Report for the Stakeholders’ Consultative meeting on the Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) for the Proposed Lake Natron Soda Ash Extraction Project by Lake

Natron Resources Ltd

Workshop held at the Dar es Salaam International Conference Centre, Tanzania on 12th July 2007

Prepared by:

Peter OdhiamboKen Mwathe &

Ole Petenya Yusuf-Shani

9th AUGUST 2007

2

1. Background

This report represents the outcome of deliberations and discussions of a stakeholders; consultative meeting convened by Norconsult Tz to discuss an EIA Report on the proposed Soda Ash Extraction plant on Lake Natron by Lake Resources Ltd.

Lake Natron is a soda lake situated at the bottom of the Rift Valley basin at an elevation of around 600 masl and located in the Northern part of Tanzania, at latitude 2o 20’ South, and longitude 36o 10’ East. The Northern shore touches the territorial boundary with Kenya. The Lake Natron falls in Arusha Region of the Republic of Tanzania and is shared by Monduli and Ngorongoro districts; adjoins the world famous Serengeti National Park and falls within the Lake Natron Controlled Game Area. The nearest town in Tanzania is Arusha which lies 220 km away.

Lake Natron neighbours the Magadi division in Kenya, which is the northern-most part of Kajiado District, Rift Valley province. The nearest major town is Magadi, which sprang out of the soda ash extraction activities by from Lake Magadi by Magadi Soda Company since 1924. The area is occupied by the Maasai community who own land in a communal tenure setting under the group ranch system. There are four group ranches; Shompole, Olkiramatian, Ol Donyonyokie and Olkeri. The area can be accessed from Nairobi via a tar road up to Magadi town. The rest of the distance is earth road.

In February 2007, it came to the attention of a number of conservation organizations that Lake Natron Resources Ltd is proposing to establish a soda ash extraction plan and other related works in the Lake Natron area in Tanzania. The proposed development covers the establishment of a Soda Ash extraction and processing plant and associated infrastructure at Lake Natron.

This proposed development will involve; Extraction of trona and brine from Lake Natron Removal of Soda Ash from the brine and return of the bitterns to the lake body Transportation of product to market

Norconsult (TZ) was contracted to undertake the ESIA exercise for the project. Through a Kenyan counterpart, Norken Ltd, a scoping exercise was undertaken in Kenya in February 2007 with the understanding that the next step would be the drafting of the Terms of Reference for a detailed EIA. These would form the basis for a comprehensive EIA Study. However, it became apparent to Kenyan stakeholders that the EIA exercise was not going to take place after all.

Kenya institutions concerned about the development came together to network and share ideas on how to respond to the proposal. The grouping brought together environmental, conservation, development and interested organizations. Initially the group consisted of Kenyan institutions only but the group has grown to 19 institutions from Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania and Ethiopia as shown below:

3

1. East African Wildlife Society (EAWLS) 2. African Conservation Centre (ACC)3. Nature Kenya4. Youth For Conservation, 5. South Rift Association of Landowners (SORALO),6. Kenya Wetlands Forum (KWF)7. Centre for Minority Rights for Development (CEMIRIDE), 8. Kenya Community based Tourism Network (KECOBAT), 9. Environmental Liaison Centre International (ELCI), 10. Centre for Education and Research in Environmental Law(CREEL) 11. Wildlife Clubs of Kenya (WCK)12. Ethiopia Wildlife Natural History Society (EWNHS)13. Born Free Foundation14. Uganda Wildlife Society15. Nature Uganda16. Lawyers Environmental Action Team (LEAT), Tanzania17. Forum for Environment (Ethiopia)18. Birdlife Africa Partnership Secretariat19. Horn of Africa - Regional Environment Centre/Network, University of Addis Ababa

Information filtering in to the Lake Natron Consultative Group (LNCG), was that in effect that an EIA had actuallybeen done on the Tanzanian side, and that plans were already underway to hold a workshop to discuss the EIA report. Enquiries on the true status of the EIA to Norken Ltd were subsequently directed to Norconsult in Dar es Salaam.

Through persistence and constant vigilance, the LNCG got to know the details of the proposed EIA workshop including the venue and date for the meeting. We managed to get invitations for a few of our members. This meeting took place on the 12th of July 2007 at the Dar es Salaam International Conference Centre. The LNCG was represented by Messrs Peter Odhiambo (EAWLS/KWF) and Yusuf ole Petenya (ACC/SORALO).

This report summarises the discussions at the meeting. Annex 1 is a report circulated by Norconsult after the workshop. Annex 2 is the response of Lake Natron Consultative Group to the ESIA that was Norconsult on 27th

August 2007

4

2. The meeting

The conveners gave the following as the main objectives of the meeting; To give information to the project Present summary findings of the ESIA Study Receive comments/input from the participants on the summary findings

In the morning session, Norconsult gave a presentation of the proposed project and presented summary findings of the Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) document. In the afternoon, the participants were given a chance to react to the presentation. The details of the meting deliberations are contained in the annexed minutes of the deliberations.

The meeting brought together about 30 representatives of various organizations and institutions ranging from the Tanzanian government, regional and international NGOs, institutions of higher learning and the project proponents. Specifically, the following institutions were represented;

Tanzanian Wildlife Research Institute National Environment Management Council – TZ TWC Ministry of Water TAWICO Tanzanian Bird Atlas Ramsar Secretariat WCST Wildlife Division-TZ

WWF-EARPO IUCN-TZ LEAT National Development Corp TATA Chemicals EAWLS KWF EAWLS LNCG

The proceedings were divided into two main sections; Brief presentation on the ESIA Process Presentation of Summary findings of the EISA

Brief presentation on the ESIA ProcessThe consultants informed the meeting that the EIA consultations were done at 3 three levels

Project proponent and governmental level National and international NGOs, transboundary, tourism and business Community, CBOs, resource users and CSO

Methods used to collect information included literature review, field observations, focused group discussions, consultative meetings and workshops.

In the discussions, issues were raised on the transboundary consultations. Reps from Kenya noted this was very limited and inadequate. In the meeting, again there were no representations from the community groups.

Presentation of Summary findingsThe consultants presented a summary of the findings, a copy of which was available to all the participants. There was no full EIA report.

The summary was sectioned into; ESIA scope

5

Location of Lake Natron Project rationale Project description Project setting Identification of impacts Environmental and social management and monitoring framework Inter-agency and public/NGO involvement Summary and conclusions and EIA Statement

During this session, the participants raised a number of issues (details contained in the annexed minutes) regarding the findings. Some key highlights;

The rationale for the project is based on based on three factors – glass automobile segment demands, detergent segment and chemical segment. There is no mention of the relationship of the project to development priorities in TZ.

