An environmental impact assessment (EIA) conducted by the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) suggests that the iconic Mohembo Bridge is a disaster waiting to happen.
The preliminary findings conducted from 14th to 16 August 2018 by an audit team from DEA shows that the team submitted its list of preliminary findings (non-conformities) and made recommendations to the relevant authorities.
The Okavango River Bridge, also known as the Mohembo Bridge, was opened by President, Mokgweetsi Masisi last month. The 1.2 km bridge connects 10 000 residents in the villages on the eastern side of the Okavango (Mohembo East) to Mohembo West as well as opening up tourism to a pristine pocket of the Okavango Delta.
The report by DEA auditors says there were no EMPs (Environmental Management Plans) and authorisations for the Contractor’s camp and Shakawe Burrow pit.
“This is a contravention of the Section 9 of EA Act for which the developer will be fined,” the report says.
The report says the environmental team responsible for implementation of the EMP is inadequate as evidenced by lack of specialists like Aquatic Biologist, Air quality, Hydrologists and Archaeologist etc.
“There is no environmental policy statement. No documentation of implementation of some EMP components. …Malfunction of the waste water treatment plant as evidenced by surrounding vegetation and overflowing plant,” the report says.
The report also states there was improper handling of chemicals as evidenced by chemicals stored on unbounded surfaces.
There was also lack of signage for designated areas. “The auditee has engaged unlicensed waste collection carriers for used cooking oil, scrap metal and clinical waste as evidenced by failure to produce licences,” the report says.
States the report: “There is no monitoring for flora and fauna. Most records presented under this aspect are questionable. E.g, quarterly reports for Jan- Mar 2018 signed by a newly appointed officer; Letter from DWNP dated 7th Aug 2018; Unsigned letter from DFRR (Department of Forestry and Range Resources.”
There was also lack of staff induction and awareness raising conducted for archaeological chance finds and lack of chance finds reports.
“Project activities are not aligned to International obligations, e.g. SADC Protocol, OKACOM (Strategic Action Plan), The Ramsar Strategic Plan 2016-2024 (ODMP),” the report says.
The report says “siting of some sampling points do not cater for possible pollution from project activities.”
The auditors also found that: “Results not presented in way that they are easy to interpret. Analysis of results done but lack interpretation. Some key parameters not monitored, e.g. hydrocarbons, micro biology.”
They also discovered that there was inconsistency “in sampling as evidenced by gaps in records, e.g. Nov- Dec 2017 and Jan 2018.”
It was also discovered that some vital environmental aspects/ conditions not recorded in sampling as evidenced by absence of such in the Field sheet; Most results in the water quality are above baseline but there is no deliberate action to investigate.
There was also no baseline on cross section of the river. “Water discharge also not measured (flow) and there was “No Water levels gauges as evidenced by use of makeshift gauge.”
There was also “No monitoring plan for sediment deposits” and “Monitoring data is questionable as evidenced by recording of data in the presence of auditors.”
There was also “Evidence of soil erosion from storm water trenches and there is no deliberate action to avert it.”
It was also discovered that; “Storm water drains into the flood plain without deliberate measures to trap sediments or test the water quality” and “Monitoring station for BTEX impeded by soil stockpile; Dust suppression plan unavailable.”
The report says dust suppression was done for some areas but lacks in key areas where there is heavy plant.
There was also lack of noise monitoring at source for noisy machinery. “Monitoring reports unavailable save for May 2017; Complaints registers kept but there are no complaints registered,” the report says.
The audit team recommended that the following be undertaken; developer was instructed to submit a corrective plan for the malfunctioning WWTP (Waste Water Treatment Plan).
The developer was also instructed to engage the services of the following personnel for implementation of the EMPs (archaeologist, aquatic biologist, air quality specialist etc.)
It was also instructed to develop records management procedures to aid management of environmental management records.
The audit team also recommended that data must be analysed and interpreted. “There must be consistency in monitoring parameters. Developer must align project activities to multi-lateral agreements. Commence aquatic life (flora and fauna) monitoring forthwith,” the report says.
The company was also instructed to engage licensed waste collectors for scrap metal, used oil and clinical waste and ascertain final disposal destination. Undertake cross sectional survey and monitor the parameters. It is not clear if adequate measures put in place addressed the non-conformists observed in the report.
