MOTRACO’s 400 kV powerline

Article by Kim Roques, Senior Warden, Mlawula Nature Reserve, mlawula@iafrica.sz

The powerline will be constructed by MORTACO (a company comprised largely of ESKOM) to feed an aluminium smelter in Maputo that will be operated by MOZAL (a company that is apparently largely South African).

ESKOM and MOZAL will benefit from the line passing through Swaziland because it is more direct and is therefore much cheaper. It also ensures more reliable supply to the aluminium smelter and has fewer negative impacts on South Africa’s tourism industry and local people. Swaziland will benefit from the line in that it will gain a much needed reliable supply of 132 kV of electricity to a substation at eDwaleni for the same price as a less reliable supply of 132 kV. It will also become a more major player in the southern African electricity arena. Swaziland will bear more significant "costs", however, with a 400 kV line with large pylons crossing right through the country when all it needs is a smaller 132 kV line crossing through half of the country. These "costs" are the negative effects on: the rural people that have to be relocated, Swaziland’s tourism industry, the Lubombo Spatial Development Initiative, etc. These "costs" are not born by ESKOM, MOZAL and SEB who reap the benefits of the line and they should therefore be very sensitive to those who will bear the "costs" ensuring that for Swaziland they are minimised.

The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) produced by W. Funstone of ESKOM considers 2 possible routes for the powerline: a northern one that leads from Manzini to Tshaneni and a southern one that leads from Manzini to the Mhlumeni border on the top of the Lubombo’s. The southern route was chosen because it costs ESKOM approximately E67 million instead of E71 million (due to sugar free servitudes that would have to be paid for the northern route). This southern route, although cheaper for ESKOM, appears to have far more "costs" for Swaziland. The Swaziland Environmental Authority have not yet issued the environmental compliance certificate although the period for public review of the EIA has long passed with not enough public comments to alter the choice of route. The first stages of construction of the powerline have begun in the west of Swaziland so time is limited. Nevertheless, the EIA has some serious flaws that could be fatal flaws and on these grounds the project could be stopped. Some of these flaws are:

1. The powerline is presently routed through Mlawula Nature Reserve while this is against the law. The EIA states at least 6 times that it avoids Mlawula Nature Reserve physically and visually and it states that the route should "avoid all proclaimed natural areas and areas considered protection worthy." On these grounds the southern route could be fatally flawed.
2. The EIA states that "Swaziland is suitable for large eco-tourism developments and these should not be jeopardised by the routing of the line" yet it neglects that placing a powerline along the southern route has substantial negative impacts on the future of Swaziland’s tourism and the LSDI which are far in excess of the tourism prospects along the northern route. Neglecting this is a serious and potentially fatal flaw in the EIA.
3. There was not proper consultation with affected parties. SNTC was not adequately consulted and not all affected chiefs were, although the EIA states that an Intergrated Enviornmental Management approach would be adopted, involving proper consultation with all affected parties, and that they would hold "meetings with all the chiefs whose chiefdoms would be affected" by the powerline.
4. The southern route crosses through an area of high biodiversity with unique fauna and flora and gorges containing protected plants. The EIA does not adequately address this and refers only to the gorges stating that "The nature of powerline construction would automatically exclude these areas from any possible impact". This neglects the fact that access to pylons approximately every 500 m is necessary and that the powerline does cross over gorges.

There are other flaws that time does not allow me to add. In short however, of the 5 advantages for choosing the southern route over the northern one, one is debatable, 3 can be discounted as incorrect and 2 of these can be turned around as disadvantages for choosing the southern route. These advantages turned disadvantages are i) "areas with identified tourist potential are avoided" and ii) "Hlane and Mlawula nature reserves are avoided". This leaves only one advantage for choosing the northern route ("the sugar can areas in the west are avoided").

On the grounds of all of the above I suggest that the EIA has some serious and probably fatal flaws and that it needs to be carefully scrutinised. I therefore suggest that SEA be urged not to issue the environmental compliance certificate until a non-biased reviewer has analysed the EIA and all of the concerns have been addressed. If Swaziland fails to do so then it may find that 5 years from now there are sore regrets, lost tourism and LSDI opportunities and reduced benefits for our future generations. Combine this with a situation where the benefits of a project are enjoyed by one group while the costs are born by another, and we could have a very volatile case on our hands. Furthermore, it could result in Swaziland loosing favour in the tri-national LSDI forum, with broader international tourism and donor implications.

Kim Roques
Senior Warden

Kim Roques
Senior Warden
Mlawula Nature Reserve
P O Box 312
Simunye
Swaziland
Email - mlawula@sntc.org.sz

27 February 1999