In the words of the TATA Chemicals rep, there is no indication of justifiable reasons for exploring soda ash in Natron, when the Magadi resources is sufficient to supply needs for the next 50 years and beyond

No due recognition of the Lake Natron as a Ramsar Site Relegation of transboundary issues, in the findings Significant impacts were identified areas, but with very weak mitigation measures;

o Changes water quality due to soda ash extraction and increase in fresh watero High disturbance o Reduction in available water o Threats to the ecological character of Lake Natron, thus affecting its international stature

All in all, it was evident from the presentation that vital information gaps especially in regards to hydrological data, technology to be used, transport infrastructure and transboundary issues.

3. Conclusions

From the presentations and deliberations, the following important conclusions can be made;

It emerged that the document presented was not an ESIA Report since it was lacking in critical details such as project alternatives and mitigation measures for the identified impacts. The proponent accepted that Flamingos were going to be affected significantly but they did not provide any mitigation measures except stating that nesting areas would be avoided. Other details such as hydrological data (which is critical in a water scarce area like Natron) were missing. In addition, issues such as land tenure system in the project site and the mode of transporting the end product were not articulated. The transport mode would depend on decisions to be made by the government of TZ hence providing a blank cheque for this activity.

It became clear that the process of the ESIA was not consultative since it ignored inputs from outside the republic of TZ. The fact that international conventions were not considered was noted. Moreover, that the existing protocols for EIA and Strategic Environmental Assessment under the East African Community were ignored was a major omission – Norconsult, the EIA consultants for Tata Chemicals were not even aware of these protocols!

The fact that there is no management plan (MP) for the Ramsar site was highlighted. The TZ government officials could not confirm the stage of MP preparation process. It was clear that this project was being proposed in the absence of a guiding framework; a management plan. This contravenes the Ramsar Convention of which

6

TZ is a signatory. Also, the Government of Tanzania did not inform the Ramsar Secretariat about the soda ash plant proposal.

At the end of the workshop, the participants insisted that a more comprehensive consultative process must be undertaken; inviting the concerned and interested institutions to a workshop but an open debate and dialogue over issues must be facilitated. Information must be fully disclosed and all the necessary data provided.However, a management plan for the Ramsar site must first be developed.

Norconsult indicated willingness to consult more stakeholders but also expressed urgency in terms of meeting certain deadlines imposed by the proponent – the document is still open for comments until 27th July. However, it is not clear what they will do with it after 27th.

7

Annex 1

Minutes of the meeting conducted to share information on the findings of the Environmental Social Impact Assessment for the Proposed Development of a Soda Ash Facility at Lake Natron, TanzaniaMeeting venue – Dar es Salaam Conference CentreDate – 12th July 2007

Presentation of the ProjectNorconsult representatives (D. Parry and F. Ismail) gave a brief presentation on the background to the project, baseline information gathered, summary of the impacts and proposed mitigations and environmental and social management plan, ending with the EIS. The presentation was divided into sections with allowance for participants to seek clarification at the end of each section.

1. Project Description

Query from Flamingo Specialist group; Dr Brooks ChildressThe power requirements are not clearly defined, from the description it appears the project appears to have large electricity requirements and both diesel and grid power. Are both to be used for pumping?

Response: NorconsultThe plant requires most of the power and that will be generated by coal on site. Initially the design was to have a diesel operated plant for pumping the brine but has been advised against and the preference is to use coal or grid power.

Response: TCLThe diesel pumps as proposed were to be used for pumping water, at this stage of the design it is not clear whether the diesel pumps or the power plant will be used for pumping the brine this will depend on the outcome of the ESIA.

Flamingo Specialist group; Dr Brooks ChildressWhich power option would be less noisy and thus provide the least disturbance?

Response: TCLPumps using grid power will be less expensive.

Query: Tanzania Bird Atlas; Mr Neil BakerWhat is the size of the resource, for how many years will the soda ash facility be in operation?

Response: TCLThe quantification of the resource is yet to be determined but the initial figures suggest that the facility can run for at least 50 years.

Query: Tanzania Bird Atlas; Mr Neil BakerThe Lake Magadi soda ash facility in Kenya has been in operation for 100 years is the resource there depleting such that you are now looking at developing a new plant at Lake Natron? If the resource there meets your market demands why open up another plant at Natron?

Response: NDC1. The current world demand of soda ash outstrips the current production;2. Lake Natron soda deposit is a Tanzanian resource and we are looking for opportunities to explore it.

8

Tanzania Bird Atlas; Mr Neil BakerIf the resource is big enough to meet requirements then why look in Tanzania?

TATA Chemicals LtdStated he is not in a position to respond to that query and would forward the matter to management.

Query: IRA UDSM; Dr H. SosoveleAt which stage are we building the document?

Response: NorconsultWe are in the final process of input prior to submission to NEMC.

Query: IRA UDSM; Dr H. SosoveleIt is important to see the TOR so that we know what questions to ask as we are not sure what the Consultants were tasked to achieve.

Response: NorconsultNEMC has the TOR which should be available to stakeholders; we have done a comprehensive EIA and worked through the process from registration. From this sitting we would like feedback on what you think based on what we have found.

Query: African Conservation Centre; Mr Petenya YusufWhat is the land tenure system, is it government owned? We need clarification in this presentation.

Response: NorconsultLand tenure in the project area is based on the Village Land Act and inheritance laws. Tanzania is in the process of surveying all its villages and this will give each village a land title deed.

Query: Tanzania Bird Atlas; Mr Neil BakerOn site is there freshwater or is there a need to abstract from the rivers coming into the lake?Response: NorconsultFresh water is an issue and a concern. The assumption in the EIA is that the water will come from the eastern site.

Query: TAWIRI; Mr Thade ClamsenSulphuric acid is one of the waste products mentioned that will be going back into the lake, how will this affect the ecosystem?

NorconsultOnly the depleted brine will go back into the lake; sulphuric acid is not one of the waste products that will be channelled back into the lake.

2. ESIA Background and Findings

Query: LEAT; Mr RugemelezaLand ownership is a main concern, who owns the land in that area? Being a game reserve is does not automatically mean that the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism or Wildlife Division owns the area and if that is the case what are the legal arrangements and how many villages surround the area?

Response: Norconsult

9

The proposed project area is located within three villages of Magadi, Pinyinyi and Engare sero that operate under the Village Land Act/ Customary law. These villages are yet to be surveyed.

Query: LEAT; Mr RugemelezaHow have these villages been involved in the ESIA process as it has been the experience that their concerns are not fully represented during these processes?

Response: TANROADS; Mr S. M. MgetaLand in most areas of Tanzania is customarily owned.

Response: NorconsultIn Tanzania we have several land tenure systems, 1) Hereditary; 2) Village government land; 3) Commercial purchase. When land has not yet been surveyed it is generally under traditional ownership through inheritance and/ or under management of the village authority. The Masaai are pastoralists who move around a lot and according to their customs and agreements at any one time the land is available to anyone who needs to graze their cattle or utilise it for non permanent cause.

Query: LEAT; Mr RugemelezaCustomary land rights system is when you have general land then you have government and then the villages own the land under customary law so the villagers have the final say over the land. What is the kind of interaction between the proponent and the villagers and interested to know the villages that have been represented at this workshop.

