VOL. 7 BUJAGALI HYDROPOWER PROJECT, UGANDA SOCIAL … · important transport hub with a ferry...

El 512VOL. 7

BUJAGALI HYDROPOWER PROJECT, UGANDA

SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

REPORT ON TOURISM IMPACTS

Prepared For: R.J.Burnside International Limited, Guelph, Canada

By: Fletcher Associates, Richmond, Surrey, United Kingdom

APRIL 2006

1

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized


TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION .................. ............................................ 3

1I.1 Background ............. ............................................... 3

1.2 Scope of Work ............... ............................................. 3

1.3 Conduct of the Study .................... ........................................ 4

2.0 STATUS OF TOURISM IN THE HYDROPOWER DEVELOPMENT AREA..5

2.1 The Historical Context.......................................5

2.2 The 'Adventure Capital of East Africa' ............................................................. 6

2.3 The Emerging Conferences and Meetings Market ................................................. 10

2.4 Other Development Activity ................................... 12

3.0 THE TOURISM IMPACTS OF THE BUJAGALI HPP PROJECT ........... 14

3.1 The Physical Impacts of the Project .............................. 14

3.2 Impacts upon White Water Rafting Companies ..................................................... 15

3.3 Other Tourism Related Impacts ................................. 23

4.0 MITIGATION MEASURES ........................................................... 27

APPENDIX I - LIST OF CONSULTED PARTIES ....................................................... 31

APPENDIX 2 - REFERENCES .............................................................. 33

2

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

The Bujagali Hydropower Project (Bujagali HPP) is a proposed 250MW hydropowerfacility to be built at Dumbbell Island, located 8km downstream (north) of the town ofJinja, Uganda, on the Victoria Nile. The project is proposed by Bujagali Energy Ltd., aproject specific company owned by World Power Holdings LLC, of Luxembourg andIPS (Kenya) Ltd, the 'Project Sponsors'.

A Social and Environmental Assessment (SEA) of the Bujagali HPP needs to beundertaken for the project and then be approved by the Government of Uganda (GoU)and the International lenders (World Bank Group, African Development Bank, EuropeanInvestment Bank, commercial banks under IDA PRG and other European DevelopmentBanks) involved in the project, before it proceeds to construction.

Previously, AES Nile Power (AESNP) was the Project Sponsor for the Bujagali HPP andthe Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) undertaken for them was approved by theGoU's National Environmental Management Authority (NEMA) in 1999/2001 and by theinternational lenders in December 2001. AESNP, however, withdrew from the project in2003 without commencing construction and the new Project Sponsor is now required tocarry out a new Social and Environmental Assessment (SEA) as part of their duediligence / project approval process.

The Project Sponsor has appointed R.J.Burnside International Ltd. of Canada to conduct,or oversee the SEA tasks and manage the SEA process on its behalf and R.J.BurnsideInternational Ltd has in turn appointed Fletcher Associates, a specialist UK based,international tourism development consultancy, to undertake the tourism impactassessment component within the overall SEA.

1.2 Scope of Work

The scope of work for this assignment is identified in the R.J.Burnside Terms ofReference for the SEA and in the subsequent sub-consultancy agreement betweenR.J.Burnside and Fletcher Associates and is presented below thus:

* Consult with appropriate central government and local government authoritiesand tourism operators and their association(s) to determine the present status oftourism in the proposed hydropower development area;

* Assess the potential impacts of the Bujagali Hydropower Project on tourism in thehydropower development area, including any effects on the white water rafting(WWR) industry;

3

* Advise on potential measures to mitigate the effects to WWR and other touristamenities at the hydropower site and propose alternative tourist developmentscenarios and / or facilities that could be developed on or adjacent to the proposedreservoir. This will include an assessment of tourism opportunities that can bepromoted and developed at the 'Kalagala-Itanda Offset' site downstream; and

* Consult with tourism operators and their association(s) and local communities andtheir leadership (LCI, LC3, and LC5 levels) on tourism impact mitigationmeasures and alternative tourism development strategies and how they can beinvolved in delivering future tourism services (e.g. accommodation, activities).

1.3 Conduct of the Study

The fieldwork component of the study was undertaken between 19 March and Is April,2006, with time spent roughly equally between the capital city of Kampala and Jinja, thetown located on both the banks of Lake Victoria and the banks of the Victoria Nile wherethe river begins its journey to the Mediterranean Sea. Jinja is some 8km upstream (south)from the proposed Bujagali HPP and is by far the largest town in the hydropowerdevelopment area.

A programme of pre-arranged and locally arranged appointments and site visits wasundertaken in both Kampala and Jinja with representatives from the Government ofUganda (Ministry of Tourism, Trade and Industry, Uganda Tourist Board, NEMA,National Forestry Authority, Uganda Wildlife Authority), Local Government and localrepresentatives of national organisations, representatives from village communitieslocated on both banks of the Nile and representatives from the white water raftingcompanies and other sectors of the tourism and hospitality industry.

Two full days of site inspections were undertaken including at the Bujagali Falls locationwhich will be submerged by the reservoir created by the building of the dam, the east andwest bank locations for the construction of the dam at Dumbbell Island and both theKalagala (west bank) and Itanda (east bank) locations within the Kalagala - Itanda Offsetproposal site. These site visits were accompanied by representatives from the ProjectSponsor and the World Bank / International Lenders team who were in Uganda duringthe first week of the fieldwork and then by representatives of the various Government ofUganda Ministries / Authorities mentioned above who have a close interest in the SEAprogramme.

4

2.0 STATUS OF TOURISM IN THE HYDROPOWERDEVELOPMENT AREA

2.1 The Historical Context

The hydropower development area may broadly be considered to encompass ageographic locale which is anchored to the south by Greater Jinja (that is the combinationof the town of Jinja on the east bank of the Nile together with Njeru, essentially a suburbor satellite of Jinja, on the west bank of the Nile) and extends along both banks of theriver, several kilometres deep on either side, as far north as the proposed damconstruction site at Dumbbell Island.

In simple historical terms, the Jinja area (or more accurately, the town of Jinja on its own)has enjoyed a certain level of international awareness and status on account of its locationas the iconic Source of the Nile, made known to the wider world by the British explorerSpeke in 1862. However, translation of this historical association into meaningful tourismawareness and development as a visitor destination has arguably only been underwayover the last ten to fifteen years and even then this has been as a consequence of acompletely unrelated attraction - white water rafting.

Jinja emerged from an informal European settlement around 1900 to become animportant transport hub with a ferry service connecting with Kisumu, a Kenyan town onLake Victoria which had been connected to Mombasa earlier that decade by a new raillink. The local economy developed further thanks to an emerging cotton industry and arail link with Kampala but it was the opening of the Owen Falls Dam (now called theNalubaale Dam) and hydro-electric power station in 1954 that led to a twenty yeareconomic boom resulting in Jinja rapidly becoming known as Uganda's principalindustrial and manufacturing centre.

Proximity to a reliable (transmission distances being short) and cheap source of powerattracted the brewing, cigarette, textile and other manufacturing industries to Jinja leadingto a rapid rise in the local population and a level of prosperity which can still beappreciated from the planned layout of the town centre and suburban streets with theirimpressive domestic and local governmental architecture. However, the largely Asianowned and managed businesses were a key target during the regime of Idi Amin in theearly/mid 1970's, during which the Asian population was expelled and friends of thedictator, with little business experience, were placed in control of their companies.

The resulting collapse of the local economy may still be seen in the pot-holed roads andabandoned nature of many once grand homes along some of the suburban streets. Yet thisis now contrasted with other streets and other properties which have clearly been recentlyrestored and improved, a town centre with both new and renovated commercial buildingsand an industrial base which is attracting back several of the key original businesses.

5

Jinja, together with Njeru on the opposite side of the Nile, now has a population of inexcess of 136,000, which makes it the second largest town in Uganda and although it nolonger possesses an active port, it sits beside the only rail link with Kenya (entirelyfreight at present) and the principal road link between Kampala and Nairobi (crossing theNalubaale Dam) which carries half of all visitor arrivals (for all purposes) to Uganda andthe bulk of all international commercial/freight movements. Jinja has thus recovered itsposition as the major transportation hub which justified the development of the town inthe first place.

2.2 The 'Adventure Capital of East Africa'

As an important early administrative and transportation centre but more significantly,later, as Uganda's principal industrial centre, Jinja has always attracted business visitorsand thus a small number of hotels and guest houses have grown up to accommodate thisparticular sector of the tourism market. However, holiday or recreational tourism inUganda which historically has been relatively small compared to neighbouring Kenyaand Tanzania, was focussed on game viewing/hunting in the west and north of thecountry and thus largely by-passed Jinja.

Successive periods of political instability and their associated security problems since the1970's have resulted in a generally negative international perception of Uganda as atourism destination while the heavy poaching of game in the wildlife areas during thisperiod also led to a diminution in the destination's appeal. By the early 1990's, visitorsarriving for holiday/tourism purposes were recorded as being some 10,000 out of totalannual overseas arrivals of around 70,000 but the pragmatic policies of PresidentMuseveni's first term of office were now creating stability and economic growth suchthat support for the development of the tourism sector could now be envisioned.

In 1993, the World Tourism Organisation, funded by the United Nations DevelopmentProgramme, published an 'Integrated Tourism Master Plan for Uganda' which presenteda strategy for the development of the tourism sector over the following ten years. Thisstrategy built and improved upon the existing product, infrastructure and resourceframework in order that a revitalised tourism sector could be delivered with relativespeed and ease. Development of new tourism products and the opening of less establishedand remoter parts of the country were considered to be longer term objectives which leftconsideration of Jinja, the 'Source of the Nile' and the eastern side of Uganda largely inabeyance.

Tourism arrivals were extremely weak in comparison with those attracted toneighbouring Kenya and Tanzania and the Master Plan recognised that a large percentageof this number were made up of 'overland truckers' and independent budget travellers,the very market sectors which are essential for kick starting the awareness creationprocess in new or moribund visitor destinations. However, such markets are considered tobe low yield as far as tourist destinations are concerned because of their traditionally low

6

spending nature and thus tend to be ignored by national tourist board executives andplanners, as was the case in this Master Plan.

Yet it was a couple of just such intrepid travellers, albeit with a dedication to satisfyinghigh adventure sporting pursuits who, having established successful white water raftingbusinesses on world class rapids on the Zambezi and in New Zealand, became aware ofthe essentially unknown, equally high quality series of grade 4 and 5 rapids (classificationis based upon grading rapids from I to 5/6 with 5 being the best for regular commercialrafting purposes and 6 being too severe for normal commercial rafting) on the VictoriaNile and decided to turn their attention to offering rafting at the Source of the Nile inUganda. Table 2.1 below presents the names and class of rapids used, in sequence, byAdrift Rafting for their one and two day rafting trips on the Victoria Nile.

Table 2.1: Rapids Used by Adrift Rafting for Their One and Two Day Rafting Trips1/2 Day Trips Name Class

Day One Bujagali 5Easy Rider 3Total Gunga/G.Spot 5Ugly Sisters/Sibling Rivalry/Surf City 3Big Brother/Silverback 5Point Break 3Overtime 5Retrospect 4Bubugo/Super Hole 3Itanda/Bad Place 6/5

Day Two Novocaine 5Vengeance 4Hair of the Dog 4Kulu Shaker 4Nile Special 4Malalu 4

(Future Extension) Weleba 3

Source:AESNP 2001 EIA Report with updates by C. McCleay (Adrift Rafting), 2006

Table 2.1 should be read in conjunction with Figure 2.1 below, which locates the positionof each of the rapids described in the Table, in sequence, upon a satellite image of theVictoria Nile.

In 1996, the Bujagali Falls was simply a series of impressive rapids on an attractivestretch of the Nile some 6km downstream from Jinja. Direct access to the river at thispoint was possible across a little known (to international travellers) river bank site usedregularly by locals for picnics and informal recreation but in August that year it alsobecame the launching point for the first commercial white water rafting trips organisedby the rafting company Adrift. Some months later in early 1997, Adrift were joined by acompetitor, Nile River Explorers (NRE) who operated from a base in Jinja town andlaunched their rafts higher up the river from a site closer to the Nalubaale Dam.

7

Figure 2.1 Satellite Image of 'White Water' Locations and Named Rapids

8

From around 50 clients a month in the start-up period, the rafting numbers grew to anaverage of nearly 300 a month the following year and higher still in 1998 for Adrift,according to research conducted by DGiCo for the AES Nile Power SEA prepared in1998. This same study concluded that between Adrift and NRE, the total estimatednumber of white water rafters on the Nile was somewhere between 7,000 - 8,000 perannum in 1998. Thus, from a standing start in 1996/7, the rafting companies becameresponsible for attracting an average of 600+ international visitors a month to Jinja, as adestination, rather than as simply the transit stop to visit the Source of The Nile, whichwas what it was known for before, completely independently from any Ministry of Tradeand Tourism (MTTI) initiatives or plans.

The development of white water rafting was (and still is) based upon two distinct marketsectors (albeit with similar general demographic characteristics) each in their own wayextremely important for the wider development of Ugandan tourism through theircapacity to create awareness of and stimulate interest in travel to and around the country.These sectors were on the one hand, the international overland truckers andindependently mobile budget travellers passing through and on the other hand, theUgandan based ex-pat/NGO market looking for a recreational break in the course of theirstay in the country. NRE focuses more upon the transiting international market whileAdrift tends to attract more of its clients from the Ugandan based ex-pat market and thisapproach is reflected in the nature and style of their business operations.

In 1998, these nascent business start-ups were both growing robustly and felt seriouslythreatened by the prospect of the AES Nile Power project submerging the Bujagali Fallsand by implication destroying their business opportunity. However it was the murder ofeight tourists by rebels in Bwindi Impenetrable National Park in March 1999 that almostachieved that particular result as once again instability in the country set back thedeveloping recovery of Ugandan tourism.

The inherent resilience of the ex-pat and overland/budget markets enabled the whitewater rafting companies to survive on a reduced operational basis through to recoverywhereupon they were joined by a third rafting operator, Equator Rafting, in early 2001and a fourth, Nalubale Rafting, in mid 2005. This increased competition encouragedAdrift, NRE and Equator to develop their businesses beyond the simple raftingexperience such that they all now offer a range of rafting trips with family options,kayaking and river boarding, bungee jumping, walking/nature tours, assistance with localcommunity/charitable activities and an extended range of accommodation/dining optionsto attract new, higher value markets to their sites. Other companies have also beenattracted to the area offering non-watersports activities such as quad biking, mountainbiking and horse riding, enabling a critical mass of operators and activities to developthus giving substance to the claim that Jinja/Bujagali has now earned the reputation tocall itself the 'Adventure Capital of East Africa'.

The growth of Jinja as an adventure tourism destination has been achieved through aprocess of organic development based upon a small number of entrepreneurial operatorsand although according to the AESNP 2001 EIA report, a Jinja Tourism Development

9

Association was facilitated and formally constituted, evidence of its contribution to thedevelopment of the tourism sector in Jinja has not been established. The organisation isunderstood to be inactive yet recently an inaugural meeting was held to discuss theestablishment of an informal forum of tourism sector businesses where the identificationof ways in which common interests in the development and promotion of Jinja might beput forward and progressed. National and regional/district public sector organisationswith a remit for the tourism sector have thus far had limited resources to assist tourismdevelopment and thus it becomes important for the private sector to take appropriateinitiatives in their place but ideally with their involvement.

2.3 The Emerging Conferences and Meetings Market

The original colonial era hotel in Jinja, The Ripon Falls Hotel, closed many years agoleaving the Sunset International Hotel as the principal, long-standing hotel in town,supported by the government owned Crested Crane Hotel (doubling as a hotel/tourismtraining college) with both being supplemented by a number of small guesthousesproviding limited budget style accommodation. The provision of accommodation thusreflected the ebb and flow of Jinja's own economic fortunes until government fundingbuilt the Crested Crane college facility and in the mid/late 1990's investment in newaccommodation resurfaced with a two phase development of 76 rooms at the TriangleHotel on a prime site overlooking Lake Victoria. At the same time Nile River Explorersopened their Explorers Backpackers rafting base and accommodation facility, offeringcamping, dormitory and double rooms for the budget market.

The Sunset, Crested Crane and Triangle hotels are purpose-built and thus incorporatebanqueting/meeting space as part of their design. Being located in Jinja town, these hotelsnaturally attract weddings and other social functions which use the banqueting space buthaving such a facility also allows the hotels to attract some meetings business which inturn often require accommodation. It is clear therefore that in addition to the usualcommercial and some holiday/recreational demand for hotel accommodation there beganto develop a residential related meetings market which the existing larger hotels wereable to cater for. However, from around the year 2000, much more serious investment innew hotel building was underway and this was mostly outside of Jinja town. The mostsignificant example of this development was the opening of the up-market, Kenyanowned, Jinja Nile Resort on an attractive elevated site overlooking the Nile, I kmdownstream from the Nalubaale Dam and 4 km from the centre of Jinja. This hotel wasreferred to as the 'Mada Hotel' in the AESNP EIA report. It was opened with 35 roomsin 2001 but doubled in size two years later and added a further 40 rooms in 2004. It hasseveral different sized meeting rooms and can handle a 200 delegate conference.

The up-market, Australian owned guesthouse/restaurant Gately on Nile, opened in Jinjain 2000, offering seven double rooms in two renovated colonial era bungalows inattractive gardens overlooking Lake Victoria. This hotel also markets itself as a small,

10

high quality meetings venue/retreat for the senior corporate/government/donorcommunity.

In 2001, the German owned, up-market, Kingfisher Safari Resort opened on an attractiveelevated site overlooking the Source of the Nile, on the opposite side of the river fromJinja but some 9 km by road across the Nalubaale Dam from the town centre. The resortnow has 42 thatched bandas of which 28 are single bedded, a rooms mix clearly designedto attract the commercial and residential meetings markets.

Table 2.2 below summarises the growth in supply of new higher standard hotel,guesthouse and lodge accommodation in the Jinja area between 2000 and 2004 thus:

Table 2.2: Expansion in Higher Quality Accommodation Around Jinja, 2000 - 2004(Numbers of New Rooms Constructed per year)

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 TOTALROOMS

Gately on 7 - - - 7Nile G/hseJinja Nile - 35 - 35 40 110ResortKingfisher - 21 14 7 - 42SafariResortPalm Tree - 5 - - - 5

G/hseThe Nile - - 10 10Porch(NRE)Nile High - - - - 3 3Club(Adrift)TOTAL 7 61 14 42 53 177ROOMS I I I I I ISource: Consultant's Estimates

Thus in the space of a few years, (2000-2004), significant new investment, particularly inhigh quality accommodation, has taken place and in each instance a key market targetedby these businesses has been the residential meetings/conference sector. Further evidencefor the strength of this market in both the older and newer hotels in the area was gatheredfrom interviews with representatives from several of these properties, indicating that thismarket accounted for between 50 to 95 per cent of the business mix, depending upon thehotel and that overall room occupancy was running at between 50 to 70 per cent annually,again depending upon the hotel.

It is clear that the Jinja area is now successfully competing with Kampala and Entebbe inoffering a destination with a distinct appeal for the meetings market - the attractive

11

riverside setting and the tranquillity of a destination located miles away from the urbanenvironment of the capital city - at least for certain types and sizes of meetings andconferences. But it is also clear that the development of this particular type of businesstourism is product led, that is, the market is being attracted because the quality and size ofthe hotel accommodation and its meeting rooms, restaurants and other facilities, matchesmarket requirements, packaged together with a location which can also deliver its ownunique quality and appeal.

2.4 Other Development Activity

The investment in high quality accommodation has also been reflected, less obtrusively,in the opening of a small number of new, moderately priced guesthouses and in thecarrying out of improvements to other existing guesthouses, the opening of new barsrestaurants, travel agencies and gift/curio shops. The backpacker /budget traveller marketlargely prefers to stay at the accommodation provided by the rafting companies which arelocated on individual sites overlooking the river near Bujagali Falls (although NRE alsohas a base in Jinja town) and in the last couple of years, the range and quality of theaccommodation options on these sites has also been extended.

A further extension of this growing confidence in the Jinja area has been the strongdemand for purchase of plots of land along both the east and west banks of the Nilebetween the Nalubaale Dam and the general location of the Bujagali HPP at DumbbellIsland. It appears that in the few years many plots of various sizes have been bought (andare still sought), by prominent Ugandan companies, ex-pat residents and overseasinterests for the building of private homes or small to medium guesthouse/lodge/hotel andrestaurant businesses, to the extent that the river in this area has now attracted the epithet'Muzungu Nile', meaning European or white person's Nile.

An important new development is the imminent opening of a luxury 'eco-friendly' lodgeproject located deep within the Mabira Forest Reserve some 25 km from Jinja. Thisdevelopment of 15 lodges is a joint venture between Inns of Uganda, a local up-marketlodge operator with two existing lodges in two of the major wildlife parks in westernUganda and a Dutch eco-tourism/wildlife, specialist lodge operator with existingoperations in Surinam and elsewhere in Africa. This initiative represents the firstinvestment in the Jinja area by an experienced luxury wildlife lodge operator who hasnow recognised the specialist nature/wildlife tourism potential available and who, withhis international partner can bring high value, particularly European, special interestnatural history/wildlife visitors to Mabira Forest and beyond. This project will place theJinja area firmly on the map as far as these niche markets are concerned and thus createsa further dimension to the available tourism product which will be given greater stimulusby the eco-tourist lodge and related proposals at the Kalagala - Itanda Offset sitedownstream of the Bujagali HPP dam site.

The Kalagala - Itanda Offset Proposal involves another major tourism planning initiative.This development concept, proposed by the Government of Uganda in 2001 for the

12

Kalagala - Itanda Falls area, is designed to create positive consequences at this locationin mitigation of the effects of the planned Bujagali HPP upon the Bujagali Falls site,including effects on natural habitats and tourism. World Bank/lFC funding of the powerproject requires the adoption of suitable mitigation proposals and the previous sponsorsof the Bujagali HPP, AES Nile Power, expressed willingness to participate in a financialpartnership to realise the proposals. The concept incorporates a series of environmentallysustainable programmes which include the creation of riverside foot and cycle paths onboth banks of the river between the dam and the Kalagala - Itanda Falls while theoutstanding scenic beauty of the Falls area should form the basis for a range of tourismactivities including, viewing areas, picnic areas, campsites, tourist lodges, culturalheritage sites, parking, toilets and other facilities. These proposals have been in abeyancesince the demise of the AES Nile Power project but independently, the National ForestAuthority advertised, in May 2005, an invitation for bids to be submitted for concessionsto run tourism businesses on both sides of the river at Kalagala - Itanda. Adrift Raftingwon the concessions with plans for a high quality lodge on Kalagala Island and campsiteson two smaller islands downstream of the rapids. Negotiations are still underway betweenthe parties to clarify the scope of the development and how it fits into the originalKalagala - Itanda Offset proposals and thus it is unclear when this development willcommence.

Several major hotel projects are currently at an early stage of discussion for developmentin the Jinja area, including proposals by the Madvhani Group (an important local businessconglomerate) to redevelop the derelict Jinja Sailing Club site which they own togetherwith adjacent lakeside land which it is said they own and separate proposals by overseasinterests to redevelop the Jinja Golf Club which occupies an attractive, elevated siteoverlooking the Source of the Nile. However, it is the plans of the Kampala based SpekeHotels Group (owners of Equator Rafting) for the site which they own above andoverlooking Bujagali Falls, which appear to be the most advanced and arguably the mostlikely to proceed. Their plans, in at least two phases, will build some 200 rooms withsupporting resort, sports and conference facilities at an estimated cost of $10 million.

13

3.0 THE TOURISM IMPACTS OF THE BUJAGALI HPPPROJECT

3.1 The Physical Impacts of the Project

Construction of the Dam will result in the development of several permanent physicalfeatures in the landscape, most notable among which are the Dam itself, the reservoirwhich this structure will create and the transmission line required to connect the powerstation to the existing hydropower installation at the Nalubaale Dam, and to Kampala.Each of these features will result in a range of impacts and certain of those impacts canbe characterised as having a tourism dimension.

The DamThe introduction of a major man-made structure, such as a dam, into the naturallandscape, represents a localised visual intrusion with an aesthetic impact which thechoice of site, design and landscaping will help mitigate. The aesthetic impact will bemore pronounced for sight lines immediately downstream of the Dam from where thestructure itself is most visible, whereas upstream, the reservoir created behind the Damdiminishes this impact. In tourism terms, the visual intrusion will be very localised andlimited to a relatively low profile stretch of the river (certainly compared with theBujagali and Kalagala / Itanda Falls locations) which is essentially inaccessible to visitorsother than those rafting the river.

The Transmission LineThe route of the transmission line, on the west bank of the Nile, essentially parallels thatof the river but is located at an elevated level and set back at a distance from it. The rivercuts a path through steeply rising ground along both banks for much of its course to thesite of the Dam and thus sight lines from where the transmission line will be visible areprincipally from locations at the top of the elevated ground on the eastern bank of theriver. The transmission line pylons and cabling will be partly hidden by the vegetationand tree cover through which it passes and will represent less of a visual intrusion thanthe existing transmission line which crosses the river close to Bujagali Falls and some ofthe existing and planned hotel, lodge and guesthouse development built immediatelyabove and overlooking the river.

The Transmission Line continues from the Nalubaale Dam onwards to Kampala andpasses through the northern extremity of the Mabira Forest, several kilometres away fromthe most heavily visited part of the Forest, in the environs of the National ForestryAuthority owned and operated Mabira Forest Ecotourism Centre and Campsite. Theluxury 'eco-friendly' Mabira Forest Lodge development currently under construction islocated deep in the Forest to the south of the Jinja -Kampala road and thus is even furtheraway from the Transmission Line. Tourism impacts consequent upon the route of theTransmission Line through Mabira Forest are therefore considered to be extremely small.

14

The ReservoirThe principal physical impact of the Dam as far as tourism is concemed is the creation ofthe reservoir and what this means in terms of the losses and gains in tourism/recreationalamenity and the access to that amenity.

The project reservoir will occupy an area of 388ha, approximately 80ha of which will benewly inundated land and 308ha of which is currently occupied by the Victoria Nile. Thetail of this reservoir and thus the point at which inundation levels begin declining, islocated approximately at the Bujagali Falls, however the Falls themselves and theassociated existing river bank picnic and recreation site will be submerged by thereservoir waters. Thus the physical inundation of the Bujagali Falls represents a loss onthe one hand of the visual amenity of the Falls but on the other hand it also represents theloss of a resource which is utilised for other tourism activities such as white water rafting,picnicking and general recreation. This is discussed further in Sections 3.2 and 3.3.

Other smaller rapids, located close together on the river between Bujagali Falls and theDam offer a distinctive feature which will also be lost for the purposes of rafting downthe river but it is the spectacular nature of the Bujagali rapids, their attractive naturalsetting and established riverside accessibility for recreation which marks them out asessentially the only significant tourism resource utilised by a wide range of local andinternational visitors which is impacted by the construction of the Dam.

The creation of the reservoir lake will however represent a body of water with potentialfor water based leisure and sporting activities offered by existing and new leisureoperators. Adrift, NRE and Speke Hotels have already indicated their interest in pursuinga variety of water based activities on the lake.

3.2 Impacts upon White Water Rafting Companies

In 1998 when the original SEA work was undertaken for the AES Nile Power project thetwo existing rafting companies were fledgling businesses only a year or two old but wereestimated to be handling 7,000 to 8,000 rafting clients per annum. Eight years later in2006, the original two companies have survived both a crash and a steady recovery intourism to Uganda (and thus in their fortunes) and are now more mature and more diversebusinesses. They have since been joined by two further rafting companies, one onlycommencing last year, while rafting passenger numbers are currently estimated to berunning at around 10,000 per annum (see Table 3.1 below) with steady growthanticipated in 2006.

Adrift RaftingAdrift was the first company to operate white water rafting in Uganda, it is owned byCam McLeay, a New Zealander and white water rafting expert, who at the same time alsooperated rafting businesses in New Zealand and on the river Zambezi in Zimbabwe.Adrift, both then and now, is based in Kampala and originally brought their clients down

15

to Bujagali for the rafting experience and brought them back the same day whereas NREwere and are, based at Jinja/Bujagali. In mid 2003, Adrift opened the 'Nile High Club'which is a campsite with dormitory (and more recently a few thatched bandas) abar/restaurant and 44m bungee jump located on a 32m cliff-top site overlooking the Nile.

Adrift originally launched their rafts from the riverside recreation site beside BujagaliFalls and paid a commission to an entrepreneur who held a lease for the site from theDistrict Council. This arrangement continued until they entered a business partnershipwith the Kenyan Mada Hotels group, who own the Jinja Nile Resort and extensive clifftop landholdings adjacent to their hotel, upon which the 'Nile High Club' is now locatedand below which their rafts are now launched.

Having their base in Kampala has always meant that Adrift generated their market fromamongst Kampala based ex-pats and other Ugandan based NGO employees as well assome travellers staying in Kampala as opposed to the overland truck based market. Thismarket mix has changed a little with the building of the 'Nile High Club' and thus theavailability of an accommodation base by the Nile, but reportedly, some 90 percent oftheir rafters still originate from Kampala sources.

Adrift, like NRE, offer several rafting options, one day, two day, family rafting etc but 90percent of their clients take the one day trip which currently costs $95 per person. In 1998Adrift pushed their rafting rates up from $65 to $95 (NRE left theirs at $65) per personand it appeared that their market position enabled them to sustain this, however rates fellback to $65 in the difficult years but began their recovery around 2003/4. It is estimatedthat Adrift took around 4,000 clients rafting during 2005, putting it in second placebehind market leaders NRE. It is likely that the entry of the fourth rafting company,Nalubale, run by a former Adrift employee, may have led to this loss of market share.

Adrift as a company has developed from being simply a white water rafting experienceprovider to a much more broadly based travel company offering in addition, gorillatrekking, mountain climbing, wildlife safaris and outdoor management developmentprogrammes for companies, NGO's, school groups etc. They have recently been awardeda concession from the National Forestry Authority to operate a high quality eco-tourismLodge on Kalagala Island, within the Kalagala - Itanda Offset area, which will involve aninvestment of $1million in association with international partners and thus continues thediversification of their business from its white water rafting origins.

Adrift have confirmed that they will continue to operate their white water rafting businessafter the Bujagali HPP is constructed and that they have no intention of moving theirrafting base from the 'Nile High Club' location. Once the Dam is built, rafting trips willhave to move downstream of the structure and while the reservoir created will result inthe loss of one and possibly two Grade 5 rapids and removes a series of smaller,successive rapids which represent an exciting 'staircase' feature, a thrilling andexhilarating rafting experience with three Grade 5 rapids still remains. Purists will lamentthe loss of the more intense nature of the start of the existing trip but for probably 99 percent of the market this will

16

Figure 3.1:White Water Rafting Route and Rapids

- Grade -

UGANDA *Rafting (E1as t Atrica) z

""I' 'o ' r.lll

- H:din La.lvilel ish.ild kv , t t

Kuiu Siaker -M-A___, - Hair 't he Det

,i,,,,,,X.X~~.,I, cv:ll-'11i l ...,, , , 4

Rellospe IIlllll

I 10Y l14Aie be 1,,d, ijT.e i3 P .in e d AT ; r s

,1 -ts i't Br gah n

MML.

Kampala ,PW- -

_____ - - S

liS ,,\; Ex .eetCse the. fou'rt

17

have little significance. Most rafters will be taking this particular trip for the first time(for many it will also be their first rafting trip) and the fact that it will still include threeGrade 5 rapids, confirms the seriousness of the trip as an attractive, physical and mentaladventure located on a beautiful stretch of the longest river in the world. Rafting on theNile has become an established part of the ex-pat/ NGO recreational break activityprogramme over the last ten years in Uganda and it is not expected that the anticipatedchanges to the rafting trip will alter demand from this market sector.

Figure 3. 1, taken from the current Adrift brochure, shows the existing rafting route downthe White Nile with the inclusion of the names (as used by Adrift) of the principal sets ofrapids. Dumbbell Island is located between 'Surf City' and 'Big Brother' and thus therapids at Bujagali Falls, 'Easy Rider', 'Total Gunga' and 'Surf City' will be submerged.It is possible, depending on the alignment of the Dam, that the falls at 'Big Brother' (alsoknown as 'Silverback') may be unaffected since they will lie downstream of the structure,however, the finishing point shown on the map will have to move further downstream,probably to at least the 'Nile Special' rapid if the existing journey length and number ofrapids is to be retained in the post - Dam era. Similarly, the two day trip will need to beextended further downstream from its indicated finish point although quite where thismay be has yet to be determined. Nabuganyi, a point beyond the 'Waleba' rapid (see Fig2.1 above) has been used before and is therefore a likely finishing point.'Total Gunga' isthe Grade 5 rapid lost while 'Big Brother/Silverback' may also be lost, leaving at leastthree Grade 5 rapids for rafting on the route, 'Overtime', 'Itanda/The Bad Place' and'Novocaine' (see Table 2.1 above).

Adrift accepts the reality of the proposed Bujagali HPP and recognises that they will needto manage the change in their rafting product once the timetable for the dam constructionis made public. Maintenance of the integrity, quality and thrill of the rafting experience isconsidered to be fundamental to the core values of the company's operating philosophyand thus the commitment of the company to its current and future product, in marketingand promotional terms, is regarded with a similar passion which understands the need toembrace change positively.

Although Adrift will not need to relocate their rafting base, the one impact which theywill suffer is the need to find a new launching point into the river somewhere below thenew Dam. While such a location has not yet been researched, the suggestion of a facilityshared with other rafting companies and provided as part of the impact mitigationmeasures was not regarded as ideal. Each operator has historically used different accesspoints and exit points to/from the river and has a different approach to delivering theiroperationally distinct rafting product and will prefer to maintain their own separate sitefor entry to and possibly exit from the river.

Adrift employs around 40 full-time staff at their Bujagali campsite/rafting base of whomabout 10 are ex-pat and the balance are Ugandan. None of these jobs are threatened bythe need to move the rafting trips below the planned new dam although it is possible thatnew casual labour needed to help carry rafts in and out of the river may be required at thenew entry and exit points.

