FOR
IMMEDIATE RELEASE: TUESDAY 2 DECEMBER 2008
MEDIA STATEMENT BY MARTHINUS VAN SCHALKWYK,
SOUTH AFRICAN MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL
AFFAIRS AND TOURISM, TUESDAY 2 DECEMBER
2008
The climate negotiations in Poznan are expected
to consolidate the political momentum and
bring greater focus on the road to an agreed
outcome by the end of 2009. The current
negotiating round in Poznan is about gearing
up to conclude negotiations on a binding,
equitable, more effective and inclusive
climate regime by the end of 2009 in Copenhagen.
We envisage six high-level
outcomes in Poznan:
1. In Poznan we will
be moving into full negotiating mode, thereby
laying the basis for serious negotiations
in 2009. To secure a deal at the end of
2009 in Copenhagen, we must outline a clear
process and milestones for both negotiating
tracks under the Bali Roadmap. We should
bring new focus to the negotiations by revising
the text that assembles all the creative
proposals for a strengthened climate regime
up to and beyond 2012. This will narrow
down our negotiating agenda for next year
to the key issues that must be resolved.
2. A Declaration by
the COP President that captures the following
elements in relation to a shared vision:
a) The over-arching
shared vision should guide our efforts under
both the Convention and Kyoto tracks.
b) A shared vision should balance climate
and development and adaptation and mitigation
- a recognition that solving the climate
problem and making the transition to a low
carbon economy will only be possible if
any solution is undertaken with development
priorities at its heart.
c) The guidance provided by the best available
science and most ambitious IPCC scenario
for climate stabilisation.
• For all developed countries this means
a commitment to deep, absolute domestic
emission cuts in the range of 80%-95% below
11000-levels by 2050, underpinned by credible
mid-term targets in the 25%-40% range below
11000-levels by 2020.
• For developing countries, a substantial
deviation below baseline in some regions
by 2020 and all regions by 2050, on the
basis of an equitable burden-sharing paradigm
and binding delivery on the means of implementation
(technology, financing and capacity) by
developed countries
3. The Presidential
Declaration should give a clear political
signal that climate negotiations will intensify
despite the global economic downturn. The
current (temporary) financial crisis will
not be allowed to diminish efforts to deal
with the longer term climate crisis. In
the face of a serious crisis, the world
has now demonstrated that it is possible
to raise significant amounts of money to
meet a common global challenge.
4. Kyoto-ratifying developed
countries should adopt an emission reduction
range of at least 25%-40% below 11000 levels
by 2020. This will give credibility and
enable us to finalise ambitious mid-term
targets for all developed countries within
this range by the end of 2009, in time to
avoid a gap between the 1st and 2nd commitment
periods of the Kyoto Protocol and thus secure
the carbon market. Without such an unambiguous
commitment it will be very difficult to
engage developing countries in a credible
way to make their deviation below baseline
"substantial".
• Japan, Russia, Australia and Canada have
avoided putting their numbers on the table
for too long. They now need to come forward
with credible and ambitious mid-term targets
within the 25% to 40% range for 2020. .
• From the US we expect comparability of
commitments and compliance. We appreciate
President-elect Obama's commitment to restore
America's leadership in international global
warming negotiations. In 2009, we will be
looking to the US to come forward with ambitious
commitments that will keep the world in
the IPCC's most ambitious stabilisation
scenario for 2020.
5. In respect of the
legal form of the agreed outcome in Copenhagen,
we are clear that it should be an "agreed
outcome" that is legally binding and
enforceable, in particular in respect of
the means of implementation.
6. The final obstacles
to make the Adaptation Fund Board operational
in 2009, so that we can move to implementation,
must be removed in Poznan.