Response: NorconsultThe first workshop was held at Monduli with the ward, district authorities and the villagers themselves, a report in Swahili on the workshop was then compiled and this has been sent to them and a number of representatives were invited to this workshop but unfortunately they have been unable to attend.

Query: RAMSAR Convention Secretariat; Mr Paul MafabiWhat is the legal status of the Ramsar site in Lake Natron?

Response: NorconsultOnly the management authority of Lake Natron has changed but not the land tenure.

Query: RAMSAR Convention Secretariat; Mr Paul MafabiSo its status is just on paper and has no legal bearing?

Response: Wildlife Division; Mr M. KaitaLake Natron being a Ramsar site does not change its status or the land tenure; all activities are allowed to continue as long as it follows the wise use of the land. Under Tanzania law it is not a protected land.

Comment: NorconsultThe government is currently carrying out surveys in all the villages in Tanzania and as it is customary law managing the land therefore the village has authority to allocate the land to whoever needs it.

Comment: WCST; Mr. Lota MelamariIn addition, as a Ramsar site, the designated land would require a management plan which will define the activities that take place, it does not revoke but allows well planned/ordered activities.

Query: NorconsultIs there a management plan? We could ask Wildlife Division in terms of the status of the Management plan.

10

Response: Wildlife Division; Mr M. KaitaFunds have been set aside to manage activities; the process has to go through the tendering system for procurement of a consultant following which a plan will be drafted.

Query: LEAT; Mr RugemelezaAre we saying the project will take place in the absence of a management plan, how will the project fit into the plan? One would assume the villages would be involved.

Response: TANROADS; Mr S. M. MgetaWe should borrow the idea from Wildlife department, Ramsar allows the wise use of land and we shouldn’t wait for the management plans we know what wise use is and we should adhere to that.

Comment: IRA UDSM; Dr H. SosoveleThis forum has no mandate to wait or proceed without management plan however the point can be raised that the Ramsar site needs to have a management plan.

Query: Tanzania Bird Atlas; Mr Neil BakerWithin a thirty to forty year period there will be human demographic change which will result in conflict over the resources such as water and land for agriculture. What has been observed for the area in the ESIA?

Response: NorconsultIt has been noted for the villages of Engaruka, Selela and Engare Sero there has been an increase in population but in Pinyinyi and Wosi Wosi there has been no or low increase. There was no census data available and the apparent increase may be due to agriculture

Query: Tanzania Bird Atlas; Mr Neil BakerWhy not move the site out to Longido which will have no impact on the Ramsar site?

Query: WCST; Mr L. MelamariDid you get any information from TGT on wildlife species extracted from the area on other animals apart from those mentioned such as the Oryx?

Response: NorconsultWe did receive data from TGT and have some information on animals not mentioned but not much so would be grateful for any additional data available.

TGT; Ms K. LinnegarWe can provide information which the wildlife division should also have. The oryx is a hard animal to survey and hope to gather more information

Comment: Tanzania Bird Atlas; Mr Neil BakerFlamingo life span is 16-25 years and might not breed for 5-6 years and a few times after that, hopes TCL will allow for continuous monitoring.

Comment: NorconsultAgree that monitoring is a crucial concern.

Comment: NEMC; Mr F. Rugiga

11

A lot more activities are happening now that we need to find out or assess if the existing development has already affected the breeding of flamingo and whether the number of flamingos has decreased

Comment: Tanzania Bird Atlas; Mr Neil BakerFlamingoes have bred at Magadi which has been mined for the last 100 years. We know this because the anklets have been found there but we are not sure it was successful breeding but we also can not say that this was/ is due to the presence of a factory.Comment: TANROADSThere are a lot activities going in the area, so it is better to have the assessment for the time being.

Clarification: NorconsultThere are no activities at the selected site a present but within the basin there are a number of developments.

Comment: WCST; Mr L. MelamariFrom what you have presented water and agriculture may have an impact, and the dynamics are not well known.

Clarification: Tanzania Bird Atlas; Mr Neil BakerThe fresh water springs that support the Flamingo are not used for agriculture and breeding of flamingos is related to rainfall and not water from rivers.

Query: Flamingo Specialist group; Dr Brooks ChildressHas anyone measured the water flow into the proposed site?

Response: NorconsultA hydrological study is being carried out, some monitoring gauges were been put on Pinyinyi, this information is with TCL as part of a separate study. So information on what was registered as peak flows for the time assessed can be accessed.

Query: Flamingo Specialist group; Dr Brooks ChildressIs this information going to be included in the ESIA?

Response: NorconsultIt is our assumption that there will be no impacts on the flows into the Lake from the project. The assessment was to establish availability of fresh water for the plant and this is very low.

Query: Flamingo Specialist group; Dr Brooks ChildressHas a model been designed to reflect what the extraction would imply in terms of the effect on the environment?

Response: NorconsultNot yet but information from previous reports was used

Query: Tanzania Bird Atlas; Mr Neil BakerHow far away from the lakeshore is the facility to be located?

Response: NorconsultRight at the shore.

Query: Tanzania Bird Atlas; Mr Neil BakerWhy?

12

Response: NorconsultThis is due to gravity; some plants have evaporation basins/ponds. But it can be moved 3-4 kms away from the shore.Response: TCL LtdTechnically it is possible to move the plant away from the shore.

Comment: IRA UDSM; Dr H. SosoveleHe has raised an important point; you may have to consider the location of the plant in your proposal if the site will not be at the shore what would be the impacts do they remain the same?

Query: Flamingo Specialist group; Dr Brooks ChildressWhere will you get fresh water to run the process?

Response: NorconsultGroundwater is being considered an option; water is not available on the western side unless a reservoir is put in. We were told there was a plan to construct a hydro power dam on in Pinyinyi so there would have to be some connection. However this is still all theoretical.

Query: Flamingo Specialist group; Dr Brooks ChildressWhat about in the dry season?

Response: NorconsultAt present the assumption is to use surface flow from eastern side during the rainy season, but this is not very optimistic. However the soda ash plant can work on sub-standard water so water quality is not as serious an issue as quantity is.

Query: ACCHow many rivers are there in Pinyinyi area, what is the capacity, would people around the area lose their activities?

Response: NorconsultFrom our study we see no spare water, there only 3-4 months of perennial rains

Query: Tanzania Bird Atlas; Mr Neil BakerExtracting brine will lay a network of pipes across the surface of water like a web and will this be in place or move from side to side?

TCLThe hydro-geological & resource survey are ongoing, then we will know what our options will be.

Comment: Tanzania Bird Atlas; Mr Neil BakerAll those scenarios have happened on other sites, how is it done in Botswana?

NorconsultIn Botswana it is a network of pipes on the surface of the water.

Comment: Tanzania Bird Atlas; Mr Neil BakerThe area is then completely off limits to flamingos!

Comment: WWF; Mr F. MarikiIn absence of critical information don’t you think the proposal is premature?

13

NorconsultProject has to start somewhere.