18

Nile River ExplorersNile River Explorers (NRE) was the second rafting company to operate on the VictoriaNile, commencing operations early in 1997. The company was set up by Jon Dahl, awhite water rafting expert with experience developing the sport on the river Zambezi inZimbabwe and perhaps not surprisingly, he decided to locate his rafting base andbackpacker lodge in Jinja rather than in Kampala. Offering camping, dormitory anddouble room accommodation options, the Explorers Backpackers Hostel in Jinja becamethe most popular budget accommodation in Jinja before NRE and Equator Rafting bothopened similar budget accommodation facilities at Bujagali whereupon staying by theriver became the preferred option.

NRE's market focus was and is different from that of Adrift. The base at Jinja made it thenatural stop for the overland truck based traveller market and this sector has dominatedNRE's business although not to the extent that the Kampala based market dominatesAdrift's business. NRE indicates that around 60 per cent of their clients are sourcedthrough the overland truck sector and that some 40 per cent therefore come throughvarious Kampala or Ugandan based organisations, travel agencies, ex-pats or NGO's.

The Explorers Campsite at Bujagali is located on the cliff top overlooking the BujagaliFalls and although it originally offered a bar/restaurant, camping and dormitoryaccommodation, in the last few years this has been supplemented with bandas, and luxurysafari style tented camp facilities, a swimming pool and an a la carte style restaurant. Thishas enabled higher value markets to be attracted from Kampala and overseas andprovides the overland truck passenger with an option to trade-up from the campsite as atreat in a very special location - and many do. The overland truck market stays threenights at the campsite which gives the travellers time to engage in a greater variety ofactivities, including a day devoted to working with local NGO's assisting withcommunity based projects such as renovating school buildings or similar.

NRE have always launched their rafts from a river bank site close to the Owen FallsDam, some kilometres up-stream from where Adrift enter the river, in order to give theirclients more practice and familiarity on the raft and in the water before they decide toproceed to the rapids. Like Adrift, they also offer a range of rafting options, I day, 2days, family trips etc. but once again it is the I day option which accounts for the largemajority of rafting trips. Rafting trips cost $95 per person, the same as Adrift, althoughhistorically, NRE prices were lower than Adrift prices. Estimates of the number of raftershandled during 2005 suggest a figure of around 5,000, which would make NRE theleading rafting company with Adrift in second place.

NRE has also developed its business along broader tourism related lines like Adrift byoffering kayaking courses and tandem kayaking (instructor and pupil in one kayak) downthe Nile. They have set up a separate website, \s U '%. .ik[hlVici I'Ii 1 which focuses onthe much smaller and more specialist market for adventure kayaking which uses theBujagali Falls but also uses and considers 'Itanda/The Bad Place' and the 'Nile Special'rapids as world class for kayaking. NRE is also providing an improved range and quality

19

of accommodation and food services and selling a variety of other tourism experiencessuch as gorilla trekking and wildlife safaris. Five years ago they used to operateSundowner cruises on Lake Victoria and although that service closed down when thevessel they rented was sold, developing similar cruises on the lake created by the newreservoir is something that will be seriously considered by the company.

NRE have also confirmed that they will not be closing down their white water raftingbusiness if the Bujagali HPP project proceeds , nor will they move from either their basein Jinja or their campsite close to Bujagali Falls. As was pointed out in the coverage ofAdrift, above, the changes to the white water rafting experience consequent upon movingthe trips below the new Dam are not expected to have any meaningful impact upon themarkets currently attracted. What was originally considered to be a pretty extreme sport(and of course still is on many stretches of many rivers worldwide) undertaken by a hardcore of skilled purists, has been controlled and made much safer (but still not withoutrisk) by professional rafting guides and has thus become an essentially mainstreamadventure sport open to all. Indeed, many holiday insurance policies, including thoselikely to be taken out by overland truckers, and other travellers already include cover foradventurous activities like white water rafting while additional premiums may only besought for skiing and related winter sports cover.

For the overland truck market, Jinja and the option to raft the Nile is simply one stop andone experience among many on a tour around Uganda or an even longer trip around EastAfrica and thus the change to the rafting trip caused by the Bujagali HPP will notrepresent a make or break factor influencing that holiday choice. Contact with leadingU.K. based adventure/overland trucking tour operators offering Uganda has confirmedboth this position and their own commitment to including Jinja/white water rafting intheir future itineraries despite any changes to the rafting trip. The tour operators indicatethat around 75 percent of their clients take up the option to raft in Jinja and they do notexpect this to change if the rafting trip itself changes as anticipated. The tour operatorsalso indicate that the eastern side of Uganda which is currently little visited will becomeincorporated in additional new itineraries being developed involving western Kenya andthat this will lead to their bringing more visitors to Jinja/Bujagali and thus potentiallymore clients for rafting trips.

The principal impact upon NRE's business operation once the Bujagali HPP is built isexactly the same as for Adrift, that is, the need to find new sites to enter and exit the riverbelow the Dam. The primary concern is to have a launch site which is solely for theirown use, as is the current situation, so that they can provide their clients with the distinctNRE rafting experience without distraction from other rafting companies. NRE feels thatthe provision of toilets and changing facilities for example, at the launch site, would be adesirable improvement on current practice, enhance the professionalism of the activityand further improve the image of Jinja as the 'Adventure Capital of East Africa'.

NRE indicates that it employs around 100 full-time staff, however, their employees aremostly paid on an as required daily basis, when rafting activities are taking place, while itis understood that Adrift pays its staff on a monthly basis no matter what level of rafting

20

takes place. Both figures are accurate in their own way but are not directly comparable assimply 'full-time'. If two NRE staff are considered equal to one full-time Adriftemployee then this would represent 50 'full-time' staff at NRE, which considering NREoperates from two locations with accommodation, catering and management at each, thenit is not unreasonable to expect more employment generated by NRE. NRE has a similarratio of ex-pat to local employees and once again none of the employment will be lostfollowing the relocation of rafting trips to the river below the Dam.

Equator RaftingEquator Rafting was originally established as a joint venture between Mick Barnett, awhite water rafting expert and former employee of Adrift Rafting and the Speke HotelsGroup in early 2001. Mick Barnett had secured a new lease for the District Councilowned Bujagali Falls tourism site and proposed the development of a new raftingcompany and campsite based at the site.

The partnership and performance of Equator Rafting was very successful in the earlyyears but the partnership broke up and Equator Rafting, instead of maintaining its leadingposition amongst the group of rafting companies, has found itself overtaken by itscompetitors The Speke Camp, however, has a stunning location immediately beside theBujagali Falls and the site doubles as a visitor recreation and picnic site as well as acampsite and rafting base. A large, attractive, open-sided and thatch roofed bar/restauranthas a prominent location by the Falls while the campsite, dormitories, kitchen, toilets,showers and other facilities are located to the rear of the site but give a poor impressionand sense of neglect.

All visitors to the site are charged for entry, Ush 2,000 for a Ugandan, Ush 3,000 for anon-Ugandan and Ush 500 for a child while vehicles are charged at an additional Ush1,000. Visitors can either bring their own food at no extra charge or use the bar/restauranton site. Revenues from the operation of the site as a visitor picnic/recreation site alone areunderstood to be around Ush 130 million (some $72,000) and this suggests annual visitornumbers of between 50,000 to 60,000.

Equator, who launch their rafts from their own campsite upstream of the Bujagali Falls,offer the same rafting options as Adrift and NRE and again find that the one day trip isthe most popular choice. Their market is dominated by Kampala sourced/based ex-pats,NGO's and visitors and this is assisted by the Speke Hotels Group owning severalprominent hotels in both Kampala and Entebbe. Formerly, rafting rates were the same asAdrift and NRE ($95 per person last year) but currently Equator has dropped its price to$75 per person. This is a significant decision and is probably related to the poorperformance of the rafting business which is understood to have carried only 600 to 700clients during 2005 and continues to operate comparatively weakly.

Equator Rafting confirmed that it is their intention to continue rafting following thecompletion of the Bujagali HPP but that since their existing base at Speke Camp wouldbe submerged by the new reservoir they will need to find a new location for theseactivities. The Speke Hotels Group owns an extensive cliff top site above the Bujagali

21

Falls where it plans to build a 200 room hotel and conference centre and it may bepossible to find a discrete part of this site to relocate their rafting operation to but Equatorindicates that no examination of alternative sites has been undertaken so far.

The principal impacts upon Equator Rafting from the development of the Bujagali HPPare therefore related to the loss of their existing business base and associated structures,the costs of relocating these business assets to a new site and in common with otherrafting companies, the need to find new entry and possibly exit points to/from the river.The original lease agreement with the District Council was signed back in 2000/2001when the plans for the Bujagali HPP were well known and although Equator Raftingbelieves that Speke Hotels Group signed a purchase agreement with the Council for thesite last year (and has documentary evidence of this), this is believed to be invalidbecause the land is Government owned and reverts to the new Project Sponsors as part ofthe required land take for the completion of the Bujagali HPP.

Thus the only impact issues which remain valid are associated with the costs of movingrafting, campsite and office related fixtures, fittings and equipment from Bujagali to anew rafting/camping base and the issue of providing for a new entry point to the river fortheir rafts.

Equator Rafting indicates that they currently employ some 35 staff at Speke Camp, 10 ofwhich are non - Ugandan and that since they plan to relocate rather than close the raftingbusiness once the dam is built, there will be no loss of employment.

Nalubale RaftingNalubale Rafting was started in mid-2005 by Ian Baillie a white water rafting specialistwho formerly worked with Adrift Rafting. He is the owner of a carpentry business andopening the rafting company was his second business start-up. Both businesses are basedin Kampala but the practical rafting operation operates out of rented premises in Jinjatown but has no campsite or related facilities. Kampala is the source of his clientelewhich is a reflection of his experience with Adrift Rafting who generate most of theirrafting business through Kampala based ex-pats, NGO's and other organisations.

At present, Nalubale only operates at weekends and while it offers a range of rafting tripslike the other rafting companies, the majority of trips are one day in length and costs$95.The company employs eight people in Jinja, including three ex-pats and is easily thesmallest of the four rafting businesses. It is estimated that they carried around 200 - 300clients during the six months in which the business operated in 2005.

Nalubale is quite prepared to operate rafting trips below the new dam after it is built andalthough it indicates that it has an operating relationship with NRE, sharing a newlaunching site with them is unlikely to be acceptable to NRE and they will need to find analternative location. It may be possible for Nalubale to share a facility with EquatorRafting who expressed preparedness to share such a facility with other rafting companies.

22

Table 3.1 below summarises the principal characteristics of the four white water raftingcompanies currently operating on the Nile at Jinja / Bujagali:

Table 3.1: Summary Operational Characteristics of the Ra ting Compa niesCompany Market Most Rafting Number Rafter Nos.Started Mix Popular Trip Fee of Staff in 2005

Rafting ($) (estimate)Trip

Adrift Mid 1996 90% NGO 1 Day $ 95 40 F/T 4,000/ Kampala Trip (90% (10 ex-pat,10% of clients) 30 local)Truckers

N.R.E. Early 1997 40% NGO I Day $ 95 50 F/T (10 5,000/ Kampala Trip (95% ex-pat, 4060% of clients) local)*Truckers

Equator Early 2001 95% NGO 1 Day $ 75 35 F/T (10 600 - 700/ Kampala Trip (95% ex-pat, 255% of clients) local)Truckers

Nalubale Mid 2005 100% 1 Day $95 8 F/T (3 200 - 300NGO I Trip ex-pat, 5Kampala (100% of local)

clients) I ISource: Interviews with Rafting Companies and Mrs Sarah Muwanguzi (ItandaLC1 Representative)

3.3 Other Tourism Related Impacts

There are a number of other general and more particular tourism impacts which arisefrom the Bujagali HPP ranging from the removal of the additional costs experienced bytourism businesses associated with their increased use of diesel powered generators toprovide electricity during load shedding, to the possible beneficial opportunity foradditional business at the Hairy Lemon backpacker hostel, located downstream of theKalagala - Itanda Falls. However, the principal other parties where tourism relatedimpacts have a direct bearing are the local village communities on both east and westbanks of the river between theNalubaale Dam and the Bujagali HPP. At present, the relationship which thesecommunities have with tourism is quite distinct but this is set to change and will becomemore similar once the hydropower project is built.

West Bank VillagesDiscussions held with community leaders established that historically their villages hadnot benefited at all from tourism/white water rafting since these businesses were all based

23

on the other side of the river and even when the rafters came downstream and stopped forlunch on their side or on mid-river islands, they were never able to sell fruits and otherfoodstuffs to the rafters since they brought everything with them.

The lack of any benefit from tourism thus far appeared to be keenly felt and thepossibility of a change to this situation, partly as a result of the Dam, was warmlywelcomed. The recent phenomenon of many ex-pat and overseas interests buying upparcels of land along the banks of the river is only just starting to result in newlodges/guesthouses and restaurants opening and thus gradually some tourism relatedbenefits in terms of employment and the purchase of local foodstuffs will begin tobecome apparent.

Employment creation on the one hand and the opportunity to provide services to touristson the other are the two main benefits identified in relation to the proposed hydropowerproject. Employment opportunities are primarily expected to be generated by theconstruction stage of the Dam although it was indicated that tourism related employmentwould also be likely, associated with the plans to build a visitor interpretation centre andrefreshment facilities. Local villages could also supply this centre with fruit andvegetables.

The opening of the Dam together with a possible visitor and interpretation centre willundoubtedly draw its share of the increasing number of visitors arriving in Jinja forrecreation or conference purposes as well as providing an important educational resourcefor local schools. In addition, the plans for developing the west bank elements of theKalagala - Itanda Offset Proposals into a major eco-tourism/nature tourism attraction willfurther encourage more tourists to travel down the west bank of the river to visit both newfacilities. The increased flow of visitors anticipated along the west bank thereforerepresents an opportunity for the local villages to benefit from. Some visitors may stop atroadside shops/stalls for fruit and vegetables or snacks but to benefit further, largernumbers of visitors must be encouraged to stop and one way of achieving this would beto build a museum or cultural heritage centre which would present the history, cultureand artefacts of the various tribes in the area. This could be built on a site with strikingviews of the river and incorporate a picnic site, refreshments and a crafts/gift shop, thusgenerating further local employment and the sale of local foodstuffs and crafts.

The community leaders were supportive of the hydropower project and could see theemployment potential from the construction phase in particular since the constructionbase for the project would be on their side of the river. But they were also keen to benefitfrom tourism and were very much in favour of developing the concept of the culturalcentre/museum as a means of securing this. The fact that such a facility could be used asan educational resource for local schoolchildren and as a means of possibly safeguardingtheir traditions and cultural heritage for the future was warmly welcomed.

East Bank VillagesDiscussions confirmed the existing participation of east bank villages in the tourismsector, principally with the various rafting companies and the businesses that have grown

24

up around them but also with non-rafting businesses like the Jinja Nile Resort Hotel.Tourism companies have created employment opportunities for some families andprovided a market for other families to sell foodstuffs and other services to them but therafting companies in particular have also enabled a range of small businesses to grow uparound the entrances to their sites offering a range of goods and services direct to theindividual visitor. These businesses will benefit from the non-relocation of the Adrift andNRE rafting bases but may suffer from the loss of the Bujagali Falls riverside recreationsite if a replacement site cannot be found relatively nearby.

An apparent lack of familiarity with the current status of the Bujagali HPP and theimpacts the project is likely to have on existing rafting and other tourism businesses, ledto an initial uncertainty and expression of fear for the jobs and other benefits alreadyenjoyed by east bank villages. Once reassured on those points, concern was expressedabout the loss of the Bujagali Falls picnic site and recreational area as a local facility (andpossible job losses), then concern also about the future quality of the road along the eastbank to the Dam and beyond to Itanda given the existing standard and the expected heavyuse during the construction period. In addition, as with the west bank villages, there was adesire to benefit from the increased numbers of visitors expected to be drawn down theeast bank because of the land sales, plans for numerous new guesthouses, lodges andhotels and the Kalagala - Itanda Offset Proposals.

The need to try and encourage visitors to stop on their drive down the east bank mirroredthe views of the west bank villages and the suggestion of building a museum/culturalcentre to display the history, culture and artefacts of the tribal peoples living on the eastbank as means of achieving this was positively received. This museum could also belocated on a site with attractive views and also incorporate a picnic site, refreshments anda craft/gift shop to maximise the benefit from the much larger flows of visitors expectedby the time the Dam has been built.

Table 3.2 below summarises the tourism impacts of the Bujagali HPP described above.

25

iI

t

I

Table 3.2: Summary Tourism Impacts of the Bujagali Hydropo er ProjectStakeholder / Nature of the Scale of the Impact Financial ImpactAffected Parties ImpactWhite Water Rafting Loss of the Staircase Partial Diminution of NeutralCompanies Feature and a Grade 5 the Existing Rafting

Rapid TripWhite Water Rafting Loss of Existing Need to Facilitate Negative but MinorCompanies Individual Rafting Replacement of

Company Entry Individual EntryPoints to the River Points to the River

below the DamWhite Water Rafting Replacement / Only Equator Rafting Negative but MinorCompanies Relocation of Will Have to Relocate

Equipment to newRafting CompanyOperational Bases

White Water Rafting Loss of Some Part- Limited Because Only NeutralCompany Employees Time Jobs Due to Re- One Company to Re-

Positioning of the Locate and Jobs MayRafting Route be Created along the

New RouteEast Bank Loss of Bujagali Falls Loss of a Significant Negative but SeriousCommunities Recreation/Picnic Site Community Riverside

Recreation FacilityEast Bank Loss of Bujagali Falls Loss of Economic Negative but MinorCommunities Recreation/Picnic Site Benefit to

Shops/Stalls outsideEntrance to BujagaliFalls Site

East Bank Increase in Numbers Benefits from Positive but ModerateCommunities of Visitors Travelling Attracting Visitors to

Along the East Bank Stop and SpendEast Bank Development of new Possible creation of Positive but minorCommunities rafting launch and exit casual employment to

Riverside locations assist raftingcompanies

West Bank Development of new Possible creation of Positive but minorCommunities rafting launch and exit casual employment to


West Bank Increase in Numbers Benefits from Positive but ModerateCommunities of Visitors Travelling Attracting Visitors to

Along the West Bank Stop and SpendHairy Lemon Island Increase in Rafters Benefits from Positive but MinorBackpacker Campsite Passing Downstream Attracting Rafting

Company RaftsJinja Tourism Sector Cessation of Reduction in Energy Positive but Minor

Electricity Load Costs Due to LowerShedding Diesel Generator Use

26

4.0 MITIGATION MEASURES

The following list of suggested mitigation measures represents a summary of suitableresponses to those identified tourism impacts already discussed in the preceding sectionsof this report. Successful implementation of these measures however, will require acombination of facilitation and funding together with the co-operation and engagement ofnumerous public and private organisations and Bujagali Energy Limited, whilerepresenting a readily identifiable source of financial support and facilitation may notmeet the entire costs involved and consequently other potential funding/technicalassistance sourees are suggested at the end of this section of the report.

MM 1: - New Launch/Exit sites: The one impact of the Bujagali HPP affecting all thewhite water rafting companies is the loss of their individual raft launching sites and thereplacement of these is considered to be a major requirement. It will be necessary to findsuitable sites downstream of the Dam and have them ready for use by the timeconstruction work in Stage 2 of the Dam build, connecting Dumbbell Island to the easternriverbank, gets underway since this will interfere with rafting activities. Exit pointsdownstream on both banks will also be required although they may be shared and mayneed fewer facilities.

It is envisaged that the new entry/exit points will be secured through purchasing orleasing (depending on circumstance) of the sites, while further investment will berequired for landscaping and the provision of facilities such as small slipways, toilets,changing rooms and storerooms.

MM 2:- Jinja Tourism Development Association:The establishment of thisorganisation was facilitated by AES Nile Power but it is understood to be inactive atpresent. However, the growing importance of tourism for the Jinja area would benefitfrom the availability of a forum for discussion and identification of pro-active measureswhich could support this trend. In the absence of a public sector led initiative to satisfythis requirement, the private sector, through either the reviving of this particularorganisation or the establishment of another should take the lead. The Project Sponsors asprospective operators of a possible visitor centre at the Dam could not only facilitate there-emergence of this body but also participate in its activities as a member and futuretourism sector stakeholder.

Currently, there is evidence of growing interest amongst the private sector touristbusiness community for the establishment of an informal forum for the discussion ofmutual interests and their promotion and thus it is likely that this mitigation measure willbe positively received by these stakeholders.

MM 3: - Museum/Cultural Heritage Centres: To enable both the west bank and eastbank village communities to benefit from the increased numbers of tourists expected tobe travelling along either side of the Nile, a museum/cultural heritage visitor attraction

27

interpreting local tribal history and culture to be built in a prominent location (perhapswith views over the river) with picnic, refreshment and craft/gift shop facilities, on bothsides of the river is proposed. Project implementation of the buildings, interpretivedisplays and fitting out of these attractions will be facilitated by the Project Sponsors andbuilt upon local council owned land or other suitable sites which may be either leased orpurchased. It is envisaged that these attractions will become self-financing and be staffedand managed by the local community who will be fully involved in their planning andexecution.

Project development committees will be established in both east and west bankcommunities and they will include tribal elders together with appropriately skilled andexperienced leading members of the community. These committees will require guidanceand advice from a range of organisations including the Uganda Community TourismAssociation (UCTA), the Ministry of Tourism Trade and Industry (MTTI), the NationalMuseum of Uganda, the National Environmental Management Authority (NEMA), theNational Forestry Authority (NFA) and relevant NGO's.

These museums/ cultural heritage attractions will need to be well planned and designedand thus financing of an initial feasibility study providing advice upon a suitable conceptand approach to realising attractive and viable developments for both communities willbe desirable. An understanding between the Project Sponsors and the Local Councilsconcerned will establish, at an early stage, the basis upon which facilitation of theproposals can proceed.

MM 4: - Bujagali Dam Visitor/Interpretation Centre: To assist with the developmentof a new tourist route along the west bank of the Nile and the creation of a neweducational resource for local and regional schoolchildren, a Bujagali Dam Visitor Centrewill be built. The visitor centre will tell the story of the building of the dam, explain thecreation of hydroelectricity and its positive environmental character together with theimportant role which electricity plays in the national economy. The visitor centre will belocated at the site of the hydropower plant and be designed and built following therecommendations of a feasibility study which will propose a concept and content whichwill both educate and entertain.

The Project Sponsors will facilitate the implementation of this attraction which will inaddition provide refreshment facilities and a jetty on the lakeside for the operation of boattrips around the new lake created by the hydropower project. The feasibility study willdetermine whether the visitor centre should operate a policy of charging for entry andwhether this includes school children or not. The project will be constructed at a suitablepoint in Stage I of the Dam build but probably not fitted out and opened until the Dam iscompleted unless visitor access to the west bank Dam site is deemed safe and desirable atan earlier date.

MM 5:-Bujagali Picnic Site The loss of the Bujagali Falls viewpoint, picnic and generalrecreation site, used by many locals and visitors will be replaced by a similar facility inthe same vicinity not withstanding the plans for the Kalagala - Itanda Offset proposals

28

many kilometres away. The Project Sponsors will identify a suitable riverside site whichwill be improved to provide a meaningful alternative to the Bujagali recreation and picnicsite and may, if suitable, include the provision of a jetty for the operation of boat trips onthe lake.

MM 6:- Kalagala - Itanda Offset Enhancement. The Kalagala - Itanda OffsetProposals represent an imaginative conceptual framework for sustainable tourismdevelopment along both banks of the river north of the Bujagali HPP. The conceptrepresents the presentation of a mitigation measure which is designed to offset the loss ofnatural habitats, as well as the visual and recreational amenity of the Bujagali Falls picnicarea. AES Nile Power indicated their preparedness to become involved with the Plan.The new Project Sponsors will adopt the same position to realise the most beneficialproject for visitors and local communities alike.

Financial assistance will be required to deliver a wide range of features and facilitieswhich will secure the unique cultural and natural integrity of the site includingconservation of historic and cultural heritage locations, building of a visitor centre,footpaths, bicycle paths, trails, interpretation and signage boards, picnic areas,viewpoints, public toilets, car parking, tree planting, landscaping and related facilities.The current negotiations between NFA and Adrift over the latter's concessionary leasesfor an up-market lodge development on Kalagala Island and campsites on certain otherislands also extends to riverbank land on both sides of the river where many of theassociated cultural, eco-tourism and visitor facilities proposed in the Offset Plan arelocated. Thus it is likely that Adrift may additionally include certain of these features intheir proposals and Project Sponsor involvement at Kalagala - Itanda will thereforesupport the lead and framework established by this joint NFA / Adrift initiative.

Mitigation Measures Financin2 Note:

While it is clear that Project Sponsor facilitation and support will be forthcoming for arange of mitigation measures such as these proposed above and potentially for otherswhich may either develop out of those put forward or indeed from suggestions yet to bearticulated, it is also the case that the budgets for implementation of these measures maynot necessarily be found entirely found from the Project Sponsor and thus other possiblesources will require investigation.

Other possible sources of financing / co-financing could include:

I . Government of Uganda sources - This could involve funds/technical supportfrom a range of Ministries/Departments including MTTI, NFA and the NationalMuseum of Uganda.

2. The World Bank Group - The safeguarding of cultural and natural heritageagainst deterioration and loss together with their potential for delivering economic

29

and educational benefit is recognised and supported by the World Bank and itmay be for example that aspects of the Kalagala -Itanda Offset Proposals couldbe supported either in isolation or as part of a wider sub-regional initiative.

3. The European Union - The EU has and is supporting MTTI with the preparationof a short term tourism marketing strategy together with finance and technicalassistance for its implementation. It is possible that support for the developmentof the Ugandan eco-tourism product for example and support for tourisminfrastructure development in Eastern Uganda (including Jinja) which theirmarketing strategy supports, may be forthcoming from current or future budgetallocations.

30

APPENDIX 1 - LIST OF CONSULTED PARTIES

GOVERNMENT OF UGANDA

Ministry of Tourism, Trade and Industry* Rt Hon Mr Daudi Migereko, Minister, Tourism, Trade and Industry* Mr Justus Tindigarukayo-Kashagire, Commissioner, Tourism and Wildlife* Mr Baguma Cuthbert Balinda, Assistant Commissioner, Tourism and Wildlife

National Environment Management Authority* Mr Waisawa Ayazika Arnold, EIA Co-ordinator

National Forestry Authority* Mr Olav Bjella, NFA Executive Director* Mr Edward Mupada, Director of Corporate Affairs* Mr Jones Ruhombe, Director Field Operations* Mr C D Lagoya, Regional Co-ordinator, Nile Frontier* Mr Paul Buyerah Musumali, EIA Specialist* Mr Hudson J. Andrua, Co-ordinator, Land Management* Mr Arinaitwe Reuben, Range Manager - Lakeshore* Mr Jeroba, Manager, Mabira Forest Eco-Tourism Centre

Uganda Tourist Board* Mr James Bahinguza, General Manager

Uganda Wildlife Authority* Ms Eunice Nyiramahoro Duli, Director, Planning, Monitoring and Research* Mr Kapere Richard, Planning and EIA Officer

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Jinja District Council* Mr Muganza, Trade and Tourism Development Officer

East Bank LC I* Chairman plus numerous meeting attendees

West Bank LC I* Chairman plus numerous meeting attendees

Itanda LC I* Ms Sarah Muwanguzi, LC 1 Representative at Itanda Falls

31

PRIVATE SECTOR

Acacia Adventure Holidays, UK* Mr Heath Ashcroft, Project Manager for East Africa

Adrift Rafting, Kampala,Uganda* Mr Cam Mcleay, Managing Director* Mr Dennis Ntege, General Manager

Crested Crane Hotel and Tourism Training Institute, Jinja, Uganda* Mr Barnabas Kabalisa, Principal

Equator Rafting, Jinja, Uganda* Mr Hitesh Vora, General Manager

Explore Worlwide Ltd, UK* Mr Peter Eshelby, Field Operations Manager

Gyelloba bv, East Africa, Kampala, Uganda* Mr Roel van Beusekom, Director ( operator of Mabira Forest Lodge)

Jinja Hospitality Industries Stakeholders Meeting, Uganda* Numerous meeting attendees

Mabira Forest Lodge, Jinja, Uganda* Mr Amos Otieno, Lodge Manager

Nalubale Rafting, Kampala, Uganda* Mr Ian Baillie, Proprietor/General Manager

Nile Resort Hotel (Mada Hotels), Jinja, Uganda* Mr Lasiti Ole Kerore, General Manager

Nile River Explorers, Jinja, Uganda* Mr Jon Dahl, Managing Director

Palm Tree Guest House, Jinja, Uganda* Mr Surjit Bharj, Owner

Triangle Hotel Jinja, Uganda* Ms N. Nakazibwe, Deputy General Manager

32

APPENDIX 2 - REFERENCES

Adrift Rafting, 2005. EIA for a Proposed Nile Island Lodge at Kalagala Island -Executive Summary

Adrift Rafting - Current brochure material

DGi Co, UK, 1998. Bujagali Falls Hydropower Scheme, Environmental ImpactAssessment - Tourism Appraisal

Equator Rafting - Current brochure material

ESG International, Canada, 2001. Bujagali Hydropower Project, Environmental ImpactAssessment (for AES Nile Power)

Ministry of Tourism, Wildlife and Antiquities, 1993. Republic of Uganda IntegratedTourism Master Plan (UNDP / WTO UGA 91/0 10), Final Report, Madrid, 1993,Summary

Ministry of Tourism, Trade and Industry, 2001. The Kalagala - Itanda Offset TourismDevelopment Proposals.

Ministry of Tourism, Trade and Industry, 2003. National Tourism Policy for Uganda

Nalubale Rafting - Current brochure material

National Forestry Authority, 2005. Invitation for Bids to Run Tourism Businesses inCentral Forest Reserves - A notice placed in Procurement News, Uganda, 2/8 May 2005

Nile River Explorers - Current brochure material

The Eye Magazine, Feb/March 2006, Uganda. Free bi-monthly magazine 'The InsidersGuide to Uganda'

Tourism and Transport Consult International, Dublin, 2004. Uganda Sustainable TourismDevelopment Programme, Marketing Strategy 2004- 2008 (EU Project No.8 ACP/UG37)

Uganda Bureau of Statistics, 2005. Migration and Tourism Report No. IV

Uganda Tourist Board, 2005. 'Uganda an Elegant Adventure' - brochure downloadedfrom Uganda Tourist Board website, www.visituganda.com

Uganda Wildlife Authority, 2002. Uganda Wildlife Authority Strategic Plan 2002 - 2007

Wanderlust Travel Magazine, UK, August/September 1998. Article entitled 'River Wild',by Geoffrey Roy on whitewater rafting around the world.

33


SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

REPORT ON TOURISM IMPACTS

Prepared For: R.J.Burnside International Limited, Guelph, Canada

By: Fletcher Associates, Richmond, Surrey, United Kingdom

APRIL 2006

1


TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................ 3

1.1 Background .......................................................... 3

1.2 Scope of Work .......................................................... 3

1.3 Conduct of the Study .......................................................... 4

2.0 STATUS OF TOURISM IN THE HYDROPOWER DEVELOPMENT AREA ......... 5

2.1 The Historical Context ........................................... 5

2.2 The 'Adventure Capital of East Africa' .......................................................... 6

2.3 The Emerging Conferences and Meetings Market ................................................. 10

2.4 Other Development Activity .......................................................... 12

3.0 THE TOURISM IMPACTS OF THE BUJAGALI HPP PROJECT ............ 14

3.1 The Physical Impacts of the Project ................................. 14

3.2 Impacts upon White Water Rafting Companies ..................................................... 15

3.3 Other Tourism Related Impacts .................................... 23

4.0 MITIGATION MEASURES ......................................................... 27

APPENDIX I - LIST OF CONSULTED PARTIES ....................................................... 31

APPENDIX 2 - REFERENCES ............................................................ 33

2

fi

i

11

iI

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

The Bujagali Hydropower Project (Bujagali HPP) is a proposed 250MW hydropowerfacility to be built at Dumbbell Island, located 8km downstream (north) of the town ofJinja, Uganda, on the Victoria Nile. The project is proposed by Bujagali Energy Ltd., aproject specific company owned by World Power Holdings LLC, of Luxembourg andIPS (Kenya) Ltd, the 'Project Sponsors'.

A Social and Environmental Assessment (SEA) of the Bujagali HPP needs to beundertaken for the project and then be approved by the Government of Uganda (GoU)and the International lenders (World Bank Group, African Development Bank, EuropeanInvestment Bank, commercial banks under IDA PRG and other European DevelopmentBanks) involved in the project, before it proceeds to construction.

Previously, AES Nile Power (AESNP) was the Project Sponsor for the Bujagali HPP andthe Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) undertaken for them was approved by theGoU's National Environmental Management Authority (NEMA) in 1999/2001 and by theinternational lenders in December 2001. AESNP, however, withdrew from the project in2003 without commencing construction and the new Project Sponsor is now required tocarry out a new Social and Environmental Assessment (SEA) as part of their duediligence / project approval process.

The Project Sponsor has appointed R.J.Burnside International Ltd. of Canada to conduct,or oversee the SEA tasks and manage the SEA process on its behalf and R.J.BurnsideInternational Ltd has in tum appointed Fletcher Associates, a specialist UK based,international tourism development consultancy, to undertake the tourism impactassessment component within the overall SEA.

