Kakono HPP Environmental and Social Impact Assessment June 2022 Compressed-Compresse

TANZANIA ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED
Environmental & Social Impact Assessment Report

for the Proposed
87 MW Kakono Hydropower Project
and Associated 220kV Transmission Line
Prepared by
June 2022
Environmental & Social Impact Assessment Report (ESIA) for the Proposed
87 MW Kakono Hydropower Project and Associated 220kV Transmission Line
ISSUE AND REVISION RECORD

Revision Date Description: Prepared by: Checked by: Approved by
1 June 2022 Authorized by TANESCO with D Buffin TANESCO

TANESCO for public SLR Consulting
disclosure MTL Consulting
See Section 2 for authors
Preamble
This document represents the Final Environmental & Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) for the
Proposed 87 MW Kakono Hydropower Project and Associated 220kV Transmission Line. The
document contains a record of the procedures, actions and commitments being formulated and
taken to avoid, attenuate and compensate ecosystems, communities and households impacted by
the Project, consistent with the laws of Tanzania and the African Development Bank’s and AFD
applicable policies and guidelines on Environmental & Social Assessment and Management.
TANESCO’s Commitment
TANESCO endorses the Final Environmental & Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) presented in this
document, and commits to its complete, timely and effective implementation. The ESIA report will
be made public, along with TANESCO’s stated commitment to implement the ESIA measures.
Disclosure Authorized - Kakono HPP_ESIA_Section 0_COVER_June 2022

Contents
Section 1: Non-Technical Summary
Section 2: Introduction
2.1 Background
2.2 Administrative Boundaries
2.3 TANESCO is the Project Developer
2.4 Project’s Development Status & Key Dates
2.5 Project Investment Costs
2.6 ESIA Process
2.7 Project Justification
2.8 Approach and Methodology
Section 3: Project Description

3.1 Site Layout
3.2 Permanent Facilities
3.3 Facilities Required for Construction Purposes Only
3.4 Construction Activities and Reservoir Filling
3.5 Operation and Maintenance
3.6 Decommissioning
3.7 Land Requirements and Ownership
Section 4: Legal and Institutional Framework

4.1 Sector-Based Policies, Acts and Standards
4.2 Regulatory Provisions with an Impact on the Social and Environmental Management of the Project
4.3 Lenders’ Standards
Section 5: Environmental and Social Baseline Data

5.1 Kagera Watershed
5.2 Physical Environment
5.3 Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology

5.4 Ecosystem Services
Section 6: Stakeholder Engagement

6.1 Stakeholder Engagement to Date
6.2 Disclosure of 2021 ESIA Findings
6.3 Project Stakeholders
6.4 Concerns Raised by Stakeholders
Section 7: Environmental and Social Impacts & Mitigation Measures

7.1 Introduction
7.2 Screening
7.3 Hydrological and Geomorphological Impact Assessment
7.4 Ecological Impact Assessment
7.5 Critical Habitat Impact Assessment
7.6 Social Impact Assessment
7.7 Ecosystem Services Assessment
7.8 Greenhouse Gas Assessment
7.9 Climate Resilience Assessment
7.10 Cumulative Impact Assessment
7.11 Transboundary Impacts
7.12 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Section 8: Analysis of Alternatives

8.1 Purpose
8.2 Project Objectives
8.3 Identification of Alternatives
8.4 Comparative Assessment of Alternatives
8.5 Selection of Preferred Alternative
Section 9: Cost Benefit Analysis

9.1 Introduction
9.2 Costs
9.3 Benefits
9.4 Analysis

Section 10: Decommissioning

10.1 Introduction
10.2 Dam Decommissioning
10.3 Transmission Line Decommissioning
Section 11: Environmental and Social Management and Monitoring Plan

11.1 Objective and Structure of the ESMMP
11.2 Principles of the ESMMP
11.3 Results of Environmental and Social Impact Assessment and Commitments Register
11.4 Measures under the Responsibility of the EPC Contractor
11.5 Measures Under the Responsibility of TANESCO
11.6 Measures Under the Responsibility of Government Agencies
11.7 Budget and Workplan
Section 12: Conclusion