Enquiries: Ronel Bester
- +27 83 242 7763
Ministry of Environmental
Affairs and Tourism
For immediate release
+ More
STATEMENT BY THE OFFICE
OF MARTHINUS VAN SCHALKWYK, MINISTER OF
ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS AND TOURISM, ON 3
DECEMBER 2008
APPEALS DECISION AGAINST THE ENVIRONMENTAL
AUTHORISATIONS OF THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
OF THE FOLLOWING TRANSMISSION LINES AND
THEIR ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE FROM THE
PROPOSED MEDUPI POWER STATION (NEAR LEPHALALE):
ONE 400kV LINE TO THE MARANG SUBSTATION
NEAR RUSTENBURG AND TWO 400kV LINES TO THE
DINALEDI SUBSTATION NEAR BRITS
The Minister of Environmental Affairs and
Tourism, Mr Marthinus van Schalkwyk, has
considered the appeals lodged against the
Department's Record of Decision of the proposed
construction of the following transmission
lines and their associated infrastructure
from the proposed Medupi Power Station (near
Lephalale): One 400kV line to the Marang
Substation near Rustenburg and two 400 kV
lines to the Dinaledi Substation near Brits.
After evaluating all the appeals and relevant
information submitted to him, the Minister
has come to a decision, a copy of which
is attached hereto.
1. INTRODUCTION
In terms of section 22 of the Environment
Conservation Act, 1989 (Act 73 of 1989)
(ECA), read with the Environmental Impact
Assessment Regulations published in Government
Notice No. R. 1182 of 5 September 1997,
the Director-General of the Department of
Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT)
on 6 March 2008 and on 27 March 2008, acting
under delegation in terms of section 33,
authorised Eskom to proceed, respectively,
with the construction of the following transmission
lines and their associated infrastructure
from the proposed Medupi Power Station near
Lephalale:
* One 400kV transmission line to the Marang
Substation
near Rustenburg;
* Two 400kV transmission lines to the Dinaledi
Substation
near Brits.
After the authorisations had been issued,
one appeal was lodged against each authorisation
issued by the DEAT.
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 South Africa’s increasing economic growth
rate necessitated an expansion of Eskom’s
generation \ capacity, hence the construction
of the new Medupi Power Station near Lephalale
on the Waterberg Coal Fields was recently
commenced with. On commissioning of the
first generation unit of Medupi during 2010,
it will be essential for the necessary transmission
infrastructure, namely the Medupi-Marang
and the Medupi-Dinaledi lines, to be in
place to evacuate the available power. Construction
of these lines will take approximately two
years to complete. Once completed, the lines
will provide supplementary energy to meet
the growing need in the Brits and Rustenburg
areas.
2.2 These proposed developments will comprise
of the following:
2.2.1 Medupi-Marang transmission line
The Medupi-Marang transmission line consists
of the construction of a 400kV transmission
line of approximately 300km in length from
the Medupi Substation near Lephalale (Limpopo
Province) to the Marang Substation near
Rustenburg (North West Province) as well
as the construction of a 400kV transformer
bay at the Medupi Substation and a 400kV
feeder bay at the Marang Substation.
2.2.2 Medupi-Dinaledi transmission line
The Medupi-Dinaledi transmission line consists
of the construction of two 400kV transmission
lines of approximately 350km in length between
the Medupi Substation, the Spitskop Substation
near Northam (Limpopo Province) and the
Dinaledi Substation near
Brits (North West Province) as well as the
construction of two 400kV transformer bays
at Medupi Substation, four 400kV feeder
bays and two 400kV line turn innsI at Spitskop
Substation, and two 400kV feeder bays at
Dinaledi Substation.
3. APPEALS
3.1 One appeal was lodged against the environmental
authorisations by the DEAT, against each
of the proposed transmission line projects.
The appeals originated only from the area
between the Medupi Power Station and the
Spitskop Substation near Northam. In this
area the three proposed lines will share
the same corridor with two existing 400kV
transmission lines which originate from
the Matimba Power Station near Lephalale.
3.2 Although the Medupi-Marang line and
the Medupi-
Dinaledi lines are two separate projects
and are the subjects of two individual authorisations
by the DEAT, I decided to deal with the
two appeals jointly for the following reasons:
3.2.1 For the major portion of their lengths
- from Medupi to the existing Spitskop Substation
near Northam - the three lines share the
same corridor;
3.2.2 The appeals originated only from appellants
located between Medupi and Spitskop, in
other words, from that section of the route
where the lines share the same corridor.
No appeals were forthcoming from interested
and affected parties situated in the areas
south of Spitskop towards Marang and Dinaledi;
and
3.2.3 With the exception of one minor item,
the grounds of the appeals against both
authorisations are identical.