1.2 Scope of Work

The scope of work for this assignment is identified in the R.J.Burnside Terms ofReference for the SEA and in the subsequent sub-consultancy agreement betweenR.J.Burnside and Fletcher Associates and is presented below thus:

* Consult with appropriate central government and local government authoritiesand tourism operators and their association(s) to determine the present status oftourism in the proposed hydropower development area;

* Assess the potential impacts of the Bujagali Hydropower Project on tourism in thehydropower development area, including any effects on the white water rafting(WWR) industry;

3

* Advise on potential measures to mitigate the effects to WWR and other touristamenities at the hydropower site and propose alternative tourist developmentscenarios and / or facilities that could be developed on or adjacent to the proposedreservoir. This will include an assessment of tourism opportunities that can bepromoted and developed at the 'Kalagala-Itanda Offset' site downstream; and

* Consult with tourism operators and their association(s) and local communities andtheir leadership (LCI, LC3, and LC5 levels) on tourism impact mitigationmeasures and alternative tourism development strategies and how they can beinvolved in delivering future tourism services (e.g. accommodation, activities).

1.3 Conduct of the Study

The fieldwork component of the study was undertaken between 19 March and l't April,2006, with time spent roughly equally between the capital city of Kampala and Jinja, thetown located on both the banks of Lake Victoria and the banks of the Victoria Nile wherethe river begins its journey to the Mediterranean Sea. Jinja is some 8km upstream (south)from the proposed Bujagali HPP and is by far the largest town in the hydropowerdevelopment area.

A programme of pre-arranged and locally arranged appointments and site visits wasundertaken in both Kampala and Jinja with representatives from the Government ofUganda (Ministry of Tourism, Trade and Industry, Uganda Tourist Board, NEMA,National Forestry Authority, Uganda Wildlife Authority), Local Government and localrepresentatives of national organisations, representatives from village communitieslocated on both banks of the Nile and representatives from the white water raftingcompanies and other sectors of the tourism and hospitality industry.

Two full days of site inspections were undertaken including at the Bujagali Falls locationwhich will be submerged by the reservoir created by the building of the dam, the east andwest bank locations for the construction of the dam at Dumbbell Island and both theKalagala (west bank) and Itanda (east bank) locations within the Kalagala - Itanda Offsetproposal site. These site visits were accompanied by representatives from the ProjectSponsor and the World Bank / International Lenders team who were in Uganda duringthe first week of the fieldwork and then by representatives of the various Government ofUganda Ministries / Authorities mentioned above who have a close interest in the SEAprogramme.

4

2.0 STATUS OF TOURISM IN THE HYDROPOWERDEVELOPMENT AREA

2.1 The Historical Context

The hydropower development area may broadly be considered to encompass ageographic locale which is anchored to the south by Greater Jinja (that is the combinationof the town of Jinja on the east bank of the Nile together with Njeru, essentially a suburbor satellite of Jinja, on the west bank of the Nile) and extends along both banks of theriver, several kilometres deep on either side, as far north as the proposed damconstruction site at Dumbbell Island.

In simple historical terms, the Jinja area (or more accurately, the town of Jinja on its own)has enjoyed a certain level of international awareness and status on account of its locationas the iconic Source of the Nile, made known to the wider world by the British explorerSpeke in 1862. However, translation of this historical association into meaningful tourismawareness and development as a visitor destination has arguably only been underwayover the last ten to fifteen years and even then this has been as a consequence of acompletely unrelated attraction - white water rafting.

Jinja emerged from an informal European settlement around 1900 to become animportant transport hub with a ferry service connecting with Kisumu, a Kenyan town onLake Victoria which had been connected to Mombasa earlier that decade by a new raillink. The local economy developed further thanks to an emerging cotton industry and arail link with Kampala but it was the opening of the Owen Falls Dam (now called theNalubaale Dam) and hydro-electric power station in 1954 that led to a twenty yeareconomic boom resulting in Jinja rapidly becoming known as Uganda's principalindustrial and manufacturing centre.

Proximity to a reliable (transmission distances being short) and cheap source of powerattracted the brewing, cigarette, textile and other manufacturing industries to Jinja leadingto a rapid rise in the local population and a level of prosperity which can still beappreciated from the planned layout of the town centre and suburban streets with theirimpressive domestic and local governmental architecture. However, the largely Asianowned and managed businesses were a key target during the regime of Idi Amin in theearly/mid 1970's, during which the Asian population was expelled and friends of thedictator, with little business experience, were placed in control of their companies.

The resulting collapse of the local economy may still be seen in the pot-holed roads andabandoned nature of many once grand homes along some of the suburban streets. Yet thisis now contrasted with other streets and other properties which have clearly been recentlyrestored and improved, a town centre with both new and renovated commercial buildingsand an industrial base which is attracting back several of the key original businesses.

5

Jinja, together with Njeru on the opposite side of the Nile, now has a population of inexcess of 136,000, which makes it the second largest town in Uganda and although it nolonger possesses an active port, it sits beside the only rail link with Kenya (entirelyfreight at present) and the principal road link between Kampala and Nairobi (crossing theNalubaale Dam) which carries half of all visitor arrivals (for all purposes) to Uganda andthe bulk of all international commercial/freight movements. Jinja has thus recovered itsposition as the major transportation hub which justified the development of the town inthe first place.

2.2 The 'Adventure Capital of East Africa'

As an important early administrative and transportation centre but more significantly,later, as Uganda's principal industrial centre, Jinja has always attracted business visitorsand thus a small number of hotels and guest houses have grown up to accommodate thisparticular sector of the tourism market. However, holiday or recreational tourism inUganda which historically has been relatively small compared to neighbouring Kenyaand Tanzania, was focussed on game viewing/hunting in the west and north of thecountry and thus largely by-passed Jinja.

Successive periods of political instability and their associated security problems since the1970's have resulted in a generally negative international perception of Uganda as atourism destination while the heavy poaching of game in the wildlife areas during thisperiod also led to a diminution in the destination's appeal. By the early 1990's, visitorsarriving for holiday/tourism purposes were recorded as being some 10,000 out of totalannual overseas arrivals of around 70,000 but the pragmatic policies of PresidentMuseveni's first term of office were now creating stability and economic growth suchthat support for the development of the tourism sector could now be envisioned.

In 1993, the World Tourism Organisation, funded by the United Nations DevelopmentProgramme, published an 'Integrated Tourism Master Plan for Uganda' which presenteda strategy for the development of the tourism sector over the following ten years. Thisstrategy built and improved upon the existing product, infrastructure and resourceframework in order that a revitalised tourism sector could be delivered with relativespeed and ease. Development of new tourism products and the opening of less establishedand remoter parts of the country were considered to be longer term objectives which leftconsideration of Jinja, the 'Source of the Nile' and the eastern side of Uganda largely inabeyance.

Tourism arrivals were extremely weak in comparison with those attracted toneighbouring Kenya and Tanzania and the Master Plan recognised that a large percentageof this number were made up of 'overland truckers' and independent budget travellers,the very market sectors which are essential for kick starting the awareness creationprocess in new or moribund visitor destinations. However, such markets are considered tobe low yield as far as tourist destinations are concerned because of their traditionally low

6

spending nature and thus tend to be ignored by national tourist board executives andplanners, as was the case in this Master Plan.

Yet it was a couple of just such intrepid travellers, albeit with a dedication to satisfyinghigh adventure sporting pursuits who, having established successful white water raftingbusinesses on world class rapids on the Zambezi and in New Zealand, became aware ofthe essentially unknown, equally high quality series of grade 4 and 5 rapids (classificationis based upon grading rapids from 1 to 5/6 with 5 being the best for regular commercialrafting purposes and 6 being too severe for normal commercial rafting) on the VictoriaNile and decided to turn their attention to offering rafting at the Source of the Nile inUganda. Table 2.1 below presents the names and class of rapids used, in sequence, byAdrift Rafting for their one and two day rafting trips on the Victoria Nile.

Table 2.1: Rapids Used by Adrift Rafting for Their One and Two Day Rafting Trips

1/ 2 Day Trips Name ClassDay One Bujagali 5

Easy Rider 3Total Gunga/G.Spot 5Ugly Sisters/Sibling Rivalry/Surf City 3Big Brother/Silverback 5Point Break 3Overtime 5Retrospect 4Bubugo/Super Hole 3Itanda/Bad Place 6/5

Day Two Novocaine 5Vengeance 4Hair of the Dog 4Kulu Shaker 4Nile Special 4Malalu 4

(Future Extension) Weleba 3

Source:AESNP 2001 EIA Report with updates by C. McCleay (Adrift Rafting), 2006

Table 2.1 should be read in conjunction with Figure 2.1 below, which locates the positionof each of the rapids described in the Table, in sequence, upon a satellite image of theVictoria Nile.

In 1996, the Bujagali Falls was simply a series of impressive rapids on an attractivestretch of the Nile some 6km downstream from Jinja. Direct access to the river at thispoint was possible across a little known (to international travellers) river bank site usedregularly by locals for picnics and informal recreation but in August that year it alsobecame the launching point for the first commercial white water rafting trips organisedby the rafting company Adrift. Some months later in early 1997, Adrift were joined by acompetitor, Nile River Explorers (NRE) who operated from a base in Jinja town andlaunched their rafts higher up the river from a site closer to the Nalubaale Dam.

7

III

I

Figure 2.1 Satellite Image of 'White Water' Locations and Named Rapids

*g-Q85. ~ ~~ ~~~ ..v0 .bt: .'0. ...Z .:etl .3:.

(41 1 9 I.

'- S s s im

s ^ ^

From around 50 clients a month in the start-up period, the rafting numbers grew to anaverage of nearly 300 a month the following year and higher still in 1998 for Adrift,according to research conducted by DGiCo for the AES Nile Power SEA prepared in1998. This same study concluded that between Adrift and NRE, the total estimatednumber of white water rafters on the Nile was somewhere between 7,000 - 8,000 perannum in 1998. Thus, from a standing start in 1996/7, the rafting companies becameresponsible for attracting an average of 600+ international visitors a month to Jinja, as adestination, rather than as simply the transit stop to visit the Source of The Nile, whichwas what it was known for before, completely independently from any Ministry of Tradeand Tourism (MTTI) initiatives or plans.

The development of white water rafting was (and still is) based upon two distinct marketsectors (albeit with similar general demographic characteristics) each in their own wayextremely important for the wider development of Ugandan tourism through theircapacity to create awareness of and stimulate interest in travel to and around the country.These sectors were on the one hand, the international overland truckers andindependently mobile budget travellers passing through and on the other hand, theUgandan based ex-pat/NGO market looking for a recreational break in the course of theirstay in the country. NRE focuses more upon the transiting international market whileAdrift tends to attract more of its clients from the Ugandan based ex-pat market and thisapproach is reflected in the nature and style of their business operations.

In 1998, these nascent business start-ups were both growing robustly and felt seriouslythreatened by the prospect of the AES Nile Power project submerging the Bujagali Fallsand by implication destroying their business opportunity. However it was the murder ofeight tourists by rebels in Bwindi Impenetrable National Park in March 1999 that almostachieved that particular result as once again instability in the country set back thedeveloping recovery of Ugandan tourism.

The inherent resilience of the ex-pat and overland/budget markets enabled the whitewater rafting companies to survive on a reduced operational basis through to recoverywhereupon they were joined by a third rafting operator, Equator Rafting, in early 2001and a fourth, Nalubale Rafting, in mid 2005. This increased competition encouragedAdrift, NRE and Equator to develop their businesses beyond the simple raftingexperience such that they all now offer a range of rafting trips with family options,kayaking and river boarding, bungee jumping, walking/nature tours, assistance with localcommunity/charitable activities and an extended range of accommodation/dining optionsto attract new, higher value markets to their sites. Other companies have also beenattracted to the area offering non-watersports activities such as quad biking, mountainbiking and horse riding, enabling a critical mass of operators and activities to developthus giving substance to the claim that Jinja/Bujagali has now earned the reputation tocall itself the 'Adventure Capital of East Africa'.

The growth of Jinja as an adventure tourism destination has been achieved through aprocess of organic development based upon a small number of entrepreneurial operatorsand although according to the AESNP 2001 EIA report, a Jinja Tourism Development

9

Association was facilitated and formally constituted, evidence of its contribution to the

development of the tourism sector in Jinja has not been established. The organisation is

understood to be inactive yet recently an inaugural meeting was held to discuss theestablishment of an informal forum of tourism sector businesses where the identificationof ways in which common interests in the development and promotion of Jinja might beput forward and progressed. National and regional/district public sector organisationswith a remit for the tourism sector have thus far had limited resources to assist tourismdevelopment and thus it becomes important for the private sector to take appropriateinitiatives in their place but ideally with their involvement.

2.3 The Emerging Conferences and Meetings Market

The original colonial era hotel in Jinja, The Ripon Falls Hotel, closed many years agoleaving the Sunset International Hotel as the principal, long-standing hotel in town,supported by the government owned Crested Crane Hotel (doubling as a hotel/tourismtraining college) with both being supplemented by a number of small guesthousesproviding limited budget style accommodation. The provision of accommodation thusreflected the ebb and flow of Jinja's own economic fortunes until government fundingbuilt the Crested Crane college facility and in the mid/late 1990's investment in new

accommodation resurfaced with a two phase development of 76 rooms at the TriangleHotel on a prime site overlooking Lake Victoria. At the same time Nile River Explorers

opened their Explorers Backpackers rafting base and accommodation facility, offeringcamping, dormitory and double rooms for the budget market.

The Sunset, Crested Crane and Triangle hotels are purpose-built and thus incorporatebanqueting/meeting space as part of their design. Being located in Jinja town, these hotelsnaturally attract weddings and other social functions which use the banqueting space buthaving such a facility also allows the hotels to attract some meetings business which inturn often require accommodation. It is clear therefore that in addition to the usualcommercial and some holiday/recreational demand for hotel accommodation there beganto develop a residential related meetings market which the existing larger hotels wereable to cater for. However, from around the year 2000, much more serious investment innew hotel building was underway and this was mostly outside of Jinja town. The mostsignificant example of this development was the opening of the up-market, Kenyanowned, Jinja Nile Resort on an attractive elevated site overlooking the Nile, I kmdownstream from the Nalubaale Dam and 4 km from the centre of Jinja. This hotel wasreferred to as the 'Mada Hotel' in the AESNP EIA report. It was opened with 35 roomsin 2001 but doubled in size two years later and added a further 40 rooms in 2004. It hasseveral different sized meeting rooms and can handle a 200 delegate conference.

The up-market, Australian owned guesthouse/restaurant Gately on Nile, opened in Jinjain 2000, offering seven double rooms in two renovated colonial era bungalows inattractive gardens overlooking Lake Victoria. This hotel also markets itself as a small,

10

rIi

I

i

high quality meetings venue/retreat for the senior corporate/government/donorcommunity.

In 2001, the German owned, up-market, Kingfisher Safari Resort opened on an attractiveelevated site overlooking the Source of the Nile, on the opposite side of the river fromJinja but some 9 km by road across the Nalubaale Dam from the town centre. The resortnow has 42 thatched bandas of which 28 are single bedded, a rooms mix clearly designedto attract the commercial and residential meetings markets.

Table 2.2 below summarises the growth in supply of new higher standard hotel,guesthouse and lodge accommodation in the Jinja area between 2000 and 2004 thus:

Table 2.2: Expansion in Higher Quality Accommodation Around Jinja, 2000 - 2004(Numbers of New Rooms Constructed per year)

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 TOTALROOMS

Gately on 7 - - - 7Nile G/hseJinja Nile - 35 - 35 40 110ResortKingfisher - 21 14 7 - 42SafariResortPalm Tree - 5 - - - 5

G/hseThe Nile - - 10 10Porch(NRE)Nile High - - - - 3 3

Club(Adrift)TOTAL 7 61 14 42 53 177ROOMS I_ISource: Consultant's Estimates

Thus in the space of a few years, (2000-2004), significant new investment, particularly inhigh quality accommodation, has taken place and in each instance a key market targetedby these businesses has been the residential meetings/conference sector. Further evidencefor the strength of this market in both the older and newer hotels in the area was gatheredfrom interviews with representatives from several of these properties, indicating that thismarket accounted for between 50 to 95 per cent of the business mix, depending upon thehotel and that overall room occupancy was running at between 50 to 70 per cent annually,again depending upon the hotel.

It is clear that the Jinja area is now successfully competing with Kampala and Entebbe inoffering a destination with a distinct appeal for the meetings market - the attractive

11

riverside setting and the tranquillity of a destination located miles away from the urbanenvironment of the capital city - at least for certain types and sizes of meetings andconferences. But it is also clear that the development of this particular type of businesstourism is product led, that is, the market is being attracted because the quality and size ofthe hotel accommodation and its meeting rooms, restaurants and other facilities, matchesmarket requirements, packaged together with a location which can also deliver its ownunique quality and appeal.

2.4 Other Development Activity

The investment in high quality accommodation has also been reflected, less obtrusively,in the opening of a small number of new, moderately priced guesthouses and in thecarrying out of improvements to other existing guesthouses, the opening of new barsrestaurants, travel agencies and gift/curio shops. The backpacker /budget traveller marketlargely prefers to stay at the accommodation provided by the rafting companies which arelocated on individual sites overlooking the river near Bujagali Falls (although NRE alsohas a base in Jinja town) and in the last couple of years, the range and quality of theaccommodation options on these sites has also been extended.

A further extension of this growing confidence in the Jinja area has been the strongdemand for purchase of plots of land along both the east and west banks of the Nilebetween the Nalubaale Dam and the general location of the Bujagali HPP at DumbbellIsland. It appears that in the few years many plots of various sizes have been bought (andare still sought), by prominent Ugandan companies, ex-pat residents and overseasinterests for the building of private homes or small to medium guesthouse/lodge/hotel andrestaurant businesses, to the extent that the river in this area has now attracted the epithet'Muzungu Nile', meaning European or white person's Nile.

An important new development is the imminent opening of a luxury 'eco-friendly' lodgeproject located deep within the Mabira Forest Reserve some 25 km from Jinja. Thisdevelopment of 15 lodges is a joint venture between Inns of Uganda, a local up-marketlodge operator with two existing lodges in two of the major wildlife parks in westernUganda and a Dutch eco-tourism/wildlife, specialist lodge operator with existingoperations in Surinam and elsewhere in Africa. This initiative represents the firstinvestment in the Jinja area by an experienced luxury wildlife lodge operator who hasnow recognised the specialist nature/wildlife tourism potential available and who, withhis international partner can bring high value, particularly European, special interestnatural history/wildlife visitors to Mabira Forest and beyond. This project will place theJinja area firmly on the map as far as these niche markets are concerned and thus createsa further dimension to the available tourism product which will be given greater stimulusby the eco-tourist lodge and related proposals at the Kalagala - Itanda Offset sitedownstream of the Bujagali HPP dam site.

The Kalagala - Itanda Offset Proposal involves another major tourism planning initiative.This development concept, proposed by the Government of Uganda in 2001 for the

12

Kalagala - Itanda Falls area, is designed to create positive consequences at this locationin mitigation of the effects of the planned Bujagali HPP upon the Bujagali Falls site,including effects on natural habitats and tourism. World Bank/IFC funding of the powerproject requires the adoption of suitable mitigation proposals and the previous sponsorsof the Bujagali HPP, AES Nile Power, expressed willingness to participate in a financialpartnership to realise the proposals. The concept incorporates a series of environmentallysustainable programmes which include the creation of riverside foot and cycle paths onboth banks of the river between the dam and the Kalagala - Itanda Falls while theoutstanding scenic beauty of the Falls area should form the basis for a range of tourismactivities including, viewing areas, picnic areas, campsites, tourist lodges, culturalheritage sites, parking, toilets and other facilities. These proposals have been in abeyancesince the demise of the AES Nile Power project but independently, the National ForestAuthority advertised, in May 2005, an invitation for bids to be submitted for concessionsto run tourism businesses on both sides of the river at Kalagala - Itanda. Adrift Raftingwon the concessions with plans for a high quality lodge on Kalagala Island and campsiteson two smaller islands downstream of the rapids. Negotiations are still underway betweenthe parties to clarify the scope of the development and how it fits into the originalKalagala - Itanda Offset proposals and thus it is unclear when this development willcommence.

Several major hotel projects are currently at an early stage of discussion for developmentin the Jinja area, including proposals by the Madvhani Group (an important local businessconglomerate) to redevelop the derelict Jinja Sailing Club site which they own togetherwith adjacent lakeside land which it is said they own and separate proposals by overseasinterests to redevelop the Jinja Golf Club which occupies an attractive, elevated siteoverlooking the Source of the Nile. However, it is the plans of the Kampala based SpekeHotels Group (owners of Equator Rafting) for the site which they own above andoverlooking Bujagali Falls, which appear to be the most advanced and arguably the mostlikely to proceed. Their plans, in at least two phases, will build some 200 rooms withsupporting resort, sports and conference facilities at an estimated cost of $10 million.

13

3.0 THE TOURISM IMPACTS OF THE BUJAGALI HPPPROJECT

3.1 The Physical Impacts of the Project

Construction of the Dam will result in the development of several permanent physicalfeatures in the landscape, most notable among which are the Dam itself, the reservoirwhich this structure will create and the transmission line required to connect the powerstation to the existing hydropower installation at the Nalubaale Dam, and to Kampala.Each of these features will result in a range of impacts and certain of those impacts canbe characterised as having a tourism dimension.

The DamThe introduction of a major man-made structure, such as a dam, into the naturallandscape, represents a localised visual intrusion with an aesthetic impact which thechoice of site, design and landscaping will help mitigate. The aesthetic impact will bemore pronounced for sight lines immediately downstream of the Dam from where thestructure itself is most visible, whereas upstream, the reservoir created behind the Damdiminishes this impact. In tourism terms, the visual intrusion will be very localised andlimited to a relatively low profile stretch of the river (certainly compared with theBujagali and Kalagala / Itanda Falls locations) which is essentially inaccessible to visitorsother than those rafting the river.

The Transmission LineThe route of the transmission line, on the west bank of the Nile, essentially parallels thatof the river but is located at an elevated level and set back at a distance from it. The rivercuts a path through steeply rising ground along both banks for much of its course to thesite of the Dam and thus sight lines from where the transmission line will be visible areprincipally from locations at the top of the elevated ground on the eastern bank of theriver. The transmission line pylons and cabling will be partly hidden by the vegetationand tree cover through which it passes and will represent less of a visual intrusion thanthe existing transmission line which crosses the river close to Bujagali Falls and some ofthe existing and planned hotel, lodge and guesthouse development built immediatelyabove and overlooking the river.

The Transmission Line continues from the Nalubaale Dam onwards to Kampala andpasses through the northern extremity of the Mabira Forest, several kilometres away fromthe most heavily visited part of the Forest, in the environs of the National ForestryAuthority owned and operated Mabira Forest Ecotourism Centre and Campsite. Theluxury 'eco-friendly' Mabira Forest Lodge development currently under construction islocated deep in the Forest to the south of the Jinja -Kampala road and thus is even furtheraway from the Transmission Line. Tourism impacts consequent upon the route of theTransmission Line through Mabira Forest are therefore considered to be extremely small.

14

lT

The ReservoirThe principal physical impact of the Dam as far as tourism is concerned is the creation ofthe reservoir and what this means in terms of the losses and gains in tourism/recreationalamenity and the access to that amenity.

The project reservoir will occupy an area of 388ha, approximately 80ha of which will benewly inundated land and 308ha of which is currently occupied by the Victoria Nile. Thetail of this reservoir and thus the point at which inundation levels begin declining, islocated approximately at the Bujagali Falls, however the Falls themselves and theassociated existing river bank picnic and recreation site will be submerged by thereservoir waters. Thus the physical inundation of the Bujagali Falls represents a loss onthe one hand of the visual amenity of the Falls but on the other hand it also represents theloss of a resource which is utilised for other tourism activities such as white water rafting,picnicking and general recreation. This is discussed further in Sections 3.2 and 3.3.

Other smaller rapids, located close together on the river between Bujagali Falls and theDam offer a distinctive feature which will also be lost for the purposes of rafting downthe river but it is the spectacular nature of the Bujagali rapids, their attractive naturalsetting and established riverside accessibility for recreation which marks them out asessentially the only significant tourism resource utilised by a wide range of local andinternational visitors which is impacted by the construction of the Dam.

The creation of the reservoir lake will however represent a body of water with potentialfor water based leisure and sporting activities offered by existing and new leisureoperators. Adrift, NRE and Speke Hotels have already indicated their interest in pursuinga variety of water based activities on the lake.

3.2 Impacts upon White Water Rafting Companies

In 1998 when the original SEA work was undertaken for the AES Nile Power project thetwo existing rafting companies were fledgling businesses only a year or two old but wereestimated to be handling 7,000 to 8,000 rafting clients per annum. Eight years later in2006, the original two companies have survived both a crash and a steady recovery intourism to Uganda (and thus in their fortunes) and are now more mature and more diversebusinesses. They have since been joined by two further rafting companies, one onlycommencing last year, while rafting passenger numbers are currently estimated to berunning at around 10,000 per annum (see Table 3.1 below) with steady growthanticipated in 2006.

Adrift RaftingAdrift was the first company to operate white water rafting in Uganda, it is owned byCam McLeay, a New Zealander and white water rafting expert, who at the same time alsooperated rafting businesses in New Zealand and on the river Zambezi in Zimbabwe.Adrift, both then and now, is based in Kampala and originally brought their clients down

15

to Bujagali for the rafting experience and brought them back the same day whereas NREwere and are, based at Jinja/Bujagali. In mid 2003, Adrift opened the 'Nile High Club'which is a campsite with dormitory (and more recently a few thatched bandas) abar/restaurant and 44m bungee jump located on a 32m cliff-top site overlooking the Nile.

Adrift originally launched their rafts from the riverside recreation site beside BujagaliFalls and paid a commission to an entrepreneur who held a lease for the site from theDistrict Council. This arrangement continued until they entered a business partnershipwith the Kenyan Mada Hotels group, who own the Jinja Nile Resort and extensive clifftop landholdings adjacent to their hotel, upon which the 'Nile High Club' is now locatedand below which their rafts are now launched.

Having their base in Kampala has always meant that Adrift generated their market fromamongst Kampala based ex-pats and other Ugandan based NGO employees as well assome travellers staying in Kampala as opposed to the overland truck based market. Thismarket mix has changed a little with the building of the 'Nile High Club' and thus theavailability of an accommodation base by the Nile, but reportedly, some 90 percent oftheir rafters still originate from Kampala sources.

Adrift, like NRE, offer several rafting options, one day, two day, family rafting etc but 90percent of their clients take the one day trip which currently costs $95 per person. In 1998Adrift pushed their rafting rates up from $65 to $95 (NRE left theirs at $65) per personand it appeared that their market position enabled them to sustain this, however rates fellback to $65 in the difficult years but began their recovery around 2003/4. It is estimatedthat Adrift took around 4,000 clients rafting during 2005, putting it in second placebehind market leaders NRE. It is likely that the entry of the fourth rafting company,Nalubale, run by a former Adrift employee, may have led to this loss of market share.

Adrift as a company has developed from being simply a white water rafting experienceprovider to a much more broadly based travel company offering in addition, gorillatrekking, mountain climbing, wildlife safaris and outdoor management developmentprogrammes for companies, NGO's, school groups etc. They have recently been awardeda concession from the National Forestry Authority to operate a high quality eco-tourismLodge on Kalagala Island, within the Kalagala - Itanda Offset area, which will involve aninvestment of $1 million in association with international partners and thus continues thediversification of their business from its white water rafting origins.

Adrift have confirmed that they will continue to operate their white water rafting businessafter the Bujagali HPP is constructed and that they have no intention of moving theirrafting base from the 'Nile High Club' location. Once the Dam is built, rafting trips willhave to move downstream of the structure and while the reservoir created will result inthe loss of one and possibly two Grade 5 rapids and removes a series of smaller,successive rapids which represent an exciting 'staircase' feature, a thrilling andexhilarating rafting experience with three Grade 5 rapids still remains. Purists will lamentthe loss of the more intense nature of the start of the existing trip but for probably 99 percent of the market this will

16

Figure 3.1:White Water Rafting Route and Rapids

-lk,

GradeA

UGANDARIeatng (East Africa) aq

* 4j -mon IsLod 1 -

tt ;le S{peL aI 'It ",t,>,"' - ~Kut, Sriaker -- - _

.- Hai al t4le racqih O Venfte3nce l; .. g,l I'la.1

~nt1~ftite/y~e- 1,i-Bubego -

Reltospec O\*erlime

G-ii go,

Kamnpala JIR h

A-

4 4,L ja,Rcr .t

.S - -,

E'tz e veimce the .f.oce!

17

have little significance. Most rafters will be taking this particular trip for the first time(for many it will also be their first rafting trip) and the fact that it will still include threeGrade 5 rapids, confirms the seriousness of the trip as an attractive, physical and mentaladventure located on a beautiful stretch of the longest river in the world. Rafting on theNile has become an established part of the ex-pat/ NGO recreational break activityprogramme over the last ten years in Uganda and it is not expected that the anticipatedchanges to the rafting trip will alter demand from this market sector.

Figure 3. 1, taken from the current Adrift brochure, shows the existing rafting route downthe White Nile with the inclusion of the names (as used by Adrift) of the principal sets ofrapids. Dumbbell Island is located between 'Surf City' and 'Big Brother' and thus therapids at Bujagali Falls, 'Easy Rider', 'Total Gunga' and 'Surf City' will be submerged.It is possible, depending on the alignment of the Dam, that the falls at 'Big Brother' (alsoknown as 'Silverback') may be unaffected since they will lie downstream of the structure,however, the finishing point shown on the map will have to move further downstream,probably to at least the 'Nile Special' rapid if the existing journey length and number ofrapids is to be retained in the post - Dam era. Similarly, the two day trip will need to beextended further downstream from its indicated finish point although quite where thismay be has yet to be determined. Nabuganyi, a point beyond the 'Waleba' rapid (see Fig2.1 above) has been used before and is therefore a likely finishing point.'Total Gunga' isthe Grade 5 rapid lost while 'Big Brother/Silverback' may also be lost, leaving at leastthree Grade 5 rapids for rafting on the route, 'Overtime', 'Itanda/The Bad Place' and'Novocaine' (see Table 2.1 above).

Adrift accepts the reality of the proposed Bujagali HPP and recognises that they will needto manage the change in their rafting product once the timetable for the dam constructionis made public. Maintenance of the integrity, quality and thrill of the rafting experience isconsidered to be fundamental to the core values of the company's operating philosophyand thus the commitment of the company to its current and future product, in marketingand promotional terms, is regarded with a similar passion which understands the need toembrace change positively.

Although Adrift will not need to relocate their rafting base, the one impact which theywill suffer is the need to find a new launching point into the river somewhere below thenew Dam. While such a location has not yet been researched, the suggestion of a facilityshared with other rafting companies and provided as part of the impact mitigationmeasures was not regarded as ideal. Each operator has historically used different accesspoints and exit points to/from the river and has a different approach to delivering theiroperationally distinct rafting product and will prefer to maintain their own separate sitefor entry to and possibly exit from the river.

Adrift employs around 40 full-time staff at their Bujagali campsite/rafting base of whomabout 10 are ex-pat and the balance are Ugandan. None of these jobs are threatened bythe need to move the rafting trips below the planned new dam although it is possible thatnew casual labour needed to help carry rafts in and out of the river may be required at thenew entry and exit points.

18

Nile River ExplorersNile River Explorers (NRE) was the second rafting company to operate on the VictoriaNile, commencing operations early in 1997. The company was set up by Jon Dahl, a

white water rafting expert with experience developing the sport on the river Zambezi inZimbabwe and perhaps not surprisingly, he decided to locate his rafting base andbackpacker lodge in Jinja rather than in Kampala. Offering camping, dormitory anddouble room accommodation options, the Explorers Backpackers Hostel in Jinja became

the most popular budget accommodation in Jinja before NRE and Equator Rafting bothopened similar budget accommodation facilities at Bujagali whereupon staying by the

river became the preferred option.

NRE's market focus was and is different from that of Adrift. The base at Jinja made it the

natural stop for the overland truck based traveller market and this sector has dominatedNRE's business although not to the extent that the Kampala based market dominatesAdrift's business. NRE indicates that around 60 per cent of their clients are sourcedthrough the overland truck sector and that some 40 per cent therefore come throughvarious Kampala or Ugandan based organisations, travel agencies, ex-pats or NGO's.

The Explorers Campsite at Bujagali is located on the cliff top overlooking the Bujagali

Falls and although it originally offered a bar/restaurant, camping and dormitoryaccommodation, in the last few years this has been supplemented with bandas, and luxury

safari style tented camp facilities, a swimming pool and an a la carte style restaurant. This

has enabled higher value markets to be attracted from Kampala and overseas andprovides the overland truck passenger with an option to trade-up from the campsite as a

treat in a very special location - and many do. The overland truck market stays threenights at the campsite which gives the travellers time to engage in a greater variety ofactivities, including a day devoted to working with local NGO's assisting withcommunity based projects such as renovating school buildings or similar.

NRE have always launched their rafts from a river bank site close to the Owen Falls

Dam, some kilometres up-stream from where Adrift enter the river, in order to give their

clients more practice and familiarity on the raft and in the water before they decide toproceed to the rapids. Like Adrift, they also offer a range of rafting options, 1 day, 2

days, family trips etc. but once again it is the I day option which accounts for the largemajority of rafting trips. Rafting trips cost $95 per person, the same as Adrift, althoughhistorically, NRE prices were lower than Adrift prices. Estimates of the number of raftershandled during 2005 suggest a figure of around 5,000, which would make NRE theleading rafting company with Adrift in second place.

NRE has also developed its business along broader tourism related lines like Adrift byoffering kayaking courses and tandem kayaking (instructor and pupil in one kayak) downthe Nile. They have set up a separate website, wwv.kayakthenile.coin which focuses onthe much smaller and more specialist market for adventure kayaking which uses theBujagali Falls but also uses and considers 'Itanda/The Bad Place' and the 'Nile Special'rapids as world class for kayaking. NRE is also providing an improved range and quality

19

of accommodation and food services and selling a variety of other tourism experiencessuch as gorilla trekking and wildlife safaris. Five years ago they used to operateSundowner cruises on Lake Victoria and although that service closed down when thevessel they rented was sold, developing similar cruises on the lake created by the newreservoir is something that will be seriously considered by the company.