Abbreviations & Acronyms

Acronym Full text
ACF Autocorrelation Function
ACHPR African Commission on Human and People’s Rights
AFD Agence Française de Développement
AfDB African Development Bank
Ag Silver
AOI Area of Influence
As Arsenic
ASPT Average Score per Taxon
BAP Biodiversity Action Plan
BBM Building Block Method
BDI Biological Diatom Index
Be Beryllium
BI Biodiversity Importance
BOD Biological Oxygen Demand
C Carbon
CAPEX Capital Expenditure
CCGT Combined Cycle Gas Turbine
Cd Cadmium
CEO Chief Executive Officer
CESMP Construction Environmental and Social Management Plan
CFRD Concrete Face Rockfill Dam
CFU Colony Forming Unit
CH Critical Habitat
CH4 Methane
CHA Critical Habitat Assessment
CHG Green House Gas
CHIRPS Climate Hazards Group InfraRed Precipitation with Station data
CHIRTS Climate Hazards Center high-resolution quasi-global gridded dataset of maximum and minimum temperatures
CI Conservation Importance
CIA Cumulative Impact Assessment
CIP Community Investment Programme
CIS Community Investment Strategy
CITES Convention on International Trade and Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
CO2 Carbon dioxide
COD Chemical Oxygen Demand
CPUE Catch Per Unit Effort
CR Critically Endangered
Cr Chromium
Cu Copper
DD Data Deficient
DO Dissolved Oxygen
[DO] Dissolved Oxygen concentration
DRC Democratic Republic of Congo
DSM Digital Surface Model
E&S Environmental & Social
EAA Ecological Area of Analysis
EAA Ecological appropriate Area of Analysis
EAC East African Community
EC Ecological Categories

ECO Environmental Compliance Officer

EES Environmental and Social Standards
EFA Environmental Flow Assessment
EFlows Environmental Flows
EHS Environment, Health and Safety
EI Ecological Importance
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
ELF Extremely Low Frequency
EMA Environmental Management Act
EMF Electromagnetic Fields
EMP Environmental Management Plan
EN Endangered
EN Endangered
EOO Extent of Occurrence
EPC Engineering Procurement and Construction
ESIA Environmental & Social Impact Assessment
ESMMP Environmental and Social Monitoring and Management Plan
ESMS Environmental and Social Management System
ESRI
ESS World Bank’s Environmental & Social Standards
EU European Union
EWURA Energy and Water Utilities Regulatory Authority
FAO United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization
FI Functional Integrity
FSL Full Supply Level
GCM Global Circulation Model
GIP Good Industry Practices
GIS
GoT Government of Tanzania
GRDC Global Runoff Data Centre
GRM Grievance Redress Mechanism
GWP Global Warming Potential
HAT Human African Trypanosomiasis
HDI Human Development Index
HGV Heavy Goods Vehicles
Hg Mercury
HIV/AIDs Human Immunodeficiency Virus / Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome
HPP Hydropower Project
IBA Important Bird Area
ICH Intangible Cultural Heritage
ICNIRP International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection
ICOLD International Commission On Large Dams
IFC International Finance Corporation
IHA International Hydropower Association
ILO International Labor Organization
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
IPF Impact Producing Factor
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
IUCN International Union for the Conservation of Nature
IWRM Integrated Water Resources Management
K Potassium
KBA Key Biodiversity Area
KPI Key Performance Indicator
KSC Kagera Sugar Company (Kagera Sugar Estates Limited)
KBO Kagera River Basin Organization
LVBWB Lake Victoria Basin Water Board