3.3 The following emerged as the major grounds
of appeal:
3.3.1 Inadequate public participation in
the sense that the meetings arranged by
Eskom’s consultants were “one way events”
where very little opportunity was given
for discussion of route alternatives;
3.3.2 Technological solutions proposed by
the appellants were inadequately considered;
3.3.3 Insufficient information was provided
to serve as a basis for the decision on
the preferred route option;
3.3.4 The possible implementation of the
“utility corridor” concept was ignored;
3.3.5 Unacceptable impacts on biodiversity
in general and on certain bird species in
particular;
3.3.6 The environmental impact assessments
(EIAs) for these lines should have been
integrated with the EIAs for the 765kV lines
which are planned for construction during
later phases of the provision of infrastructure
for the Medupi Power Station; and
3.3.7 The independence of the environmental
consultant is questioned in that the alternative
proposed is a mere confirmation of the route
preferred by Eskom.
4. DECISION
4.1 In reaching my decision on the appeals
against the authorisation of these proposed
transmission lines, I have taken the following
into consideration:
4.1.1 The information contained in the project
files (ref. 12/12/20/793 and 12/12/20/794,
respectively);
4.1.2 The appeals submitted by the two appellants
against the authorisation of the construction
of the transmission lines between the proposed
Medupi Power Station and the existing Marang
and Dinaledi Substations;
4.1.3 The response of the applicant to the
grounds of appeal and the appellants’ reply
thereto;
4.1.4 The comments of the DEAT on the grounds
of appeal, the applicant’s response and
the appellants’ reply;
4.1.5 The urgent need for the establishment
of these 400kV links to ensure the effective
evacuation of power from the Medupi Power
Station on commissioning of its first generation
unit during 2010 to ensure a stable supplementary
supply of electricity to meet the growing
needs in the Brits and Rustenburg areas.
4.2 Having considered the above information,
I have concluded that the Director-General
of the DEAT adequately considered the major
anticipated environmental impacts of the
proposed development and that the decisions
to authorise these proposed developments
were correct. In addition, the mitigation
measures proposed in the environmental impact
report (EIR) and the conditions contained
in the two Records of Decision (RODs) adequately
mitigate the impact of the transmission
lines to acceptable levels.
Therefore, in terms of section 35(4) of
the ECA, I have decided to:
(a) Dismiss the appeals against the environmental
authorisation granted by the Director-General
of the DEAT for these two proposed transmission
line developments; and
(b) Confirm the authorisations issued by
the Director- General of the DEAT on 6 March
2008 for the construction of the Medupi-Marang
400kV transmission line and on 27 March
2008 for the construction of the Medupi-Dinaledi
400kV transmission lines.
4.3 The reasons for my decision, inter alia,
are as follows:
4.3.1 The need for these developments has
been adequately demonstrated.
4.3.2 The grounds of appeal are not, in
my view, sufficient to warrant the setting
aside of the original decision. In justification
of my view I shall briefly discuss each
of the major grounds of appeal below:
(a) The alleged deficiencies in the Public
Participation Programme (PPP).
I am satisfied that the PPP met the requirements
of the EIA Regulations and created sufficient
opportunity to propose and discuss route
options.
(b) Inadequate consideration of proposed
technological solutions.
The appellants’ proposal that high voltage
direct current (HVDC) be considered for
these lines is impractical. I am advised
that the implementation of such technology
over such a relative short distance is not
viable. I also accept the statement in the
EIR that in the detailed planning of the
lines attention will be given, in consultation
with land owners, to the most appropriate
tower structures to be used on specific
terrain types.
(c) Insufficiency of the information provided
for the route selection.
The statement in the appeal that “no factual
and objective evidence were (sic) ever presented
during the
PPP to confirm that the authorised route
is in fact the most optimal route” is unfounded.
I accept the comments submitted to me that
all the reports on the specialist studies
were available for perusal while the draft
scoping report and EIR were made available
for comment to all registered interested
and affected parties (I&APs). The final
route selection decision was based on this
comprehensive base of information.
(d) The “utility corridor” concept could
have been implemented more comprehensively.
