘n skyfievertoning wat die verskillende aspekte van die projek verduidelik.

Skyfievertoning:
   • Ninham Shand is deur NamPower aangestel om die impakstudie te lei.
   • Die aard en doel van die studie word verduidelik met behulp van die skyfies wat ook
       agtergrondinligting ivm die projek weergee.
   • Die strategie is om sover moontlik alle negatiewe impakte te probeer vermy, maar indien
       nie moontlik om dit te beperk in omvang en intensiteit. Positiewe impakte word sover
       moontlik gemaksimiseer.
   • Die motivering vir die projek spruit uit NamPower se dryf om basislading te verhoog,
       aangesien die huidige piekaanvraag van 550MW (gemeet in 2007) die Namibiese
       opwekkingskapasiteit van ongeveer 380MW oorskry en Namibie dus van ander lande
       afhanklik is.
   • Grootskaalse ontwikkelings, veral in die mynboubedryf in Erongo, is een van die
       hoofredes vir die spronge in aanvraag wat geprojekteer word (network ladingspronge) vir
       die volgende paar jaar.
   • Daarteenoor is natuurlike groei meer gelykmatig, soos meer gebruikers gekonnekteer
       word en soos die bestaande gebruikers meer energie benodig.
   • Die projek sal deur ‘n Onafhanklike Elektrisiteitsverskaffer (IPP) gerealiseer word en
       NamPower sal die elektrisiteit dan van hierdie party aankoop.

Vrae en Antwoorde:
   • Hoekom spesifiek Walvisbaai en hoekom steenkool, en het NamPower alternatiewe
       ondersoek?
       Walvisbaai is gekies om die toevoer van elektrisiteit te anker waar die groei die hoogste is.
       Alternatiewe projekte in Walvisbaai sluit SLOP olie en steenkool in, maar van hierdie
       opsies is die steenkool die enigste wat as basiskapasiteit kan dien. Ander vorme van
       energie-opwekking vorm deel van NamPower se strategiese plan, maar kan nie
       noodwendig die basisladingsrol vervul nie.
   • Wat sal die rol van die REDs wees?
       NamPower sal die elektrisiteit by die IPP aankoop (wat deur ‘n “tenderproses” verkies
       gaan word maar nog onbekend is), wat dit dan weer op sy beurt aan die Erongo RED sal
       verkoop vir verspreiding.
   • Wat behels ‘n “black start”?
       Dit is wanneer die totale netwerk faal en daar ‘n algehele nasionale kragonderbreking is.
       Hierdie fasiliteit (die “black start” fasiliteit) word dan eerste aangeskakel om die res van die
       kragstasies weer op lyn te kry – ‘n proses wat begin met die aanskakel van alle
       verkoelings en sirkulasiestelsels van die groter fasiliteite.
   • Waar gaan die proseswater verkry word want ons het ‘n watertekort?
       Dit sal nog bepaal word, maar gesuiwerde water moet gebruik word. NamPower is bewus
       dat bestaande watervoorraad onder druk is, maar dat die voorgestelde ontsoutingsaanleg
       onder konstruksie is.
   •   Waar kan die afval gestrort word en kan daar niks anders mee gedoen word nie?
       Die voorstel sluit die verstiging van ‘n strortterrein vir die as in (70Ha), maar moontlikhede
       bestaan om daarvan in ander prosesse te gebruik. Dit word tans ondersoek.
   •   Met hoeveel sal die temperatuur styg en wat sal die invloed daarvan wees op die vislewe?
       Die projek word ontwerp om aan hoe internasionale standaarde te voldoen en ons
       spesialiste wat op die span is vir hierdie doel gaan studies doe nom hierdie impak te
       kwantifiseer.
   •   Hoekom kan dit nie eerder suid van die dorp geplaas word nie?
       Suid van Walvisbaai word die RAMSAR vleilande aangetref wat nie deur hierdie tipe
       projek versteur moet word nie.

Water word gesien as die grootste potensiele struikelblok en die span word deur die munisipaliteit
versoek om hierdie kwessie deeglik te ondersoek.