LC Least Concern
LIDA Livestock and Development Authority
LIDAR Light Detection and Ranging
LVB Lake Victoria Basin
LVEMP Lake Victoria Environmental Management Plan
MAR Mean Annual Runoff
MCP Management of Change Procedure
MoU Memorandum of Understanding
MP Monitoring Plan
N Nitrogen
[N] Nitrogen concentration
NARCO National Ranching Company
NBI Nile Basin Initiative
NBSF Nile Basin Sustainability Framework
NE Not Evaluated
NELSAP Nile Equatorial Lakes Subsidiary Action Program
NEMC National Environment Management Council
NEP National Environment Policy
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
NHSDP National Human Settlements Development Policy
NSGD National Strategy for Gender Development
Ni Nickel
NO2 Nitrite
NO3 Nitrate
NT Near Threatened
NTS Non-Technical Summary
NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Units
OPEX Operational Expenditure
OS Operational Safeguards
P Phosphorus
[P] Phosphorus concentration
PAP Project Affected People
Pb Lead
PEDP Primary Education Development Program
PES Present Ecological State
PMF Probable Maximum Flood
PO4 Phosphate
PPE Personal Protective Equipment
PSMP Power System Master PLan
PTVs Pollution Tolerant Diatom Valves
PWD People with Disabilities
RAP Resettlement Action Plan
RAMSAR The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands
RCC Roller Compacted Concrete
RCP Representative Concentration Pathway
ROW Right-of-Way
RQO Resource Quality Objectives
RR Receptor Resilience
SAIAB Southern African Institute for Aquatic Biodiversity
SAMUKA Sango Bay-Musambwa Island-Kagera Wetland System
Sb Antimony
SBS Social Baseline Survey
SCC Species of Conservation Concern
Se Selenium
SEP Stakeholder Engagement Plan
Sn Tin

SPI Specific Pollution Sensitivity Index

STDs Sexually Transmitted Diseases
SUV Sport Utility Vehicle
TAC Technical Advisory Committee
TAEC Tanzania Atomic Energy Commission
TAFIRI Tanzania Fisheries Research Institute
TANAPA Tanzania National Parks
TANESCO Tanzania Electric Supply Company Limited
TARISS Tanzanian River Scoring System
TARURA Tanzania Rural and Urban Roads Agency
TAWIRI Tanzania Wildlife Research Institute
TCFA Transfrontier Conservation Area
TDI Trophic Diatom Index
TL Transmission Line
Tl Thallium
TMS Timed-Meander Search
TN Total Nitrogen
TOC Total Organic Carbon
TP Total Phosphorus
TPH Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
TSS Total Suspended Solids
TWS
TZS Tanzanian Shilling
UN United Nations
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
VEC Valued Environmental and Social Component
VECEA Vegetation and Climate Change in East Africa Project
VU Vulnerable
WASH Water, Sanitation and Hygiene support
WHO World Health Organization
WUA Water User Association
ZECO Zanzibar Electricity Corporation
Zn Zinc
PTL Pollution Tolerant Values

UNITS
Unit Full text
% Percent
°C Degrees Celsius
µg/l Micrograms per litre
µS cm-1 Microsiemens per centimetre
µT Microtestlas
dB(A) A-Weighted Decibel
gCO2eq/kWh Grams of carbon dioxide equivalent per kilowatt-hour
gCO2eq/m2/year Grams of carbon dioxide equivalent per square metre per year
Ha Hectare
Hz Hertz
kgCO2e Kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent
Km Kilometre
km2 Square kilometre
km3 Cubic kilometre
kV Kilovolt
LAeq Equivalent Continuous Sound Pressure Level
m Metre
m2 Square metre
m3 Cubic metre
m3/s Cubic metre per second
masl Metres above sea level
mg/kg Milligrams per kilogram
mg/l Milligrams per litre
mm Millimetre
mm/yr Millimetre per year
MCM Million cubic metres
MtCO2e/year Million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year
mS/m Millosiemens per metre
MW Megawatt
t Tonne
t/ha Tonnes per hectare
t/km2 Tonnes per square kilometre
Yr Year

Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) for the Proposed
87 MW Kakono Hydropower Project and associated 220 kV Transmission Line
1 Executive Summary
DISCLOSURE AUTHORIZED - Kakono HPP_ESIA_Section 1_SUMMARY_June 2022

Contents
1.1 Introduction .......................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Policy, Legal and Administrative Framework .................................... 1-1