NRE have also confirmed that they will not be closing down their white water raftingbusiness if the Bujagali HPP project proceeds , nor will they move from either their basein Jinja or their campsite close to Bujagali Falls. As was pointed out in the coverage ofAdrift, above, the changes to the white water rafting experience consequent upon movingthe trips below the new Dam are not expected to have any meaningful impact upon themarkets currently attracted. What was originally considered to be a pretty extreme sport(and of course still is on many stretches of many rivers worldwide) undertaken by a hardcore of skilled purists, has been controlled and made much safer (but still not withoutrisk) by professional rafting guides and has thus become an essentially mainstreamadventure sport open to all. Indeed, many holiday insurance policies, including thoselikely to be taken out by overland truckers, and other travellers already include cover foradventurous activities like white water rafting while additional premiums may only besought for skiing and related winter sports cover.

For the overland truck market, Jinja and the option to raft the Nile is simply one stop andone experience among many on a tour around Uganda or an even longer trip around EastAfrica and thus the change to the rafting trip caused by the Bujagali HPP will notrepresent a make or break factor influencing that holiday choice. Contact with leadingU.K. based adventure/overland trucking tour operators offering Uganda has confirmedboth this position and their own commitment to including Jinja/white water rafting intheir future itineraries despite any changes to the rafting trip. The tour operators indicatethat around 75 percent of their clients take up the option to raft in Jinja and they do notexpect this to change if the rafting trip itself changes as anticipated. The tour operatorsalso indicate that the eastern side of Uganda which is currently little visited will becomeincorporated in additional new itineraries being developed involving western Kenya andthat this will lead to their bringing more visitors to Jinja/Bujagali and thus potentiallymore clients for rafting trips.

The principal impact upon NRE's business operation once the Bujagali HPP is built isexactly the same as for Adrift, that is, the need to find new sites to enter and exit the riverbelow the Dam. The primary concern is to have a launch site which is solely for theirown use, as is the current situation, so that they can provide their clients with the distinctNRE rafting experience without distraction from other rafting companies. NRE feels thatthe provision of toilets and changing facilities for example, at the launch site, would be adesirable improvement on current practice, enhance the professionalism of the activityand further improve the image of Jinja as the 'Adventure Capital of East Africa'.

NRE indicates that it employs around 100 full-time staff, however, their employees aremostly paid on an as required daily basis, when rafting activities are taking place, while itis understood that Adrift pays its staff on a monthly basis no matter what level of rafting

20

takes place. Both figures are accurate in their own way but are not directly comparable assimply 'full-time'. If two NRE staff are considered equal to one full-time Adriftemployee then this would represent 50 'full-time' staff at NRE, which considering NREoperates from two locations with accommodation, catering and management at each, thenit is not unreasonable to expect more employment generated by NRE. NRE has a similarratio of ex-pat to local employees and once again none of the employment will be lostfollowing the relocation of rafting trips to the river below the Dam.

Equator RaftingEquator Rafting was originally established as a joint venture between Mick Barnett, awhite water rafting expert and former employee of Adrift Rafting and the Speke HotelsGroup in early 2001. Mick Barnett had secured a new lease for the District Councilowned Bujagali Falls tourism site and proposed the development of a new raftingcompany and campsite based at the site.

The partnership and performance of Equator Rafting was very successful in the earlyyears but the partnership broke up and Equator Rafting, instead of maintaining its leadingposition amongst the group of rafting companies, has found itself overtaken by itscompetitors The Speke Camp, however, has a stunning location immediately beside theBujagali Falls and the site doubles as a visitor recreation and picnic site as well as acampsite and rafting base. A large, attractive, open-sided and thatch roofed bar/restauranthas a prominent location by the Falls while the campsite, dormitories, kitchen, toilets,showers and other facilities are located to the rear of the site but give a poor impressionand sense of neglect.

All visitors to the site are charged for entry, Ush 2,000 for a Ugandan, Ush 3,000 for anon-Ugandan and Ush 500 for a child while vehicles are charged at an additional Ush1,000. Visitors can either bring their own food at no extra charge or use the bar/restauranton site. Revenues from the operation of the site as a visitor picnic/recreation site alone areunderstood to be around Ush 130 million (some $72,000) and this suggests annual visitornumbers of between 50,000 to 60,000.

Equator, who launch their rafts from their own campsite upstream of the Bujagali Falls,offer the same rafting options as Adrift and NRE and again find that the one day trip isthe most popular choice. Their market is dominated by Kampala sourced/based ex-pats,NGO's and visitors and this is assisted by the Speke Hotels Group owning severalprominent hotels in both Kampala and Entebbe. Formerly, rafting rates were the same asAdrift and NRE ($95 per person last year) but currently Equator has dropped its price to$75 per person. This is a significant decision and is probably related to the poorperformance of the rafting business which is understood to have carried only 600 to 700clients during 2005 and continues to operate comparatively weakly.

Equator Rafting confirmed that it is their intention to continue rafting following thecompletion of the Bujagali HPP but that since their existing base at Speke Camp wouldbe submerged by the new reservoir they will need to find a new location for theseactivities. The Speke Hotels Group owns an extensive cliff top site above the Bujagali

21

IIiiI

Ii

Falls where it plans to build a 200 room hotel and conference centre and it may bepossible to find a discrete part of this site to relocate their rafting operation to but Equatorindicates that no examination of alternative sites has been undertaken so far.

The principal impacts upon Equator Rafting from the development of the Bujagali HPPare therefore related to the loss of their existing business base and associated structures,the costs of relocating these business assets to a new site and in common with otherrafting companies, the need to find new entry and possibly exit points to/from the river.The original lease agreement with the District Council was signed back in 2000/2001when the plans for the Bujagali HPP were well known and although Equator Raftingbelieves that Speke Hotels Group signed a purchase agreement with the Council for thesite last year (and has documentary evidence of this), this is believed to be invalidbecause the land is Government owned and reverts to the new Project Sponsors as part ofthe required land take for the completion of the Bujagali HPP.

Thus the only impact issues which remain valid are associated with the costs of movingrafting, campsite and office related fixtures, fittings and equipment from Bujagali to anew rafting/camping base and the issue of providing for a new entry point to the river fortheir rafts.

Equator Rafting indicates that they currently employ some 35 staff at Speke Camp, 10 ofwhich are non - Ugandan and that since they plan to relocate rather than close the raftingbusiness once the dam is built, there will be no loss of employment.

Nalubale RaftingNalubale Rafting was started in mid-2005 by Ian Baillie a white water rafting specialistwho formerly worked with Adrift Rafting. He is the owner of a carpentry business andopening the rafting company was his second business start-up. Both businesses are basedin Kampala but the practical rafting operation operates out of rented premises in Jinjatown but has no campsite or related facilities. Kampala is the source of his clientelewhich is a reflection of his experience with Adrift Rafting who generate most of theirrafting business through Kampala based ex-pats, NGO's and other organisations.

At present, Nalubale only operates at weekends and while it offers a range of rafting tripslike the other rafting companies, the majority of trips are one day in length and costs$95.The company employs eight people in Jinja, including three ex-pats and is easily thesmallest of the four rafting businesses. It is estimated that they carried around 200 - 300clients during the six months in which the business operated in 2005.

Nalubale is quite prepared to operate rafting trips below the new dam after it is built andalthough it indicates that it has an operating relationship with NRE, sharing a newlaunching site with them is unlikely to be acceptable to NRE and they will need to find analternative location. It may be possible for Nalubale to share a facility with EquatorRafting who expressed preparedness to share such a facility with other rafting companies.

22

Table 3.1 below summarises the principal characteristics of the four white water raftingcompanies currently operating on the Nile at Jinja / Bujagali:

Table 3.1: Summary perational Characteristics of the Rafting CompaniesCompany Market Most Rafting Number Rafter Nos.Started Mix Popular Trip Fee of Staff in 2005

Rafting ($) (estimate)Trip

Adrift Mid 1996 90% NGO 1 Day $ 95 40 F/T 4,000/ Kampala Trip (90% (10 ex-pat,10% of clients) 30 local)Truckers

N.R.E. Early 1997 40% NGO 1 Day $ 95 50 F/T (10 5,000/ Kampala Trip (95% ex-pat, 4060% of clients) local)*Truckers

Equator Early 2001 95% NGO 1 Day $ 75 35 F/T (10 600 - 700/ Kampala Trip (95% ex-pat, 255% of clients) local)Truckers

Nalubale Mid 2005 100% 1 Day $95 8 F/T (3 200 - 300NGO I Trip ex-pat, 5Kampala (100% of local)

I clients)Source: Interviews with Rafting Companies and Mrs Sarah Muwanguzi (ItandaLC1 Representative)

3.3 Other Tourism Related Impacts

There are a number of other general and more particular tourism impacts which arisefrom the Bujagali HPP ranging from the removal of the additional costs experienced bytourism businesses associated with their increased use of diesel powered generators toprovide electricity during load shedding, to the possible beneficial opportunity foradditional business at the Hairy Lemon backpacker hostel, located downstream of theKalagala - Itanda Falls. However, the principal other parties where tourism relatedimpacts have a direct bearing are the local village communities on both east and westbanks of the river between theNalubaale Dam and the Bujagali HPP. At present, the relationship which thesecommunities have with tourism is quite distinct but this is set to change and will becomemore similar once the hydropower project is built.

West Bank VillagesDiscussions held with community leaders established that historically their villages hadnot benefited at all from tourism/white water rafting since these businesses were all based

23

on the other side of the river and even when the rafters came downstream and stopped forlunch on their side or on mid-river islands, they were never able to sell fruits and otherfoodstuffs to the rafters since they brought everything with them.

The lack of any benefit from tourism thus far appeared to be keenly felt and thepossibility of a change to this situation, partly as a result of the Dam, was warmlywelcomed. The recent phenomenon of many ex-pat and overseas interests buying upparcels of land along the banks of the river is only just starting to result in newlodges/guesthouses and restaurants opening and thus gradually some tourism relatedbenefits in terms of employment and the purchase of local foodstuffs will begin tobecome apparent.

Employment creation on the one hand and the opportunity to provide services to touristson the other are the two main benefits identified in relation to the proposed hydropowerproject. Employment opportunities are primarily expected to be generated by theconstruction stage of the Dam although it was indicated that tourism related employmentwould also be likely, associated with the plans to build a visitor interpretation centre andrefreshment facilities. Local villages could also supply this centre with fruit andvegetables.

The opening of the Dam together with a possible visitor and interpretation centre willundoubtedly draw its share of the increasing number of visitors arriving in Jinja forrecreation or conference purposes as well as providing an important educational resourcefor local schools. In addition, the plans for developing the west bank elements of theKalagala - Itanda Offset Proposals into a major eco-tourism/nature tourism attraction willfurther encourage more tourists to travel down the west bank of the river to visit both newfacilities. The increased flow of visitors anticipated along the west bank thereforerepresents an opportunity for the local villages to benefit from. Some visitors may stop atroadside shops/stalls for fruit and vegetables or snacks but to benefit further, largernumbers of visitors must be encouraged to stop and one way of achieving this would beto build a museum or cultural heritage centre which would present the history, cultureand artefacts of the various tribes in the area. This could be built on a site with strikingviews of the river and incorporate a picnic site, refreshments and a crafts/gift shop, thusgenerating further local employment and the sale of local foodstuffs and crafts.

The community leaders were supportive of the hydropower project and could see theemployment potential from the construction phase in particular since the constructionbase for the project would be on their side of the river. But they were also keen to benefitfrom tourism and were very much in favour of developing the concept of the culturalcentre/museum as a means of securing this. The fact that such a facility could be used asan educational resource for local schoolchildren and as a means of possibly safeguardingtheir traditions and cultural heritage for the future was warmly welcomed.

East Bank VillagesDiscussions confirmed the existing participation of east bank villages in the tourismsector, principally with the various rafting companies and the businesses that have grown

24

up around them but also with non-rafting businesses like the Jinja Nile Resort Hotel.Tourism companies have created employment opportunities for some families andprovided a market for other families to sell foodstuffs and other services to them but therafting companies in particular have also enabled a range of small businesses to grow uparound the entrances to their sites offering a range of goods and services direct to theindividual visitor. These businesses will benefit from the non-relocation of the Adrift andNRE rafting bases but may suffer from the loss of the Bujagali Falls riverside recreationsite if a replacement site cannot be found relatively nearby.

An apparent lack of familiarity with the current status of the Bujagali HPP and theimpacts the project is likely to have on existing rafting and other tourism businesses, ledto an initial uncertainty and expression of fear for the jobs and other benefits alreadyenjoyed by east bank villages. Once reassured on those points, concern was expressedabout the loss of the Bujagali Falls picnic site and recreational area as a local facility (andpossible job losses), then concern also about the future quality of the road along the eastbank to the Dam and beyond to Itanda given the existing standard and the expected heavyuse during the construction period. In addition, as with the west bank villages, there was adesire to benefit from the increased numbers of visitors expected to be drawn down theeast bank because of the land sales, plans for numerous new guesthouses, lodges andhotels and the Kalagala - Itanda Offset Proposals.

The need to try and encourage visitors to stop on their drive down the east bank mirroredthe views of the west bank villages and the suggestion of building a museum/culturalcentre to display the history, culture and artefacts of the tribal peoples living on the eastbank as means of achieving this was positively received. This museum could also belocated on a site with attractive views and also incorporate a picnic site, refreshments anda craft/gift shop to maximise the benefit from the much larger flows of visitors expectedby the time the Dam has been built.

Table 3.2 below summarises the tourism impacts of the Bujagali HPP described above.

25

Table 3.2: Summary Tourism Impacts of the Bujagali Hydropo er ProjectStakeholder / Nature of the Scale of the Impact Financial ImpactAffected Parties ImpactWhite Water Rafting Loss of the Staircase Partial Diminution of NeutralCompanies Feature and a Grade 5 the Existing Rafting

Rapid TripWhite Water Rafting Loss of Existing Need to Facilitate Negative but MinorCompanies Individual Rafting Replacement of

Company Entry Individual EntryPoints to the River Points to the River

below the DamWhite Water Rafting Replacement / Only Equator Rafting Negative but MinorCompanies Relocation of Will Have to Relocate

Equipment to newRafting CompanyOperational Bases

White Water Rafting Loss of Some Part- Limited Because Only NeutralCompany Employees Time Jobs Due to Re- One Company to Re-

Positioning of the Locate and Jobs MayRafting Route be Created along the

New RouteEast Bank Loss of Bujagali Falls Loss of a Significant Negative but SeriousCommunities Recreation/Picnic Site Community Riverside

Recreation FacilityEast Bank Loss of Bujagali Falls Loss of Economic Negative but MinorCommunities Recreation/Picnic Site Benefit to

Shops/Stalls outsideEntrance to BujagaliFalls Site

East Bank Increase in Numbers Benefits from Positive but ModerateCommunities of Visitors Travelling Attracting Visitors to

Along the East Bank Stop and Spend -East Bank Development of new Possible creation of Positive but minorCommunities rafting launch and exit casual employment to


West Bank Development of new Possible creation of Positive but minorCommunities rafting launch and exit casual employment to


West Bank Increase in Numbers Benefits from Positive but ModerateCommunities of Visitors Travelling Attracting Visitors to

Along the West Bank Stop and SpendHairy Lemon Island Increase in Rafters Benefits from Positive but MinorBackpacker Campsite Passing Downstream Attracting Rafting

Company RaftsJinja Tourism Sector Cessation of Reduction in Energy Positive but Minor

Electricity Load Costs Due to LowerShedding Diesel Generator Use

26

4.0 MITIGATION MEASURES

The following list of suggested mitigation measures represents a summary of suitableresponses to those identified tourism impacts already discussed in the preceding sectionsof this report. Successful implementation of these measures however, will require acombination of facilitation and funding together with the co-operation and engagement ofnumerous public and private organisations and Bujagali Energy Limited, whilerepresenting a readily identifiable source of financial support and facilitation may notmeet the entire costs involved and consequently other potential funding/technicalassistance sources are suggested at the end of this section of the report.

MM 1: - New Launch/Exit sites: The one impact of the Bujagali HPP affecting all thewhite water rafting companies is the loss of their individual raft launching sites and thereplacement of these is considered to be a major requirement. It will be necessary to findsuitable sites downstream of the Dam and have them ready for use by the timeconstruction work in Stage 2 of the Dam build, connecting Dumbbell Island to the easternriverbank, gets underway since this will interfere with rafting activities. Exit pointsdownstream on both banks will also be required although they may be shared and mayneed fewer facilities.

It is envisaged that the new entry/exit points will be secured through purchasing orleasing (depending on circumstance) of the sites, while further investment will berequired for landscaping and the provision of facilities such as small slipways, toilets,changing rooms and storerooms.

MM 2:- Jinja Tourism Development Association:The establishment of thisorganisation was facilitated by AES Nile Power but it is understood to be inactive atpresent. However, the growing importance of tourism for the Jinja area would benefitfrom the availability of a forum for discussion and identification of pro-active measureswhich could support this trend. In the absence of a public sector led initiative to satisfythis requirement, the private sector, through either the reviving of this particularorganisation or the establishment of another should take the lead. The Project Sponsors asprospective operators of a possible visitor centre at the Dam could not only facilitate there-emergence of this body but also participate in its activities as a member and futuretourism sector stakeholder.

Currently, there is evidence of growing interest amongst the private sector touristbusiness community for the establishment of an informal forum for the discussion ofmutual interests and their promotion and thus it is likely that this mitigation measure willbe positively received by these stakeholders.

MM 3: - Museum/Cultural Heritage Centres: To enable both the west bank and eastbank village communities to benefit from the increased numbers of tourists expected tobe travelling along either side of the Nile, a museum/cultural heritage visitor attraction

27

interpreting local tribal history and culture to be built in a prominent location (perhapswith views over the river) with picnic, refreshment and craft/gift shop facilities, on bothsides of the river is proposed. Project implementation of the buildings, interpretivedisplays and fitting out of these attractions will be facilitated by the Project Sponsors andbuilt upon local council owned land or other suitable sites which may be either leased orpurchased. It is envisaged that these attractions will become self-financing and be staffedand managed by the local community who will be fully involved in their planning andexecution.

Project development committees will be established in both east and west bankcommunities and they will include tribal elders together with appropriately skilled andexperienced leading members of the community. These committees will require guidanceand advice from a range of organisations including the Uganda Community TourismAssociation (UCTA), the Ministry of Tourism Trade and Industry (MTTI), the NationalMuseum of Uganda, the National Environmental Management Authority (NEMA), theNational Forestry Authority (NFA) and relevant NGO's.

These museums/ cultural heritage attractions will need to be well planned and designedand thus financing of an initial feasibility study providing advice upon a suitable conceptand approach to realising attractive and viable developments for both communities willbe desirable. An understanding between the Project Sponsors and the Local Councilsconcerned will establish, at an early stage, the basis upon which facilitation of theproposals can proceed.

MM 4: - Bujagali Dam Visitor/Interpretation Centre: To assist with the developmentof a new tourist route along the west bank of the Nile and the creation of a neweducational resource for local and regional schoolchildren, a Bujagali Dam Visitor Centrewill be built. The visitor centre will tell the story of the building of the dam, explain thecreation of hydroelectricity and its positive environmental character together with theimportant role which electricity plays in the national economy. The visitor centre will belocated at the site of the hydropower plant and be designed and built following therecommendations of a feasibility study which will propose a concept and content whichwill both educate and entertain.

The Project Sponsors will facilitate the implementation of this attraction which will inaddition provide refreshment facilities and a jetty on the lakeside for the operation of boattrips around the new lake created by the hydropower project. The feasibility study willdetermine whether the visitor centre should operate a policy of charging for entry andwhether this includes school children or not. The project will be constructed at a suitablepoint in Stage I of the Dam build but probably not fitted out and opened until the Dam iscompleted unless visitor access to the west bank Dam site is deemed safe and desirable atan earlier date.

MM 5:-Bujagali Picnic Site The loss of the Bujagali Falls viewpoint, picnic and generalrecreation site, used by many locals and visitors will be replaced by a similar facility inthe same vicinity not withstanding the plans for the Kalagala - Itanda Offset proposals

28

many kilometres away. The Project Sponsors will identify a suitable riverside site whichwill be improved to provide a meaningful alternative to the Bujagali recreation and picnicsite and may, if suitable, include the provision of a jetty for the operation of boat trips onthe lake.

MM 6:- Kalagala - Itanda Offset Enhancement. The Kalagala - Itanda OffsetProposals represent an imaginative conceptual framework for sustainable tourismdevelopment along both banks of the river north of the Bujagali HPP. The conceptrepresents the presentation of a mitigation measure which is designed to offset the loss ofnatural habitats, as well as the visual and recreational amenity of the Bujagali Falls picnicarea. AES Nile Power indicated their preparedness to become involved with the Plan.The new Project Sponsors will adopt the same position to realise the most beneficialproject for visitors and local communities alike.

Financial assistance will be required to deliver a wide range of features and facilitieswhich will secure the unique cultural and natural integrity of the site includingconservation of historic and cultural heritage locations, building of a visitor centre,footpaths, bicycle paths, trails, interpretation and signage boards, picnic areas,viewpoints, public toilets, car parking, tree planting, landscaping and related facilities.The current negotiations between NFA and Adrift over the latter's concessionary leasesfor an up-market lodge development on Kalagala Island and campsites on certain otherislands also extends to riverbank land on both sides of the river where many of theassociated cultural, eco-tourism and visitor facilities proposed in the Offset Plan arelocated. Thus it is likely that Adrift may additionally include certain of these features intheir proposals and Project Sponsor involvement at Kalagala - Itanda will thereforesupport the lead and framework established by this joint NFA / Adrift initiative.

Mitigation Measures Financing Note:

While it is clear that Project Sponsor facilitation and support will be forthcoming for arange of mitigation measures such as these proposed above and potentially for otherswhich may either develop out of those put forward or indeed from suggestions yet to bearticulated, it is also the case that the budgets for implementation of these measures maynot necessarily be found entirely found from the Project Sponsor and thus other possiblesources will require investigation.

Other possible sources of financing / co-financing could include:

1. Government of Uganda sources - This could involve funds/technical supportfrom a range of Ministries/Departments including MTTI, NFA and the NationalMuseum of Uganda.

2. The World Bank Group - The safeguarding of cultural and natural heritageagainst deterioration and loss together with their potential for delivering economic

29

and educational benefit is recognised and supported by the World Bank and itmay be for example that aspects of the Kalagala -Itanda Offset Proposals couldbe supported either in isolation or as part of a wider sub-regional initiative.

3. The European Union - The EU has and is supporting MTTI with the preparationof a short term tourism marketing strategy together with finance and technicalassistance for its implementation. It is possible that support for the developmentof the Ugandan eco-tourism product for example and support for tourisminfrastructure development in Eastern Uganda (including Jinja) which theirmarketing strategy supports, may be forthcoming from current or future budgetallocations.

30

APPENDIX 1 - LIST OF CONSULTED PARTIES

GOVERNMENT OF UGANDA

Ministry of Tourism, Trade and Industry* Rt Hon Mr Daudi Migereko, Minister, Tourism, Trade and Industry* Mr Justus Tindigarukayo-Kashagire, Commissioner, Tourism and Wildlife* Mr Baguma Cuthbert Balinda, Assistant Commissioner, Tourism and Wildlife

National Environment Management Authority* Mr Waisawa Ayazika Arnold, EIA Co-ordinator

National Forestry Authority* Mr Olav Bjella, NFA Executive Director* Mr Edward Mupada, Director of Corporate Affairs* Mr Jones Ruhombe, Director Field Operations* Mr C D Lagoya, Regional Co-ordinator, Nile Frontier* Mr Paul Buyerah Musumali, EIA Specialist* Mr Hudson J. Andrua, Co-ordinator, Land Management* Mr Arinaitwe Reuben, Range Manager - Lakeshore* Mr Jeroba, Manager, Mabira Forest Eco-Tourism Centre

Uganda Tourist Board* Mr James Bahinguza, General Manager

Uganda Wildlife Authority* Ms Eunice Nyiramahoro Duli, Director, Planning, Monitoring and Research* Mr Kapere Richard, Planning and EIA Officer

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Jinja District Council* Mr Muganza, Trade and Tourism Development Officer

East Bank LC 1* Chairman plus numerous meeting attendees

West Bank LC I* Chairman plus numerous meeting attendees

Itanda LC I* Ms Sarah Muwanguzi, LC I Representative at Itanda Falls

31

I

ii

I

PRIVATE SECTOR

Acacia Adventure Holidays, UK* Mr Heath Ashcroft, Project Manager for East Africa

Adrift Rafting, Kampala,Uganda* Mr Cam Mcleay, Managing Director* Mr Dennis Ntege, General Manager

Crested Crane Hotel and Tourism Training Institute, Jinja, Uganda

* Mr Barnabas Kabalisa, Principal

Equator Rafting, Jinja, Uganda* Mr Hitesh Vora, General Manager

Explore Worlwide Ltd, UK* Mr Peter Eshelby, Field Operations Manager

Gyelloba bv, East Africa, Kampala, Uganda* Mr Roel van Beusekom, Director ( operator of Mabira Forest Lodge)

Jinja Hospitality Industries Stakeholders Meeting, Uganda* Numerous meeting attendees

Mabira Forest Lodge, Jinja, Uganda* Mr Amos Otieno, Lodge Manager

Nalubale Rafting, Kampala, Uganda* Mr Ian Baillie, Proprietor/General Manager

Nile Resort Hotel (Mada Hotels), Jinja, Uganda* Mr Lasiti Ole Kerore, General Manager

Nile River Explorers, Jinja, Uganda* Mr Jon Dahl, Managing Director

Palm Tree Guest House, Jinja, Uganda* Mr Surjit Bharj, Owner

Triangle Hotel Jinja, Uganda* Ms N. Nakazibwe, Deputy General Manager

32

APPENDIX 2 - REFERENCES

Adrift Rafting, 2005. EIA for a Proposed Nile Island Lodge at Kalagala Island -Executive Summary

Adrift Rafting - Current brochure material

DGi Co, UK, 1998. Bujagali Falls Hydropower Scheme, Environmental ImpactAssessment - Tourism Appraisal

Equator Rafting - Current brochure material

ESG International, Canada, 2001. Bujagali Hydropower Project, Environmental ImpactAssessment (for AES Nile Power)

Ministry of Tourism, Wildlife and Antiquities, 1993. Republic of Uganda IntegratedTourism Master Plan (UNDP / WTO UGA 91/010), Final Report, Madrid, 1993,Summary

Ministry of Tourism, Trade and Industry, 2001. The Kalagala - Itanda Offset TourismDevelopment Proposals.

Ministry of Tourism, Trade and Industry, 2003. National Tourism Policy for Uganda

Nalubale Rafting - Current brochure material

National Forestry Authority, 2005. Invitation for Bids to Run Tourism Businesses inCentral Forest Reserves - A notice placed in Procurement News, Uganda, 2/8 May 2005

Nile River Explorers - Current brochure material

The Eye Magazine, Feb/March 2006, Uganda. Free bi-monthly magazine 'The InsidersGuide to Uganda'

Tourism and Transport Consult International, Dublin, 2004. Uganda Sustainable TourismDevelopment Programme, Marketing Strategy 2004- 2008 (EU Project No.8 ACP/UG37)

Uganda Bureau of Statistics, 2005. Migration and Tourism Report No. IV

Uganda Tourist Board, 2005. 'Uganda an Elegant Adventure' - brochure downloadedfrom Uganda Tourist Board website, wwW'.visituganda.com

Uganda Wildlife Authority, 2002. Uganda Wildlife Authority Strategic Plan 2002 - 2007

Wanderlust Travel Magazine, UK, August/September 1998. Article entitled 'River Wild',by Geoffrey Roy on whitewater rafting around the world.

33

§ BURNSIDE

Appendix C.5

Traffic Conditions Data

Iii

i

Traffic Counts, July 2006: Bridge

Site: BridgeDate: 1710712006 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

17-18h1 25 30 171 827 190 121 14 103 60 48 33 465 402 878 0618-ghm1 25 33 160 191 859 152 19 132 30 76 444 358 1000

Total 337 384 1,502 1,27 943 1,02 1,34 1,22 796 598 3495 3453 9491

12-13hm 13 44 119 70 430 48 114 87 51 33 4309 245 675 Ma482u

13-14hr 24 18 187 76 120 91 103 93 36 263 4102 320 722 55M 614-115hs 30 28 0 120 1 9068 10 107 6 1 99 3 42i 3771 315 6923 6

1516h201 34 27 118 91 148 118 120 99 67 01 4891 335 792

12-13h0 1 40 331 128 124 86 83 107 7l 60 48 415 3409 824 M

141003 3 3 135 92--97 97 50 --- 4595 49 45317-168h0 261 42 129 145 142 1241 142 6 80 76 07: 49 807818-17h510 251 331 102 111 185 1527 117 1320 78 18 4341 469 800

Total 32 337 341 15401 12408 1 565 1,262 1,34 1,211 708 6381 45484 48991 10383

Site: BridgeDate: 18/07/2006 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

18-18hm 173 27 124 1S5 568 53 Il 102 79 629 12 3054 337 791

16-19010 27 26 119 110 407 67 78 93 81 76 357 382 71276

Totalh 280 412 130 ll 058 6149 636 12 966 804 62 4066 3705 7771

l213h.01 31 36 106 168 37 17 106 116 31 36 411 373 6824 M u13-19hs 24 33 106 124 80 135 103 153 28 2453 3 7 85375

T4tal 345 323 ill, 13295 836 80 1 358 1 935 350 3471 4259 4125 838

17-18h5- 321 2 15 60 580 18 53 1240 984 0 245 465 33 80322

18-19hrs 281 241 1205 7 2 2051 143 801 552 291 474 2921 766

Total0 327 233 1510 76 35 2SI 1733 1431 408 3 42 34851 3359 7253847

12n10 2 25t 101 86t 33 61u 18 122u I5 55 305u90tMa u

83-9hm1 10 24 1 90 8 47687 9 6 60 31807 3 3 3043 661 2 4

14-150h 21 19 106 78 658 72 l 55 65 55 320 279 599 Ma I15-160h0 28 31 105 97 43 543 96 78 74 62 346 331 67742

11-172h0 26 22 88 83 238 38 89 122 113 78 337 343 680

172183h0 21 241 139 142 123 117 125 17 69 88 3477 344 1021 aOu

13-14h10 32 33 1000 l 103 116 7 47 8 l7t 66 I 4304 4605 8843

Totalh 31L2 291 10 91 900 870 575 9 2 2 79 4636 2398 8988

Average 271 291 116 102 01 77 112 107560 0 3501 755

Traffic Counts, July 2006: Iganga road

Site: Igangs RoadDlate: 1710712006 _ _______

17-18hm 14 i 34 35 97 412 20 31 29 51 139 194 3233889-1hr 14 126 37 37 48 49 34 34 45 41 141 1479 3950Totalm 16 1427 36 244 494 497 284 32 287 142 1549 182 3361 m.

11-12h5 5 7 6 24 37 341 27 219 27 49 49 1602 145 235512-13hrs 16 11 48 39 51 416 212 2 31 3845 107 139 299 m. u

13tal 10 11 377 354 429 390 259 297 28 35 48 1462 152 297420

D5ateh 19 7I0 12 40_47__24 25_33_26_6

16-17hm5 10 50 45 31 40 42 4 29 39 39 I91 13 326217-18hm I 91 31 347 27, 35 33 16 28 44 3 12224

Total 1261 109 358 4388 474 3 95 267 26 325 27 449 1547 1609 3315

Site: gan ngaroadDatae 101071200 ________

17-8hrs 12 12 42 28 40 33 29 31 49 419 172 149 3620300-9ghI 15 9 47 30 51 476 21 25 143 33 177 144 3214

Total 11 105 404 370 457 430 294 320 39 41 1 6647 1666 23330 xi

10-119h9 5 62 2 33 37 23 I8 39 25 15 23 115 105 220 19211-12hm 13 92 39 29 23 23 29 25 20 33 113 134 23112-13hrs 7 9 340 39 23 17 29 31 24 49 I21 146 267 Max Out13-14hrs 3 I9 29 3922169 2 22 491 8 17 3 102 135 237 17614-15h9 0 9 32 309 29 9 29 38 14 59, 159. 140 258.15-16hm 9 4 02 37 27 17 35 362 36 339 1594627 2916-17h5 19 15 44 343 27 9 1 537 327 391 123 I66 2731.17-18h5s 712 9 5 4 5 3 434 34 27 54 46 32 182 1745 3051919-19h59 06 ill 40 471 39 361 451 391 45 391 1901 1791 35961Total 9 18 1114 416 3423 408 366 3329 3589 30 38 416 15691 16771 32946

TmMc PV PC PT HGV Total In Total Oat Total 2-oy Me.2aWeky In Oat In oat in oat In oat In Oat

Average 95 7 32 33 34 35 24 26 27 35 130 139 260

Traffic Counts, July 2006: Kayunga road

Site: Kay.nga road

Dat.: 16J07i2006____________

Timu Mc PV PC PT HGV Total In Total Out Total 2-ya Ma 2wayIn oat in Out In out In Out In oat

7-Bh5 2 1 7 5 5 65 10 19 4 1 3 98l 26 1524 2248-Ohm 27 28 9 9 54 149 13 I I 128 49 2559-l0hm 34 3 325 8 3 1 25 1 5 I 0 2 2 8 4 15730 2 Maxnin10-ilhr 245 33 8 0 24 1 49 73 U 5 2 70 867 136 10611-12hms3 3 04 4 8 14 13 12 12 8 7 69 66 13512-13hs 44 93 11 7t 12 30 9 72 7 3 82 810 103 Max Out13-14h, 2 361 12 5 7 30 10 7 2 2 64 65 129 12614-15h0 432 43 9 I 9 111 70 9I 4 6 64 82 146~15-16h,0 38 35 4 Ii 13 20 6 60 3 81 64 81 15

16-17hms 351 34 13 15 125 23 10 9 5 7 75 89 16417-18hm 1 35 495 IS 9 226 2378 40 6 2 78 934 1718-19h0 4 31 49 127i 2 49 10 9 10 91 98 128 222

Total 387 3911 1 7 2211121 492 581 52 9491 8741 18231

Site: Kayunga roadDaft: 1810712006 ___

Timu Mc PV PC PT HGV Total In Total Oat Total 2-way Max 2w.yIn Oat tin Oat In out in Out In Out

7-8hs 3 27 12 4 102 1 18 492 13 55 1223 2238-9hra 35 20 10 79 3 15 13 3 4 1 996 49 1535-10h,s 40 35 8 7 25 21 05 9 3 2 865 7 160 Mm in10-lihmo 37 293 8 10 4 18 8 7 8 7 73 86 139 106811-12h,0 34 34 9 1 12 1628 14 I 7 87 83 135012-l3hrs 26 31 7 9 181 1 9 13 4 3 582 76 1634 MmOut13-14h,0 39 33 12 8 13 25 io 7 9 6 79 79 158 13514-15hs 325 43 5. 4 9, 19, 70 8 3 6 64 53 27 13215-16hrs 22 21 41 1 3 16 20 65 9 6 48 8 70 13016-17hs 37 42 94 1 2 15 1 029235 7 751 8 164817-lohrs = 395351 4 25 413 9 0 2 82 7 1918-19h5,0 401 591 1 1 12 253 5 15~ 9 16 2 8 13 2

Total 48712 404 107 92l 230 275 11 1 07147 55 9849 933 1917

Site: Kayunga roadDate: 9107/2006Than Mc PV PC PT HGV Total In Total Out Total 2-wa Max 2wa.