Record of a meeting between Ninham Shand Consulting (Marie Hoadley, Public
Participation Manager) and the Hon S Nuuyoma, Governor of the Erongo Regional
Council, and Councillors. Swakopmund, 20 June 2008

As the participants at the meeting had all read the Background Information Document, and had a
busy schedule, they requested that only the most important points on the presentation be shown,
and that they would then ask questions.
ERC         This initiative is good for the region. However, we see that a meeting about
            Paratus was supposed to have been held on 22 May 2008. Was this meeting
            held, and was it advertised?
MH          Yes, the meeting was held in Kuisebmond on 22 May 2008. It was advertised in
            the media and invitations were sent out on the stakeholder database.
ERC         The amount that is currently being produced at Paratus, could that supply
            Erongo? What is the current consumption in Erongo?
MH          No, it would not be enough to supply Erongo. I do not have the consumption
            figures at hand, but Paratus production would not be adequate for Erongo.
ERC         And for Walvis Bay?
MH          Yes, probably, but the power from Paratus feeds into the national grid, it is not
            dedicated power for either Erongo or Walvis Bay.
ERC         Please explain the term black out to us.
MH          If there is a massive power outage, power stations need electricity to start again,
            but if they are not producing, they have to have another source to start up the
            systems. This is usually a smaller power plant, which is driven by gas, diesel or
            some other fuel, and is not reliant on electricity to start.
ERC         Why are we using coal? Is there not something else that can be used, something
            that will encourage people, and give them a chance, to participate?
MH          Explained the constraints on using gas, wind, solar and nuclear energy. The
            needs are to go for a fuel that is affordable, accessible and reliable, and can be
            secured on long-term contracts.
ERC         If coal is the cheapest, why is van Eck running at a loss?
MH          Van Eck is old technology, and very inefficient. The more inefficient a plant is,
      the more expensive it is.
ERC   How and where are we going to get cheaper coal if NamPower is losing on van
      Eck? Apart from looking outside, why are we not looking inside Namibia? You
      have to look at how we get coal here – by truck, sea or rail. It becomes
      expensive.
MH    A whole range of options is being considered, among them South Africa,
      Botswana and Indonesia. NamPower needs high-quality coal, as to import poor
      quality coal is expensive. Given the amount of coal that such a power station
      would use, it is unlikely that road transport would be considered.
ERC   Why are we building a power station when we have a supply of power from
      outside the country? For example, Zimbabwe.
MH    The current initiatives for power generation, which include the coal-fired power
      station, have as one of their objectives the need to make Namibia independent
      as far as power production is concerned.
ERC   Somebody came to see us the other day, I can’t remember their name, but they
      also want to put up a big power station in Walvis Bay. Do you know about this?
MH    NamPower is aware that there are a number of initiatives currently being
      considered for energy generation.
ERC   With regard to the site, it would be a mistake to put it behind Dune 7. They
      should not even declare that a heavy industrial zone. It would affect tourism as it
      would have a big visual impact. They should move towards the south of the
      town.
MH    The preferred site has not yet been identified, but issues such as you have just
      mentioned will be taken into account in the identification of the preferred site.
                                         END MEETING
 65 York Street, George, 6529                                                               Tel: +27 44 874 2165
 P O Box 509, George, 6530                                                                 Fax: +27 44 873 5843
 South Africa                                                                          Website: www.shands.co.za


15 July 2008                                                                        Our ref: 402633/8.141

Permanent Secretary                                                                                   By email
Ministry of Regional & Local Government and Housing
NAMIBIA
enegonga@mrlgh.gov.na

For attention: Mr E Negonga

Dear Mr Negonga

ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR NAMPOWER’S PROPOSED
   COAL-FIRED POWER STATION AND EMERGENCY GENERATION FACILITY IN WALVIS BAY

Thank you for meeting with the Public Participation Manager and Socio-Economic Impact Specialist for
above mentioned project, Marie Hoadley, on Monday 7 July 2008, to discuss the Environmental and Socio-
Economic Impact Assessment (ESEIA) Ninham Shand is undertaking for NamPower. Your attention to the
matter is appreciated.

As described in the meeting, the environmental process has been necessitated by NamPower’s proposed
installation of electricity generating capacity in Walvis Bay, comprising the following elements:

1.    A 400 - 800 MW coal-fired power station with associated coal stockyard, ash disposal facility
      (possibly located at another site) and transport systems to deliver coal and seawater to and from the
      plant;
2.    A 100 MW multi-fuelled (e.g. diesel) black start/emergency generation facility located at the coal-fired
      power station site; and
3.    A 50 MW black start/emergency generation facility that is presently being subjected to a separate
      Scoping study, located at the existing Paratus power station site.

