|
I was very fortunate to have been involved in the roadshow and baseline study in the Karas, Hardap, Erongo and Kunene Regions of Namibia. This has been a learning undertaking for me. The roadshow was aimed at raising awareness to help launch the Namibian Coastal White Paper development process; at the same time we got a clear indication of coastal stakeholders’ awareness and understanding on ICZM issues. Throughout discussions we had with the stakeholders, I have seen how different Regions identified different issues as central problems to their coastal environment. Quad biking and off road-driving were the critical issues in the Erongo Region. This made me think as what other regions have in mind regarding the management of their immediate coast. I was looking forward to proceed to the Karas and Hardap Region where the coast especially when it comes to administrative centres is very far and most of it is protected (especially in the case of the Hardap Region). I have picked up that the issue of accessibility to resources is a pressing need in the Karas and Hardap Regions. Someone in Karas rightly puts it “Karas is a very rich region that can feeds the entire Namibia, but it people are dire poverty. Where have we gone wrong”? People emphasised equal access and distribution of resources as a vision for their coast. Moving to Kunene Region, the public is satisfied with how their coast is being managed, National Parks all along. But, the main problem still lies in accessibility and sharing of benefits from conservation.
The centrality of these issues in the discussions indicates the need for it to be central concerns which need proper attention in the White Paper.
Now that we are given this opportunity to set out our needs and aspirations or a vision for our coast- to what extent are our grievances about how our coast is being managed now and how we want it to be managed in future going to be compromised. That’s a question that came up in the discussions we had and it requires clearance from all of us. How do we or will we compromise the problems of quad biking, off road-driving, inaccessible to resources, unequal access to resources and a vision of sustainable management of our coast in an equitable manner. A vision that considers the majority, will this be at an expense of the minority? What are the lessons learned in other countries like South Africa who undertook the same process in a few years back?
|
I would suggest that all listers take note of Eskoms moves to
investigate Skulpfontein and Brazil as sites for nuclear power stations.
As these sites are on the Benguela ecosystem all listers should be
involved as any problems down south will have effects further north.......
We must also note that this area is earmarked as a repository for hot
and cool nuclear waste.
best
glenn |
Will be interesting to see who's going to win this one - hopefully not the
'powerful' ones...
[Andy Pienaar, a community representative, said: "I think from here on we
going shut these people out of the community and we are going make every
effort to make sure that they do not erect a power station at Brazil or
Skulpfontein for that matter."
However, Eskom has vowed to engage the community further in this process,
which is expected to be completed in January 2009.]
-----Original Message-----
From: ekogaia [mailto:ekogaia@iafrica.com]
Sent: 18 July 2007 02:11 PM
To: General Discussion
Subject: [DLIST Discuss] nuclear power stations along namaqualand coast
I would suggest that all listers take note of Eskoms moves to investigate
Skulpfontein and Brazil as sites for nuclear power stations.
As these sites are on the Benguela ecosystem all listers should be involved
as any problems down south will have effects further north.......
We must also note that this area is earmarked as a repository for hot and
cool nuclear waste.
best
glenn
[ Disclaimer: Discussion forums are open to everyone. Opinions and
assertions in discussions do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the
DLIST administrators, staff or associated moderators. Any party that does
not agree with the contents of messages are encouraged to make their views
known on the open forum. Messages are moderated only to remove language that
may be offensive to a general audience. ]
Please read our Email Disclaimer:
http://www.novagroup..co.za/legal/Email.pdf |
At the same time there has been rumours about a proposed pilot project for a wind-farm along the Namaqualand coast.....by an overseas company, not sure of nationality - marine and coastal Northern Cape might have more info on this.
Why does government not show their commitment to the increase of developing sustainable energy generating methods as they promised at the conference in Cape Town on that topic earlier this year. They could put their money where their mouths are and rather than building a new nuclear power station, invest the money in a partnership with the company proposing to do a pilot wind-farm.
The energy generated by such a wind-farm (s)could then be relayed to small coastal villages like Alexander Bay, Port Noloth, Hondeklip Bay, Lepelsfontein and Papendorp. It could at least supplement energy from the national grid, or, given the amount of money a nuclear power station costs, could maybe even provide in most of their electricity needs. Some of the money could be used to involve local people in the planning, for training local people in alternative technologies and to raise awareness about climate change.