In Out In Out in Out a. out In Out7-8hs 345 27 12 18 850 2 1 28 1 3 1 2 145 82 227 2278-91,s 32 25 98 44 3 40 15 3 3 5 I 105 77 1829-10h, 2 243 5 9 43 14 24 9 4 8 103 63 166 Ma.ia10-llhs 45 41 13 32 22 14 40 4 5 101 91 1392 14511-12hrs 33 34 15 72 18 20 13 64 4 7 678 73 15112-13hm 35 3 I7 15 1 18 2 8 93 6 7 82 72 164 Max Out13-14h,0 35 32 7 12 13 5 19 6 8 6 6 73 73 148 135214-15h0 32 430 3 13 8 7 0 4 7 5 132915-16h,0 31 25 8 83 96 21 9 3 3 80 64 12416-17hm 34 31 8 13 14 13 15 9 3 741 7 14417-18hm 35 291 11 15 20 34 15 I 3827 87 17918-19h,0 22 I1 I 21 1 31 2 52 8o I6 5 8 102 I23

Total 3912 3494 128 140 319 278 139 957 5090802 912 1939

Site: Kayunaga roadDate: 20107/2006

Tiaw Mc PV PC PT HGV Totail I TotaliOut Totali2-way Ma 2 wayIn out In out In oat In Out In lout

7-8hrs 30 15 10 7 15 22 16 6 1 0 166 50 218 2388-9h0 326 25 12 6 57 I0 85 8 0 103 60 1639-I0hrs 31 31 11 7 431 214 31 9 2 2 103 70 176 Max In10-1h0 4 37 138 3 73 32 20 314 13 6 0 89 961 7 14511-12ho 26 234 8 7 23 31 26 19 5 2 88 82 17012-13ho 22 23 75 9 16 14 13 1 1 2 59 66782 8 125 Ms.Out13-14h0 213 5 72 81 18 19 13 14 6 2 7 38 73 1346 13214-15h0 36 31 11, 7. 9 17 7. 15 7 6 70 781 141.I5-16hr 3 332 12 I 19 12 9 i 5 4 791 71 15016-17h,0 348 40 93 13 27 8 9 4 4 741 91 16217- , 48 45) 4 10 1 345 1 It 2 41 677 1 19818-19h50 22I 49 11 24 34 16 35 4 6 510 132 238

Total 397 381 103 964 34 265 1398 179454 10841 963 2047

Tm Mc PV PC PT HGSV Total In Total Out Total 2-way M.2yWekl n out In Out In Out In Out it out

Averah e 34 33 10 7 25 21 312 I9 4 4 84 77 176M1 I

Traffic Counts, July 2006: Ivunamba road

Site: Ivunambs RoadDat.: 17(07/2006

Time Mc PV PC PT HGV Total In Total Out Total 2-wa - Max 2 wayIn oat In Oat In oat In out In Out

7-Bhms 26 22 14 15 221 27 1 5 8 3 2 270 70 340 3408-9hn; 10 8 13 3 103 64 23 2 6 0 163 77 2409-10h,5 17 0 6 4 SI 52 Ii 3 3 I 116 69 187 Max In10-11lh5 10 16 0 8 44 69 7 9 3 I 80 103 183 27911-12hms 13 13 10 13 24 74 6 7 2 I 55 108 16312-13hm 10 13 1 1 12 16 44 6 8 1 0 49 77 126 Ms. Out13-14h,5 21 21 17 20 33 44 5 10 3 2 79 07 176 16314-15hm5 10 12 8 1s, 13 34 4 41 3. 4 381 69. 107,15-16hrs 14 15 IS 16 16 26 6 5 01 3 46 65 i16-17h518 171 101 7 1 30- 411 8 4 31 4 65 .77 1417-18hrs 261 101 18 7 371 91 ill 9 01 2 92 127 2119-lghrs 141 151 IS 10 30 1421 61 11 21 5 75 183 5

Total 209 1 180 1 137 1331 656 1 708 1 108 1 78 29 1 23 1139 1122 26

Site: W~namba RoadDate: 18087/2804

lime Mc PV PC PT HGV Total In Total Out Total 2-way- Max 2 wayIn Oat In out In Out In out In out

7-8hn; 5 3 6 5 40 27 7 3 I 0 64 38 102 2098-9ghm 1 5 0 5 4 60 65 1 8 3 6 0 104 77 1819-10h,5 1 8 9 7 8 17 0 7 10 1 1 50 28 789 _ Maxlin10-11lh5 14 II1 14 14 61 48 9 6 0 1 98 80 178 10411-12h,5 18 19 12 12 34 41 9 7 0 4 72 83 15012-13h,5 19 21 14 13 20 47 8 II I 2 62 94 156 Mmx Out13-14h,s 1 3 12 7 14 20 45 4 8 2 1 46 80 126 14414-15h,5 14. 19. 15. 15, 4 91 4 9. 1 2 . 38. 54. 923I5-16h,5 22 20 19 7 32 1 9 4 3 0 1 77 50 12716-17hm 1 16 14 14 37 42 6 4 2 3 73 81 154117-18h,s 16! 151 0 161 29 57 7 11 2 3 62 102 1641

18-19hm 1 0 16 8 2 10 14 9 3 0 5 144 2091Total 178 1 170 1 137 130T 381 509 96. 84 19 18 811l 911 17221

Site: Ivunamba RoadDate: 190/7/2006

lime mg PV PC PT HGV Total In Total Out -Total 2-wa Max 2 wayIn Out In Out In Oat In Out In out

7-8hrs 21 3 5 0 219 3 1 15 3 I 0 261 37 298 2989-9h,5 9 6 10 7 110 31 16 9 4 0 149 52 2019-10h,5 14 1 6 9 1 4 94 93 10 9 1 2 128 134 262 Ma. In10-119h5 1 1 9 10 7 39 41 10 3 I 6 71 66 137 26111-12h,5 12 17 5 6 25 5I 7 6 2 0 5I 80 13112-13h,5 17 II1 17 I 1 1 48 21 Il1 1 2 67 83 ISO MaxnOut13-14h,5 IS 13 10 I3 24 31 7 7 5. 6 56. 70 126 18114-105h5 20. 20, 27. 22! 24, 32, 7, 19, 1 3 791 96. 175,15-16h, 7 7 8 20 19 21 3 0 1 3 8 7

16-17h, 2 8 1 12 25 461 7 4 "I 5 4 417-18h, 7 6 1 13 531 771 101 8 5 1 118-19hm 8 18 1 4 1 14 7 8 3 2 8 8 8

Total 16 15 13 12 68 64 11 89 2 28 13 107 10

Sit,: Ivunamba RoadDate: 20/07(2006

lime Mc PV PC PTI HGV TotallIn Total Out Total 2-wa Mx2 wayIn out In Out In Oat In out In out

7-8h,5 19 0 1 I 182 18 9 6 4 I 215 34 249 2580-h9, 18 I I 8 4 123 66 21 5 2 0 172 86 2589-10h,5 15 11I 6 8 50 53 1 1 7 1 4 91 83 174 Mao In10-ilhm5 10 6 14 12 29 38 10 10 3 6 66 72 138 21911-12hrs 15 6 10 1il 41 49 10 12 2 3 78 81 15912-13h,s 8 14 12 17 17 35 0 13 3 4 48 83 131 Ma. Oat13-14hm8 16 8 12 15 20 30 9 6 4 0 61 59 120 16714-15hm5 15. 19. 15 7 26 31 5 6, 1 0 62, 68. 130.15-16hm 13 14 16 13 21 25 5 6 21 3 57 61 118

19-17h18 15 10 10 19 43 4 8 6 1I 771 08 16517-168h5 20 21 13 Il1 39 571 8I I1 ~ 4 3 02 103 10518-199h5 18 2 13 7 22 1281 171 8 ]4 2 741 167 241

Total 182 18 30 125 621 574 1 119 96 31 32 10831 985 20681

Site: Ivunamba RoadDate: 21/0712004 ____ ___

In out1 13 IS t 17 I ut 20 ou5 7n 1 2 62 67 1212-18hs 10 21 16 1 15 21 64 10 19 2 5 09 151 2160 22213-14rs9 5 7 9 9 1 9l 23 5 20 0 1 30 61 9122194-10hrs 16 19 18 7I 167 0 8 2525 1 I91 50957 113

15-162,5 IS 19 15 17 25 26 26 1 I 2 82 59 14112-17h5 13 216 11 13 22 20 20 19 0 5 86 73i 139 M. u

17-1095 12 I /3 IS 30 50 I 15 3 3 73 94 167

18-19hm8 71 101 191 181 171 701 181 17 66 110 1814

Total 152 1 141 1 147 1 136 1 503 1 463 1 177 1 130 2 25 1003 895 1898

MCPV PPTHV Total In iTotal Out Total 2-way

Weekly lin lOut Iln lout lIn Out lIn lout lIn loat IAverage s5 131 ill ill 471 481 10 8l 21 21 861 03 169

Traffic Counts, July 2006: Jinja town road

Sit.: JinJa Town RoadOat.: ~~1710712004 _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _

17l8. I7 69t 1 5 116u 11 1 90Ou In 87t 34 44 43 51 47-8hs 681 402 9 190 122 306 913 90 222 51 4312 279 1041og

Total 7832 825 1,27 70 1,926 1,80 1,20 1,05 253 39 5508 5292 10800

17-10hrs 92 601 126 116 130 134 87100 4 3516 1 4544 436 890 Mxi

11-12hw 62 85 132 9814558 7 13039 5 10 27 18 4365 368 82

Total3 80 730 8 1921 1099 1630 1709 969 269 250 5426 4463 9889 M u

O5at.: s 6 190 620 93. _04________76_3

1-1,1792h7 513 17413 2121 69 6124 231 43 453 540 10475910S 6 9 12 11 126 241 96 14 324 3 432 633 31065

Total 837 846 1,287

11,21 1,938 1 1828 -1-,103i 1,025 2301 304 55561 52927 10783

86.: Jinja Town RoadData: 1810712DD _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

TOw. Mc PV PC PT OIGV TolaIIn Total Out TotalI2-ya Maxo2way

In I Oat I In out In oat I" Oat In oat7-8hrs 541 3 1168 4 337 96 612 750 11 596 245 533 91038-ghm 746 59 146 93 30 06 130 103 230 15 674 365 10399-10hw 710 62 114 77 235 115 83 75 29 31 531 360 891 Maxln10-11hw 73 66 93 863 2161 77 93 778 2 21 445 327 772 674

13-12hw 4 3 38 29 03 874 93 2 79 46 37 34 432 239 61061

1412w3h9 470 807 7 103 640 60 53 30 20 4340 4266 8606 Ou651w 5 5 910 90 938 75 59 43 25 176 322 270 592 43

14-175h64s7 12510119 290 72 66 230 291 3569 3849 751515-100w 64 82 105 177 120 197171 22 43 32 6169

17-18hw 582 601 126 7 100 1601 951 70 271 10 3754 4389 764

Total 7561 6530 1328 1,2 13 1 1,92 1,227 1964 8726 315 3150 5055 41561 9211

86.: Jinja Town RoadData: 1/107/2006

TOn. Mc PV PC PT HGV Total in Totul Oat Total 2-wa Mao 2 wayIn Oat I In oat In Oat In Out In oat

7-8hs 51 29 104 646 377 79 1549 106 34 15 727 255 92 212748-9hrs 77 51 106 63 441 6 179 99 27 13 673 328 11759-10h6w 76 49 120 72 317 I0 186 12 5 21 27 572 3453 113 Max in10-l1hw 85 77 ill 177 2630 186 98 23 28 660 4860 1148 87311-12hs 03 985 112 90 798 13 179 177 24 25 487 406 89312-13hw 89 57 127 123 1068 15 8 715 110 27 328 593 488 1054 _Mo Oat

13-14hw 59 65 110 115 148 7O 6 62 34 23 437 390 82

15-16h, 8 6186 997 85 143 997 100 88 343468 33 8116-17hw 70 67 1331 37 1413 187 972 1 4653 365 432 79717-18hw 74 82 1 1 146 917 210 123l 1148 38 27 4542 1585 21247

18-19h0Iw 61 64 11410 14 1 0 813 1371 326 27 47158 96

Total 983 792 14037 13722 148201 7,031 22853 3501 317 55674 50 12744

TMC PV PC PT HGV Total In Total Oat Total 2-wa Mx

WeeklytInnOautn 0, in oat In Oat In Oo

Avehrage 76 64 110 983 316 127 1301 103 25 26 647 418 89

i

I

i

i

§ BURNSIDE

Appendix C.6

Rail Freight Volume

(Source: Appendix C.6 AESNP Hydropower Facility

EIA, March 2001)

I

II

Ii

i

FREIGHT TRAFFIC BY COMMODITY (1994 & 1995)

TONNAGE

COMMODITY 11Al 199

Colfee 167,700 104,100cement 166.50 167.100Fuel 90,000 101.300Ceini Goods 169,600 160,300Grains 82,800 130,500Salt and Sutpr 49,200 126.70DTimber S0 200

.ron &sftee 21,400 23,8D0Textiles 3,400 4,400Cotton & Seed 3.000 3,700Chemia & FeTtilias I 1.100 15.100Others (Parcs) 14.100 39,600

TOTAL 70,00 87636

Source: Uganda Railway Corporation

FREIGHT TRAFFIC BY COMMODITY (1996)

COMMODM TONNAGE

CeCmen 12.3,352Chemicals & Fertiliws 7955Scoffee 136438Fuel 107,017Gmcol Gxoods 139,158Gkains 94.608Iron & Stoel 19,394Linm 383mackiiney 15,120Mowto Vehice 301Salt 22,621Siszal 13Texuiles 1,130Sugr 31,475Animal Foos 3,770Hides & Skin 205Cotton 108

TOTAL 714648


-FR-EIGHT TRAFFIC BY COMMODITY (1997)

COMMODIty TONNAGE

AniMal Feds 1365Cemenl 73.161Cbcn & Fertilmas 16,103coffee 54,136Fuel 54,S40Gmrlae Goods 120,849Imn & Steel 6.975Sat 17,475Supr 26.464C;rains 173,803Coton 108Machinery 22Miiuzry Equipmnt 2,648Texties 32Hides & Skin 612Lime 8J2 -Livegiock 97

TOTAL 54-,SO-


§ BURNSiDE

Appendix C.7

Correspondence with UWA Regarding

Jinja Wildlife Sanctuary

i

i

i

i

I

I

i

I

ENILE2 3'0 November 2000 A POWER

The lIxecutive DirectorUganda Wildlifc AuthorityKAM1PALA.

Dear Sir.

RE: CLARIFICATION ON JINJA ANIMAL SANCTUARY

AES Nile Power is in the process of developing a Hydro-Power generation facility at

Bujagali on the Victoria Nile.

During the process of environmental due diligence for the project, it has come to OuI

notice that Jinja township and an area along the banks of the Nile was delineated as an

Animal sanctuary by executive order of the Governor in 1953 under Legal Notice No.

10 of 1953.

It is not clear to us what is the current status of this area in terms of the aforesaid Notice.

This therefore is to request clarification on whether existing policy still recogniises the

delineated area as an animal sanctuary and what is the current status of the Jinja Animal

sanctuary.

We do require this information in order that it may be reflected in the cnviroiunental

review that has been done for the project.

Your clarification to us on this matter is highly appreciated.

Kind regasds,

i t sF tebekeziLegal Oflicer. l- ¢ -

C4ZThe Legal Officer, Uganda Wildlife Authority.Cc. rhe Planning Officer, Uganda Wildlife Authority.

AES Nab Power ,

P.O. Box024401. Krnmpala. UgandaPlot 2At2B Nblutenys Road 7Magwa, Jinja, Uganda = f .

Tel: +255 (0) 43 122154 17,12142617 7Fax: .286 (0) 43 122150. 130082a-mall aesnpJ1Qlntornm.co.ug Registered in Uganda 1408662

28"' No1e9'mber 2000 A g NILE

The Executive DirectorUganda Wildlife AuthorityKAMPALA

Dear Sir.

RE: FURTHER INFORtMATION ON JINJA ANIMAL SANCTUARYRetference is iiiade to my earlier letter to you of 23' November 2000 seeking clarification on theStatUs ol'tile Jinja Animal Sanctuary.

It has becii blrought to iny Notice that we do require more inforimiationt than I initially requested. Inparticulal 'se dt) reqLuire an elaboration from your ollice on the following issues: -

I. The Uganda Wildlife Statute, 1996 in S.19 makes a distinction betwcen a wildlife-protected area and a wildlife-management area and sets out that wildlife sanctuaries arccategorized as wildlite mniaagemiient areas. What is the distinction between the twvo itnterms of activity restrictions and in any other way?

2 What kinds ot' activities are prohibited within the Animiial Sanctuary as a wildlifemaniagcalemeit area?

3. What activities are permitted withini a wildlife managemelit area and particularly awildlite sanctuary?

4. What Animiials arc currently within the Jiinja Sanctuar-y and have been declared protectedspecies for whose protection Jinja 'rownship [or now M1lunicipality] and the describedarca lias been idzentified to be essetitial as cnvisaged utidc- S. 19 (7) of the UgandaWildlife Statutte

5. Do the activities relating to the establishinient of the I lydro-Pow-er facility at BuJagaliallect any such protected species since sonie of ihe land to be intundated by the projectmai lie within a friinge of the sanctuary?

6. Whiat are the specific coordinates and detailed boundary description of tihe Jinja AnimalSanctuary?

7. What are the various managemenlt policies! directives that have applied to the JinjaAniaii;il sanctuary since its establishment in 1953?

Tlle additional information wve do require in order that wve mar havc a comprelicihsiveappreciation and assessmenit of the implications of Bltjagali Hydro-Po%%er project on the JinjaAnimal Sanctuary.

We do highly appreciate your assistanice in this matter.

You .ai y

l egal Offiecr

(;/The Field Operations Ofticer, Uganda Wildlife AuthorityCc. 'I'he Legal Officer. Ugaida Wildlife AuthorilyCc. I he l'aiiniing Oflicer. Uganda Wildlife Authority

AES Nile PowerP.O. Box 24401. Kampala. UgandaPlot 2V2B Nalufanys RoadMxgwa, Jinja. UgandsTel: -256 (0) 43 122154 1 7,12142d 1 7Fax: +258 (0) 43 t22150, 130082e-mail: [email protected] Registered in Unalrda 147RA I

December 19, 2000

The Legal OfficerAES Nile PowerP.O. Box 24401KAMP ALA

Dear Mr. Bitebezeki,

IRE: INFORMATION ON JINJA WILDLIFE SANCTUARY

Please refer to your letter of November 28, 2000 seeking clarification on the status of theJinja Animal Sanctuary. Below are some answers to the questions you raised:

1. A wildlife sanctuary is "an area identified as being essential for the protection of aspecies of wild animal or wild plant in which activities which are not goingI to bedestructive to the protected species or its habitat may be permitted" (see UgandaWildlife statute No. 14, section 19 subsectioni 7). In the case of Jinja Wildlifesanctuary, this was set up for the protection of animals of all kinds according to theGame (Preservation and Control) Act Statutory Instrument 226, revised edition of1964, Section 45, second schedule which is still valid and legallv binding The

difference between a Wildlife Protected Area and Wildlife Management Area is thatin the former no activity may be undertaken without the authority and permission oftile Executive Director while in the latter permission is not necessary provided theactivity is not destructive to the protected species.

2. Activities prohibited in the animal sanctuary include* hunting, trapping or killing of any animal species including birds and insects* destruction of any animal habitat e.g. felling of trees where birds and insects may

nest, clearing vegetation (grass, bushes, trees etc where animals live and feed),draining of water as in pools or ponds where frogs, toads lizards etc live and feed.

• Submersion of island patches within the Nile or the banks of the Nile whereaniinals live, nest, breed or feed

* Collecting/capture of live animals or parts of animals dead or alive (e.g. eggs.feathers, nests, bones, teeth, skins etc) for any purpose

.. The activities perrnitted are those that do not result in any of the actionis listed outunder 2 above.

4. A current invenitory has not been done but this would be part of the results of an EIAas required by the NEMA Statute. Othervise the Jinja Animal Sanctuary was

established for protection of all animal species. It is known for its several birdspecies, reptiles and diversity of insects, In any case all wildlife is protected underUJ-andan law regardless of whether it is in a Wildlife Protected Area, WildlifeManagement Area, Public Land or Private Land.

5. Certainly as long as any of the activities of establishilng a Hlydro-Power result in anyof the actions in 2 above directly or indirectly, mitigationi measures must bcarticulated in the EtA statement and ultimately implemented to the letter.

6T 'I'he boundaries of the Jinja Animal Sanctuary are well described in the secondschedule of the Game (Preservation and Control) Act cap 226 under legal notice no.1 10 of 1953. Even without co-ordinates the features described are easy to identify onthe ground. However, the Department of Lands, Surveys and Mapping, Entebbe couldbe contacted for the c-ordinates including a re-survey if deemed necessary.

7 Management policies since the declaration of the Jinja Wildlife sanctuary havecentred around providing information to the population about these areas and thespecies being protected therein as well as their iniportance as part of the biodiversityand our natural heritage.

I lhope you tind this information usefui. Please do not hesitate to contact us again for adiscussion if need be, even at the site.

Best regards

¶urs rincerelyAlthur,Mugisha . -

For: EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

Cc. Director Planning Monitoring and ResearchLegal Officer, UWA

§ BURNSIDE

Appendix C.8

Archaeological Assessment Report

Phase I Archaeological Assessment for the Proposed BujagaliHydropower Site and Inundation Area, Uganda

By D. Kivaga- Mulindwa and E R KamuhangireNovember 2006

Table of Contents

Introduction .......................................... 03

Study team ........................................... 04

Methodology .......................................... 05

Survey results .......................................... 06

Discussion ............................................ 09

References ............................................ 10

Appendices ........................................... 12

2

IntroductionAn Impact Assessment of development project is a requirement of the

National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) in Uganda (Ug.Govt 1995). It is also requirement of other development funding agenciessuch as World Bank (WB 1994). This exercise is one aspect in the overallfulfillment of impact Assessment requirement for the proposed BujagaliHydropower project.

The main objective of this exercise was to determine if there was anypossible adverse impact of the project-related activities to the archaeologicalresource in the direct impact zone. This survey was restricted to the area ofBujagali Hydropower site and inundation area in Uganda. The following isour observations and assessment in line with the main objective of the studyduring and after the archaeological impact assessment survey.

3

Study team1. Professor D. Kiyaga- Mulindwa, Professor of History, KyambogoUniversity, Uganda. Archaeologist, Museologist with specific Researchinterest in African Cultural History and several publications in these areas,especially the African Iron Age.

2. Dr. Ephraim R Kamuhangire, Commissioner Museums and Monumentsof Uganda. A Historian with specific interest in Ethno- Archaeology.

3. Nelson A. Abiti, Photographer and Conservator, specific interest in visualhistory and heritage management.

4

MethodsMethods of recognizing sites with evidence of heritage resources are varied.The general idea is to be able to recognize surface indicators of what couldlie in sub- surface levels to warrant further investigation through opening uptest excavations. We did not to redo the maps of the Bujagali area becausetechnical maps already exist, clearly showing the areas to be inundated oncethe dam is put in place.

Similarly, especially on the west bank, all the infrastructure areas are alreadyin place and our brief indicated nothing new to be done in these activity

areas.

Since earlier Impact Assessment work concentrated on the west bankvillages, our effort was focused on the villages of Bujagali, Kyabirwa andNamizi on the eastern bank of the river. We used GPS to the fix thecoordinates of the areas we investigated and so reference can be made tothese locations.

Surface or reconnaissance survey was carried out to locate archaeologicalfeatures and to recover surface pottery scatter as indicator where humanactivity might have taken place. This was done by walking narrow transectsby the three members of the team and each noting if any of these indicatorswas in his transect. Where these were noted, the spot was immediatelyrecorded and entered in a GPS and photographs taken.

The foot survey sought out features such as mounds, ash patches, stonecairns, trenches and artifacts, particularly potsherds. Both the physical extentand concentration of the pottery scatter are obvious indicators of the physicalextend of the site as well as the concentration of human activity in thatparticular area.

Specific locations that seem to point to the concentration of human activitysuch as pottery scatter or heaps / mounds of soils or patches of ash, normallycall for further investigation, such as test excavation to check on what couldbe lying in the sub-terrain levels . Excavations produce artifacts in situ andare also instrumental in displaying stratigraphic accumulation of culturaldeposits which could give the chronological sequence of the occupation ofthat site.

5

Results.

1. Namizi Village.Namizi village is at the head of the project site on the eastern bank where theroad will connect to the dam. The entire area of activity on the eastern sideof the river has been fenced off with posts and barbed wire. At Namizivillage a few areas were looked at during an earlier survey where 20 sherdswere recovered. The current exercise concentrated on areas which were notvisited earlier. This is the area covered by a ridge which runs from the cornerof the river at Namizi to the point where the dam and road will be meeting.A thorough foot survey was carried out on all the hillocks of this low ridgeand no evidence of settlement was observed. The nature of the ground,terrain and gradient all show that the area must have been used mainly foragriculture and not settlement. There are several stone cairns on the top ofthese hillocks, most them about half a metre across and lying low. Only oneof them seemed long, measuring about 3 metres in length, 1.5metres wideand heaped to about 50 cm metres. This was suspected to be a grave and wasplotted out and a top section of it excavated to 75cm below surface. Stonesstopped at ground level and there was no indication at all that there was anypit continuing below the stone heap. Our interpretation of these cairns is thatthey are heaps of stones collected by cultivators in preparation of theirgardens; a very common practice in areas which are stony. We noted nothingarchaeologically important that will be adversely impacted in the Namiziarea due to inundation or other project activity.

2. Kyabirwa.At Kyabirwa village the approach to the river bank is so steep that no humanactivity could have been possible there even at the maximum levels ofinundation. However we carried out a foot survey along the banks of theriver in a zigzag fashion from the rivers edge to the steep slopes and back.These investigations yielded nothing that we can report on archaeologically.We feel that further investigation is unnecessary at Kyabirwa since there isno apparent threat to any archaeological resource there.

3. Bujagali/ Ivunamba.There has been quite a bit of disturbance due to tourist activity at Bujagali.At Ivunamba, the approach to the river is almost the replica of that noted at

6

Kyabirwa. The technical maps projecting inundation at Bujagali show thatlarge areas lower down in the current tourist site will be submerged. Weconcentrated our survey here, inspite of the disturbance. Using trowel scoopstwo potsherds were recovered from Bujagali. These were apparently frombowls and were uniquely decorated with dragged channeling on the inside; arare very motif location. These internally decorated bowls have howeverbeen recorded elsewhere around the shores of Lake Victoria and in theislands of Sesse and Bussi. In our judgment it would seem that very little orno adverse effect to the archaeological resource is likely to take place atBujagali or the adjacent Ivunamba village.

4. NaminyaOn the western bank, in Mukono District, the village of Naminya has beenvisited. This village is the new settlement site of families which wererelocated from Malindi and Kikubamutwe. Both the infrastructure in theform of roads, sewerage pits and houses etc. are already in place. No moredamage can be done to any potential archaeological resource in this villagedue to project activity than what has already been done due to earlieractivity.

5. Malindi and KikubamutweThe major Bujagali dam construction and other related activities areas willmainly impact the villages of Kikubamutwe and Malindi. Earlierarchaeological impact assessment had concentrated in these two villages anda lot of archaeological material was retrieved from carefully- conductedexcavations. Fauna, lithics and ceramic materials were recovered from theexcavations and they present a sizeable representation of the archaeologicalheritage along the banks of the Nile. As many as 18,432 potsherds of which2,133 were diagnostic were recovered in the earlier survey and are currentlycurated at the National Museum. With the benefit of the earlier study, thecurrent study was carried out in places which had not yet been surveyed.Shovel pits and trowel scoops were used to check points in those unsurveyedsites. Some of the test pits yielded nothing, but the few that producedartifacts; were not any different from those obtained in earlier excavations.The activity area in the west bank is now cordoned off with wire mesh. Wehave also mentioned above that most of the infrastructure structures such asroads are already in place and nothing is likely to cause any moredisturbances in the area. The consultants feel that there is already a goodrepresentative sample of the archaeological resource of the area of proposedBujagali Hydropower Project in Jinja and Mukono.

7

DiscussionGenerally the western approach to the river is more gradual and has platforms and extensive plateau which attracted settlement. The eastern banksalong the project impact zone are made up of very sharp and steep gradientthat seemed to have forced settlement and other human activity, other thanagriculture much further back from the river. The two sherds mentioned atBujagali are unique but have been recovered elsewhere. They have beenfound in the Lake Victoria island's collection and some in Kenya, wherethey have been referred to as Ndereti of the Pastoral- Neolithic phase thathas not yet been dated in Uganda.

These artifacts fitted in well, both in the larger picture of the eastern Africaninterlacustrine chronology relating to early, and late Iron Age. The earlystudy also produced some radio carbon dates showing that the area has beensettled from as early as 410 AD, a date much earlier than what allinformation available at the time was indicating.

8

ReferencesR.M. Brachi, "Excavation of Rock Shelter at Hippo Bay, Entebbe",Uganda Journal 24: 1960-71

Susan Chapman, 1967,"Kentsyore Island", Azania, V

D.W. Cohen, 1972 The Historical Tradition of Busoga: Mukama and

Kintu, CUP

Graham Connah, 1966, Kibiro: The Salt of Bunyoro, past and Present,

London, BIEA,

N. David and Vidal, P. 1977 " The Nana- Mode Village site and the

Prehistory of the Ubangian- speaking peoples" West African Journal of

Archaeology 7: 17-56

Fagan,B.M. and L.Lofgren, 1966, "Archaeological Reconnaissance onSsese Islands, " Uganda Journal

E.G Gibbins, E.G. 1935, 'Mbwa Flies" Uganda Journal. Vol 2 pp.272-77

A.Kagwa, 1927, Ekitabo Kya Ba Sekabka ba Buganda, Kampala, 1927

D. Kiyaga- Mulindwa, 2002, "Archaeological Impact Assessment of theProposed Bujagali Hydropower Station", AES Nile power

D.Kiyaga-Mulindwa, 2004, "The Archaeology of the RiverineEnvironments of the Upper Nile Valley, Uganda" Studies in the AfricanPast, 4 pp. 38-56

D. Kiyaga-Mulindwa, 2006, "The Archaeology and Ethnography ofMutunda, Northern Uganda" Studies in the African Past, 5 pp.2 24 -24 2

R. D Ladkin and A.B Raper, 1948, "The Banakalanga of Kyagwe"Uganda Journal. 15 pp.1 4 4-58

Y.K Lubogo, 1960, A History of Busoga, Jinja,

9

P. Robertshaw, 1994, "Archaeological survey, Ceramic Analysis andState formation in Western Uganda", African Archaeological Review 12pp.105-131

R.C Soper, 1971, "A general Review of the early Iron age of the southernhalf of Africa" Azania, VI, pp.5-38

R.C Soper, 1971, " Iron Age Sites in Chobi Sector, Murchison FallsNational Park, Uganda:", Azania, VI, pp.53-88

R.C Soper, 1971, Early Iron Age Pottery from East Africa: ComparativeAnalysis", Azania, VI, pp.3 9 52

R.C Soper, 1985, Roulette Decoration on African Pottery: TechnicalConsiderations, Dating and Distribution", African ArchaeologicalReview3, pp.29-59

J. Nenquin, 1967, Contributions to the study of the Prehistoric Culturesof Rwanda and Burundi; Musee Royal de La Afrique Centrale, Tervurenpp257-301

Uganda Government, 1995, The National Environment Statute, UPPC,Entebbe

World Bank, 1994, Environment Assessment Sourcebook, Vol.1, WorldBank, Washington D.C.

10

Appendix-A Photos

pw

--

Kiuauw otr

Kikubamutwe Pottery

- 11

Kiuauw PotrU-1

a~~ - tX 4 X

Kikubamutwe Pottery

Kikuba utwi. e Po

., +,12

p.-[U

U - U

Malindi Pottery

13.

L.