Comment: IRA UDSM; Dr H. SosoveleThis information is provisional and the conclusion is based what could change due to the final information waited from the hydrogeological study. This is important as this EIA is what is going to government to make an informed decision but what the actual activities would entail are not established.

Response: NorconsultThis EIA is assessed on the project information as provided by TCL and following the process given by NEMC.

Comment: East African Wildlife Society; Mr. H. BechaTo effectively contribute to the assessment is to collect data that will enable decision makes approve the project or not. This looks like an environmental evaluation and not an ESIA which is to assist in final decision making, as the alternatives are not clearly outlined.

Response: NorconsultWe have looked at a series of alternatives during scoping and this is the impact assessment of the selected alternative.

Query: WWF; Mr F. MarikiAre you mandated to choose selection? I thought you provided us with all options so that we can provide input into the process?

Response: NorconsultWe are presenting issues affecting the area that we conducted the ESIA and presenting what we found and which will be presented in the submission to NEMC.

Query: Flamingo Specialist group; Dr Brooks ChildressAre you having difficulties conducting the assessment as TCL keep changing the plans?

Response: NorconsultEIA and engineering if impacts change and the best approach is to build mitigation

Comment: Flamingo Specialist group; Dr Brooks ChildressBetter if the plan was clearer at the start, it would have been more helpful. This doesn’t describe what the project is.

Comment: ACC Kenya Wetland Forum– Mr. P. OdhiamboWe should be dealing with specific and real things, how effective will my input be without comprehensive assessment so that we know what the project is going to be so that we can propose options.

Response: NorconsultOptions that are part of the mitigations are for example despite the current plan to upgrade the road from Mto wa Mbu, there is only a track from this road that would allow access to the site on the Eastern shore and we are proposing that access should not be on eastern coast of the Lake because of the impact but to go either round Gelai or approach the site from Longido and not Mto wa Mbu but the technicalities of that have to be assessed.

Query: WCST; Mr L. MelamariThe road from Mto wa Mbu is still being discussed, and is not public so we can not assume it will be upgraded.

Response: TANROADS; Mr S. M. Mgeta

14

The road is under feasibility study and the draft preliminary design study has been submitted together with the ESIA to TANROADS.

Query: TGT; Ms K. LinnegacIs there an EIS?

Comment: East African Wildlife Society; Mr. H. BechaYou have done an assessment but not an assessment on the institutional capacity of the proponent to monitor the environment and if he doesn’t where will he get capacity and if he doesn’t and what are the consequences?

Response: NorconsultWhether the proponent has the capacity is critical to the project. At present we are assuming and advising that LNRL will assume the same co-operate responsibility in implementation of the EMP as what TCL which is an ISO certified company advocates.

Query: LEAT; Mr RugemelezaHow many pieces of legislatives were reviewed in this assignment? What are the benefits to sharing proposed facility with the village government and to the district? Village governments are empowered to come together to manage resources, do not see legal component in this document (draft executive summary). What is being proposed to ensure that the villages benefit? It is a violation of one’s rights if Tanzanians are restricted from going anywhere and also there are economic restrictions.

Response: NorconsultLNRL has been formed for this project and if it goes ahead then they will adopt TCL’s corporate responsibility policy. NDC as a government body has a social responsibility. Work in the soda ash facility is a specialised field and Masaai may not have the necessary skills but they should be given priority instead of hiring people outside the village to do non-specialised work

Query: TWC/ACCInterested to know how the proponent related to other communities in other areas where they have factories?

Comment: NorconsultThe main problem is accessibility, together we have approached the villages and if it goes ahead we will work together with the villages, the districts have a set mechanism and it is best to work with an existing system rather than establishing a new one.

Query: ACC; Mr Petenya YusufHow much consideration has been given to mitigation of potential impacts and their impact into Kenya?

Response: NorconsultThe only impact appears to be the bird issue none of the other impacts cross into Kenya.

Comment: Tanzania Bird Atlas; Mr Neil BakerAnd those impacts are related to economics and biodiversity threats pertinent to both countries.

Comment: African Conservation Centre; Mr Petenya YusufAn MSc has been done on wetland flamingo at Lake Natron and their impact on tourism incomes. Do you have data on the value of these birds to tourism?

15

Response: NorconsultUnfortunately we were not able to access data directly related to the Flamingoes and tourism and what we have is generated from the tourist facilities around the Lake. Data from this thesis is requested or a contact of the author.

Comment: TANROADS; Mr S. M. MgetaIt is specific areas and not all the Lake, according to the ESIA the flamingos are breeding in the South side and the location for the site is away from the breeding sensitive areas.

Comment: NorconsultIn addition buffers around the breeding areas have been included.

Comment: MoW; Eng. E. NkiniAbstraction of water from the lake is different from the river, whereby the abstraction point may affect the ecology of the lake.

3. EISQuery: Flamingo Specialist group; Dr Brooks ChildressHave you accessed information, such as scientific ecosystem research?

Response: NorconsultThere is a long list of references that we went through but there was no information on the basin issues. A lot of information was on flamingos, archaeological and geographical on the western side of Lake Natron.

Comment: IRA UDSM; Dr H. SosoveleIt is curious that there is no data on cumulative impact so there is limited knowledge on the parameters. Again the conclusion to link the environmental monitoring and the project operation is wanting. How can we come to a conclusion on limited information, wouldn’t it be appropriate to suggest data collection especially on the unknown? We need to get further information and on monitoring.

Query: IUCN Tz; Dr. A.S. IssaHave you done assessment of the cost of mitigation and how it will be built into the cost of the project?

Response: NorconsultWe have done the construction cost estimates it is assumed that the administration mitigation measures will be in place before the project goes ahead like the EMP.

Question and Answer Session

Comment: East African Wildlife Society; Mr H. BechaAs an NGO/Civil Society we are not against projects for development we just want procedures to be followed, no shortcuts, and good governance to make decisions. There appears that there is a lot of Government push is this political project? As a civil society we need to challenge the process as though Lake Natron is a Tanzanian geographical resource but due to its importance it is a trans-boundary resource. And Kenya was only consulted at the scoping stage. We would recommend that the consultants to give the proponent assistance so that Transboundary issues are adequately addressed.

Furthermore, if this is a political project is this meeting supposed to Rubber Stamp the process? And lastly the ESIA should clearly feature benefits at national, Regional and Grass Root levels.

Clarification: RAMSAR Convention Secretariat; Mr Paul Mafabi

16

Ramsar is an intergovernmental treaty signed February 1971. Ramsar is a city in Iran. There are 155 contracting parties including Tanzania, Uganda and Kenya. The main objective is to stem or halt the loss of wetland resources. It is the oldest environmental treaty. The parties have 4 obligations1. Designate wetland that meets criteria2. Promote wise use of wetlands, develop a policy3. Designate wetland reserves and effectively manage the reserves4. Share information especially species and projects that may affect such sites and species

For this meeting issues raised have been taken to the administration authority and the secretariat that deals with this body would like to draw the attention to Article 3.2, and Resolution 8.9. That is why I asked what the legal status of the site is, because once the site is designated it ceases to be a national site and becomes an international one. If you propose and if the area is to reduce it is a long protracted procedure it has to be agreed upon by convention of parties should be tabled before the parties so if what you are doing have should reduce the site it would become a legal case.Wise use through development of the management plan and the EMP will allow certain projects under the obligations of the convention.