We envisage submitting the Scoping Report for this proposed development to the Ministry of Environment
and Tourism (MET) by 18 August 2008 and the finalized ESEIA Report by 24 October 2008.
We will keep you informed at appropriate times throughout the ESEIA process and look forward to working
with you on this project. Should you wish to discuss the matter further, or require any additional
information, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Yours faithfully
NINHAM SHAND




Brett Lawson PrSciNat; EAPSA[Cert]
Associate Environmental Practitioner




Record of a meeting held between Marie Hoadley (Ninham Shand Consulting) and Ms
U Hiveluah (Permanent Secretary and A Smit (Deputy Director), Ministry of Labour and
Social Welfare, held in Windhoek on 8 July 2008.

Ms Hiveluah explained that the document had been shared with the relevant members of her
staff. NamPower was to be congratulated on bringing the Ministry in early in the project, as it is
difficult to make comments and recommendations once a project is well under way. The Ministry
is delighted to work with NamPower on this project. Future meetings with the Ministry should be
arranged directly with Mr. Smit.

U Hiveluah and A Smit:          There are certain issues that need to be posted right from the
beginning. The Factory Registration procedure covers power stations. The Ministry is
mandated to see that the regulations in terms of the Labour Act are adhered to. For this
purpose the Ministry had prepared a copy of the regulations (handed to M Hoadley) and a
briefing note dealing with matters such as prior notice of commencement of construction
and registration applications. For construction, we will need to see the site plans, have inspectors
on site to monitor, we will look at machinery safety. In respect of the company that is going to
erect the power station, it must consult with the Ministry and get approval to go ahead and
assemble and install.

As soon as the superintendent of the power station is appointed, the letter of appointment and CV
must be forwarded to the Ministry.     When we scrutinise plans we will look very closely at
emergency points and procedures, and the control of occupational diseases. Regulation 2 states
that, before commissioning, safety committees, safety policies, risk analysis, and health and
safety programmes and policies to the satisfaction of the Ministry must be in place.

M Hoadley thanked the Ministry for the documents, and explained that adherence to legislation
and regulations would form part of the management plan for the project. She undertook to ensure
that the documents were delivered to the appropriate people.
A discussion ensued about the proposed coal-fired power station project.

A Smit: Why a coal-fired power station?

M Hoadley Explained the constraints currently operative on the use of other and renewable
sources of energy. The development of these needed to be seen against the background of
the anticipated growth in demand over the next few years, the current power generation
capacity in Namibia and the surge in development along the west coast.

A Smit: The power station will take a long time to develop.

M Hoadley Our information is that commissioning is anticipated for 2014. In the meantime,
a project is going ahead to upgrade Paratus power station by the installation of a 50MW unit
for emergency generation.

A Smit Sea water is highly corrosive. Maintenance will be difficult.

M Hoadley This is a technical issue, and will be dealt with as such once the site has been
selected and the technology can be considered.

U Hiveluah We have a major concern with pollution. For instance, here in Katatura, people say
that pollution affects poor people the most, that the power utility does not care about the
population of Katatura. We need to get rid of this myth. We need energy for development, but
the pollution aspect must be sorted out; the power station must be clean. Tourism is growing,
becoming one of our biggest economic sectors, and that coast line is particularly important for
tourism.

M Hoadley It happens often that poorer communities are situated close to industrial
development. However, the positioning of the power station in relation to residential
settlements will be taken into account. Further, WHO and World Bank standards will be
used to determine the operating standards of the power station. NamPower would like the
facility to be of such a standards that it can apply for carbon credits.

M Hoadley thanked U Hiveluah and A Smit for the time they had taken to attend the
meeting, and undertook to keep the up to date with progress on the ESIA process.

                                          END MEETING


Record of a meeting held in Windhoek on 8 July between Marie Hoadley (Ninham Shand
Consulting) and Mr S Motenga, Director, Industrial Development, Ministry of Trade and
Industry.

MH      Explained the purpose of the meeting which was part of the Authority Scoping for the
project, to introduce the project and to record comments, queries and issues of concern. A
presentation of the ESIA process and the project was given.