Or is it easier to just talk about promoting sustainable energy, but in the meantime, lets still build a nuclear power station anyway?
I have always sneered at the "throw yourself in front of the bulldozer" mentality, but I think this time it sounds like an option. I do not want a nuclear power station in Namaqualand. For those who constantly preach the safety of nuclear power stations, this extract from an article on the latest earthquake in Japan: "The hardest hit area appears to have been Kashiwazaki, a city of about 90,000 in the prefecture of Niigata. And while the affects of the earthquake have thus far been disasterous, Japan can count their blessings on one thing - the fact that they narrowly escaped the destruction of a nuclear reactor.
The earthquake caused a fire to start, as well as an explosion, at the Kashiwazaki nuclear plant.
Update: Plant officials have said that water containing some radioactive materials leaked after the quake"
We do not have earthquakes in Namaqualand, but wasn't the plant supposed to designed to take that into account in a country known for earthquakes...? Thanks, but no thanks - I'd rather burn a candle.
|
At the conference it was the Western Cape provincial govt that made this
public commitment to move, rather slowly if you ask me, towards an energy
mix with more renewables. National government and other provinces seem less
interested and DME was forced to admit that they had allocated around R90
million for renewable projects, but some R8billion to coal and nuke plants.
Figures might need checking but that was the sort of difference. Maybe each
province should start pushing and get national to follow.
Patrick D
----- Original Message -----
From: "Malinda Gardiner"
To: "General Discussion"
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 8:23 PM
Subject: Re: [DLIST Discuss] Pertinent issues along our coastal areas
At the same time there has been rumours about a proposed pilot project for a
wind-farm along the Namaqualand coast.....by an overseas company, not sure
of nationality - marine and coastal Northern Cape might have more info on
this.
Why does government not show their commitment to the increase of developing
sustainable energy generating methods as they promised at the conference in
Cape Town on that topic earlier this year. They could put their money where
their mouths are and rather than building a new nuclear power station,
invest the money in a partnership with the company proposing to do a pilot
wind-farm.
The energy generated by such a wind-farm (s)could then be relayed to small
coastal villages like Alexander Bay, Port Noloth, Hondeklip Bay,
Lepelsfontein and Papendorp. It could at least supplement energy from the
national grid, or, given the amount of money a nuclear power station costs,
could maybe even provide in most of their electricity needs. Some of the
money could be used to involve local people in the planning, for training
local people in alternative technologies and to raise awareness about
climate change.
Or is it easier to just talk about promoting sustainable energy, but in the
meantime, lets still build a nuclear power station anyway?
I have always sneered at the "throw yourself in front of the bulldozer"
mentality, but I think this time it sounds like an option. I do not want a
nuclear power station in Namaqualand. For those who constantly preach the
safety of nuclear power stations, this extract from an article on the latest
earthquake in Japan: "The hardest hit area appears to have been
Kashiwazaki, a city of about 90,000 in the prefecture of Niigata. And while
the affects of the earthquake have thus far been disasterous, Japan can
count their blessings on one thing - the fact that they narrowly escaped the
destruction of a nuclear reactor.
The earthquake caused a fire to start, as well as an explosion, at the
Kashiwazaki nuclear plant.
Update: Plant officials have said that water containing some radioactive
materials leaked after the quake"
We do not have earthquakes in Namaqualand, but wasn't the plant supposed to
designed to take that into account in a country known for earthquakes...?
Thanks, but no thanks - I'd rather burn a candle.
|
We certainly seem hell bent on using energy derived from mining activity
rather than the free energy coming from the wind and the sun in abundant
supply. The same as the love affair with big "gas-guzzling" 4x4; petrol
and diesel driven vehicles when the technology is there to at least
start with conservative hybrids (examples include Toyota and Honda).
There is a book called the "seven sisters" about the oil industry that
explains why many governments find it so difficult to follow the
seemingly logical route of supporting and giving tax relief to the
development of sustainable energy production.
|
Hi all
I would just like to go back to the nuclear power station that Eskom
is planning to build between Port Nolloth and Kleinzee.
i was just wondering whether there is a petition form available that
can go around for people to sign who are against the building of this
station, if not,how can we get hold of one. We live in very small
communities and our signatures alone will not be enough. We will
definitely need everybody's help out there. We were thinking of having
a petition form on line and in the different areas..