A specific comment EIA on alternatives was mentioned but not seen to be important this needs to be brought up for NEMC to make a decision should have information of all options. In the presentation the impacts were based on agreed options.

Comment: Wildlife Division; Mr. KaitaThe comment on wise use should be based under the management plan this is not true you do not stop activities not in the plan from taking place unless it is environmentally not friendly.

Comment: RAMSAR Convention Secretariat; Mr Paul MafabiWhat is proposed is a new activity, when designate the site the impact and activities done are noted but anything new should be within the management plan.

Comment: WCST; Mr L. MelamariNationally important bed areas such as Natron host endangered threaten species and on that basis advice and precaution on any development proposed has to take into account existing management of that area. It is a shared species we are hosting it, the breeding area is of national concern that call for protecting the species.

Comments: African Conservation Centre; Mr Petenya Yusuf1. The issue is Lake Natron is a shared resource as the only breeding site in East Africa and the 3rd globally accounts with 35% of flamingos in the world2. In 1993 the Kenya project to bring hydropower was opposed by Tanzania and the project has been on hold to date. The issue is trans-boundary and so are the impacts. We shared the same concerns and so we agreed now our counterparts have turned around.3. In the presentation one of the benefits stated was Masaai will be employed as guards that is a mindset we want to correct that mindset in Kenya Masasi can only get jobs as guards or casual labourers while other jobs go to other people.4. Issue of compensation, don’t think government will give compensation, the Masaai are not assured. There is the issue of no jobs, no compensation and no business benefit to the Masaai.5. In Kenya we do ecological tourism the majority of the money goes to people mostly investors and outsiders.6. If the project impacts negatively on livestock and tourism that is not good for the people as these are the only activities that are done by these communities.7. There has been no representative from the local Masaai people at this workshop that is not proper representation.8. We have had problems with the environmental audit report from Magadi, it is not accessible so we are not assured that he ESIA for Natron will be accessible.

17

9. We are not against the project but wants proper protocol should be followed

Responses: Norconsult1. This is the second stakeholder meeting of this nature the first one was in Monduli January 2007 and was with District and communities members for three days to deliberate and the social mitigations we presented are an outcome of these deliberations.2. Information and comments from the communities have incorporated into the ESIA.3. The outcome of the Monduli workshop has sent it back to them and though representation was requested and confirmed something happened that we will follow up.4. In addition ESIA regulations require the executive summary to be in both English and Swahili.5. The Tanzanian government has in recent cases compensated resettlement though there have been in the past some concerns, the current practise is acknowledged by many.

Comment: TAWICO; J. WolhuterIt would be more logical to have meeting in Arusha which will solve the problem of in logistics for locals to attend in future.

Comment: Flamingo Specialist group; Dr Brooks ChildressA number of interventions/agreement have already been taken into account under the current wildlife law that would benefit the ESIA as reference to conservation strategies on-going for the Flamingoes.IUCN is completing an action plan on flamingos and migratory species such as the Lesser flamingo species which is in decline and we brought all the experts from south Africa, east Africa, India in a workshop and defined the main issues as loss/degradation of habitats and disruption of breeding areas.The lights and noise from the Mine would disturb both of the above. I think you should show photos, pictures of the structure that you will have.There is also a need to make note of all international obligations your country has in a separate section of the report

NorconsultWe have a legal section in the ESIA but we didn’t put it in this presentation because there was not enough time.

Comment: IRA UDSM; Dr H. SosoveleWe heard that a lot of information is still missing for the EIA to be complete. This information is needed;1. the hydrological data is critical,2. Proper definition of the impact area. Only the Lake Natron area impacts are mentioned in the report but there is reference to the Tanga corridor what about those cumulative impacts?3. Cumulative impact- of the kind of activities on human settlement and the implication of resources such as land, water and energy apart from the industry, the energy of biomass will have major implication on vegetation cover and ecosystem4. Mitigation that is directly related to the impacts that are workable can be measured. Need to be specific so that we can do monitoring5. Weakness of district-should look at the Environmental Act and what NEMC says about who is responsible.6. The issue of waste management from the industry and human settlement should be properly addressed.

Comment: TWC; J. WolhuterThere will be an increase in poaching due to the construction of roads. Poor access is one of the factors that limits poaching this will be aggravated with an upgraded road.

Comment:TANROADS; Mr S. M. Mgeta1. Regarding Ramsar requirements take precaution to study. I think the objective/intention is to make sure all precautionary measures should be taken into consideration and so that all stakeholders can put an input

18

2. Regarding trans-boundary impacts (Ewaso Ngiro Hydropower project); Tanzania rejected the project due to the likely impacts on Lake Natron and not because it was to benefit Kenya. However, this ESIA should address the trans-boundary impacts if they are there3. Conclusion (EIS) should be based on the available data4. Limited data has been provided; it is not realistic to depend on hundred percent of the data needed, the Consultants need to draw conclusions on the data available the ESIA process has to be defined within a time frame. However, the hydrological data should be included in the report5. Indicate how you plan to dispose or return to the lake the mud and waste produced6. TANROADS is designing the road taking into account all development and potential investments in the area and this project are one such development.

Query: Fisheries; Ms M MlolwaRegarding location, have you consulted the Land Act which states that for an urban site 30 -60m have to be left open for fishing activities? Looking at the map of the site the facility seems close to the lake. It is good that the consultants have noted some fish species but wondered on the limited knowledge as the study has to take control of the fish area.

Response: NorconsultLake Natron is not subject to the above as there is no fishing on neither commercial nor domestic scale. If there is no fishing does the 30-60m rule apply?

Response: Fisheries; Ms M MlolwaI will check into that.

Comments: African Conservation Centre; Mr Peter Odhiambo1. We do not consider ourselves opponents to development2. We are interested in the 3 pillars of development, sustainability, environment and the people3. Lake Natron is the only breeding site for East Africa so any interference with Lake Natron will affect the other five Ramsar lakes in Kenya4. We don’t know what impacts building the facility will have5. Economically we have made investment in Lake Nakuru and so have the people living there and are supported by the tourism which is mainly Flamingoes bred in Natron.6. Socially people in the area are dependant on the lake as a source of soda.

Rseponse: NorconsultThe communities will not be affected and the communities supplement their income from sale of the trona/crust.

Comment: IUCN Tz; Dr. A.S. IssaImportant to note that an ESIA is a planning tool that enables decision makers make good decisions. For that matter, we should have a look at the industry vis a vis of non extractive benefits to this area such as the tourism to make adequate information available to decision makers.We should get information from Botswana and Kenya find out the lessons learned and how they have benefited and also the negative impacts and how they have been dealt with. Have any of the team members visited Magadi or Botswana?