SM     The Bank of Namibia has confirmed the predicted growth rate of 4% for Namibia. To
achieve this, industry will need extra energy, and a local solution is something that Trade and
Industry will support.
This Ministry is also responsible for the ozone layer over Namibia. Six years ago Namibia signed
an agreement with UNEP to reduce its contribution to ozone depletion. Within the Ministry there is
an office which deals with Namibia’s programme to reduce the use of ozone-depleting
substances. Good progress has been made over the last three years. Still, the country needs to
ensure that it does not now start importing substances that would counteract the progress it has
made.
 From both angles, that of development in Namibia and the Ministry’s environmental obligations,
the Ministry is interested in the project. Its primary concern, however, is to promote industry and
manufacture, and in view of that, the building of additional facilities that would achieve this has the
Ministry’s support. NDP3 is not yet available to the public, but there is a lot about energy in it.
For years efforts have been made to get Kudu Gas going, and industry is waiting for a solution. It
is important though, that from the perspective of encouraging trade, and particularly tourism – in
particular ecotourism, which means wildlife conservation – we would like to see the environment
taken care of. Tourism has become a very important economic sector.

SM     Can the power station not be built away from Walvis Bay?

MH     Explained the rationale for choosing Walvis Bay, in terms of the harbour, the infrastructure
and the expected growth in energy consumption along the west coast.

SM     What about building additional hydro capacity? An additional dam could be built on the
Kunene, there would then be sufficient flow to operate the turbines. What happened to the idea of
the Inga dam in the DRC?

MH     A response to this question was not to hand, and would be supplied in the Issues Trail.

MH      Thanked Mr Mutenga for the time taken for the meeting, and undertook to keep the
Ministry up-to-date with progress.

                                           END MEETING


Record of a meeting held between Ninham Shand Consulting (Marie Hoadley, Public
Participation Manager) and the Ministry of Regional and Local Government and Housing:
Pieter Genis, Town and Regional Planner, Daleen Brand, Town and Regional Planner
and Johan de Kock, Chief Town and Regional Planner. Windhoek, 8 July 2008.

The participants were all familiar with the contents of the Background Information Document for
the project, so a general discussion of the project was not necessary. A brief discussion ensured
about the use of coal as a fuel source.
The meeting moved to issues around the site selection, and was preceded by a brief explanation
of the choice of Walvis Bay for locating the power station and a more detailed introduction to the
four identified potential sites.
Comment                                    Commentator        Response
Is there any possibility of looking at a   J de Kock          Various other sites have been
site outside Walvis Bay?                                      mentioned by stakeholders, such
                                                              as Henties Bay, where the
                                                              transport of coal would be a
                                                              constraint, and Arandis, where
                                                              water would be an issue, in
                                                       addition to the transport of coal.
                                                       NamPower will need to keep in
                                                       mind the cost to the consumer in
                                                       the end. Although it is inevitable
                                                       that the price of electricity will
                                                       increase, this needs to be
                                                       curtailed as much as possible.
With regard to option C, there is a rail   J de Kock   Noted
link from the harbour to the heavy
industrial zone, so coal can be loaded
straight from the shop on to the rail
trucks. The infrastructure for coal
transport is feasible.
It is quite obvious that site A is not     J de Kock   Noted
feasible. We don’t even have to
discuss that. You can’t have a power
station in the middle of a town.
If Farm 39 is chosen, there is going to    J de Kock   Noted
be a tremendous amount of
resistance, not only locally, but
globally, as happened with Ipupa
Falls. There will be a significant
impact on the attraction of the area for
tourists.
The lagoon and the wetland site -          D Brand     We have specialists on the
what impact will the return of water                   project who will be looking
have on that, on aspects like water                    specifically at those issues. The
temperature                                            water will probably have to be
                                                       cooled before it is returned. All
                                                       aspects will be investigated. We
                                                       have also been in discussion
                                                       with MFMR around these issues,
                                                       and there is the possibility of
                                                       synergies. A part of the public
                                                       participation process is to identify
                                                       synergies between the proposed
                                                       power station and other
                                                       development projects.
At our last meeting with them, the         P Genis
MFMR indicated that discussions
around synergies had taken place
We are happy with the site in the          J de Kock   I don’t have any idea what the
heavy industrial zone. The cost –                      cost would be, but it would
surely the cost of two pipelines would                 probably be expensive.
not be that excessive.
In all the areas except site C there       J de Kock
would be competing land use.
The cost of the land – the coastal land    P Genis
will be very expensive. D is the
easiest way of getting land and the
cheapest.
D is state land, and apparently the       M Hoadley     The state can give permission for
processes involved in changing its                      the use of the land while the
status are very lengthy.                                process is going on (J de Kock).
NamPower would also have water            J de Kock     Yes, we are aware that there
problems on site D                                      could be such problems.
Behind the dunes will cost quite a lot,   P Genis       Noted
but a fair price can be negotiated
because it is a project of national
interest. At the coast the competition
will drive the cost up. Mitigation
measures at the coast will also be
very high. The coastal land will be
very much more expensive than any
of the others.