On 7/18/07, Estelle Fleidl <estellef@novanam.com> wrote:
>
> Will be interesting to see who's going to win this one - hopefully not the
> 'powerful' ones...
>
>
> |
Been out of touch with my computor and now have reels of messages
to browse through, DLIST being one of them!!
In answer to the questions related to the proposed wind farm:-
Savannah Environment and Sustainable Futures ZA were investigating
Proposed Wind Energy Facilities in the Western Cape.
It is an ESKOM Initiative.
A national wind atlas for SA was compiled in conjunction with the
DEPT of Minerals and Energy (DME ) and the CSIR as a part of Eskoms'
Wind research program.
From wind data Eskom has embarked on a site selection process for a
study area on the West Coast North of the Olifants River mouth west
of the N& between the Coast and the towns of Lutzville and
Koekenaap. I have inquired with the Matzikama Municipality if they
have had any feedback since their presentation they gave us the end
of May and to date they have not yet heard from them.
One could further inquire with Shawn Johnston of Sustainable Futures
ZA email: windfarms@mweb.co.za
T - 0833259965 or fax 0865102537 where you could register as an
interested party.
Out of interest this is proposed for the second half of 2008 for the
first installments of the towers. They hope to erect 50 units thats
output is 2MW each. They did point out that the units are of a
relatively small capacity and it would take hundreds of wind turbines
to replace a single thermal unit. currently at 200 - 600 MW.
All food for thought. Their public participation process begins in
August so we shall keep DLIST posted.
I always like the rule of thumb approach, the more informed we are
the more prepared we are.
Regards
Suzanne
Friends of DST
On 18 Jul 2007, at 8:23 PM, Malinda Gardiner wrote: |
Hi all,
it would be great if petitions would help in this process but i fear
they will not carry much weight. The public participation process which
is part of the compulsory EIA process, which is a complex and hard to
track process, especially for communities that lack the resources,
expertise and legal and planning knowledge is the route that we must all
follow for the interim, in order to check out the threat of these
nuclear stations on our coast.
I would suggest that DList provides a really useful tool to share
information on this process. I suggest that for instance members of this
list, who i know include WESSA, share information with this list on the
ins and outs of the public participation process around the EIA for
these proposed experimental nuclear power stations that the powers that
be wish to force upon the communities of this region. It would be useful
to find funding to run workshops to counter the powerful vested
interests of Eskom and the nuclear industry and to properly inform local
residents. Again i believe this list can assist.
I know WESSA (the wildlife and environment society of SA) was compiling
a booklet on how to do this. Is this yet available? What other
expertise, funding is available to reach these often isolated
communities and how do we do it. Perhaps again we could tie it in with
the proposed film roadshow that is promised to roll out in the near future.
I also suggest all other interested organisations join in this process -
it is the future of our land and the land of our children. It would be
far better to have 1000 windmills and 10, 000 solar panels than one of
these experimental nuclear power stations in our midst.
best
glenn ashton.
Isabel Nosipho wrote:
> Hi all
>
> I would just like to go back to the nuclear power station that Eskom
> is planning to build between Port Nolloth and Kleinzee.
>
> i was just wondering whether there is a petition form available that
> can go around for people to sign who are against the building of this
> station, if not,how can we get hold of one. We live in very small
> communities and our signatures alone will not be enough. We will
> definitely need everybody's help out there. We were thinking of having
> a petition form on line and in the different areas..
>
>
>
>
> On 7/18/07, Estelle Fleidl <estellef@novanam.com> wrote:
>
>> Will be interesting to see who's going to win this one - hopefully not the
>> 'powerful' ones...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> [ Disclaimer: Discussion forums are open to everyone. Opinions and assertions in discussions do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the DLIST administrators, staff or associated moderators. Any party that does not agree with the contents of messages are encouraged to make their views known on the open forum. Messages are moderated only to remove language that may be offensive to a general audience. ]
>
> |
I speak with a private hat as well as a public offical's hat by contributing
the following. The "commitment from government" is not the issue why
renewable energy projects are not being implemented. The answer crystalises
when you examine the legal compliance and other onerous and restrictive
requirements in terms of the public finance management acts (Municipal
Finance Management Act, Public Finance Management Act) as well as the
Municipal Systems Act, and combine that with the severe lack of capacity at
local government level.