Response: NorconsultWe have information from Botswana as one of our team members has worked on a project there. However in Kenya and Botswana the extraction processes are different. In Kenya it is the trona that is extracted while in Botswana it is brine but using a different processing system. The value of tourism is not easily discerned or compared to the extraction industry. In addition, from our assessment the tourism will benefit some from the improved accessibility but there may be lowered value of the wilderness.

19

Comment: NDC1. Would like to assure the participants that there is no political push from the government. NDC is working in collaboration with TCL.2. The decision to develop the project or not is going to be rely on the ESIA3. The studies are ongoing and are not expected to end with the ESIA document4. Assessing and monitoring is also ongoing5. We are also developing the corridor along Tanga -Musoma and Port Bell in Uganda. Development is going to occur. The project started in 1996 and we have been trying to get this going since then.6. As long as an assessment is ongoing, stakeholders feelings will be continually included

Comment: East African Wildlife Society; Mr H. BechaWe are not sure if the consultants have gotten information from the East African community. There are East African resource management guidelines on shared resources not only in terms of biodiversity but in terms of impacts. It would be useful to contact the East Africa Secretariat. Tanzania is part of the global community in sustainability (MKUKUTA) and should not be domesticated what are national, regional, grassroots benefits if any.

Right based approach in the world, how will you mitigate human rights that will be lost so that the document can stand the challenges otherwise the workshop was not engaged

Query: NorconsultOn what protocols, national or regional?

Response: East African Wildlife Society; Mr H. BechaHave a draft, will send a copy.

Comment: TANROADS; Mr S. M. MgetaCannot base this ESIA on guidelines that have not been approved by the East African Community

Comment: NorconsultThe Tanzanian government has informed neighbouring governments about its plans to develop all its shared water bodies. We are not the voice of the government and would recommend that a request can be made from NEMA through NEMC as the proper protocol. However for the transboundary concerns if the Flamingoes are properly mitigated there should be no transboundary issues.

Comment: East African Wildlife Society; Mr H. BechaI want the notion of lake Natron Natron as a Tanzanian to be removed because it doesn’t have underground water but fed by Ewaso Ngiro river so what if Kenya would have constructed a hydropower plant?

Query: Tanzania Bird Atlas; Mr Neil BakerNeed to know if there is freshwater available on site or not? Is there a timeframe for this factory? Is there a project since you have been working on it for 11 years?

Response: NDCThe target is 2010 for it to be operational commercially and presently waiting for the studies to be concluded.

Query: Tanzania Bird Atlas; Mr Neil BakerIf the factory is build away from the lake it won’t affect the flamingos but am concerned about the brine extraction method. Some things haven’t been mentioned like how many trucks will be used of what size? And is it all the way to

20

Arusha? And the speed limits are a concern. Shouldn’t there have been made a decision by now on whether a railway/road link was to be used?

Response: NDC; Mr. MwakibolwaThere is an ongoing logistical study so we hope that the above questions will be answered.

Comment: Tanzania Bird Atlas; Mr Neil BakerThe road will bring people which will bring disturbance on the breeding areas

Comment: NDCIt is important to note all alternatives

Query: Tanzania Bird Atlas; Mr Neil BakerWhy coal? Where will it come from?

Response: NDCCoal may come from the proposed Mchuchuma coal mine, which is being promoted by NDC under the Mtwara Development Corridor in the southern part of Tanzania. Alternatively, coal may come from South Africa or elsewhere. Coal will be off loaded at Tanga port.

Query: Tanzania Bird Atlas; Mr Neil BakerWhy not diesel?

Response:NDCKey is economicsTanzania Bird Atlas; Mr Neil BakerAbout the mitigation issues we can’t focus from the bird point of view, the issues have not been specific.

Comment: IRA UDSM; Dr H. SosoveleWe don’t have enough information it is important for the ESIA to be useful. Is the brine extracted for export?

Response: NDCIt will be used by local industries in Tanzania and the rest exported. From the economies of scale and downstream operations in Tanzania and Kenya, consumption is only 40% of what will be produced

Comment: TANROADS; Mr S. M. MgetaThe developer for the transport is different from the proponent LNRL and can’t influence the decision to construct a road from Mto wa Mbu to Loliondo instead of the rail. There will need to be consultation with the appropriate authority (TANROADS/ SUMATRA) to decide on the access logistics including routing.

Comment: African Conservation Centre; Mr Petenya YusufThe whole debate needs mutual understanding. The issue of ground water is not an option as it is saline

NorconsultCan’t make that decision till the hydrological profile has been completed, also the water for the plant does not need to be 100% fresh.

Comment: TANROADS; Mr S. M. MgetaThere is freshwater in the system.

Comment: NDC

21

The issue is quantity rather than quality.

Query: East African Wildlife Society; Mr H. BechaSupposed the Tanzania Government doesn’t construct the railway and road? The developer is not the decision maker and cannot decide? What happens then is the project abandoned?

Response: TANROADS; Mr S. M. MgetaIf the government will construct railway to Musoma and a road then there will be an impact on Lake Natron, those are the scenarios.

Comment: WCST; Mr L. MelamariWe feel more things are unknown than what we were expecting as participants. We cannot downplay the importance of data and information we need our contribution to be accurate. I would suggest that the consultants as stakeholders need to build their case stronger as we feel we are not adequately informed and can thus only contribute weakly

Comment: NorconsultWe said this is an assessment of the best alternatives based on site selection and access from Mto wa Mbu to the site assuming water on the east side. If this scenario changes then there is need for another study. We could not assess the alignment around Gelai as that is yet to be decided or that from Longido, but what we do know is that the track along the eastern shore should not be used.

Comment: African Conservation Centre; Mr Petenya YusufWe were not properly consulted, not in Kenya (people from Shompole); it was not done the right way.

Response: NorconsultHave received list of participants and minutes from our consultants in Kenya, but will go back and confirm on what exactly was done to achieve these. However, we request that any concerns, issues or information be forwarded to us.

NEMC; Mr F. RugigaThe approval office is the Vice President’s Office. That is not a consultative process. This has been a useful sitting as now the international and local concerns have been aired.

Query: TGT; Ms K. LinnegacWhat is the NEMC process from now?

Comment: NEMC; Mr F. RugigaAll views from the stakeholder will be incorporated then submitted to NEMC and the Technical Advisory Review will review the document. They are given 60 days to submit comments then it is returned to the consultant to compile the final documents. Before it is submitted to us it is not our property.

Comment: TANROADS; Mr S. M. MgetaThere is a public hearing if the regulatory authority feels it would benefit the ESIA.

Comment: RAMSAR Convention Secretariat; Mr Paul MafabiIn Uganda during the 60 days the public is allowed to view the document

Comment: Flamingo Specialist group; Dr Brooks ChildressSuggest you put it on the internet.

22

Comment: NEMC; Mr F. RugigaThe workshop is important to stakeholders, if you want to review the document come to NEMC

Query: UDSM Zoology Dept- KimHowellHow does someone know that the document has been submitted?