It seems that some aspects have           P Genis       It is not a matter of evasion, but a
been evaded in the background                           case of a lack of information at
information document, such as                           this stage. No firm statements
emissions and the disposal of fly ash.                  can be made about ash disposal,
                                                        clinker or fly, until the site has
                                                        been identified.        Once the
                                                        technology has been decided on,
                                                        firm statements can be made
                                                        about       aspects     such     as
                                                        emissions. However, what we do
                                                        know at this stage is that
                                                        NamPower’s requirements of the
                                                        technology are that it must meet
                                                        WHO standards, and the power
                                                        station must operate in such a
                                                        way that carbon credits can be
                                                        applied for. This is also one of
                                                        the reasons why high quality coal
                                                        is being sought, as it is much
                                                        more environmentally friendly.
We are acting as the secretariat for National P
Planning Advisory Board, a policy body deciding Genis
on development issues throughout the country,
and for the Townships Board, a more technical
body dealing with town establishment and layout
planning. We have to advise and recommend.
We try to be in line with other developments, like
the Walvis Bay structure plan, which includes the
town and regional development issues along the
coast as well as development in other sectors
such as tourism and fisheries. It is with this
attempt at alignment that conflicts of interests
arise.   Basically the vision of the Walvis Bay
local authority is shaped by the fact that they
have very little room for the expansion of the
town. The will have to do compacting and infill of
their land, and their most extreme extension will
be Langstrand. Along that coastal spine tourism
coming in from Swakopmund will need to be
accommodated, and that is why industrial
development behind the dunes is planned. The
road link along the coast is envisaged for change
so that Kuisebmond can get more benefits from
tourism.     The Ministry tries to optimise these
benefits. Farms 39 and 40 which belong to the
Walvis Bay municipality, have already been
identified for that type of developments. When
the Walvis Bay Structure Plan was drawn up, all
stakeholders were invited to submit their
requirements. The Ministry of Fisheries and
Marine Resources stated their requirements early
in the process, and already have big investors for
their     proposed      developments.          Their
requirements were incorporated into the structure
plan. A power station was mentioned in the
structure plan, but not in detail. For us it is not
simply choosing one development plan, and
leaving out others or, for that matter, ignoring the
integrated development of Walvis Bay itself.
These are issues that need to be balanced, and
also have to take the country’s priorities into
account. Stakeholders were asked to make their
requirements clear.
Would it be correct to say then, that a M Hoadley      That is correct (P Genis)
major constraint for your Ministry in
making recommendations is the lack
of clarity on the part of a number of
sectors - residential developers, the
energy sector, environmentalists,
tourism, NamPort – as to what their
requirements are?
We need to remember that the               P Genis     Noted
seminal document from which all
considerations must flow, is the
Walvis Bay Structure Plan. This plan
is currently being revised, and we
can’t give you any indication of what
the revisions entail.

                                         END MEETING
Record of a meeting between Mr J Smith, CEO, Walvis Bay Corridor Group, and Ninham
Shand Consulting (Marie Hoadley, Public Participation Manager) held in Windhoek on 9
July 2008.