What is needed is a healthy dose of revision of the statutes by the
government to focus on "implementation" rather than just compliance. This
is an issue which frustrates municipalities enormously (even the metros) -
it takes a minimum of between 2 and 3 years to get a council approval to
spend funds that in many instances are not even council funds. CDM projects
are a very good example of this
It is an enormously complex and bureaucratic way of getting things done. It
requires serious lobbying by all groups who are in a position to do so to
get the statutes changed for the better. The amount of non-government
funding available is staggering, but we cannot unlock the vault quick enough
and potential investors that could boost the economy (job creation, etc)
walk away from these projects due to the same perception as is expressed in
this discussion.
Barry Coetzee
-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Dowling [mailto:patrick@wessa.wcape.school.za]
Sent: 19 July 2007 11:32
To: General Discussion
Subject: Re: [DLIST Discuss] Pertinent issues along our coastal areas
At the conference it was the Western Cape provincial govt that made this
public commitment to move, rather slowly if you ask me, towards an energy
mix with more renewables. National government and other provinces seem less
interested and DME was forced to admit that they had allocated around R90
million for renewable projects, but some R8billion to coal and nuke plants.
Figures might need checking but that was the sort of difference. Maybe each
province should start pushing and get national to follow.
Patrick D
----- Original Message -----
From: "Malinda Gardiner"
To: "General Discussion"
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 8:23 PM
Subject: Re: [DLIST Discuss] Pertinent issues along our coastal areas
At the same time there has been rumours about a proposed pilot project for a
wind-farm along the Namaqualand coast.....by an overseas company, not sure
of nationality - marine and coastal Northern Cape might have more info on
this.
Why does government not show their commitment to the increase of developing
sustainable energy generating methods as they promised at the conference in
Cape Town on that topic earlier this year. They could put their money where
their mouths are and rather than building a new nuclear power station,
invest the money in a partnership with the company proposing to do a pilot
wind-farm.
The energy generated by such a wind-farm (s)could then be relayed to small
coastal villages like Alexander Bay, Port Noloth, Hondeklip Bay,
Lepelsfontein and Papendorp. It could at least supplement energy from the
national grid, or, given the amount of money a nuclear power station costs,
could maybe even provide in most of their electricity needs. Some of the
money could be used to involve local people in the planning, for training
local people in alternative technologies and to raise awareness about
climate change.
Or is it easier to just talk about promoting sustainable energy, but in the
meantime, lets still build a nuclear power station anyway?
I have always sneered at the "throw yourself in front of the bulldozer"
mentality, but I think this time it sounds like an option. I do not want a
nuclear power station in Namaqualand. For those who constantly preach the
safety of nuclear power stations, this extract from an article on the latest
earthquake in Japan: "The hardest hit area appears to have been
Kashiwazaki, a city of about 90,000 in the prefecture of Niigata. And while
the affects of the earthquake have thus far been disasterous, Japan can
count their blessings on one thing - the fact that they narrowly escaped the
destruction of a nuclear reactor.
The earthquake caused a fire to start, as well as an explosion, at the
Kashiwazaki nuclear plant.
Update: Plant officials have said that water containing some radioactive
materials leaked after the quake"
We do not have earthquakes in Namaqualand, but wasn't the plant supposed to
designed to take that into account in a country known for earthquakes...?
Thanks, but no thanks - I'd rather burn a candle.
[ Disclaimer: Discussion forums are open to everyone. Opinions and
assertions in discussions do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the
DLIST administrators, staff or associated moderators. Any party that does
not agree with the contents of messages are encouraged to make their views
known on the open forum. Messages are moderated only to remove language that
may be offensive to a general audience. ] |
Dear friends
For the past month now I have been recieving letters from Acer Africa Enviro
Management Consultants in KzN- inviting me to attend meetings etc., about the EIA for the proposed Power
station and associated infrastructure by ESKOM. I don't have time to go into
it - does anyone want details? Public Meetings in Western Cape: Atlantis 06
August, Milnerton 07 August - Milnerton Golf Club 18h00-21h00. Can anyone
attend?