MIP-

Malindi Pottery

L-1Malindi Pottery

1 4

lb

Bujagali

Bujagali~~~~~ wihitrordcrto

15

r-rr

Namizi foot survey

Namizi test excavation

16

A'

Malindi foot survey

17

IIi

i

I

i

I

The World Bank Plot 1, Lumumba Road Tel- (256.41) 231 230/INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT Rwenzori House 230 C94. 232 533, 230 161INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION P. 0. Box: 4463 Fax- (256-41) 230 092Kampala, Uganda

April 25. 2001Hon. Syda BbumbaMinister of Energy & Mineral DevelopmentThe Republic of UgandaDear Honorable Minister

Bujagali Hydropowi)er ProjectVorlci Bank Group 's Requirement of on Ofset at Kalagala Falls

The World Bank Group and AES, the sponsor of the Bujagali hydropower project,have undertaken a comprehensive environrnental and social review of Bujagali overthe past three years and have arrived at a set of mitigation measures which will formthe basis for the World Bank Group's environrmental and social clearance of thisproject. The comprehensive due diligence on Bujagali also includes an assessment ofthe environmental and social impacts of alternatives to the Bujagali hydropowerproject, cumulative impacts of such potential projects and an environmental impactassessment (EIA).

As part of the EIA-process, a number of stakeholder forums have been held includingone in Washington, DC in June 2000. At the June forum in Washington. DC. AESdistributed copies of the NEMA-approved EIA, the Victoria Nile Strategic ImpactAssessment and the Assessment of Generation Alternatives. Soon the World BankGroup plans to release the finalized Bujagali EIA at its Public Information Center andin Uganda. A detailed description of the environmental and social due diligence onBujagali, the project's impacts and the recommended mitigation measures areoutlined in this EIA.

The World Bank Group's Safeguard policies require adequate mitigation measures tobe implemented in conjunction with a project which may have significant social andenvironrmental impacts. The environmental due diligence undertaken by the WorldBank Group on the Bujagali hydropower project has determnined conclusively thatboth Bujagali Falls and Kalagala Falls are natural habitats and cultural properties ofsignificance to the people of Uganda. Therefore, as the implementation of theBujagali project will inundate Bujagali Falls, the World Bank Group concluded thatKalagala Falls must be conserved in perpetuity for its spiritual, natural habitat,environmental, tourism and cultural values,

RCA 248423. U WUI 64145 L2 FAX (202) 477.6391

-2- April 25. 2001

Please find attached the agreement that the Government of Uganda and the WorldBank Group have arrived at as part of the mitigation measures required bv the WorldBank Group to proceed with the remainder of the due diligence with the intent tocomplete the financing of the Bujagali hydropower project. We look forward toworking with the Government of Uganda and AES on implementing the letter andspirit of this agreement.

Sincerelv

46D /YT/Robert Blake

Country Manager, Uganda

Endcs: Mlitigation for Loss of Bujagali Falls: The Kalagala Offset

TELEGRAPHS: ENERMIN OFFICE OF THE MINISTERTELEPHONE: 230243,235895,230926 OGENERAL LINE: 234733

MINISTRY OF ENERGY ANDFAX: 230220/234732 MINERAL DEVELOPMENTE-MAIL: poweraimul.com

r -

P. 0. BOX 7270,IN AN CORRESPONDENCE ONTUJECT P -NO -EB 186/01 THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA KAMPALA- UGANDA

25 April, 2001

Mr. Robert Blake,Country Manager UgandaThe World Bank

Dear Mr. Blake,

RE: MITIGATION FOR LOSS OF BUJAGALI FALLS

I refer to your letter dated April 25 2001, regarding the agreementwhich the Government of Uganda and the World Bank Group havereached with regard to mitigation of the negative environmentalimpact which may be created on the Upper Nile as a result of thedevelopment of the proposed hydroelectric project at Bujagali falls.

In arriving at this agreement, both parties (the World Bank Groupand Government) have considered measures, which will meet theirrespective Policy goals. In particular, the Government of Uganda hastaken into consideration its policy objective of developing least costoptions for the country's electricity supply. In that regard, I wish toadd that government will work with World Bank Group to examine insufficient detail alternative generation options equivalent to theKalagala potential which could be a substitute to Kalagala site.

In conclusion, the Government of Uganda concurs with the mitigationmeasures spelt out in the agreement for the development of Bujagalihydroelectric project.

ffi1zW2ely,

Bbumba (Mrs.)MINISTER FOR ENERGY AND MINERAL DEVELOPMENT

§ BURNSIDE

Appendix D.1Correspondence between World Bankand Government of Uganda RegardingKalagala

§ BURNSIDE

Appendix D.2Electricity Regulatory Authority Decisionon Virtual Peaks Resources' Applicationto Develop the Kalagala Hydro Site

I Ot .7:39 I X F 4AX

ELECTRIC17YrAREGULA'OR1yrAAuT-CRPTV ELECTRICITY REGULATORY AUTHORITY

IPromnting QualitY and Sustainable .Eleccity Supply at EquitablI Prices

VPRS 0I.I, O'i4 Septemnber 15, 2eu(;

Mr. Datto - - -Virtual Peaks RcsoLLre /,39-43 Desa, Off LIJalan Kilal-g Lama58100 KualalumnpurMalaysia 2 7 sEp

Dear Mr. Datto

Re. K.,LAG ALA If YDRO SITE

Further to carlier communications and your subsequent application for a perinit to carrnout fcasibilit-, studies on the Kalagala hydro site in Kavunga District (formeri) part ofMukono DisLtct) ofUganda.

After adverising your application in lineu ith section 30 of the Electrlcil\ Act 1999 (Cap145 Laws of Ugard. '000i we received one written comment. An investor for a pem3itto develop Bujagali raised concerns on a previous Government of Ul ganda cornmitment to

f.;cL:z. the Kala,i.a hydro site till after a thoruugh environment irmpact assessmnt haobeen carried out to the satisfaction of stakeholders to the L3ujagali projcct. iniluding mneWorld Bank. ERA was subsequently invited to noeetiiivs in goernrunent departnents atwhich the UTgwlda governnilatn position was v. eli articulatcd to ERA.

The goverment position on thc site is that "it continues to be -rozen" forde% loprncnt purposes". The Authority at its !MCOL meeting considered the governmentposition and accepted it. This letter serves to inform you that the Electricily RegulatornALdhorllv v %ll not progress your application for a pennit in the circumstances

Kindly accept our apologics for the delay in curnmu.nicuiting this position.

Yours sincerely

Eng. Dr. F. 3 SebbowaCHIEF EXEC:UTIVF OFFICER

Copy to: (i) The Principal Private Secretary to H.E. The Presidcnt(iiy)- he Permanent Secretary, \IF N I )(iii) Tha Permanent Secretry. !Sccretary to the Treasury, Min. o1 Finance

Plot 15 Shlrnoni Road Nakasero, P.C. Box 10332. KampalaTel: 041 341852 1 341646 , Fax: 041 - 341624 E-mail: era4jafricaonhne_co.ug Website: wwwera orug

-------

§ BURNSIDE

Appendix ETechnical Drawings of VariousComponents

S~ISAWLSTIIS ITN

t ,\ X, T X,

fINE DAWN

TOSSI H -d+\ . Iiw S . - -: ,

E*STN SIT I- S /9a -8 --

- -. - - - -- ENEi}f

'I \ '¾i Zw,E<.

/4 - N\ ,- -. \i 1

be a-54 __ \ / U

2 0,,\ X - 8 f , . 5 HYDROPOWER PROJECT

:, ' , - , | 0 PROJECT LAYOUT

I \S- -- \-.'----- -

III ~ \ -. -- ' ' \scn I I'