MH       Explained the purpose of the meeting which was to introduce the project and the
         ESIA process to the WBCG who is a key role player in economic development.
         What is the extent of the WBCG’s involvement in economic growth, particularly in
         the Walvis Bay area?
JS       Briefly, we facilitate business development, cross-border facilitation and
         infrastructure provision for cargo movement in the SADC region. We have strong
         private-public partnerships which put us in a good position to fast-track
         developments.
MH       Could you describe the structure of the WBGC?
JS       We are a non-profit organisation, and we get our funding from our members. The
         Walvis Bay Corridor consists of three corridors – the trans-Karoo to Gauteng, the
         trans-Caprivi to southern Angola and the trans-Kunene to Zambia and the DRC.
MH       Does NamPort play a role in the management?
JS       The WBCG manages the corridors, NamPower champions the Corridor Group.
         In essence, the Group is a promotion agency for the use of the transport
         corridors and the Namibian Harbours.
MH       There is much discussion about the road between Swakopmund and Walvis Bay
         – whether the coastal road will continue to be used for heavy traffic and widened,
         or whether it will become a scenic/commuter road with heavy traffic diverted to
         the road behind the dunes, thus by-passing Swakopmund.
JS       Road change is dependent on growth. The Roads Authority has to develop
         roads to facilitate transportation. The authorising Ministry is the Ministry of
         Works, Transport and Communication. The road has to happen, whether it is at
         the back of the dunes or turning the coastal road into a double lane, but in terms
         of long term development, he one at the back would be preferable because then
         you provide a dedicated route for trucks, taken them off the scenic route. It still
         remains an alternative route for tourists. And you will probably find that, if the
         coastal road is turned into a double lane, before long a four-lane highway will be
         needed.
         About the project, where is the power station going to be situated?
MH       Gave explanation of the four sites and the benefits and constraints of each.
JS       MY preference would be for C. It will be more expensive, but we need to take a
         long-term view of the investment into the project. You also need to look at the
         Walvis Bay development plans. That puts D out of the question. With the port
         development and the development of the complete transport and logistics sector
         that we are developing, there will be supporting developments. All of these mean
         more people. Where are the people going to live?
MH       The inward migration of people is one of the cumulative impacts we will have to
         look at. I have heard that the Government has initiatives to lure people back to
         the north, or to keep them there. Do you know of these initiatives?
JS       The government has spent a lot of money in terms of developing the northern
         areas so that people can remain there but to a large extent government can only
         do so much. The private sector plays a vital role in terms of developing any
         economy, so if something happens in Walvis Bay which generates employment
         faster, people will go there. Development in the north is a planned approach,
         over a period of time. To a large extent they are also limited to a few industries;
           there is no anchor industry in the north that will explode the market for
           employment. The economy is developing fast down along the west coast, and
           naturally people will move to where there is potential to get employment quickly.
MH         In terms of the mandate of your group, and your experience of developments,
           what are your views on NamPower’s power station project?
JS         The power station is a requirement for the long-term development of the country.
           In terms of port development alone, the electricity requirements are huge,
           especially in the next three years. The cranes that we are going to install will
           basically use more electricity than the town of Walvis Bay.
           It should be viewed as a national priority. Namibia may be small, but our task is
           to develop the regional market, creating capacity in terms of infrastructure to
           facilitate more imports and exports through Walvis Bay than Namibia has got –
           we can handle cargo to fulfill the requirements of a regional population of 220
           million.
MH         What sea routes are available to people wishing to use Walvis Bay at the
           moment?
JS         We have routes to Europe, the Americas, the South African ports and a direct
           route to the Far East.
                                             END MEETING


Record of a meeting between Ninham Shand Consulting (Marie Hoadley, Public
Participation Manager) and Michelle Yates and Dr Wotan Swiegers, Chamber of Mines of
Namibia, held in Swakopmund on 15 July 2008.

MH    Explained the purpose of the meeting which was to record the comments, issues and
concerns of the mineral sector, and to request some baseline information.

WS       With regard to the Paratus project, we are happy with the process as proposed, i.e. a
scoping report without a full EIA. In terms of the new Act and Regulation, then the approach
recommended to NamPower is appropriate.             If the Environmental Management Act is
implemented, there is the potential for environmental aspects to swamp action. It should be used
carefully, and cases where the same process as the Paratus project can be followed should be
identified.

MY     Is the current Paratus operation being managed under an EMP? Does NamPower have in
MY impression is not. I would like to see the new generator come into operation with an EMP
which is broad enough to manage the current operation.