Comment: Tanzania Bird Atlas; Mr Neil BakerThe consultant should circulate an email.

Meeting EndPrior to closing the meeting the Consultants provided a two week time frame for additional comments to be submittedto them. In addition it was agreed the minutes of the meeting would be circulated to all participants.

The meeting was closed at 16.30hrs.

23

Annex 2

A RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT OF THE PROPOSED SODA ASH MINING FACILITY BY LAKE NATRON RESOURCES LTD AT LAKE NATRON, TANZANIA

COMMENTS BY THE LAKE NATRON CONSULTATIVE GROUP

Preamble

The Lake Natron Resources Ltd, a company formed jointly by Tata Chemicals Ltd of Mumbai India and the National Development Corporation of Tanzania, wishes to establish a plant to extract soda ash at Lake Natron. The proposed plant will be capable of mining 500,000 tons of sodium carbonate each year. Other important infrastructure will include a a new access road, power plant, railroad, pipeline grid and perhaps a new pipeline to carry fresh water across the lake, living facilities for an estimated 1,225 construction workers and 152 permanent staff and their families.

Norconsult A.S Norway Ltd and Norconsult (TZ) Ltd presented the draft Executive Summary of the Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) study in a workshop on 12th July 2007 in Dar-es-salaam International Conference Centre.

Why is Lake Natron Ecosystem important?

Lake Natron is important because thousands of people work for the tourist industry around lakes Nakuru (Kenya), Bogoria (Kenya), Manyara (Tanzania) and Abyiata (Ethiopia) where pink flamingos are a major attraction. The masses of pink flamingos have been called “the world’s greatest ornithological spectacle”. Lake Natron is the ONLY significant and regular breeding site for the East African population of these Lesser Flamingos. The breeding at Lake Natron accounts for 75% of the global population of the species.

In addition, the area is part of a bigger shared ecosystem which links to key protected areas in both Kenya and Tanzania. These include Ngorongoro Conservation Area, Serengeti National Park, Maasai Mara National Reserve, Amboseli National Park, Lake Nakuru National Park and Lake Bogoria National Reserve. The Lake Natron basin supports the pastoral livelihoods of Maasai people both in Kenya and Tanzania. The lake is also a Wetland of International Importance under the Ramsar Convention, as well as an Important Bird Area under the BirdLife International classification.

24

Comments on the Draft ESIA Report

The following are comments from Lake Natron Consultative Group on the draft Executive Summary of the Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Report (ESIA) for the proposed Soda Ash plant:

1. The process followed in coming up with the ESIA does not appear to have been all inclusive. Other countries in the region, particularly Kenya, Uganda and Ethiopia that depend heavily on Lesser Flamingos for tourist income were not fully consulted during the ESIA. The brief visit to Kenya by Norken Ltd on behalf of Norconsult during the scoping stage was to be followed up by more in-depth consultations during the data collection phase. However, this did not happen. Consultation goes beyond brief meetings with consultants followed by invitation to a one day workshop. Consultation is a deliberate and continuous engagement and feedback to/from ALL parties at local, regional and international levels, throughout the ESIA process. Unfortunately, this has not been adhered to entirely in this particular case.

2. Related to the process, not all information requested was made available to the interested and affected parties (IAPs). For example, only an executive summary of the ESIA was made available to IAPs during the workshop. Efforts to obtain a copy of the document before the workshop proved difficult. After the workshop, a complete copy can only be inspected by physically visiting Norconsult offices. One copy should have been posted to the internet to facilitate informed dialogue. On the other hand, it was not clear how the consultants picked the stakeholders who attended the EIA workshop at Dar-es-Salaam, thus, it is possible that some key IAPs, such as local community groups in Tanzania and Kenya, were left out.

3. Lake Natron was designated a Ramsar Wetland of International Importance on 4 July 2001. One of the obligations of signatory nations is to prepare a management plan for each site. Indeed, the government of Tanzania is in the process of preparing a management plan for the Ramsar site. However, the argument that this project can go on in the absence of a management plan ignores the fact that this is a shared ecosystem and consultation across the borders is critical. It also fails to take cognisance of the requirements of other regional and international conventions such as The Protocol on Environment of the East African Community, which contains detailed guidelines on how to carry out Environmental Impact Assessment for shared ecosystems, Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), Action Plan of the Agreement on the Conservation of African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbirds (AEWA) and the Convention on the Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS). In Tanzania, the rigorous procedures provided by the Village Land Act, 1999 over the utilization of village land and use of lands owned by more that on village were not followed. The constitutional right to property, right to take part in decision-making processes and the duty to use the country’s resources assiduously were grossly over-looked. Besides, it is not clear that the requirements of other pieces of legislation were scrupulously adhered to. All of which leads one to an inescapable conclusion that the legal requirements for the EIA performance were conveniently ignored to suit the interests of project proponents.

4. The rankings of impacts used in the ESIA document are not clear. There is no explanation what criteria were used to arrive at the various impact rankings. In any case there are internal

25

inconsistencies in the ranking of impacts. For example, the assessment indicates that livestockgrazing is at its limit (especially during the dry season), and there is already conflict over resource use (grazing, water, soda ash), it admits that the project will exacerbate this, and then lists the impacts as ‘moderate-minimal’. In fact, the situation is already severe. Reduced livestock production will occur, but the ranking is ‘moderate –minimal’. This ranking is peculiar, considering that the social profile doesn’t seem to list any other means of production for the Maasai, except for livestock production. So it is going to deprive the people of their basic form of livelihood. On the other hand, it actually says that the positive impact of wage earning opportunities from the soda ash project will be MINIMAL, meaning the local people are not going to gain jobs, but WILL lose their means of production.

5. The source of water to run the plant and meet domestic needs has not been adequately addressed. It is estimated that approximately 130,000 litres of fresh water is required every hour to run the plant and for domestic use (with the plant alone consuming 106,000 litres per hour). The ESIA document does not clearly state where such a huge amount of water will come from. This is a very dry environment with very few sources of fresh water. The local Maasai community depend on livestock for their livelihoods and water is therefore a critical resource. In only 15 hours, the plant will consume enough water to meet the needs of the 40,000 livestock in the neighbouring Magadi Division in Kenya. Without a very detailed hydrological study showing possible water sources and the volumes available for various needs, is extremely difficult to justify construction of the soda ash plant.

6. Related to the above, it would have been useful to provide a cost-benefit analysis of the proposed project vis-à-vis the losses/benefits to local and national economies in Tanzania and surrounding countries. For example:

- What economic loss will community based ecotourism enterprises in the neighbouring Shompole and Olkiramatian suffer as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed project? Shompole Community Trust recently won the prestigious 2006 UNDP Equator prize for its contribution to biodiversity conservation and poverty alleviation (www.equatorinitiative.org). Are we ready to sacrifice all these gains?