- -,,.-.0-

~~~TIS SHAVIN IS D133-1400

i

I

Iiiii

WEST BANK SOP CO t NAIESATSEAST BANK SOP o ORD NATES

NOTES

< V4-;v -? | -> 9 -- <[o A 'f2r9s{tt iT oO. 1 - ,

| , s lKeK^lEt t

I --A 3K o

NN

X 7> . . ,

" X - Mt A''TENDERDF WING

Pe- HYDROPOWEF. PROJECT

\% ; ue w % @ <AND EXTENT

10332-914-0102 0

WEST BANE 50P5 EAST BANK SOP,

> ] ~~~~~~~('- C-'| S Xs .1d.

. . P

-/ t1ME.

-~ 1 AN WANNA GENUEARALAA

*--. ,., -,. ,- .0 N-.A ;NY ., OE ---

- o -HANNINU NDATED LAND

.- o J - '~ X N!NANN EE -N

OF PERMANANT

\tA , .,.' . DNA1033E;914,0103 0

I X (EAST) Y (NORTH(7' SOP COCPEI,ATE OPONN

.....S2 .21 55 363 016 PH,.POWERHOUSE6H 12477 53161 s AI 11A

YHNSPILLWAY, Pe~

ES EMBANKMENT04

i

I

i

ZI.

f/~ ~ ~~' X\t

E-w l

7 s sN

iOCONTRACTORS

\ 4 r L - 7 » O , \ T ;, . --- - X

f\~ -\ 'I03/

a WORKS AREA iS T-

I

J CItT O TICFAUCITTO5 , I

I E T ViDl Z 3 2 M9T1 4 O10 5

::X;~~P :'

Atat 0N- ^

SCM9

'\\ E0

K.y

BUAGL

rs=RVER DIV ERSION

STJAGEAU

LAYOUT OF ROADS~4500& COFFERDAMS

D103332-914-0113 0

" \

INDICAT`VERSDCTEONION

45t so ;,\ 0 LAOU OF RAS

X< ) 5 GCOFERAM

i)~~~~~~~~7 11|2-914 --0114< X';0 /

X5000 AS

> X\- < ~ A ~ V

\' \~ \C \AT AM ACTCALWAWhnPsd

X V\, Ti ASIG AN -S k-- ESPOOAA

C LOCATION PLAN

N 55 ,

30 I /_ _ __ _ _/_ __ _ _._ _

P ______ ________ _HYDROPOWERUGNPROJECAT

R D1\VERSION

TYPICAL SECTION 1-15ueoLi ..-

A ~THROUGH COFFERDAMS:103332l914D

011

, 3

SECTION*As t- . .... Nt 5 . .

\> If / KfAfcf R wAIK - s -

rK

'1$/ N- /\\ - N

A. ft N ~SECTION A-A .--

- ~SECTION Q-B

- - , ,YDROPOWER PROJECTH -IfL$1AT1ON OSECTIONTD-D

< .BORROWt, QURR AND

STOCKPILED AEASUl*

7 /\ zv - -- I# ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ $3 o C.ntu eln .T Land 24'' 1 i'°s

---- ---------- - T T T *I0 - -

EWAGALI94-020

/ / /1Cbei-e ~~~) 1 IBdli I rn12/,I!:fl0llUl

---- t jj// fl 5 -j d rrW gM|D Dam Crest Lt s h4XF~~o ,M9 j249i;; D-sevel)-

SSPONIPLLWAY0000

CENTRAL EMBANKMENT

- -- ,, -___ 1TT---LEFT ANT 'U TMEN

TO -,

LURE T

.<,0; o-. .. oo \ POrndOOOMOOOOlll/ 0 j> TOE 1

D R A IN T Y P E 'A P i D 0 T O.

'I w /

DRAINW ITYPEliiiB

HYDROPOWER PROJECT

N_ fSPILLWAYI \~ ~ EMBANKMENT

==f -- N g | /=0

-

DRAIN TYPE C -

RIGHT ABUTM ENTTE '- 0

/ / r / ] \ t \ .5CA-E I 15 03341 12

WAOrSO To 1;-OATWtE ROCK

/ 'Ie . ........ ....... .... 1..= F@A H

FFF FOFIC00OFFOOOFO

E CDER FRAOWINR I< / COP F oSR FF10 PWOfiooo

HYRPOWCERMMO POJFEC

t - V rN r> / / \/ 5DAM SECTIONS4 t@6t l wo rosSHEET1 f 4

ThOWtd ATOAL EER11E WhERF IFIIis ON WAKW RO FOR

POOROUFO OOM IN -wO

D103332-914-0123 0

i

2II

I

LC--s -Dck 11 U2 '.1o

--

<V

L....so3 roeAIsD-A1

V 7- I

TFp SI and Oa-c a\-F5rfC DpeCt,d p,-re rclm \P -- -DS P-[filt U2.

SECTION D - DS.flPk.eF-d daea-0oatd p&-AAcAF-a

-,i D--E ggg-U SJAGALI

IS- HYDOPBOWERPSLOPC

',eo \A 'AA Ad AfETAUPr

gACANgV s o |

0 C1r03D( I 2-91-50 TE D E DRAMWECIONS

15 > . ' K f ) P < :>- - / H Y D RP O W E gR M a P R O J YE C

SECTION E - E SHEET 2 a fa 4

w w gg'g -

H-Y ROPOWR PRECT

1 AI A! O1VE332-914-A0124 M

SN663liVd 59NI1flO66 38flsS36d IVJIdki 1N3winlOv .IHD18

NV1Od E)NUrtMEd) UNV ol.0Ioo-OOSOo 0I 0m M-04'444

n3 Od 3MOdONaM4 40 4. fN-i-- 0

DNIMC b3aN3 ~ oc -- -- 0- -H V~- I - wo ~ kVMllIdS NOHdIS

OR .. . .ld

34 1 3110 411003d'l 1 ~IH01 I- S081443 1-890 M31431PU.~hEEF

WEEhP

33 .... .... . 1 34 ....

HdISwuI80043384044441444 lOm0.3.Q

*4 *r J

.iN...... . 1VdNJJINMJIf3V d3

04001040N

tIii

I

iI

El C1 GD2 DSt GS2 CE 2 31

P[~shcC.''ettut ffEsca,at on m e and s. ghfly JI I d,c a tedoepth of Be1. P owe rhouse Pres sure aurafr ere afo fre-.h rock S., .,esPress,,re Cr.>Cat c tasn gF toF F 0 en F enS 506F E.

IFfere ba 5 e EFOssnet CasyPowerhouse Cated EossessL

EaFeheorpdsto

urtaSF be[ow ,ban mess rfassn neova ~tsuct e5 gru CFa nbelo~ EmOr,sfk,menAp .

s n oI. -5h s p ~ssApp oex en Jstoa1s 2,, El.os

.o .......Dafus, elevatori ftast c snare e CuF Qff a

Cha,sage m55-

Embarkmeef Crirerson 'B' -Weathe, ng Criterion A'- Weather ogFoundat-o descrpt,.oo grade -V grade f- Is

nterred Bed rock a a a s s s s s s s a s a s a s 0 a s a -a ~ s a

SECT ON. ALONGC EMBANKMENT /ROAD CENTffELINE (Cost) s,.moa asn

SSt 302E3E4

for Fore treocasnfIndcaaFioe depth of ,505555

S ho

as sCr-a Ct-f

asp I I a

as BUJAGALIasE.t

rF of HYDROPOWER PROJECTas Eas c Con aree iut-ottl DaFtum efeatio,,as

t000,sas asEMBANKMENTas a as as . as as s as . a as Chasnageas( - _-PROFILE

ALONGas a ~ s s~ a s s a s a -a a s a as as s as as s a as s - asDAM AXIS

Crstersos 'A' -Weathering Cr femon B' -Weatthersg Emsbarmntsnsgrade t-fff drae f-V Fo,dat,ne dessrptsos az.

FtINALONG EMBANKMENaC ROAD CENITREL NuE (cent) 133f9403

......... ... ..

I >02/

2 Z-m 2 1 L >

N0

077

UPSTREAM \\ DOWNSTREAM r

/ ] ) ''V °t 10.. .. *..... . . .,= = < / -/ V (~~~~~. ..; ., ww1.1. .. ......... .A

7"",s20 lt RU ... .vS,,-.F......1l-

SECTION I - I (AT CHAINAGE 1740 m) tiWlnucmeerhh

UPSTREAM = i SsLrDOWNSTTREAK75

~07004 Fog Sl g

-l

07O3300~A 1 OA .o140 EP

P."ee otr e P orS e no < y mRr ud l C-,, bed G,-U,II S.l;C 1, Clqer - -

Esteod- 20,0 I. Ro.k .

X

\0 /V

SECTION J - J (AT CHAINAGE 1790 m) 0'"-'1' 0005 |

T-'ENDER DRAWING

BUJAGALIHYDROPOWER PROJECT

EMBANKMENT

DAM SECTIONSSHEET 4 tf 4

[0D103332-914-0136 0

- - - - (Se BOe ClI

lese cssmocooo rncjrn

A B C_ _ _ _ _ 2110

- L901h3103 00ro TZtg10 1 11 5 111 -a9 2|.

:I .¢'¶1 r=! .:.:....... SloolloOlkooo

-I

1120119 IIt ii , 11010 7S

*

III I

wS a

-§7--~ N5 C1

3000911701031010

190 15 - V II J1^ rI. ,es .ELA .6sr[aSStl0

Li17

33 1100T 2 100 031o091033

'1 - 010,3|o t r5RI-O

-~~~~~~~~S

rra Drge9eERVICE/LOADIN BAY C YROPOWE PROECTIO

<1(oO.015003

1102I fonI0314409

413 proor43 d j,l011 > j= - -- /V fsrnPWROS0r 0uf e e r l s t 0 01 03 00 0 1 1 43 0/0 "09104 olO sogoe

t 5 lf e r x C R O SS31 10 0E C T I O NS0 9 3 0 -

ENAGESECTAION THRUG EXAVTINTELNOFMCI

C0LLECT0R~~~~- DRRAWAVINGM/0TRLELC

Oo,00011,3o3 GRAITYPDN/POWRHOUS1000 13 o

050030100099 ERVIE/LOAINGSAY CRSSTSCTIO

Y ~ ~~CROSS SECTION -C 2|

2Y10ELD103-914-014I.

12 14143 0 0

I

I

I

... .. .2 2, 2A SECIO

,, - A

raLnn-\ |-i1, \]|r0125r0.095 lIlt 50 l i.- z , 5 7;, -v'~- gug-8 A .=- Lr

I 0200I002~n2 a . -0 F'--l\--lKiPw°z,2.:|1Il

0100 0lst9.0 .2.......... .o 0. Ir n pm rsIseil

51GRAVITY DAM CONTRATION JOINT ETAILS

V2 5. 919 II

2 1nT02.2pn.nOII.I.d 10.0.00.0.0.1,

0.T10 0- 1.02POWERHOUSE ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ RAIT DAMCA CONRACIO JOINTO DETAILS, ii +| zFCs£Dr

* -1

find- -2. 1oo 7222 EFC 101 15EE E 2 0LIE

0

2115 ENDERDRAWN G

72e 7 4 > | ]POWERHOUSEy nod0 l - 207e7 I 015SPf0SHF T2OF02

POWERHOUSE TYPICAL CROSS SECTION THROUGH GROUTING a DRAINAGE GALLERY 0-1ACCESSAND ACCESS PASSAGE TO COOLING WATER PUMP HOUSo . '" 5 I

21000f2ETNFLs FO i1D103332-9140144 0

ELEVATION ON B B

0616666 016063J-,l4-0lS & D16D

E.C Cl CCC 100 061606 NE001*00.I

/rT Y1 T~l fAwIF C-AWI-1 F mT--T

I II , r . II I C , 1 1 . 1 bUN IC 000066000110

I - Df

1 1 1 F F I I F I,0.

0

Iwf . a S t I F . .. . .. . .. - T IS II I I C IsC 6cCCCC IUUSlYATE6CCCri -T........ Cno mi -Y ,; - ,+, Vs Ve , ,F F1 - VF T EScN9

61T CCFa CCCC 1pC0

A___ AhTENDER DRAWING

I C >+vl 0C 6666 ' s F I I I CCCCCCCUCCCC6 C 1 6 iBUJAG

ALII 6061C6006C000C IHYDROPOWER PROJECT

L 6l

I 1 S O P I 1LLAY

1OT6 I01C I IFOCIOI.CCCCCI C ISOCCICI C

I ICCOCTC CI I10 6

I 6

I I I

I |6 f IC001606- T1- o tW6061 OCOC SIHO SPILLWrAY |I

ig I || I || SP 5.1000n1-s 1066001 rT - CC0CCI 0IT -; .61

CONCRETE LAYOUT-PLAN

& ELEVATIONPLAN ON SIPHON SPILL WAY

rz<CO 600vs a |BJGLL n oI s-00CIICoCC r-60 HY ROOW RP OJCT.

E fL<FriE ~~~~~~~CCl / 5 6 p .. .=E,TZheW

*LT60L 1CCCC

00I066616601060600<ve I

FesOv Fut w n..laGa I o.nalU h h d | O Tw L cF raLD10 3 29 40 8 0q

v <4 v fJ I < < 7 < ISECTION F Fs sl

SECTION A-A

FIC TIC =ED\NDV THI TA' TI

CeSSSA 1551 EDOT OCTI SHALLq FALLOCd I T

T/ V-TENDER DRAWING

05515.51BUJAGALI

HYDROPOWER PROJECT

S'IPHON SPILLWAYSECTION C - CCIA

CONCRETE LAYOUTCROSS SECTIONS

SECTION 0 - 0 S

67NDETAIL 'AE IN I IN PAE-

* IT IIc 115 9so cr

TUTOSTOTP 090 1059408

2- V SHA PEFRhNE ON P100

1eO s de = b(D103332 014t ,518 , 0 h 5tE

j V j ~~~ECTION AD 1t0 - -D, , P-- '1 - - '<1- 1

SECI SETON B

SECTION A -A

03 ____ 01L0 3L L ]. v -JDP

7 | -le N 09.0LVL

LD 5EC N rE - E > ECSTIONON .C

I AII II

N PLAN ATRT T LEVEL PRL

PO EN DER DOE WOTRAWAINS

a ' m l _ _ _ _ S CTION C - ESECTION F - FA E R P T A

AHYDROUOWER PROECUTHI

0910 SSERCTIO N VG

ERERLANSOAT A M1TR50

SECTIONAN-1H9TEN5R DRAWIN

I C10ARRT914R019

z 0

}i~~D ,S||g ;. X 22'

CD I J

}l 'Q L! 1t- KL] '_____

cI ,

S ,

! _ _ ; , r

'_ _! j- '. -F ' 1

IJ

If D jD Si I

TYPICAL ROAD CROSS-SECTION IN CUT I FILL

) - -- < V 1- U | ¢ '~~.3 ., "s5 f.. .. .... bcqv

TYPICAL SECT UNTREA ORAI'AA

- --' >9>

A,RND THER TRUSTURIAES ARE

TYPICAL ROAD CROSS-SECTION OVER THE DAN TYPICAL SECTION THROU SURFACED AREA E TAT WOKHP&ACSI ROAD EUI TYPICAL DETAILS OF CABLE TUNNELRULK FUEL-OIL TANK

9 IT 1. I I >

TYPICAL ROAD CROSS-SECTION AT CROSS DRAIN

ITGlUSARD RAIL END DETA A1T

1119-91E I

T-- T

- NLA-T SE1. F- -

MI S IEN I 1/ 1 Y I E HEPRNE CE NSIASII I

I- N

;

IS DC°AUANIDI

S * A I *- §-

E& | , ,- P S- - A -0 # - - - - > 2 j . .~ - A S i , ' c E- N h I T D J I D A C L I O

-T-IACN. F-D11DCIN

OEALO RIAGE CULVERT NEAR ROAD/POW;ERHOUSE INTERFACE 1-W'--7\ . .... rnsll~l

\I ' .- -IIR,!'

, AtILIIJ. SI

HYRPSICIIOWIIEC ICOJECT

NIINFRASTNRU DCTUE,E

- tv\s\\ \ '' "'- 'f e V X pPUT OF ROADS/ ENC ES

EA .ASI \I IAE.S A&AA E ;- I \ gI

TDANDE DRTAINS

--- PERMANENTROADLAYOU

E \7-

HY - PO E PR -abonLeFsodUCT

N SSOO \R

d

D103332-914-0200 0

§ BURNSIDE

Appendix FQuarry Restoration Plan(Source: Appendix E.2 - AESNP Hydropower Facility

EIA, March 2001)

Bujagali Project Hydropower Facility EIA Appendix E

APPENDIX E.2QUARRY RESTORATION PLAN (BEC)

The quarry site requires rehabilitation in order to leave it in an environmentally acceptablestate. In order for this rehabilitation to take place the final shaping of the quany slopes mustconform to a rehabilitation design. The aim of the rehabilitation will be to re-vegetate theexposed rock slopes, create a wetland interface and lake zone.

Quany Preparation

The topsoil and subsoil from the quarry area is to be stockpiled for use in the re-instatementof the exposed slopes. The stockpiles are to be vegetated with an annual grass seed to protectthem from being washed away during the excavation period.

Slopes

The slopes created by the shaping exercise need to be such that the area can be vegetated. Theexposed rock slope should be left at 1:2 (or less), the wetland terrace at 50 cm below waterlevel and the flooded quarry becomes part of the lake zone.

Re-vegetation

To successfully re-vegetate the slopes, the exposed rock surface will require special attentionto allow for its re-vegetation. This is to be achieved by retuming the stockpiled subsoil andtopsoil, anchoring this soil by means of a geofabric and seeding with local grass and shrubspecies. It will be necessary to create a good covering of vegetation before the first wetseason, to ensure that the slope is stable and not subject to erosion. Protection from erosioncaused through high-intensity/short-duration rainfall will be necessary. The area between thequarry limits and the property boundary (development area) is to be rehabilitated usingindigenous grasses, shrubs and trees.

Wetland reinstatement

The shallow rock terrace at the waters edge will allow for the creation of a wetland zone,which will act as additional habitat creation. The shelf is to be left at a level of approximately50cm (below water level). Topsoil is to be placed onto the shelf and should initially besecured through a geofabric, to prevent wash away on flooding, until the vegetation has had achance to bind the soil in place. Stabilizing seeds from local water loving grasses should beused and in time natural succession of wetland plants will take place.

AES Nile Power 1 March, 2001

Bujagali Project Hydropower Facility EIA Appendix E

Lake zone

The balance of the quarry site is to be flooded to form a lake zone which will add to the areaavailable for the shelter of juvenile fish, and breeding adult fish.


Profile secton with submeraed island - center of guarry site

Bg/ A Extent of quar v

AB

rDss blewater levelr . .......

b ,,nd- .* y.

- - - r ~ /S - - - -API- t .e . .n -.

r)r

4J,

Shcped anaI confioufed surfac e Profile section with dredaed inlet and outlet - ends of quarry sitefo fit nattural landscapeI

B A t

I : 2 sloce sjitablez .. ..........tor rehabiliftator >, -

\^ * ~~g'(Xnd level nnust be / ,*i.\ ^ v "-l: :,--Xttn,2below lowest expecte i / |'' :watce evel # .

- - - - - - App'.terat sct - n of ne 1--, bon, n

|. D.t.z D-ghLa 2006ite ON505G Fiur F

BUJAGALI HYDROPOWER Dt eeb 061IQ5ti ilnPROJECT SEA- - -

N.,-pd ,,, - - (I UARRY SITEBUJAGALI ENERGY LIMITED POSSIBLE REHABILITATION SCENARIOS

Upd.f.d by- ltliNI

§ BURNSIDE

Appendix G.1Sediment Transport Desk Study(Source: Appendix G.1 - AESNP Hydropower Facility

EIA, March 2001)

Bujagali Project Hydropower Facility EIA Appendix G

CONTENTS

1. Introduction ............................................. GIBackground ............................................... GIApproach to the study ...................................... G2

2. Methodology ............................................. G2Data Utilised and Assumptions .................................. G2Calculation Methods ......................................... G7

3. Results ................................................. G9

4. Conclusions ................................. ............ GI

5. References .............................................. G12

List of Tables

G. 1 - Daily average and peak flows from Owen Falls powerstations ................. G3G.2 - Depth of suspendible material at drillhole sites . .................... ...... G4G.3 - Particle size ranges of suspendible materiaL ............................ G5G.4 - Depth of overburden size fractions at drillhole sites near Dumbbell Island ........ G5G.5 - Quantification of SS input from cofferdam earthfill blanket ................. G7G.6 - Hydraulic and sediment deposition parameters used in MIKE 11 model ......... G9

List of Figures

G. 1 - Longitudinal profile of current velocity and suspended sediment concentration,between Dumbbell Island (0 m) and Kalagala Falls (18000 m) ............ GO

Appendices

A. River Channel ProfilesB. Basis For Calculation Of Sediment Inputs

AES Nile Power I March, 2001

ii

t1


1. INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

AES Nile Power (AESNP), a joint venture between AES Electric Ltd a UK wholly ownedsubsidiary of the AES Corporation (a US company), and Madhvani Intemational of Uganda,has submitted a formal proposal to the Government of Uganda and the Uganda ElectricityBoard (UEB) to develop a 250 MW hydroelectric power plant on the River Nile at Bujagali.

The project site is located at Dumbbell Island, near the source of the Victoria Nile in Ugandaand about 2.5 km downstream from Bujagali Falls. The project will comprise a 250 MWPower Station housing 5 x 50 MW Kaplan turbine generation units with associated 30 m highembankment and spillway works. The construction phase will involve diversion of the entireriver flow either side of Dumbbell Island, firstly through the eastem channel (while thewestern embankment and powerhouse are being constructed) and then through the westemchannel, while the eastern embankment is being constructed).

In 1998, AESNP commissioned WS Atkins International to undertake an environmentalimpact assessment of the proposed project. This was carried out to comply with Ugandanand International Finance Corporation (IFC) standards. The Ugandan EIA procedures aredetailed in the guidance prepared by the National Environment Management Authority(NEMA) in July 1997 and the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 1998. TheWorld Bank/IFC requirements are detailed in their sectoral guidelines for hydropowerschemes (1990) and EIA studies (OP4.0 1).

The final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was submitted to NEMA in March 1999.Following a Public Hearing held in Jinja during August 1999, NEMA issued a Certificate ofApproval of Environmental Impact Assessment dated 1 November 1999. Condition 5 of thisapproval stated that 'AES Nile Power undertakes to [inter alia] meet all the technicalrequirements with regard to control and regulation of water flows downstream to the dam,and to meet any other requirements as will be prescribed by the Directorate of WaterDevelopment with regard to hydrology of the Nile and other water quality concerns. Thedevelopment of the project shall also be in conformity to international agreements applicableto development of the nature proposed on the River Nile'.

In order to discharge its obligations under Condition 5 with respect to water quality, AESNPcommissioned WS Atkins International to cany out a desk study to investigate the potentialfor elevated suspended sediment (SS) concentrations downstream of the site duringconstruction. It is during the construction phase that there will be greatest potential for inputsof SS to the River Nile.

This study is based upon river morphometry, hydrological and geotechnical data that havebeen gathered during the Bujagali Feasibility Study and Environmental Impact Assessment.The focus of the study is upon water quality in the reaches of the Victoria Nile betweenDumbbell Island and a point downstream of Kalagala Falls, some 18 km downstream.



APPROACH TO THIE STUDY

A three-stage approach has been used for carrying out the desk study, as follows:

(i) Collation of data on river physical characteristics (long and cross-sections),river flows, existing water quality and potential sediment sources.

(ii) Calculation of the magnitude and duration of SS inputs to the Nile from eachidentified source

(iii) Calculation of SS concentrations in the Nile downstream of the site. This hasused a simplified version of the MIKE 11 one-dimensional hydrodynamicmodel, produced by the Danish Hydraulics Institute.

2. METHODOLOGY

DATA UTILISED AND ASSUMPTIONS

River Physical Characteristics

Longitudinal sections of the Nile giving river bed elevation between Owen Falls andKalagala Falls (approximately 18 km downstream of Dumbbell Island) were available fromthe Bujagali Feasibility Study (Knight Piesold, 1998a; 1998b). Downstream of Kalagala, theriver slope for each subsequent 10 km reach was estimated from contours shown on 1:50,000scale topographic maps of the Nile Valley, which were based on aerial photography carriedout in 1998 as part of JICA-sponsored surveys.

Consultation with the Directorate of Water Development (Entebbe) indicated that nobathymetric survey data are available for the Victoria Nile between Dumbbell Island andLake Kyoga. The only relevant survey data were for river cross-sectional profile in thevicinity of Dumbbell Island, collected in 1997 as part of the Feasibility Study (KnightPiesold, 1998a, 1998b). Cross-sections were not available further downstream.Consequently, for the reach of the Nile between Dumbbell Island and Kalagala Falls, crosssectional area was estimated based on channel widths shown on 1:50,000 scale topographicmaps, assuming the same cross sectional profile as had been reported for the Dumbbell Islandarea in the Feasibility Study.

Cross-sectional profiles used for the modelling exercise are included in Appendix A.

The channel morphometry and flow characteristics of the Nile change significantlydownstream of Kalagala Falls, with the river channel becoming less steep-sided, the gradientof the river decreasing and wetland areas appearing, mainly along the east bank. For thisreason it was not considered appropriate to apply the Dumbbell Island channel cross-sectionsfurther downstream than Kalagala Falls, which had been the original aim of the exercise.This approach allowed the sediment load and deposition for the 18 km of river between


iI

iI


Dumbbell Island and Kalagala to be estimated, which would give a good indication ofdownstream load.

River Flow Data

River flow scenarios used for calculation of erosion, transport and deposition of SS werebased on those previously calculated for daily peak and average discharge from Owen Fallspower station, after completion of the Owen Falls Extension (Table G. 1).

Table G.1 - Daily average and peak flows from Owen Falls powerstations

Sluice Gate Daily Peak Peak Sluice Average Peak Flow Peak FlowOperating Turbine Flow Gate Flow Sluice Gate Occurrence (m3/s)Condition (mI

3 s) (m3 /s) Flow (m3 /s)

Owen Falls (260 MW)

Continuous 1407 670 670 Daily 2077

5/10 days 1407 1339 670 5/10 day 2746

Owen Falls (300 MW)

Continuous 1623 529 529 Daily 2152

5/10 days 1623 1058 529 5/10 day 2681

Data from Knight Piesold (1998b).

Existing Water Quality

The calculations carried out as part of this assessment enabled the increase in suspendedsediment load above the baseline situation to be estimated. In order to set this increase in thecontext of the natural 'baseline' situation, it is necessary to have historical suspendedsediment data for the areas likely to be affected, i.e. the immediate Bujagali area anddownstream. With this information the tolerance of species to any elevation in suspendedsediment concentration, and the importance of the downstream suspended sediment load canbe estimated.

Initial data from the baseline aquatic ecology and water quality surveys being undertaken onthe upper Victoria Nile by the Fisheries Research Institute (FIRI), Jinja, indicate that naturalconcentrations in the period February to April 2000 were in the range of 2-14 mg/I.

Suspended sediment concentrations are measured regularly by the Directorate of WaterDevelopment at Masindi Port, downstream of Lake Kyoga. According to Norplan (1999), theaverage SS value measured at the surface, mid-depth and near-bottom is 8.67 mg/I. Thedifference in SS concentrations between the upper Victoria Nile and Masindi Port indicatesthat considerable SS loss occurs between these two points. This is most probably due tosedimentation in Lake Kyoga itself, and in reaches of the Victoria Nile immediately upstreamof Lake Kyoga, which are relatively wide and have a small gradient, and therefore are slowflowing.



Sediment Sources

Inputs from inundated river banks

Increased erosion of the river banks as a result of raised water levels and localised increasesin flow velocity during diversion works represents a potentially significant source ofsuspended sediment downstream of the construction site.

In order to estimate the importance of this source, data were required on the following:

* Depth of readily-suspendible material (silt, soil, sand and/or clay)

* Particle size distributions

* Extent of inundation

As part of the Feasibility Study (Knight Piesold, 1998a; 1998b) a total of 21 drillholes wereinstalled on the river banks and islands in the vicinity of the proposed hydropower facilities.Of these, nine were deemed to fall within the area to be inundated during the constructionphase. The depth of suspendible material (silt, soil, sand and/or clay) at these nine drillholeswas taken from records presented in Knight Piesold (1998b), and are outlined in Table G.2below.

Table G.2- Depth of suspendible material at drillhole sites

Drillhole No. Eastings Northings Depth (m)

DH2 515081 55338 3.10

DH3 515244 55310 2.20

DH6 515739 55361 2.40

DH9 515750 55216 2.50

DHIO 515176 55318 0.00

DH11 515182 55305 0.00

DH12 515132 55428 5.80

DH14 515222 55332 1.00

DH20 515585 54690 8.50

From the data presented in Table G.2, the average thickness of suspendible material in thearea to be inundated during the construction phase was taken to be 2.83 m.

Particle size distributions were taken from interpretation of the description of drillhole logspresented in Knight Piesold (1998b). Material described in the logs as silt, clay/silt, clay,


I

Ii

I


sand, gravel, cobbles or boulders was allocated to a particle size range (Table G.3) accordingto the table in Appendix D.2 of Knight Piesold (1998b).

Table G.3 - Particle size ranges of suspendible material

Fraction Size Range (mm)

Clay <0.0006

Clay/silt 0.0006-0.002

Silt 0.002-0.06

Sand 0.06-2

Gravel 2-60

Cobbles 60-200

Boulders >200

Total depth of each size fraction was calculated from information in the logs presented fordrillholes in the vicinity of Dumbbell Island, as follows.

Table G.4 - Depth of overburden size fractions at drillhole sites near Dumbbell Island

Category DH2 DH3 DH6 DH9 DHIO DHI I DH12 DH14 DH20 Total % compositionfor 9DHs

Depth in metres

Clay 1.0 0.55 1.2 1.25 0.71 0,50 6.50 11.71 45.9Clay/silt 1.05 1.1 2.15 8.4

Silt 0.59 0.59 2.3Sand 2.55 2.0 4.55 17.8

Gravel 0.85 0.85 3.3Cobbles 0 0.0Boulders 1.05 0.55 1.2 1.25 1.10 0.50 5.65 22.2

The water level produced by maximum flows expected at the site during construction wascalculated in order to size the cofferdarns and assess the safety of the site, as part of theFeasibility Study (Knight Piesold, 1998b, Annexe B). Following completion of theinstallation of the first two turbines currently under construction at Owen Falls Extension(OFE), daily peak generation flow through the two powerstations may amount to some 1400m3/s. The flow resulting from an inflow event to Lake Victoria with a 1 in 100 year returnperiod has been estimated at 2000 m3 /s.

Figures B12 and B13 from Knight Piesold (1998b) show water levels in the eastem andwestern channels adjacent to Dumbbell Island, with the temporary diversion arrangements in



place. From comparison of the present and predicted water levels, it is apparent that the areaof elevated water level will be confined to the vicinity of Dumbbell Island. Key data used forcalculation of suspended sediment load from this source are given in the table in Appendix B.

Inputs from cofferdam construction materials

It is anticipated that the hydropower development will be aDnstructed in two stages. In Stage1, the river will be diverted through the channel on the eastem side of Dumbbell Island byconstruction of a cofferdam in the western channel at the upstream end of the island and asecond cofferdam at the downstream end. The intervening area between the cofferdams willbe dewatered to allow construction of the embankment, power station and ancillary works.

During Stage 2, the Stage 1 cofferdams will be removed and the western channel reopened toallow water to pass through temporary ports constructed in the main spillway structure. Theeastem river channel will then be closed off by cofferdams at the upstream and downstreamend of Dumbbell Island. Following dewatering, the final closure section of the embankmentwill be constructed.

The cofferdams will comprise earth/rock embankments placed directly on the riverbed, whichis believed to be relatively free from alluvial deposits. Initially, rockfill will be end-tippedacross the river channel, but it will be necessary to place large boulders or pre-cast concreteunit to effect final closure of the Stage 1 upstream cofferdam. The cofferdams will be madewatertight by placing an impervious earthfill blanket material on the waterside faces.

If this earthfill blanket material is eroded to any degree, it will represent a source ofsuspended sediment to downstream reaches. Data given by Knight Piesold (Alan Bates, pers.comm.) showed that about 120,000 tonnes of material will be used to form the coffer dam inthe East Channel. The placement will occupy about 90 days and it is estimated that at most1% will be lost as input to the sediment load in the river. The average rate is therefore verysmall. However, the maximum loss will occur shortly after each load of material is placed.There will be a short period during which a portion of the placed material will be washed outand a pulse of sediment produced. For the purposes of estimating the resultant sediment loadwe have assumed that this period lasts 30 seconds.



Table G.5 - Quantification of SS input from cofferdam earthfill blanket

Parameter Dimension

Mass of material to be placed 120,000 tonnes

Duration of placement works 90 days

Maximum loss proportion 1%

Average sediment load 0.4 g/sec

Material load each placement 15 tonnes

Washing period 30 seconds

Pulsed sediment load 5 kg/s

Inputs from the river bed

Bedrock is exposed at river level, and the riverbed is believed to be relatively free of alluvialdeposits (Knight Piesold, 1998a). This is assumed to be due to the rapid river flow beinggreater than the deposition velocity, thus preventing sedimentation on the riverbed.Consequently, this potential source of suspended sediment is not considered to be importantin the context of other sources, and this factor is not included in subsequent calculations.

Figures used for calculation of the overall sediment load from the two identified sources areincluded in Appendix B.

CALCULATION METHODS

Calculation of Flow Velocities

Sediment transport estimates required a longitudinal velocity profile. A simple onedimensional model was set up in order to compute these. Models of this type require crosssections at key points, inflows at the upstream boundaries and a downstream boundarycondition, as described above. An inflow rate of 1000 m3/s was selected as beingrepresentative of the long-term discharge at Ripon/Owen Falls (Knight Piesold, 1998b).

Particularly in view of the sensitivity of sediment movement to velocity the hydraulic modelshould be calibrated. However, very little data was available and some locally observedsurface flow velocities were used as a guide.

The model was developed using the MIKE I ID modelling system produced by the DanishHydraulics Institute. During development it became clear that the cataracts have a stronginfluence on water levels, and that as a result local velocities are very high. The predictedwater levels are clearly too low and as a consequence the velocities predicted to occur inbetween the cataracts are higher than indicated observations in the field.



The model would be improved by modelling the cataracts as rough weirs and calibratingthese to obtain realistic water levels and velocities. This was not possible within the scope ofthe present study, however we anticipate that the accuracy of the velocity distribution wouldimprove should the model be upgraded in this way.

Calculation of Suspended Sediment Inputs

The present situation in the vicinity of Dumbbell Island is that river flow velocities aresufficient to remove all of the overburden from submerged areas. As the diversion willlocally increase flow velocities, it is assumed the all of the newly-submerged river banks willbe completely stripped of suspendible material within the first month of inundation. The totalpotential input has been input in the model at a constant rate over this one month period. Theinstantaneous pulses of sediment into the river from placement of materials for coffer damshas not been considered in this exercise, as this input represents a much smaller total loadthan that from diversion of the flow through each river channel in turn.

Calculation of In-River Suspended Sediment Concentrations

A steady state sediment transport model was developed. Sediment grades in the constructionarea range from clays (<0.06 lim) to cobbles and boulders. Very fine sediments are generally'cohesive' while fractions larger than silts and sands are 'non-cohesive'. Electrostaticinteractions between cohesive sediment particles means that these sediments tend toconsolidate and thus behave differently to non-cohesive sediments. For example small nor-cohesive sediment particles (e.g. sand) may have a lower critical erosive shear velocity(above which particles will move into the water column) than either smaller cohesiveparticles, or larger non-cohesive particles. In order to simulate the complete range ofsediments both cohesive and non cohesive models were developed.

For the fine fractions the model is based on critical velocities for erosion and deposition. Theerosion rate is dependent on an erodability parameter which ideally should be derived frommeasurements. The deposition rate is a function of local concentration and settling velocities.In the absence of these data default values cited in the MIKE 11 manual (DHI, 1992) wereused (see Table G.6).

For fractions with particle diameter >1 mm a standard Ackers and White sediment (Ackers &White, 1973) model was used. The sediment mass flux is a function of a dimensionless graindiameter and a sediment mobility factor. The latter is a function of bed slope, water depth,local water velocity, shear velocity and grain diameter. In the present model the sedimentcarrying capacity for each sediment size fraction is computed for each cross-section of theriver. f this decreases for the next downstream cross section it is assumed that the differencehas been deposited on the river bed. There are no sediment calibration parameters as suchwithin this model as the forms of the empirical equations are fixed.

The model assumes that in the reach below the dam construction site the sediment regimewas in equilibrium before the influence of any construction work. This merely implies thatthere is no erosion in this area and sediment transported from the construction site and thendeposited remains stable and is not re-eroded.



Since it was recognised that the velocities were generally very over predicted the completelongitudinal velocity profile was scaled to be in line with observed data.

The hydraulic and sediment parameters used in the model are as follows:

Table G.6 - Hydraulic and sediment deposition parameters used in MIKE 11 model

Parameter Value

Sediment specific gravity 2.65

Mannings Number 0.030

Clay particle settling velocity 0.0005 m/s

Clay/silt particle settling velocity 0.001 m/s

Silt particle settling velocity 0.005 m/s

Erodability factor 0.005

The settling velocities and erodability parameter are taken from theMIKE 11 Manual (DHI, 1992).

3. RESULTS

3.1 The MIKE 11 model was run assuming the sediment input outlined in Section 2, andassuming a constant discharge of 1000 n?/s at the upstream boundary of the model. Figure -G. 1 below shows the longitudinal distribution of water flow velocities and concentrations of arange of suspended fractions, from clay particles to boulders.



Figure G.1 - Longitudinal profile of current velocity and suspended sedimentconcentration, between Dumbbell Island (0 m) and Kalagala Falls (18000 m)

Suspended Sediments - 1000 cumec River Flow

16 -1.416-. .. . . .. . .................. . .. . ....... .. -... .... . .- 1..

14 - 1.2

12 -

I _ 8--- 0.8 E

_ 6___ _ > < l Li:0.6 .6

2 -- 0.2' +0.

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000

Distance from upstream of Dumbell Island

Clay Clay/Silt Silt- Sand- - -Velocity|

Although no measured flow velocity data are available against which the model can becalibrated or validated, the predicted velocities accord roughly with flow velocities estimatedfrom observations of water movements in the study reaches. The largest peak that can beseen in the longitudinal velocity profile represents Busowoko Falls.

Coarse sediment fractions are not transported downstream any significant distance, anddownstream of chainage 2000 m, the suspended concentrations of gravel, cobbles andboulders are all zero, while elevated sand Dncentrations to not extend past chainage 7000 m.However, the finer fractions (silt, silt/clay and clay) reach considerable distancesdownstream, and the concentrations of the finer fractions barely reduced even at thedownstream limit of the model, approximately 18 km downstream of Dumbbell Island. Theimplication of this is that the coarser particles will be deposited on the river bed immediatelydownstream of Dumbbell Island, while the majority of finer particles will be transported atleast 18 km downstream.

For a flow of 1000 m3/s channelled only down one side of Dumbbell Island, the loadgenerated by additional bank inundation and erosion is 33.1 kg/s. For a storm flowchannelled down one side of 2000 ni/s the load with one coffer dam in place is an additional26 kg/s, resulting in a calculated additional increase in SS of 12.8 mg/l immediatelydownstream. Concentrations of the sum of the fine fractions does not exceed 33.1 mg/l.


I

iiI


The total material placed for a coffer dam will be approximately 120,000 rni. If it is assumedthat 1% is lost downstream during the 90 days required for placement, then an averageincrease in SS concentration of 0.41 mg/l will result. However, this assumes a constantsediment input rate, which is unlikely to occur in practice.

In practice there will be a pulse of sediment input as each load of material is placed and thenwashed by the flow. Even if it assumed that each load is washed out in 10 seconds, thedownstream load of sediment amounts to only 40 kg/s for this short period of time. Thismaterial will be dispersed downstream and concentrations will be reduced from the initialcross sectional average of about 40 mg/l.

It should be bome in mind that the loads from the two identified sediment sources will notoccur simultaneously, therefore the maximum calculated increase in SS immediatelydownstream does not exceed 46 mg/l.

4. CONCLUSIONS

This desk study of water quality impacts downstream of the Dumbbell Island site hasindicated that there will be releases of small quantities of suspended sediment into the Nile asa result of construction activities. The main activity responsible for this release will bediversion of the river flow either side of Dumbbell Island as the two sections of theembankment are constructed. This will inundate an estimated area of some 60,800 mn2 ofriver bank, and the flow velocities in the area of the diversion are predicted to be sufficientlyrapid to cause en elevated suspended sediment concentration of up to 33 mg/l immediatelydownstream of the works. Increased erosion of the river bed and of the earth facing on thecoffer dams are predicted to cause relatively minor suspended sediment inputs.

A simple MIKE 11 model of the 18 km stretch of the Nile downstream of Durnbbell Islandwas constructed using longitudinal profiles reported in the Bujagali Feasibility Study andtaken from 1:50,000 scale topographic maps. A limited number of channel cross-sectionswere available from the feasibility study, and in the absence of further measured profiles forthe downstream section of the model, these profiles were also assumed to apply downstream.Given the abrupt change in channel morphometry downstream of Kalagala Falls, it was notconsidered appropriate to extend the model further downstream without direct measurementsof the channel profile.

The sediment transport model predicted that the coarsest sediment fractions (gravel particlesand larger) will settle out of the water column within 2 km of Dumbbell Island and sandparticles will settle out within 7 km. However, finer particles (< 1 mm, i.e. silt, silt/clay andclay) are predicted to be transported through the length of the modelled reach of the river,with only a small change in concentration within the 18 km below the site.

It should be bome in mind that the loads from the two identified sediment sources will notoccur simultaneously, therefore the maximum calculated increase in SS immediatelydownstream does not exceed 46 mg/l. Although the worst-case SS inputs appear high againsta baseline of up to 14 mg/I, the resultant SS concentration is still much less than publishedthresholds for impacts on freshwater fish species (e.g. 100 mg/I, Alabaster and Lloyd, 1982).

AES Nile Pover 11 March, 2001


Consequently, the scope for adverse effects appears to be insignificant, either in theimmediate vicinity of the construction site, or further downstream.

5. REFERENCES

Ackers, P. & White, W.R. 1973. Sediment transport: new approach and analysis. Proc.ASCE 99: 2041-2060.

Danish Hydraulics Institute, 1992. MIKE 1I Version 3.01 General Reference Manual.

Knight Piesold /Merz & McLellan. 1998a. Bujagali Hydropower Project Feasibility Study.Volume 1 - Main Report. Client: AES Nile Power.

Knight Piesold /Merz & McLellan. 1998b. Bujagali Hydropower Project Feasibility Study.Volume 2 - Technical Annexures. Client: AES Nile Power.

Norplan A.S. 1999. Karuma Falls Hydropower Project, Uganda. Environmental ImpactAssessment. Volume 2A: Annexes - Biological Environment. Client: Norpak Power Ltd.

WS Atkins International/Development Consultants International/African Development andEconomic Consultants. 1999. Bujagali Hydroelectric Power Project. Environmental ImpactStatement. Volume 1, Main Report.



Appendix A.

River Channel Profiles



Chainage from u/s Dumbbell 1h 0 m

Eastings NorthingsLeft Bank Peg: 516600 54200Right Bank Peg 516900 54500

Distance across c/s

(m) Elevation (mASL)0 1114 1.00

24 1113 1.0045 1112 1.0065 1111 1.00 C/S 1 (Whole river flow, upstream of67 1110 1.00 Dumbbell Island)73 1109 1.00 1130 -77 1108 1.00 1120 -82 1107 1.00 1 i84 1106 1.0087 1105 1.00 lg04E92 1104 1.00 1090 -96 1103 1.00 1080 - l l

100 1102 1.00 - Disi cefi Ieft"kpe3 Qi) 500103 1102 1.00105 1100 1.00107 1098 1.00 Waterline125 1092 1.00160 1089 1.00190 1086 1.00215 1085 1.00245 1086 1.00278 1089 1.00300 1095 1.00323 1098 1.00 Waterline330 1099 1.00336 1100 1.00338 1101 1.00341 1102 1.00343 1103 1.00346 1104 1.00349 1105 1.00351 1106 1.00353 1107 1.00355 1108 1.00358 1109 1.00362 1110 1.00414 1126 1.00

Note: C/S 1 and C/S 3 profiles below waterline estimated from C/S 40 profile, due to absence of collected dated in this reach.


i

i

i


Bujagali Hydropower Project, UgandaSiltation Study

Cross-section No: 3Chainage from u/s Dumbb 334 m


Distance acrossc/s (m) Elevation (mASL)

0 1100 1.004 1099 1.007 1098 1.00

11 1097 1.0015 1096 1.0038 1095 1.00 Waterline60 1092 1.00 CIS 3 (Whole river flow, upstream of100 1089 1.00 Dumbbell Island)

125 1087 1.00 1130

145 1086 1.00 1120175 1085 1.00 ,ooa200 1085 1.00 . 1090

220 1085 1.00 1060 200 40 600

250 1087 1.00 Distance from left bank peg (m)

275 1089 1.00300 1092 1.00323 1095 1.00 Waterline |352 1096 1.00355 1097 1.00380 1106 1.00410 1122 1.00422 1126 1.00450 1126.6 1.00




Cross-section No: 19Chainage from u/s Dumbl 944 m


Distanceacross c/s (m) Elevation (mASL)

0 1112.4 1.0015 1112 1.0034 1112 1.0058 1112.2 1.0071 1112 1.0082 1111 1.0089 1110 1.0094 1105 1.00100 1100 1.00105 1097 1.00108 1095 1.00 Waterline148 1094 1.00154 1093 1.00158 1092 1.00 c/s 19 (part river flow - West of

162 092 .00Dumbbell Island)162 1092 1.00165 1090 1.00 ,12 -168 1089 1.00 E 1'010 t171 1088 1.00 1095

j1090175 1087 1.00 1°080

185 1086 1.00 0 100 200 300 400192 1087 1.00 Distance from left bank peg (m)200 1089 1.00203 1090 1.00215 1094 1.00218 1095 1.00 Waterline224 1100 1.00236 1105 1.00243 1109 1.00259 1109 1.00300 1105 1.00362 1102 1.00


Cross-section No: 20Chainage from u/s Dumbbell Island 1064 m


- ------- - ---



Distance across Elevation (mASL)c/s (m)

0 1114.9 1.0015 1114 1.0020 1113 1.0022 1112 1.0024 1111 1.0025 1110 1.0026 1109 1.0027 1108 1.0028 1107 1 .00 C/S 20 (part river flow - West of

29.5 1106 1.00 Dumbbell Island)

31 1105 1.00 112032 1104 1.00 .I 033 1103 1.00 iio.34 1102 1.00 logo035 1101 1.00 .' 108036 1100 1.00 u 0 100 200 300

37 1099 1.00 Distance from left bank peg (m)

38 1098 1.0039 1097 1.0040 1096 1.00 Waterline41 1095 1.0045 1094 1.0049 1093 1.0055 1092 1.0060 1091 1.0063 1090 1.0069 1089 1.0075 1088 1.0082 1087 1.0085 1086 1.0088 1087 1.0092 1088 1.0095 1089 1.00

100 1090 1.00106 1091 1.00112 1092 1.00117 1093 1.00122 1094 1.00128 1095 1.00143 1096 1.00 Waterline152 1100 1.00161 1105 1.00174 1109 1.00194 1109 1.00200 1108.5 1.00




Cross-section No: 21Chainage from u/s Du 1188 m



0 1116.7 1.0016 1116 1.0027 1115 1.0033 1110 1.0042 1105 1.0049 1100 1.0059 1094.5 1.00 Waterline c/s 21 (part riverflow -West of65 1094 1.00 Dumbbell Island)71 1093 1.0076 1092 1.00 120

80 1091 1.00 Y84 1090 1.00 ,00f89 1089 1.00 1095

94 1088 1.00 1080

99 1087 1.00 0 s0 100 150 2)O 250 3

104 1086 1.00 W.W.. from I.. b-nk p.e

115 1085 1.00125 1086 1.00132 1087 1.00137 1088 1.00142 1089 1.00144 1090 1.00171 1093 1.00200 1094.5 1.00 Waterline209 1100 1.00217 1105 1.00229 1109 1.00282 1108.5 1.00

1.001.001.001.001.001.001.00

AESNile Power 1 8 March, 200]



Cross-section No: 30Chainage from u/s Dumb 1364 m


Distanceacross c/s (m) Elevation (mASL)

0 1104.4 1.0032 13 1104 1.00

1 17 1100 1.001 21 1095 1.00 cis 30 (part river flow - East of3 24 1094 1.00 Waterline Dumbbell Island)

3 27 1093 1.00 1110

9 36 1092 1.00 1105

12 48 1091 1.00 o 110o

11 59 1090 1.00 E 1095

11 70 1089 1.00 -.11 81 1088 1.00 .20 121 1090 1.00 j 1085

6 132 1088 1.00 1080

3 142 1085 1.00 1075

4 160 1080 1.00 0 50 100 150 200 250 300