Charmaine Treherne
National Coordinator
SAFeAGE
PO Box 358
Woodstock, 7915
http://www.safeage.org <http://www.safeage.org>
+21-447-8445
072-450-8229
|
Hi.
Mike Kantey here.
I have a private company registered as an Interested & Affected Party:
a Media & Development Consultancy called "Watercourse cc".
In this capacity I have attended a number of public meetings
(including a recent Key Stakeholder Group meeting in Kimberley) and
advised community members in Port Elizabeth (Thyspunt); Namaqualand
(Schulpfontein & Brazil); Atlantis, Milnerton & Table View (Koeberg);
and Pearly Beach (Bantamsklip).
Each and every site has an active anti-nulcear lobby, therefore, which
is loosely affiliated to each other through an informal anti-nuclear
network.
It will thus not take much effort to inform an umbrella Coalition
Against Nuclear Nightmares and Environmental Destruction (CANNED),
with one rep from each threatened area (including Pelindaba and
Vaalputs, as well as the major port of Durban).
All other individuals nation-wide must then simply join forces with
their nearest allies and plan their own campaigns at the local level.
Of course, petitions will help -- especially if they run into the tens
of thousands.
But you can also write letters to your local Councillors, Provincial
Legislators, Members of Parliament and local newspa[ers, regional
newspapers, national newspapers and magazines (such as Financial Mail,
Mail & Guardian, and Engineering News).
The best example of a successful National Coalition is the Treatment
Action Campaign (TAC). We need to draw lessons from their methods of
operation.
MIke Kantey
Isabel Nosipho wrote:
> Hi all
>
> I would just like to go back to the nuclear power station that Eskom
> is planning to build between Port Nolloth and Kleinzee.
>
> i was just wondering whether there is a petition form available that
> can go around for people to sign who are against the building of this
> station, if not,how can we get hold of one. We live in very small
> communities and our signatures alone will not be enough. We will
> definitely need everybody's help out there. We were thinking of having
> a petition form on line and in the different areas..
|
Hi
I just thought I would report on meeting Minister Martinus Van
Schalkwyk and Minister Tsaneen Essop.
There was a meeting held at Elands Bay whereby the Minister was
invited to see all the sites for proposed developments as well as all
the controversy surrounding Baboon Point where archaeologists have
been trying for decades to have it declared a National Heritage Site,
in fact Jeanette Deacon sees the Cave in the same light
as Sterkfontein Caves, where artifacts date back thousands of years
ago. There has been a push for luxurious housing on that point.
In light of all this I thought everyone would be pleased to know
that in The Integrated Coastal Management Bill an Act will be passed
in September that
1. No resident houses will be allowed to be built with 100 metres
from the high water mark
2. No Developments will be allowed within 1 000 metres from the high
waterMark. If Developments are wanting to do that there will have
to be at least 2 independent EIA's done separately from the Developers.
They flew up by helicopter and saw vehicles on the Beach between
Dwarskersbos and Elands Bay.
Let me tell you the Minister was scathing in his attack of ORV's and
wanted a detailed report from MCM how many fines have been given to
vehicles from Velddrift to the Olifants River Mouth in the last 6
months, he wants stricter control more fines more confiscating of ORV
if that is what it takes to get the message across.
The other point of interest, like all things in Government and
proposals for Developments, as Civil Society, NGO's we need to follow
the protocol GET INVOLVED
registrar as I and AP. One cannot complain only after the process
has been already rolled out. He feels we all need to be more active
from the conception of Development Proposals.
My contention there was there is not enough transparency and a lot
of the times one is only exposed to developments when they (the
developers, Municipality) inform the public, and then most of the
structures are already in place.
In the future Sustainable Developments that involve the community or
where they will benefit directly, will be given preference.
So once again thank goodness for sites like DLIST, do lets keep
information flowing and continue to help and inform each other where
we can.
This is a great site.
Regards
Suzanne
Friends of Die Swart Tobie
> |
|
|
|