WS       There has been considerable discussion about the location of the coal-fired power station,
and the feeling is that it is best placed behind Dune 7, which is already earmarked for a heavy
industrial zone. Most of the people are positive about the power station, and recognise the need
for it. One or two want a nuclear power station.

MY      The Chamber members have had an opportunity to see the various scenarios with regard
to alternative energy sources, so they understand the decision to use coal. However, most of the
Namibian public does not know, and there is a need to go into the public, via the media, with the
different scenarios. People need to see up front that there is strategic thinking around renewable
energy sources. The ESIA must run its course, and practitioners can only do so much. The
proponent now needs to undertake a media campaign.
If the site behind Dune 7 is chosen, and the cost is much higher than at the other sites, the
consumer will then have to pay for their choice. How is this going to be managed? There is a
need to educate the public about the real cost of water and energy in Namibia, so that they
understand the increases that will happen.

MY     How will NamPower, as a parastatal, fulfill is social obligations?

MH     There are some recommendations that form part of almost every SMP, such as training of
the workforce, proper housing, health programmes. In this project, the site which is eventually
selected will also dictate some of the measures that will go into an

SMP. The SMP will be no different in approach from that applied to a private sector project.

MY     We would like to see you bring into your final report the inclusion of energy in the Strategic
Environmental Assessment that is currently being considered.

MH     Your recommendation will go into the issues trail and addressed by the ESIA team.

MH       Provided details of some of the baseline information on the minerals sector that she would
like to include in the final baseline study for the ESIA.

                                          END MEETING.
Environmental and Socio-Economic Impact Assessment (ESEIA) for A Proposed Coal-
                        Fired Power Station at Walvis Bay.


Record of a meeting held in Walvis Bay between Marie Hoadley and a group of community
women. 27 September 2008.

Introduction:

It should be noted that the responses to questions, and the concerns raised, were in
essence a group discussion. There was nothing of any consequence that the participants
disagreed on.

The participants at the meeting were largely uninformed about the possibility of a coal-fired
power station, so the meeting was conducted to inform them about the power station, the
two sites and the potential impacts. In turn there was knowledge transfer from the women
about their background and their assessment of the impacts.

MH               Introduced herself and asked some questions about the background and
                 environment of the participants.
                     • Of the seventeen participants, four were in formal employment. The
                         rest were self-employed or unemployed, the latter all wanting to
                         work.
                         Those who are self-employed earn very little, and are looking for
                         other work or ways in which to expand their businesses.
                     • A number of the women live in backyard shacks. The average
                         rental paid for these shacks is R200-350 per month, sometimes
                         including electricity and water, sometimes not. In a number of
                         cases toilet facilities are not provided when the landlord is not at
                         home, and the lessees use the dunes.
                     • People who can just afford to buy a house, usually a small one, do
                         so, and pay for it by renting out space to backyard shack dwellers.
                     • Unemployment in Kuisebmond is very high.
                     • Narraville is somewhat better off. There are no backyard shacks,
                         although people squat in garages and back rooms. To make a
                         comparison, Kuisebmond is like Kututura, Narraville is like
                         Khomasdal.
                     • Although all the participants were literate, the educational levels of a
                         large number were very low.
                     •
MH               Gave a description of the process, and an illustrated discussion of the two
                 potential sites. The response to the question “How many of you use
                 Kuisebmond Beach?” yielded the information that the three or four young
                 participants used it, but all agreed that it was well-used by the community,
                 particularly those who did not have transport to go elsewhere.
                What impact do you think it would have if Site B was the one chosen to put
               the power station on?

Participant    Not much. The people could easily move to another section of the beach.

MH             The power station would not be on the beach, but further inland.

Participant    How far? Metres? Kilometres?
MH             Definitely not so close that we would calculate it in metres, though the
               exact site has not been chosen yet.

Participant    Then it is not a problem

MH             Would it affect the enjoyment of the beach by people if they could see a
               power station?

Participants   No. (unanimous)

MH             What impacts do you expect from a power station? Good and bad.

Participants   We welcome the power station, because we need the work.
               It will lead to development in Kuisebmond community.

MH             What kind of development do you anticipate?

Participants   For a start, if people have money they can buy houses, then we would see
               less shacks.

               We would also get electricity, and it would be cheaper.

               Why are there only women at this meeting?