8 175 1078 1.00

5 195 1082 1.003 205 1085 1.003 211 1087 1.003 221 1090 1.003 232 1094 1.00 Waterline |8 240 1095 1.00

10 260 1097 1.0016 276 1098 1.00

5 285 1100 1.00




Cross-section No: 31Chainage from u/s Dumbb 1799 m



0 1104.8 1.00160 32 1105 1.00

#DIVWO! 52 1105 1.009 61 1104 1.002 63 1103 1.003 72 1100 1.00

1.8 81 1095 1.0013 94 1094 1.005 99 1093 1.003 102 1092 1.00

1.5 105 1090 1.00 Waterline CIS 31(ptrd.,ri-ow.E..tofD.mbb.11I.I.nd)

1.8 114 1085 1.001.5 120 1081 1.00 .,._.

2 122 1080 1.003 125 1081 1.007 132 1082 1.006 138 1083 1.007 145 1084 1.00 ...7 152 1085 1.00 s2 5

8 160 1086 1.007.5 175 1088 1.0011 186 1089 1.004 190 1090 1.00 Waterline5 195 1091 1.002 203 1095 1.00

1.6 211 1100 1.004.8 235 1105 1.00

#DIV/0! 262 1105 1.001.8 271 1100 1.006.5 284 1098 1.00




Cross-section No: 40Chainage from u/s Dumbt 2129

Eastings NorthingsLeft Bank Peg: 515200 55700Right Bank Peg 515400 55800Water surface level: 1090 m

DistanceS across c/s (m) Elevation (mASL)

0 1104 1.008 8 1103 1.001 11 1100 1.001 16 1095 1.00

0.8 20 1090 1.00 Waterline2 22 1089 1.004 26 1088 1.00 CIS 40 (whole river flow, immediately6 32 1087 1.00 downstream of Dumbbell Island)4 36 1086 1.005 41 1085 1.00 *:10.4 45 1084 1.00 *105

2.25 54 1080 1.001.8 63 1075 1.00

6.0006 69 1074 1.00 99c

190000 88 1074 1.00 s8514 102 1075 1.00 1080

3 105 1076 1.00 1075

3 108 1077 1.00 1070

4 112 1078 1.00 0 50 Di.t.nWon, I.ft b.Ai,.g (ml 200 250

3.5 119 1080 1.002.75 130 1084 1.008.75 165 1088 1.00

23 188 1089 1.0012 200 1090 1.00 Waterline

2.8 214 1095 1.000.571429 222 1109 1.00




Cross-section No: 50Chainage from u/s Dumbb 13100 (between Bukasa & Nabukosi)

Eastings Northings cl Easting! cl NorthingsLeft Bank Peg: 508000 63000Right Bank Peg 508300 63250 508150 63125Water surface level 1072


0 1086 1.008 1085 1.0011 1082 1.0016 1077 1.0020 1072 1.00 Waterline22 1071 1.0026 1070 1.0032 1069 1.00 CIS so (whole rv-r flow, 11 km downstream Of

36 1068 1.00 Dmbobbll Island)

41 1067 1.00 IM.

45 1066 1.00 1090 -54 1062 1.00 108 W'63 1057 1.00 l

69 1056 1.0088 1056 1.00 1102 1057 1.00105 1058 1.00 ,108 1059 1.00 *o'

112 1060 1.00 I DI..- fro le b-k p.9

119 1062 1.00130 1066 1.00165 1070 1.00188 1071 1.00200 1072 1.00 Waterline214 1077 1.00222 1091 1.00




Cross-section No: 60Chainage from u/s Dumbbe 32129 m (between Kiteredde & Bukasa)



0 1061 1.008 1060 1.00

11 1057 1.0016 1052 1.0020 1047 1.00 Waterline22 1046 1.0026 1045 1.00 CS 0 J.h.6 H., m

32 1044 1.00 . _ _ _

36 1043 1.0041 1042 1.00 -45 1041 1.0054 1037 1.00 A63 1032 1.0069 1031 1.00 ,025 *

88 1031 1.00 0 so 100 IS O 200

102 1032 1.00105 1033 1.00108 1034 1.00112 1035 1.00119 1037 1.00130 1041 1.00165 1045 1.00188 1046 1.00200 1047 1.00 Waterline214 1052 1.00222 1066 1.00




Cross-section No: 2Chainage (left bank): 141 m


Distance Elevation (mASL)across c/s (m)

0 111325 111237 111156 111060 110963 110865 110768 1106 C/S 2

70 110572 110474 1103 6

716 110280 110185 11010 20 40 00

87 11 02.........104 1102109 1101115 1100118 1099120 1098122 1097 LB (main channel)168 1097228 1097.5250 1098 RB (main channel)270 1106296 1098 bank (island)306 1098 bank (island)311 1099323 1100325 1101327 1102328 1103329 1104331 1105377 1124408 1127424 1128 (RBP)



APPENDIX B. BASIS FOR CALCULATION OF SEDIMENT INPUTS

Inputs Due To Diversion ArrangementsNormal (1000 mA3/s) Storm Flow (2000 m^3/s)

Parameter Original Diverted Original DivertedWidth 240 285 m 285 290 mFlow 500 1000 1000 2000Velocity 0.43 0.53 m/sec 0.53 0.78 rn/secElevation 1092 1095 m 1095 1099mReach length 1785 m 1785 mNew erodable area 80325 m^2 8925 m'2 (over and above that at 1000 m^3/s flow)Typical Side slope 0.15 0.15Characteristc depth 1.50 m 2.50 m Typical near-margin depth of waterErodability 0.005 kg/ms 0.005 kg/ms Taken from MIKE 11 modelLateral velocity factor 0.5 0.5 Factor to account for ratio between area averaged and

lateral velocitiesCritical Velocity 0.25 m/sec 0.25 rn/sec Critical velocity for erosion - see Shield's diagramErosion rate 0.00041 kg/m^2s 0.00287 kg/m^2sTotal load 33 kg/sec 26 kg/secIncrease in concentration immediately downstream* 33.1 mg/I 12.8 mg/l

INPUTS DUE TO COFFER DAM CONSTRUCTION(estimates of %age losses: from Alan Bates of Knight Piesold, Ashford UK)

Average sediment inputsVolume of material to be placed 120,000 m^3Density 2650 kg/m^3Time required to place 90 DaysPercentage loss on placement I %Average sediment production 0.41 kg/secIncrease in concentration immediately downstream* 0.41 mg/l Based on loss %age from uniform placement rate

Instantaneous sediment inputsVolume of material 15 m^3Density 2650 kg/m^3Time required to place 10 Seconds%age loss %Average sediment production 39.8 kg/sec Based on a %age loss from 15 m^3 dumper loadsIncrease in concentration immediately downstream* 39.8 mg/l with each load taking 10 seconds to release fines*outside of mixing zone


q BURNSIDE

Appendix G.2

Status Report from UIA

I

IIiI

UGANDA'S STRATEGIC LOCATION IN THEINVESTMENT PROMOTION ' HEART OF AFRICA

Uganda 126 millionEasti A*fri. 90.2 miion

A ~~Gnil \ ra L.n6os Rn5ion. 159 mil)ion

BY37 linonIIssa Mukasa AGOA

EU - Pr&r-,,nsi,il Tr-5nonI of

PRESENTATION TO NEW AMBASSADORS UGANDA ,,,poru

HIGHCOMM LSSIONEFtS

DPnn_ , 7Ccs . .- -

UGANDA AT A GLANCE Major Economic ReformsLArad 241,5501 sq km * Liberalization of current/capital a/csWaler (Lakes, Rivers Swamps) 46,669 saq kn,

GI Population 26. 8 mlillon u Removal of export taxesri0 Temperature 15 - 30

0C a Replacing state monopolies with free

E OffiiA Language Engllsh maktGi Literacy (2003) 70% market0 Corporate Tax 30%El VAT 18% C Removal of price controlsE Import Duty o 15% z5% a Ending controls on interest rates.

$wna,,o s,Q.Q,rn

RESULTS OF ECONOMIC REFORMS IN COMPARISON OF SELECTED UGANDA'SUGANDA POVERTY INDICATORS

1990/91 2003/04 Indicator 1992 200419/1 0004*Poverty line (V Pop) 56 37 7Life expectancy (years) 48 48.1

En1oltil GDP (USS Billion) 373 6 mInF Mort. Rate/..e 122 83El GDP Growth rate 5 0% 5.9% FertilR rat 71 6 9bU GDP Per Capita (US 5) 150 290 F r 7ijToial investment as% GDP 13.5% 22.3% HIV prevalence rate 29 7(Z inflation 243% 3 7% * Population growth rate 2 5 3.3M Lending rates 40.60% 6d14% Uteracy rBte 51 70121Exports (inUSS) 510 665A,u1feahrrti 5 s51 Imports (m US$) 53i 1,726.1 Pupil/Teacher ratto 5 70g Poverty 56% 37 7% * Pupil/classroom ratio 98 79

l Al ZW3 * Access to safe H5 0(% rural) 37 55.6

UIA - VISION, MISSION AND ROLEf ~COMPARUSON Contd.

* Indicator 2000 2004 -VISION* Prlmary enrolment (Mill) 6 5 7.4 "fake Uganda the leading Investment destinatioir". Numberof PlSch 12,410 13,371 ---MISSION• Number of vehicles 1B9,10S 247,0-15 "A oke a sigitiftcant and nteasureble co,itrlbuti.on to• Fixed Telephone 58,261 82,495 Ugan,da's development process bypronhotntgprivate. Cellular Phone 72.602 1,165,034 Irnvesrnelnt'.. PrIvate FM statIon 100 148

Private TV statlons 19 31 IOtEImports($ Mill) 958 5 1,726 1 -Toprontote,facilitite and ,no,itor investinen,t it: UgandiaExports 401 6 665 1 To provide adv;.ory services to Goternmnent ea, policies

which affect in Iestsene,t

SOME LJIA ACHIEVEMENTS ACHIEVEMENTS Contd.

Cu.mulaIlve Value or Plannd andA.tu.1 Cunmaublve Pi.nn.d ad A.tual Empl.oynt 1111 .04Inv.stm.nte IOt 5Do -> 4

.200.00.

2 0.0C00

3 :e2oco- 10OD

-' 4 i l-0n.0 g9 O,Oo} -

Y.., o U ..... '4, - . - -- , 4 4 4

E;ACHIEVEMENTS Contd. Sector Performance 1991 - 2004

OWNERSHIP OF PROJECTS LICENSED 1991.2004) 1 Uniicd Kingdom SECTOR BREAKDOWN2 USA 2C

3 Kcnya eoo4 South Africa 5 I

LOSX 5 Canada .. a'..oos'.

3g: 6 India >1D 0

S Norway ~805~JOIiTIVETURE 9 Mauritius -

I. C-i-. -i

SECTORlS

FDI inflows to Uganda (1989 - 2003) - How vwas your, company originally madei s to Uaware of Investment Opportunities?Dg - J~~00- a -

yoor FDI mSf19891941asnl 23 2601995/00 1211991 119

1909 2222000 2152001 2290 f s42002 249 //// /2003 203 FDIoim USSlS-r lilR 2004 UNCr.AD

CONSTRAINTS IN THE PRIVATE- SECTOR INVESTMENT PROMOTION

1996 2001 2003Electricity Access to Finance Tax Rates

* Tax Policy Tax Administration M/Econ Inst* Tax Admin Corruption Interest rate

Cost oF Finance Transport costs CorruptionAccess to Finance Tax Policy Electricity

* Corruption Discriminatory Access to Financeincentive

PROMOTIONAL TECHNIQUES (Input) i PROMOTION (Output)

* Direct mall shots a Inquiries. Website * Inward mission. Existing Investors• Foreign missions accredited to Uganda a FDI

C Conference delegations. International consultants/Fairs/Exhibitions. Outward mission* Delegate programme• Friend of Uganda• Uganda Embassies abroad

INVESTMENT OPPORTUNITIES CDM PROJECT OPPORTUNMES- Energy n.eewable Energy (Hydro, Solar, Wind and

2- Agriculture( Crops and Livestock) Geothermal sources)-Use of forest and agricultural wastes to

r- Services (Finance, Education and Medical) generate electricity. Agriculture Grow upland rice

r-Tourism Organic rarming*Forestry R leforestaUons

?.' Packaging, Printing and Publishing Afroreasation. Transport - Improved pub/transport

Mining & Energy Improved urban planning & trafricmnanagemsentInformation & Communication Technology Improve veNce efficiency

Vehicle fuel switchingM~Iantifacturing Switching from road to rail transport

. Waste Mgt Landfills

5

INVESTMENT PROTECTIONINCENTIVE REGIME AGREEMENTS

.0 o I-teal CaplAl AIlonen.e Ug nod 1. sIltotory I.:I ItIoiI Allon.an-en ,Innt and naeltiry lcteld:

E,,bbr.K.ntpaIa-tojx Ar. 50% - Ml.tilalinal In-cutn eo Gu.rani. Agenoy fNI5GA)Ullwcory woer 0stdlolcia) 75%' - Onrsca. ineatnt lonroace (mOil)- UK

Start up cDst spread ode- fti 4 y-ers 25'. 1t - Otne-tas Pltialc Intnto Ccrpocation (OPIC). USASdooitie rtte...ltetttrth0dbltt-re 0tAf-iTaTtodnlian,rc Ajo..I (ATIA)Tvoittltt0 epap dli-ui :o"'.Nlitrol .. to..Ivp,an IpedHttr% toO! lalaci Cnrp^ fr ort Isa..ran- oftatoim-,t an.d Enpoet Ctedh tICIEC)

1 2 Iil AtI.ncnrn on , li and Iondustrial ot idIngl 201 Itliatotat ..r..en .. als signed t111t -tty mOnnirest

20 Dedacdble Antalw talonca (deprdable assets) I. ItalyOrprtdtostaeI ofauet r.ngtlJ 204--0%

Depretatlat rale for Ilota Indast Uniad.nBuilditng and 11apl.U1e 55.d

1!1 E.anpte C,atp"tarLdotah.ndllogeiq.ljlteol O0O; Lmaattdct,a .Ot Niltetands

lanCeiti 00b a t fr a

DOUBLE TAXATION AGREEMENTS Te 2 Cnry belongs to Africa?Already Signnd Pot~o

Itanzania P flol-K(enya Africa

-South A&iiia 'W U/SIa tea- Uniled Kingdom Aida Is Hugd India

To be tinnOd

nattily Earope-India Argettthn

-hilarifiUa l . 'm NIZeaatlid

-rSYPt 11t:,1i g . t 'UK .'atiOOyrtl ot

COMPARISON OF KEY ECONOMIC,-INDICATORS , Role of Ambassadors

AreaL2nd(SQ Km) Singapore Uganda * Image BuildingAeLadS K) 669 241,550

Populaton (2004) *124 26.8 a Trade/tourism promotionAnnual Pop giowth (%) 1.3 3 3Totl dependenCe ratio 39.1 54 * Investmentpromotion

toi tFertility rate 124 6.9 * Capacity building (lobbying)Infant 1ortoflty rate ( 000( 2.0 B3Lire ExptanLy 79 3 a . Technical assistance (lobbying)LiteraW rate (%) 94 6 70GOP Per Capita (9) 42,581 0 Z90 *U'PEALInflation rate 1.7 3a7 a texports (S Mill) 303,476 3 665.1 "ak,eto a sigety7cirrnt and measuobtre contribuioir toImports 276,894.1 1,726.11r 1111"'s x1glyhuPn"c Pr pess bY Prtli1 P, il I'leVisitors artival ('O0) 8,328 6 512 379 In 7 10,111

CONTACT INFORMATION

UGANDA INVESTMIENT AUTIORIITY,Tire Invoelmeat Cenlerl'tn1la 38 mA 1o Rpto tadt

* P0 DoZ 1418 Kampala

Tel; (Z56)41 301000Fos-: 256) 41 342903Emrnl: info@ugandmniasesl cetn

* Websltc: swn. tr,gndin.entcnmC,

UGANDA INVESTMENT AUTHORITY7&) THE INVESTMENT CENTRE PO BOX 7418, KAMPALA Plot 28 Kampala Rd

Tel: 234105, 251561/5, Fax: 256-41-342903e-mail: info@ugandainvest com htpp://www ugandainvest com

13th January 2005

Attn: The Business Editor

PRESS RELEASE

UIA 2005 Performance

Uganda Investment Authority (UIA) has, for the year 2005, registered

success despite the global economic activity going through a challenging

time. The rising fuel prices, the tragic tsunami, Katrina, and other

disasters have no doubt had their effect on private business from which

we expect foreign direct investment.

UIA exceeded its 134 projects per year valued at US $ 340 million per

year target, as indicated in the Authority's Strategic Plan for the period

2004 to 2009

In 2005 there was a 47% increase in the number of projects licensed, We

licensed 284 projects, while 193 projects were licensed in 2004. The 284

projects in 2005 were valued at US $ 878,629,631 in planned investment

creating 28,698 planned jobs. These figures indicate a 110%

improvement in investment value from last year when UIA licensed 193

projects with a planned investment value of US $ 417,779,400 creating a

planned employment of 17,047 jobs.

The attachments give a breakdown of the totals per sector, as well as the

country (FDI source) totals for 2005.

For further information please contact the undersigned:

Dr Maggie KigoziEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

Tel: 041 301000 or 075 717475

I

iiI

COUNTRY TOTALS JANUARY - DECEMBER 2005

COUNTRY PLANNED INV. (USD) PLANNED EMPT NO.OF PROJECTS

UGANDA 567,527,131 1,042 3

INDIA 37,567,500 479 4

DENMARK 36,038,000 2,309 17

TANZANIA 32,000,000 586 4

UNITED KINGDOM 28,174,000 985 1

KENYA 27,911,000 38 1

CHINA 25,933,000 99 3

PAKISTAN 24,996,000 25 1

SUDAN 14,189,000 2,914 36

KOREA 13,552,000 143 1

CANADA 10,770,000 30 3

SAUDI ARABIA 9,300,000 52 2

JAPAN 7,569,000 63 2

USA 7,460,000 110 2

SWITZERLAND 6,085,000 1,050 '19

BELGIUM 3,441,000 224 5

IRAN 3,000,000 170 3

LEBANON 2,963,000 248 2

SOUTH AFRICA 2,906,000 136 2

GERMANY 2,898,000 163 3

IRELAND 2,340,000 573 1 1

NOT SPECIFIED 2,302,000 464 3

ETHIOPIA 2,188,000 852 8

NETHERLANDS 1,844,000 3 1

MALAYSIA 1,729,000 256 2

ISRAEL 971,000 8 1

DR CONGO 703,000 229 4

TURKEY 626,000 50 1

TAIWAN 550,000 238 4

ZIMBABWE 432,000 30 1

ITALY 222,000 12,945 110

SWEDEN 184,000 2,030 18

0 -

Sector Totals J oiiiiaiy - December 2005Sector No. oF Proiects Planned Inv. (USD) Planned Empt

3 AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY& FISHING 60 85,518,500 5,554

CONSTRUCTION 19 35,987,000 2,183

N FINANCE SERVICES 4 1,939,000 44

MANUFACTURING 93 197,733,131 7,324

MINING e QUARRYING 6 20,575,000 1,236

OTHER BUSINESS SERVICES 34 31,736,000 2,477

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 13 27,645,000 1,045

REAL ESTATE 10 48,898,000 1,153

SOCIAL SERVICES 1 9,608,000 1,370

TOURISM 22 17,391,000 1,762

TRANSPORT, COMMUNICATION, AND STORAGE 13 94,803,000 1,785

WATER & ENERGY 9 306,796,000 2,765

TOTALS 284 878,629,631 28,698

UIA LICENSED PROJECTS

Ownership of Projects 1991 - 2005

FDI inflows to Uganda (1989 - 2004)

Year FDI m$1989/941agul 23 3001995/96 121 250'=1997 1751998 210 200 . -f E

1999 222 150

2000 2752001 229 1002002 203 502003 211 0 --

2004 237 FDltI2004231FDI (m US$)

Sotu, co IV'IR 200a. UNCTAID

.1

§ BURNSIDE

Appendix G.3

Greenhouse Gas Study

(Source: Appendix G.4 AESNP Hydropower Facility

EIA, March 2001)

Bujagali Hydro Electric Power Dam Project by AES Nile Power - Bujagali HEPP Carbon D Page I of 6

BUJAGALI HEPP - CO EMISSION

Egon FailerLahmeyer International, Germany

This paper examines the Bujagali Hydroelectric Power Project (HEPP) inand provides the basis for an assessment of its contribution to controlling theemission of CO2 while generating 'low priced and reliable energy to support

economic growth. The CO2 emissions resulting from the project's construction

activities and the decomposition of biomass in the project reservoir arequantified and compared with the potential CO, emissions from generating the

same electrical energy through burning fossil fuels. The comparison showsthe generation of electrical energy at Bujagali will release over its life time125 to 250 times less CO2 into the atmosphere than generation through

fossil fuels. The implementation of the Bujagali HEPP is thus consistent withUganda's response to global environmental concern, particularly those relatedglobal warming.

2. THE CO EMISSION BY THE BUJAGALI HEPP2

The CO2 emission associated with a hydroelectric power project are those

produced during the manufacture and construction of the project structuresequipment and those produced by slowly decomposing biomass in theduring the project's lifetime.

2.1 CO2 Emission related to Construction

It is well known that 'the implementation of a hydroelectric powerplant involvesconsiderable construction activities and large quantities of constructionmaterials which, in turn, require a large energy input. For the construction ofBujagali HEPP the required quantities of major construction materials andconsumables are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1: Quantities of major Construction Materials and Consumables

MATERIALS I CONSTRUCTION QUANTITIES

Civil Works

Soil Excavation/Fill 225,000 m3

Rock Excavation/Fill 700,000 m3

Concrete 235,000 m3

Reinforcement Steel 23,000 tons

http://www.bujagali com/cco2.htm 25/01/01

Bujagali Hydro Electric Power Dam Project by AES Nile Power - Bujagali HEPP Carbon Page 2 of 6

Diesel Fuel 13,000 tons

Eleciro-Mechanical Equipment

Steel 3.000 tons

Based on the volume of concrete and other construction activities such asgrouting, shotcreting, etc. a cement requirement of about 75,000 tons iscalculated. The production of one ton of cement requires approximately 4 GJenergy. Hence the energy input for all concrete works results in approximately300,000 GJ.

The weight of reinforcement steel, hydraulic steel structures and steel for theelectro-mechanical equipment totals about 26,000 tons. It takes approximatelyGJ of energy to produce one ton of steel. Therefore, the energy input into steeland equipment is about 1.04 million GJ.

The energy requirement for the excavation, transport and placing of soil androck material is covered under the diesel fuel requirements of 13,000 tons.

If it is assumed that the energy required to produce the cement and steel isgenerated by a thermal mix as described below (lignite/coal/oil/gas =per cent) then some 47,850 tons of lignite, 11,550 tons of coal, 8,170 tons of oiland 7,610 tons of gas would be needed. The burning of these fossil fuelsultimately lead to a CO2 emission of approximately 120,900 tons.

The burning of 13,000 tons diesel fuel will result in a CO2 emission of about

42,000 tons. The total emission of CO2 associated with the construction of the

Bujagali HEPP will thus be approximately 162,900 tons.

2.2 CO2 Emission caused by the Biomass with the future reservoir

The Bujagali HEPP will inundate a gross area of about 430 ha, which, afterexclusion of the existing river channel, will result in a net area of about 155 haland. Addition of some 155 ha, which is also required for the project

works, results in a conservative estimate of affected area totalling about 260

According to literature the biomass of forest (10 to 20 years of age) is in theorder of 400 tlha dry weight. In order to derive at conservative values it isassumed that 50 % of the inundated land is covered with forest although mostthe land is used for agricultural purposes. Based on this conservativeassumption a total biomass of about 52,000 tons (dry weight) is estimated.

All living plants grow by absorbing water and carbon dioxide to form reservescarbohydrate, known as biomass. This process is fuelled by sunlight and istermed photosynthesis. In simple terms the process is as follows:

http://www.bujagali.com/cco2.htm 25/01/01


6 CO, + 6 H 0>C6 H 206 + 60 2

When plants die, decomposition by oxidation takes places which is thephotosynthesis process in reverse:

C6H1206 + 6 0, > 6 CO, + 6 H20

The same amount of CO2 absorbed during photosynthesis is released during

complete oxidation of the biomass.

By considering molar weights, one ton of carbohydrate produces 1.47 tons of

carbon dioxide during complete decomposition as follows:

180g C6H12O6 + 192g 0, =264g CO, A + 108g H 2 0

1 t C6H1206 + 1.07 t 0, =1.47 CO, A + 0.6 H20

Using the same relationship on the total estimated quantity of biomassby the Bujagali HEPP the decomposition of the biomass in the reservoir areacould lead to a maximum CO2 emission of about 76,500 tons.

2.3 The total CO2 Emission of the Bujagali HEPP

Approximately 162,900 tons of CO2 will be produced with the construction of

Bujagali HEPP. The CO emission associated with the decomposition of the

biomass located in the reservoir is estimated to be approximately 76,500 tons.Thus the implementation of Bujagali HEPP will lead to a total CO2 emission of

about 240,000 tons.

The following section quantifies the CO2 emissions resulting from generating

same average energy as Bujagali but by burning fossil fuels.

3. THE C02 EMISSION BY THERMAL POWERPLANTS

Present thermal plant technology does not include the recovery of carbondioxide from flue gases. Hence the carbon content of the fuel and thecharacteristics of the thermal plant are the governing parameters inCO2 emission levels. The following formula may be used to compute the CO2

emission from fossil fuels:

CO 2 =A x(B+CxHV)

http ://www .buj agali.com/cco2 .htm 25/01/01


Where:

CO2 = emission of CO2 in metric tons per ton of fuel

A = multiplier for indirect emissions (exploration,

B, C = regression constants for the particular type of fuel

HV = lower calorific value of fuel in GJlton

Typical CO2 emissions for various type of fossil fuel are shown in Table 2.

Approximate CO2 values per MWh delivered to the grid would be as shown in

Table 3 for various types of powerplant.

Table 2: Typical CO, Emissions for various Type of Fuel

Fuel Type A B C HV CO(GJ/ton fuel) (ton/ton fuel)

Lignite 1.08 0.20090 0.08693 7 0.87

Coal 1.06 0.20090 0.08693 29 2.90

Oil 1.04 2.50291 0.01494 41 3.24

Gas 1.01 0.55159 0.04463 44 2.53

Table 3: Approximate CO Emission per MWh for various Types of Thermal

Powerplants

yHV CO2 Efficiency CO2Plant Type (GJ/ton (tons/ton (e et tnMh

fuel) fuel) (per cent) (ton/MWh)

Lignite-fired 7 0.87 36 1.24steamCoal-fired steam 29 2.90 37 - 39 0.97

Oil-fired steam 41 3.24 38 - 40 0.75

Gas-fired 44 2.53 48 52 0.43combined cycle

Note: Efficiencies shown include station consumption.

According to the feasibility study the following range of Annual AverageEnergies are possible to be generated by the Bujagali HEPP:

Flow Series 1896 - 1997: 1,397 GWhFlow Series 1961 - 1997: 1,868 GWh

http://www.bujagali.com/cco2.htm 25/01/01

Bujagali Hydro Electric Power Dam Project by AES Nile Power -Bujagali HEPP Carbon . Page 5 of 6

For the calculation of the corresponding CO2 emissions the lower energy

taken into consideration representing a conservative approach.

Under the assumption that the annual average energy of 1,397 GWh generatedby the Bujagali HEPP would be generated by a thermal mix consisting of 2.5cent lignite-fired, 25 per cent coal-fired, 25 per cent oil-fired and 25 per centfired combined cycle power plants, some 18 million tons of CO would be

discharged to the atmosphere annually.

Table 4: Approximate CO2 Emission of equivalent Thermal Power Mix

Plant Type Annual Energy CO2Pln yeGWh -tons

Lignite-fired steam 349.25 433,070

Coal-fired steam 349.25 338,773

Oil-fired steam 349.25 261,937

Gas-fired combined cycle 349.25 150,177

Total 1,397 1,183,957

It is noted that the CO2 emission of 18 million tons annually is related purely to

the fuel consumption (equal proportions of lignite, coal, oil and gas) and doesnot include the CO2 emission related to the construction of the thermal power

plants.

Assuming that the annual average energy generated by the Bujagali HEPPbe generated by an "environmentally friendly" gas-fired combined cycle powerplant only, which is a most optimistic scenario, then the annual CO2 emission

into the atmosphere would be approximately 0.60 million tons.

4. CONCLUSIONS

The energy sector is the greatest single source of CO2 emissions into the

atmosphere and within that sector the burning of fossil fuels to generateelectricity accounts for some 25 per cent of global warming. In order tofuture economic growth, the Government of Uganda has decided to implementthe Bujagali Hydroelectric Power Project. This decision will not only secure areliable and renewable source of electrical energy for the nation but it willrepresent a significant step towards reducing the rate of growth of CO2

emissions in Uganda.

The Bujagali HEPP will produce an average of 1,397 GWh of electrical energyannually which represents the lower limit of the estimate. During construction

http://www.bujaagali.com/cco2.htm 25101101


the project, energy is required to manufacture cement and steel and toand construct the project structures. The generation of this energy will resultthe release of CO2 into the atmosphere. During operation of the project, the

biomass submerged within the reservoir will slowly decompose also releasingCO2 into the atmosphere. The upper limit estimate of the total quantity of CO2

released into the atmosphere during construction and operation of Bujagalibe some 240,000 tons.

Generating the same energy by burning fossil fuels (equal proportions ofcoal, oil and gas) would release into the atmosphere some 1 .18 million tons ofCO every year. Over a period of 50 years, the assumed commercial life of

Bujagali, this annual CO2 emission would result in a total of 59.2 million tons

C02. Assuming that the annual energy would be generated by an"environmentally friendly" gas-fired combined cycle power plant only, theCO2 emission over a period of 50 years would reduce from 59.2 to about 30

million tons.

Consequently the generation of hydro-electric energy at Bujagali will result inCO2 emissions 125 to 250 times less than if the same energy were generated

burning fossil fuels. The promotion of the Bujagali HEPP is thus in line withUnited Nations statement to control the rate of growth of CO2 emissions into

atmosphere and thereby reduce global warming.

http://www.bujagali.com/cco2.htm 25/01/0]

I BURNSIDE

Appendix G.4

Terms of Reference for the Panel of

Experts

POE Draft ToR

Bujagali Hydropower and Interconnection Projects

Panel of Experts

Draft Terms of Reference

Introduction

1. World Bank Group (WBG) institutions are considering various financial instruments

in support of the proposed Bujagali Hydropower and Interconnection Projects. The

sponsors of these projects are Bujagali Energy Limited (BEL) and Uganda Electricity

Transmission Company Limited (UETCL), respectively.

2. To proceed with such financing, WBG institutions have a number of policies and

performance standards with which the project sponsor, or client, must comply. For

social and environmental matters, these include so called "Safeguard Policies"

(International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) and International

Development Association (IDA)); Policy on Social & Environmental Sustainability

and associated Performance Standards (International Finance Corporation (IFC));

and Environmental Assessment Policy (Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency

(MIGA)). The policies also include by reference a number of related requirements

and guidance documents such as technical guidelines, handbooks, guidance notes,

and best practice guides. In addition, each institution has policies on the disclosure

of information that apply directly to social, environmental and sustainability

compliance on projects it finances.

3. Each WBG institution also has quality control and oversight bodies, such as an

Ombuds office or Inspection Panel, that have various levels of internal and

compliance oversight with respect to project documentation, processing,

implementation and monitoring. These bodies' activities are guided by the individual

institution's policy requirements as outlined above.

Version 012006-10-03Page 1 of 6

POE Draft ToR

4. WBG institutions also have individual and collective responsibilities within their

mandates to address developmental and poverty alleviation goals and objectives.

For clarity here, it is recognized that such WBG goals and objectives are not passed

on directly to project sponsors or clients of WBG institutions. Certain specific

elements of such goals and objectives are considered by the WBG to be met

through their project-sponsored activities, but the definition and implementation of

those elements, as well as the larger responsibilities in these areas, remain with

WBG institutions.

Panel of Experts Requirements

5. The World Bank's Operational Policy on Environmental Assessment (OP 4.01,

January 1999) notes that "[flor Category A projects that are highly risky or

contentious or that involve serious and multidimensional environmental concerns,

the borrower should normally also engage an advisory panel of independent,

internationally recognized environmental specialists to advise on all aspects of the

project relevant to EA. The role of the advisory panel depends on the degree to

which project preparation has progressed, and on the extent and quality of any EA

work completed, at the time the Bank begins to consider the project."

6. MIGA's Environmental Assessment Policy, which is Annex B to MIGA's Operational

Regulations, has a similarly worded requirement.

7. IFC's Performance Standard 1 says with respect to Social and Environmental

Assessment: "In projects with significant adverse impacts or where technically

complex issues are involved, clients may be required to retain external experts to

assist in the Assessment process." It also says with reference to Monitoring: "For

projects with significant impacts that are diverse, irreversible, or unprecedented, the

client will retain qualified and experienced external experts to verify the monitoring

information."


POE Draft ToR

8. IFC Performance Standards 6 (Biodiversity, paragraph 4); 7 (Indigenous Peoples,

paragraph 1 1); and 8 (Cultural heritage, paragraph 4) also specify requirements for

external experts in certain defined circumstances.

9. A footnote to World Bank OP 4.01 provides additional details on the panel's work:

"The panel (which is different from the dam safety panel required under OP/ BP

4.37, Safety of Dams) advises the borrower specifically on the following aspects: (a)

the terms of reference for the EA, (b) key issues and methods for preparing the EA,

(c) recommendations and findings of the EA, (d) implementation of the EA's

recommendations, and (e) development of environmental management capacity."

Once again, MIGA's requirement is worded similarly, but with the addition of one

point: "and (f engineering matters, such as dam safety."

Bujagali Hydropower and Interconnection Projects

10. The project sponsors are to establish one single Panel of Experts (POE) to meet

these multiple WBG POE requirements for both of these projects. The Panel's

overall mandate is to advise the project sponsors on compliance with the WBG

policy, guideline and other mandated social, environmental and sustainability

requirements as summarized above.

11. Specifically, the Panel will address all of the policy issues noted in the above

referenced documents in an integrated and comprehensive way based on the Social

and Environmental Assessment (SEA)' work now under way by the sponsors'

independent consultants to the agreed and approved Terms of Reference for the

SEA work. (The one exception to this POE's work is the "engineering matters, such

as dam safety," noted in MIGA's policy which will be addressed separately by the

sponsors' Dam Safety Panel.) For certainty and specificity, the POE's mandate as

presently envisaged is summarized in Annex A to this ToR.

12. The POE will carry out its work by reviewing relevant project documentation to be

provided in advance by the project sponsors and making field (site) visits on a

These Bujagali projects use the generic term "Social and Environmental Assessment" or SEA to refer to the

environmental assessment-type documents required by lenders and regulators under various names and acronyms.

Version 0 12006-10-03Page 3 of 6

POE Draft ToR

schedule to be agreed with the project sponsors, but no less frequently than once

per calendar year during the pre-construction and construction phases of the

projects.

13. The POE will submit an integrated draft report on its findings to the project

sponsorsThe final draft of the POE's report will be publicly released by the project

sponsors.

14. Present expectations are that the POE's work will continue through the construction

stage of the projects. The Panel will review its mandate and activities regularly with

the project sponsors to assure that its work reflects the sponsors' needs for POE

advice and that the level of POE activities is appropriate to such agreed needs.

15. Specifically, the project sponsors reserve the right, in consultation with the POE, to

adjust the POE's mandate to reduce any potential for duplication of effort,

particularly during monitoring phases of the projects, and/or to integrate the Panel's

activities with other monitoring activities the sponsors may develop or adopt in

consultation with WBG institutions and other third parties.


POE Draft ToR

ANNEX A

Specific Mandate for Panel of Experts, Bujagali Hydropower and Interconnection

Projects

The WBG institutions' requirements for such a Panel's work are various and multiple,

reflecting the changing timing and nature of their individual mandates. Certain historical

requirements or precedents may need to be tempered with good professional

judgement as to their current applicability and appropriateness. State-of-the-art EA

practice is consultation driven and implementation oriented rather than primarily

assessment focused, as in the past. Project Social and Environmental Action Plans, in

particular, aim to accomplish project outcomes successfully in the social, environmental

and sustainability areas, now. The roles of third parties, including lenders, are

particularly relevant to managing project risks during the implementation of project

Social and Environmental Action Plans. The developmental benefits of these projects

must be integrated into SEA-type activities, including its own, and is encouraged to

further the sponsors' objectives to consult in a free, prior and informed manner with all

relevant stakeholders; to assure that the projects acquire and maintain Broad

Community Support (BCS); and to assist in expediting the provision of project-delivered

developmental benefits to affected stakeholders through its work, including its oversight

of lenders' and other third parties' activities and actions.

Specifically, the POE will:

* Review the approved ToR's for the Social and Environmental Assessments

(SEAs) for the projects

o With respect to the whole suite of the projects' regulatory and lender

requirements

* Review the projects' draft SEA documentation, including issues identification,

recommendations and findings, implementation of SEA findings, and SEA

management capacity


POE Draft ToR

* Confirm through field and site visits as agreed with the project sponsors that SEA

documentation reflects the projects' realities 'on the ground'

* Pay particular attention to the projects' outcomes and implementation activities

as reflected in their Social and Environmental Action Plans

* Reflect and advise on the roles, responsibilities and activities of third parties,

including civil society and lenders, as they impact on the projects' SEA

requirements and activities

* Report regularly and to the agreed timelines on its conclusions based on its

review of documentation and site visits

* Adopt a change management process for its own activities to be reviewed

regularly with project sponsors going forward

o Particularly with respect to avoiding duplication of effort around ongoing

monitoring processes and activities for the projects.

*** *** ***


§ BURNSIDE

Appendix G.5

Correspondence with NEMA Regarding

Fish Pass

I:14 September 2001

The Executive DirectorNational Environmental Management AuthorityP.O. Box 222555KAMPALA

Fax: 041 257521Email: nema(Eiimul.com

Subject: Fish Ladder for the Bujagali Hydro-power Scheme

You refer to the above-mentioned subject for an indicative position on the issue based on

our opinion and information available. The Fisheries Resources Research Institute (FIRRI)

did indeed carry out baseline surveys of the fisheries and aquatic ecosystem of the Upper

Victoria Nile over four quarters during 2000. Up to ten Scientists and 15 support staff were

involved in this study. There were quarterly reports and a Final Report submitted from

which fishery aspects have been highlighted in the EIA for public comment. For a detailed

understanding of the data, these reports may be consulted in addition to the following facts

and opinion:

1. The Lake Victoria and Lake Kyoga basins are connected by the Upper Victoria Nile

flowing out of Lake Victoria northwards to Lake Kyoga downstream, and, eventually

through to Lake Albert, the Albert Nile and beyond;2. The fish fauna of both lakes Victoria and Kyoga for the most part share a similar

evolutionary origin. This means that many species of fish in Lake Victoria have also

been recorded in Lake Kyoga;3. It is also well known that many species of fish in the lakes undertake longitudinal

upstream migrations on a seasonal basis for spawning. The species involved are:

Labeo victorianus (Ningu), Barbus altianalis (Kisinja), Clarias gariepinus (Male),

several small cyprinids and momyrids. These migrations have been well studied in

fish from Lake Victoria migrating to inflowing rivers and streams. For example,

Labeo victorianus, Barbus alfianalis, Clarias ganiepinus migrate up rivers Kagera,

I 1) Nzoia and the now vanishing inflowing strearns such as the Bugungu near Jinja.

K' The Victoria Nile with respect to Lake Victoria is an OUT-FLOWING river. It

/ .' becomes IN-FLOWING with respect to Lake Kyoga. This means that it is the in-

flowing influence at the Victoria Nile - Lake Kyoga mouth where we would expect

upstream migration.

Our survey of the fisheries and aquatic ecosystem of the Victoria Nile reported the following

observations:

* The investigated transects of Dumbbell Island had a fish fauna which was in many

respects similar to the Lake Victoria fish fauna. There was a transition zone from

the third transect downstream of Dumbbell Island merging into the more typically

Lake Kyoga fish fauna. The transition also characterized aspects of hydrology (a

decrease in velocity), channeled with (an increase) and the emergence of flood-

plain like conditions associated with development of papyrus dominated wetland

fringes.* The most downstream transects also contained the highest density of anadromous

(i.e. migrant species) including those cited above in addition to Synodontis afro-

flscheri, Schilbe intermedius and typically Kyoga fishes (e.g. Mormyrus

macrocephalus, a type of Kasulu) which do not occur in Lake Victoria. It was thus

noted that from a fish migratory point of view, the Upper Victoria Nile behaved more

as an IN-FLOWING river for fishes in Lake Kyoga.

* With respect to some of the elements of the fish fauna, their occurrence throughout

the system proved that there were riverine fish populations that breed within the

river irrespective of the natural physical barriers. Such populations especially

upstream were unlikely to be affected by other barriers in terms of breeding.

* It was also observed that inspite of the present Owen Falls Dam barrier, the fishes

known to be migrants occur in Lake Victoria (where they migrate UPSTREAM) and

also occur in sections of the river where breeding specimens have been found.

Conclusions and Indicative Position:

There are resident riverine fish POPULATIONS in the Victoria Nile which include species

that occur in both Lakes Victoria and Kyoga. Fishes in breeding stages V and VI (i.e. prior

to spawning) have been found both upstream and downstream despite the presence of

natural barriers. This indicates that these fishes breed within the river.

The present Owen Falls Dam is already a barrier to assumed migration towards Lake

Victoria. Migrant fishes are found upstream and downstream of this barrier but the same

species occur throughout the Upper Victoria Nile towards Lake Kyoga. It is not justifiable

that a fish ladder or pass would improve the stocks of migrating fish in the Upper Victoria

Nile. Were this to be so (which it is not), the present Owen Falls Dam would need a fish

pass, as would Owen Falls Extension. This is not necessary and a Bujagali Fish ladder is

not scientifically justifiable. A barrier in the Upper reaches up to Dumbell Island would not

significantly affect the stabili'ty of fish populations in Lake Victoria and neither would a fish

ladder be relevant. What has been proposed and should be considered in these proposed

developments is habitat enhancement e.g. through quarry bio-manipulation (an aspect

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

which is elaborated in the Final Report by FIRRI) and has been discussed with AES Nile

power.

The anadromous fishes in Lake Kyoga (including species that are listed above and also

occurring in Lake Victoria) migrate upstream into the lower Victoria Nile for breeding. This

means that if a barrier were to be erected in the last c. 30km of the river, a fish pass would

probably be required.

If it is considered that despite the occurrence of resident fish populations upstream of the

Owen Falls Dam and just below it, a fish ladder is an absolute requirement for the next

barrier, it would also suggest that a direct connection (fish pass / fish ladder) be

constructed for the present Owen Falls Dam to allow a connection with lake Victoria. This

scenario is thought to be unrealistic.

With respect to current developments, it has been suggested from our baseline studies that

during the construction phase of the Bujagali Project, a comparable fishery monitoring

regime be incorporated into the activities of that and the subsequent post-construction

phases. In addition, it would also be desirable to develop a permanent mechanism of

research and monitoring of the fisheries of the Victoria Nile because our studies revealed

the increasing importance of the resource.

Similarly, the recommended Kalagara offset would require a study similar to the baseline

survey carried out on the fisheries and aquatic ecosystem. The offset allows for in-depth

investigations that may also guide mitigation measures elsewhere in the river.

I trust that this information will be of use to NEMA, and please, do not hesitate to contact

me for further clarification on the subject.

Yours Since

k0

r yRECOR oDIRECTOR

i

I

I

NEMAV 'h

r °AINA NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORlTY ( EMA)

Communications House, 6th Floor

NEMA/4.5 Plot 1 Colville Street, Plot 3 Portal AvenueP 0. Box 22255, Kampala, UgandaTel: 256-41-236817/251064/251065/251068Fax: 256-41-257521/232680

16 October 2001 E-Mail: [email protected]: [email protected]

The Project Manager,AES Nile Power,P.O Box 24401,Kampala.

RE: FISH LADDER FOR THE PROPOSED BUJAGALI HYDRO-POWER DAM

Further to our discussions on the above referenced subject, this Authority has received a report

from the Fisheries Resources Research Institute in which it is indicated that the omission of a

fish ladder MAY NOT have significant negative Impact to fishery dynamics upstream or

downstream to the proposed dam and that a flsh ladder is thus not scientifically justifiable. In

view of this position, this Authority is issuing approval to your request to waive the requirement

for installing a fish ladder as was previously contained in the approval conditions for EIA

Certificate No. 179 for the project.

In executing the project, however, and in line with the Environment Monitoring Plan as

contained in the Environmental Impact Statement for the project, you will be required to

implement a fishery monitoring programme for the fisheries of the Victoria Nile during

construction and post construction phases of the project. We urge you to liaise closely with the

Fisheries Resources Research Institute (FIRRI), Jinja so that you can define the framework for

the way forward on this matter.

kQ -

Aryamanya- Mugisha, HenAg. EXECUTIVE DIRECT R

cc. The Permanent Secretary,Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development,Amber House, Kampala

"1 hePirectori AfFisheries Resources Research Institute (FIRRI),P.O Box 343,Jinja.

18 OCT 20I

VOL. 7 BUJAGALI HYDROPOWER PROJECT, UGANDA SOCIAL … · important transport hub with a ferry...

Documents

Transcript of VOL. 7 BUJAGALI HYDROPOWER PROJECT, UGANDA SOCIAL … · important transport hub with a ferry...