By routing the Medupi-Marang and Medupi-Dinaledi
lines between Medupi and Spitskop together
with two existing 400kV lines a utility
corridor will be created with its concomitant
advantages of reduced impact on
biodiversity and facilitation of maintenance.
However, the DEAT has drawn my attention
to the fact that transmission lines are
fire sensitive. Consequently, there is a
limit to the number of lines that can be
included in one such corridor as too many
lines in one
corridor may cause a system collapse when
veld fires occur. Therefore, I accept that
in the implementation of the utility corridor
concept, care should be taken to retain
a balance between the environmental advantage
and risk to the transmission system.
(e) Unacceptable impacts on biodiversity
in general and on certain bird species in
particular.
It is acknowledged in the EIR that the impact
of the lines on biodiversity will be significant,
regardless of whether an eastern or western
alignment is followed. However, the sensitivity
analysis done during the scoping phase of
the EIA indicated that environmental sensitivity
for this development gradually decreases
towards the west.
Additionally, the fact that the lines will
be placed in an existing corridor with existing
400kV lines will soften the impact on vegetation
and no new access or service roads need
to be constructed. Furthermore, the specialist
ornithological studies showed that the impact
on avifauna will be higher should the lines
be constructed along an eastern corridor.
Therefore, although there will be an impact
on the flora and fauna in the area, I am
satisfied that care has been taken to ensure
that a route will be followed which will
cause the least disruption to the ecosystems
that will be traversed.
(f) The EIAs for the
Medupi-Marang and Medupi-Dinaledi lines
should have been integrated with the EIA
for the 765kV transmission lines.
I am aware of the studies undertaken by
Eskom to ensure the effective integration
of the proposed Medupi Power Station into
the national transmission network and concur
that planning in this regard must be integrated
as far as possible. In view thereof, I accept
that the awarding of priority to the planning
and the assessment of the environmental
impact of the Medupi- Marang and Medupi-Dinaledi
lines is determined by the phased commissioning
of the generation units of the Medupi Power
Station and the electricity needs, in the
short term, of the Brits and Rustenburg
areas. Hence, the establishment of the Medupi-Marang
and the Medupi- Dinaledi lines is of a higher
priority than the 765kV transmission lines.
The planning of the former lines can therefore
not be delayed to be integrated with the
planning of the 765kV lines, which will
be needed at a later stage to evacuate power
to the Epsilon Substation near Potchefstroom.
(g) The independence of Eskom’s environmental
assessment practitioner (EAP) is questioned.
I am advised and accept that the independence
of PBA International (SA), Eskom’s EAP,
is above suspicion.
The information contained in the EIR was
independently evaluated and corroborated
by the DEAT and the recommendations made
by the EAP were considered to be well-balanced
and objective. Therefore, I am satisfied
that a well-informed and sound decision
was taken on this development proposal.
(h) Lines along the authorised route will
be longer and will cause more pollution
due to greater power losses I have noted
that due to its increased length (15km),
the power losses from the lines along the
authorised route will cause an increase
of approximately 0,003% in pollution from
the power station and that for the sector
such an increase is regarded as insignificant.
(i) Decisions on the establishment of transmission
infrastructure associated with the Medupi
Power Station are being taken incrementally
The fact that the development of the Medupi-Marang
and Medupi–Dinaledi transmission lines precedes
the planning and the establishment of other
transmission lines in the area and, consequently,
may influence decisions on the routing of
those lines, may be perceived as incremental
decision making. However, the current approach
is dictated by the enormity of the Medupi
Power Station which, due to its extended
construction period, will need transmission
facilities at different intervals.
(j) Undue consideration was given to avoiding
undermined areas I accept the information
provided to me by the DEAT regarding the
consequences of the construction of transmission
lines over undermined areas. Not only does
it place a high degree of risk on such lines
as well as on the integrity of transmission
systems, it also impacts on the operation
of a mine due to restrictions on blasting,
for instanceI.
4.4 The reasons set out above are not exhaustive
and should not be construed as such and
I reserve the right to provide comprehensive
reasons for the decision should this become
necessary.
MARTHINUS VAN SCHALKWYK, MP
MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS AND TOURISM
