Powerline to be Put Through Swaziland Nature Reserve
Article by Kim Roques, Senior Warden, Mlawula Nature Reserve, mlawula@iafrica.sz
ESKOM is planning the construction of a 400 kV powerline with 25 metre high pylons through Swaziland and many people will be affected. I feel it is my duty to let the people of Swaziland know that the nations Lubombo reserve, Mlawula, will be badly affected by the proposed route of this powerline.
Two routes for the powerline were considered in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). One leading from Mbadlane (East of Manzini) to Bordergate and the other leading from Mbadlane along Mlawula Nature Reserve to the Mhlumeni border. I understand that the southern route for the powerline along Mlawula Nature Reserve was financially preferable for ESKOM (it covers relatively undeveloped land). This route has been selected by ESKOM in the EIA as the "most logical route" and they are now about to tender for the development of the powerline along this route, even though it has a much more negative impact on tourism and the environment. Swaziland is about to allow itself to be hurried into placing an ugly powerline through a pristine Lubombo area when alternatives with far less environmental impact exist. Why? Swaziland needs to take time to thoroughly consider the potential conflicts and benefits of this serious project, whether ESKOM likes it or not, and there needs to be greater communication between proponents of the project and the affected parties.
There are gaping flaws in the information submitted by the environmental impact assessors. This is possibly a result of insufficient consultation with affected parties and a rushed EIA. I would like to raise a few comments in addition to those already made by other people and I suggest that most of the problems outlined below are the result of insufficient communication by ESKOM.
1) The statement in the EIA that the transmission line will "avoid Mlawula and Hlane Nature Reserve" is blatantly incorrect. On 27 Nov 1998 I saw the most up-to-date map of the proposed route for the transmission line. This route passes directly through a considerable area of Mlawula Nature Reserve. This contravenes section 20 of the Swaziland National Trust Commission act, among others, and makes the development illegal. The lack of truth exposed in this example makes one wonder how much of the other information submitted in the EIA is incorrect.
2) The statement in the EIA that the transmission line will "avoid Mlawula and Hlane Nature Reserve" is visually incorrect. I estimate, using the contours of the 1:50,000 topographical map of Swaziland (admittedly an imprecise method), that a 25m high 400 kV Transmission line with pylons would be visually noticeable from within a total area of at least 15 square kilometres of Mlawula Nature Reserve. A large portion of this 15 square kilometre area is of unique environmental and tourist potential to Swaziland - it is the only protected portion of the internationally important Lubombo Mountains in the country, and it is one of the few areas left in the country where man made developments are not currently noticeable. The visual impact of ugly, 25 metre high pylons and powerlines is arguably one of the most significant impacts of such a development and is one of the main reasons why an EIA must be done. Therefore, for the author of the EIA to state that it avoids Mlawula Nature Reserve when it would be clearly visible from a large area of this pristine Lubombo wilderness within the reserve is ridiculous.
3) The EIA neglects pending future tourism developments along the proposed route. Significant tourism development is likely to be initiated by the Lubombo Spatial Development Initiative (LSDI) along this route and this must be considered in the EIA. Furthermore, with the imminent opening of the Mhlumeni border post and the increase in public and tourist access along this route, the Swaziland National Trust Commission has plans for tourism development in this part of Mlawula Nature Reserve. These tourism developments are likely to have substantial benefits for Swaziland yet they have been disregarded in the powerline EIA. If the transmission line follows the southern proposed route then the negative impacts on this tourism development would be considerable.
In the light of the above, together with comments by various other interested parties, the northern alternative route for the transmission line appears to create far less impact on the environment and tourism than the southern route. On these grounds the northern route should be the most preferable route from Swaziland's point of view and ESKOMS reasons for selecting the southern route should be carefully scrutinized.
Kim Roques
Senior Warden
Mlawula Nature Reserve
P O Box 312
Simunye
Swaziland
Tel - (xx268) 38885
Email - mlawula@sntc.org.sz