MH             There are a few reasons. Firstly, at public meetings, women very seldom
               have the confidence to speak in front of large groups, especially if there are
               men present. Secondly, this process requires that we talk to marginalised
               groups, and one of those groups is women. They are marginalised
               because their needs, views and hopes are not often heard. Why did you
               come to the meeting?

               Electricity would not be cheaper. That does not happen anywhere in the
               world. However, you would no longer have shut-downs of electricity
               because there is not sufficient.

Participants   We wanted to hear new ideas and get information.
MH             Then ask me the questions you want to ask. For instance, you say you
               welcome the power station. Is there anything about it that would worry
               you?

Participants   Yes, for us a big concern would be health. We have to live with bad smells
               and smoke in the air from all the factories and industries around us. This is
               something which will affect the town but it could also affect the enjoyment
               of the beach. We already suffer from the effects of the bad air here.

MH             What kind of effects? Illnesses?

Participants   Yes

MH             What are the major illnesses that people suffer from in this part of town?

Participants   TB, asthma, a lot of flu, sinus and AIDS. Children suffer a lot from
               bronchitis, pneumonia and TB.

               Will there be work for those who are illiterate and unqualified?

MH             Yes, but usually a company requires less unskilled and semi-skilled and
               skilled employees. It is like this Centre here – it needs four or five
               skilled/qualified people, but probably only one unskilled person.

Participants   Will training be done by the company?

MH             Explained the Social Management Plan. We always recommend that the
               company trains its employees so that, for example, if you get work during
               construction, you don’t start unskilled and leave again after two years, still
               unskilled.

               How many of you are currently doing training?

Participants   None. To get training, you need money to pay, and we don’t have money.
               Can you do anything to help us?

MH             Not on this process. (Explained that it was possible to include something
               like support for training institutions in the SMP, but at the moment this is
               only a possibility.) Spoke at some length about the necessity for training
               and finishing schooling, and referred some of the women to SMECompete.
               Lucia Nambundunga undertook to facilitate this.

Participants   Can you take the names and numbers of the women here and keep the list
               in a safe place and let us know when there are jobs?
MH             Yes, I can do something so that you know when jobs become available. I
               know Lucia will help with this.

               Does the noise from all the factors and industries disturb the people of
               Kuisebmond? There could be noise from a power station as well.

Participants   The only noise that disturbs us is that from the shebeens. You get used to
               noise.
               Has the municipality been spoken to about the power station, and how do
               they feel about it?

MH             The municipality would have been one of the first organisations that was
               talked to. Walvis Bay municipality encourages development in the town,
               but it also their job to ensure that there are no problems about people
               wanting to use the same land, and also that nobody suffers any harm from
               development.

               While they are building the power station, there could be quite a bit more
               traffic, especially heavy trucks taking equipment through. Is this a worry for
               you?

Participants   No, as long as they build a decent road and we don’t get more dust.

               Will there be another meeting?

MH             Explained about the meetings at the Multi-Purpose Centre and the Public
               Participation meetings in November. Will you come to the meeting in
               November? Where would be the best place to hold it?

Participants   You should hold two meetings, one of them here in the Kuisebmond
               Community Hall.

MH             Thanked the participants for attending the meeting, Lucia Nambundunga
               and Michale Muttonho for co-ordinating and Helena Asino for translating for
               those participants who did not speak English or Afrikaans.


PARTICIPANTS

Asino, Helena               Ministry of Education
De Klerk, Sylvia            Teacher
Diamases, Ginja             Seamstress
Gabriel, Justina            Self-employed
Haimbodi, Rauna             Self-employed
Haping, Menette             Levy-Abrahams Women Group
Hoadley, Marie           Consultant
Lucia Manbundunga        Kuisebmond Community Centre
Lwandibi Helena          Self-employed
Muttonho, Michael        Kuisebmond Community Centre
Nangombe, Christophina   Self-employed
NdaKomani Rosa           Unemployed
Neliwa, Christine        Hafeni Ndemula Women’s Club
Russia, Noa              Women’s Club
Shaanika, Lea            Onyika Tailor Shop
Shekuza, Frieda          Megameno Tailor
Shifeta, Frodina         Onyika Tailor Shop
Shilongo Lydia           Onyika Yepumba

								
To top