DTA condemns renewed talk of Epupa hydro plant

THE DTA has deplored renewed canvassing of plans to build a hydroelectric power scheme at Epupa in the Kunene Region.

Media reports over the past week quoted Foreign Affairs Minister Hidipo Hamutenya as saying that a recent meeting between Namibian and Angolan delegations discussed the possibility of accelerating construction of the Epupa power scheme. Hamutenya was quoted as saying the process of establishing a power scheme at Epupa would move more quickly this year.Over the past few years Namibia’s enthusiasm for the controversial scheme appears to have been muted.At a press conference on Tuesday, DTA Secretary General McHenry Venaani denounced the Epupa plans, saying they would destroy the environment and displace the nomadic Himba people who live in the area.Venaani said that Shell Exploration and Production Namibia BV, when they were still involved in plans to build the Kudu gas-fired 750-megawatt power station near Oranjemund, claimed that when fully operational it would effectively cut the profitability of Epupa.It had been expected that Kudu and its second-phase extension would be able to supply gas and power for Namibia and South Africa’s Western Cape – effectively grabbing the market earmarked for the Epupa scheme.But confidence in Kudu’s viability later faded and Shell pulled out of the deal.In the light of the earlier claims about Kudu’s prospects, Venaani urged the Government to reveal its findings about the feasibility of a gas-fired power station near Oranjemund.The Epupa plans stalled in the late 1990s after Angola maintained that the hydropower project was not a priority and that Luanda first wanted to rehabilitate the Calueque scheme and Gove Dam inside Angola.Of the two possible project sites, Namibia favoured Epupa while Angola pressed for the Baynes site.The Namibian Government had contended that the Baynes site was too small, despite its environmental and social advantages compared to other sites under consideration.The final report of a feasibility study by a consortium of Namibian, Swedish, Norwegian and Angolan consultants stated that the more environmentally problematic Epupa Falls dam site would also be the more profitable one.Initial studies found that a dam at the Epupa site would eliminate the Epupa Falls and cover an area ranging from 380 square kilometres when the reservoir is full to 161 square kilometres at low water level.A total of 380 square kilometres in grazing land would be lost, 1 000 local inhabitants would be displaced, and – most controversially of all – 160 Himba graves and 95 cultural sites would be inundated.In addition, it has been calculated that the Epupa dam would flood 1,2 million tonnes of biomass – including some 6 000 mature hyphaene palm trees which yield food for the Himba inhabitants in time of drought.Initially, Namibia had hoped that a firm decision on the Epupa site would be taken by mid-1999 so the first phase of development could begin in 2000.Hamutenya was quoted as saying the process of establishing a power scheme at Epupa would move more quickly this year. Over the past few years Namibia’s enthusiasm for the controversial scheme appears to have been muted. At a press conference on Tuesday, DTA Secretary General McHenry Venaani denounced the Epupa plans, saying they would destroy the environment and displace the nomadic Himba people who live in the area. Venaani said that Shell Exploration and Production Namibia BV, when they were still involved in plans to build the Kudu gas-fired 750-megawatt power station near Oranjemund, claimed that when fully operational it would effectively cut the profitability of Epupa. It had been expected that Kudu and its second-phase extension would be able to supply gas and power for Namibia and South Africa’s Western Cape – effectively grabbing the market earmarked for the Epupa scheme. But confidence in Kudu’s viability later faded and Shell pulled out of the deal. In the light of the earlier claims about Kudu’s prospects, Venaani urged the Government to reveal its findings about the feasibility of a gas-fired power station near Oranjemund. The Epupa plans stalled in the late 1990s after Angola maintained that the hydropower project was not a priority and that Luanda first wanted to rehabilitate the Calueque scheme and Gove Dam inside Angola. Of the two possible project sites, Namibia favoured Epupa while Angola pressed for the Baynes site. The Namibian Government had contended that the Baynes site was too small, despite its environmental and social advantages compared to other sites under consideration. The final report of a feasibility study by a consortium of Namibian, Swedish, Norwegian and Angolan consultants stated that the more environmentally problematic Epupa Falls dam site would also be the more profitable one. Initial studies found that a dam at the Epupa site would eliminate the Epupa Falls and cover an area ranging from 380 square kilometres when the reservoir is full to 161 square kilometres at low water level. A total of 380 square kilometres in grazing land would be lost, 1 000 local inhabitants would be displaced, and – most controversially of all – 160 Himba graves and 95 cultural sites would be inundated. In addition, it has been calculated that the Epupa dam would flood 1,2 million tonnes of biomass – including some 6 000 mature hyphaene palm trees which yield food for the Himba inhabitants in time of drought. Initially, Namibia had hoped that a firm decision on the Epupa site would be taken by mid-1999 so the first phase of development could begin in 2000.