- What will be the indirect impacts of possible losses to tourism in Tanzania and the neighbouring countries? Tourism earned a total of US $ 886 million in Kenya in 2006 while the economic value of Lake Natron as a flamingo breeding site based on the recreational value of flamingos is estimated to be US $ 11,819,091 per year (Ndungu 2006).

7. The report does not carry an analysis of the project alternatives. This type of analysis usually considers all the possible alternatives available to the investor in terms of location and technology, including the “no project” option. The feasibility of each alternative is then weighed against the others and a decision made based on cost, environmental and social considerations. One of the options is referred to as the “No Project Option” and the ESIA document should

26

convincingly argue why this option was not selected. This sort of analysis is missing from this document, giving the impression that a decision was made based on only one preferred alternative.

8. The report downplays the importance of the Lake to flamingos by stating that their numbers ‘often exceed 200,000 individuals (c. 8% of global population)’. While this is true, what is more significant is the fact that the lake accounts for the breeding of 75% of the global population of lesser flamingos. The proposed method of soda ash extraction, including a large network of pipes across the lake, incredible noise and 24-hour flood lights, would disorient Lesser Flamingos, which move mainly at night, and other night flying birds. The noise and light would create a high level of disturbance that may disrupt the Lesser Flamingo breeding process. This may be why there has been no Lesser Flamingo breeding at Lake Magadi in Kenya for 45 years where a similar soda extraction operation plant has been in operation for almost 100 years. The proposed mitigation in the draft is to site the soda ash plant as far away as possible from the nesting sites. However, nesting is only one of the aspects of breeding and close to 80% of the lake does appear to be important for flamingos at various stages of the breeding process. This is a very significant impact; significant enough to warrant a fresh consideration of the proposedproject

9. The Environmental Monitoring and Management Plan in the document is not sufficient for a project of such a big magnitude. There are just too many environmental unknowns and operational uncertainties, which the proponents seem reluctant to resolve. It is therefore virtually impossible for the consultants to provide meaningful environmental and social impact assessments. To compensate for all of the unknowns and uncertainties, the consultants propose a “flexible” environmental and social management and monitoring system. This system in theory envisions a situation where the project could be halted and modified or stopped entirely at any phase if the environment or the social fabric of the neighbouring populations are affected negatively. On the contrary, we urge the application of the precautionary principle by putting things on hold until the uncertainties are minimised. This “flexible” approach in environmental management creates a loophole which may be used by the investor after getting the go ahead. A case in point is the recent doubling of production capacity for soda ash at Magadi Soda (owned by Tata Chemicals Ltd) in Kenya, which has caused serious water shortages.

10. The transportation mode of the finished project is not clear. However, the consultants did point out that either a railway or road will be constructed. But this does seem to depend on some decisions to be made by the authorities. Nevertheless, the impacts of road or rail transport are not fully appreciated and mitigated. These impacts are ranked “moderate” in the document. But one only needs to consider that moving the 500,000 tonnes of soda ash will require about 70 twenty-tonne trucks per day, to appreciate that this will be a very significant impact indeed. Improvement of infrastructure will bring hundreds, if not thousands, of job seekers into the Lake Natron basin, which has almost no ability to cater for such an influx. On the other hand, these people will need food stuffs, which will lead not only to increased agriculture pressures on this very dry habitat, but also to the setting up of new shops, and eventually entire new villages. Their need for biofuel will strip the landscape bare very quickly.

27

11. The social profile as presented in the EIA is inadequate, pejorative to the communities involved, and contains information that seems to be extremely outdated and superficial, as well as irrelevant to the proposed project. It expresses stereotypes and does not seem to reflect any research. It is hard to see how the impacts and their severity have, in fact, been identified based on this information, as the profile contains no data at all. The comments that the Maasai regard them selves as ‘the rightful owners of all cattle” and then blaming this as the source of conflict with other pastoral communities is simplistic. To describe the ‘Sonjo’ as having a ‘primitive’ irrigation system is demeaning, and the statement that “there is a conscious reluctance by the tribe to adopt any new technologies” is not acceptable. This social profile implies that these people are rather backwards, and so modernizing them is a good thing. Equally important, is the insensitive remarks that the Maasai in the area are unfit for employment by the factory and the only jobs that might be available to them is watchmen. In short the draft EIA does not contain any meaningful Corporate Social Responsibility which means the project will not enhance the welfare of the people living in the adjacent villages.

12. The ESIA makes the following concluding statements or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The all important statement provides the environmental authority (NEMC) with a basis to certify the project as being environmentally sound having addressed all potential impacts:

From the present knowledge and understanding of the social and environmental conditions at Lake Natron, no single or likely cumulative impacts have been identified that would with certainty preclude project development. Given the context however, any development would have to adhere to strict environmental management safeguards and a stringent environmental monitoring regime.

However, it must be recognized that the limited knowledge available on the functioning of the Lake Natron ecosystem as it relates to the Lesser Flamingo suggests that the project may entail a significant degree of environmental risk for this species in the longer term that is probably not capable of mitigation. An enforceable link between environmental monitoring and continued project operation would need to be established as an essential means of offsetting this risk as far as possible.”

It is not possible to make such far reaching conclusions in view of the absence of critical data and obvious flaws in the ESIA process itself. From the discussion above, there does seem to be many substantive issues that were clearly ignored or glossed over during the study. One such issue is water, without which there is no project to talk about. The other issue is the impacts on tourism and livestock based economies at the local, national and regional levels. Certainly, all these are issues that can preclude project development. The admission that flamingos stand to suffer significantly and that there is no means of mitigating the loss is correct.

28

In conclusion, it will be remembered that in early 1990s, Kenyan authorities proposed to build a substantial multi-purpose hydro electric project, including a dam across Ewaso Nyiro River which is the main source of fresh water for Lake Natron. However, the project was stopped due to Tanzanian concerns about the potential effects on Lake Natron. If this proposed soda extraction project gets Tanzanian approval, would Kenya then feel free to reinstate their multipurpose hydropower project, with potentially disastrous consequences for the lake?

Signed for Lake Natron Consultative Group (Contact: Tel 254-20-891360 Fax 254-20-891751 email lakenatron@acc.or.ke):

20. East African Wildlife Society (EAWLS) 21. African Conservation Centre (ACC)22. Nature Kenya23. Youth For Conservation, 24. South Rift Association of Landowners (SORALO),25. Kenya Wetlands Forum (KWF)26. Centre for Minority Rights for Development (CEMIRIDE), 27. Kenya Community based Tourism Network (KECOBAT), 28. Environmental Liaison Centre International (ELCI), 29. Centre for Education and Research in Environmental Law(CREEL) 30. Wildlife Clubs of Kenya (WCK)31. Ethiopia Wildlife Natural History Society (EWNHS)32. Born Free Foundation33. Uganda Wildlife Society34. Nature Uganda35. Lawyers Environmental Action Team (LEAT), Tanzania36. Forum for Environment (Ethiopia)37. Birdlife Africa Partnership Secretariat38. Horn of Africa - Regional Environment Centre/Network, University of Addis Ababa

29