National Framework ................................................................................................................................... 1-1
International Framework ........................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.3 Project Description and Justification.................................................. 1-2
1.4 Description of the Project Environment ............................................ 1-2

Study Area – General Setting .................................................................................................................... 1-2
Physical Environment ................................................................................................................................. 1-4
Biological Environment .............................................................................................................................. 1-5
Socioeconomic Environment ..................................................................................................................... 1-5
1.5 Project Alternatives ............................................................................. 1-6
1.6 Results of Comparison of Alternatives .............................................. 1-7
1.7 Potential Impacts ................................................................................. 1-7

Positive Impacts .......................................................................................................................................... 1-7
Negative Environmental Impacts.............................................................................................................. 1-7
Negative Social Impacts ............................................................................................................................. 1-9
1.8 Mitigation or Enhancement Measures and Complementary Initiatives

............................................................................................................ 1-10
1.9 Expected Residual Effects and Environmental Hazard Management

............................................................................................................ 1-11
Residual Impacts ....................................................................................................................................... 1-11
Risk Management and Emergency Situations ....................................................................................... 1-12
1.10 GHG Assessment and Climate Resilience ....................................... 1-12

GHG Emissions .......................................................................................................................................... 1-12
Climate Resilience ..................................................................................................................................... 1-12
1.11 Monitoring Programme .................................................................... 1-13

1.12 Public Consultations and Public Disclosure ................................... 1-14
1.13 ESMMP ............................................................................................... 1-15
1.14 Conclusion ......................................................................................... 1-16
1.15 References and Contacts ................................................................. 1-16

1.1 Introduction
This document is the summary of the Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) for the Proposed
87.8 MW Kakono Hydro Power Plant and Associated 220 kV Transmission Line from Kakono Hydropower to
the Existing Kyaka Substation (38.5 km) (the Project), which is planned for development by Tanzania Electric
Supply Company Limited (TANESCO). The summary presents the policy, legal and administrative
framework, a description of the Project including its justification and alternative analysis. It discusses the
environmental and social baseline situation as well as the potential and residual impacts. A summary of
proposed mitigation measures, monitoring program, Environmental and Social Management Plan, public
consultations and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) and climate resilience is presented. A more detailed discussion of
these issues is provided in the main ESIA report.
1.2 Policy, Legal and Administrative Framework

National Framework
The main legislation relating to ESIAs in Tanzania and applicable to the Project are:
• The National Environment Policy (1997) is the main policy document governing environmental
management in Tanzania. The policy requires environmental impact assessment (EIA) to be
mandatory for all development projects likely to have significant environmental impacts.
• The Environmental Management Act (2004) provides the legal and institutional framework for
sustainable management of the environment. The Act identifies and outlines specific roles,
responsibilities and functions of various institutions including: The National Advisory Committee;
Director of Environment; National Environmental Management Council (NEMC) under the Vice
President’s Office; Sector Ministries, Regional Secretariats; and Local Government Authorities.
• Other relevant policies are: National Land Policy, National Forest Policy (1998), Wildlife and Wetland
Policy (2007), National Water Policy (1991 / 2002), Energy Policy (1992 / 2003), National Human
Settlements Development Policy (2000), and Tanzania Development Vision 2025. Other applicable
laws include: Constitution of Tanzania (Art. 27), Environmental Impact Assessment and Audit
Regulations (2005), Forest Act (1957 / 2002), Wildlife Conservation Act (1974 / 2009), Land Act
(1999), Village Land Act (1999), and Land Regulation (2002).
• Tanzania is also a signatory to numerous International Conventions on the environment including
the Convention on Biological Diversity (1992), the Convention relating to Wetlands of International
Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat, “RAMSAR Convention” (1971), and the Convention on
Conservation of Wildlife Migratory Species, among others.
An ESIA for the Project’s hydropower component and an ESIA for the transmission line component were
prepared in 2016 and NEMC issued an environmental permit in December 2016 with the condition of
implementing the environmental management plans during operation. The present ESIA is to ensure
compliance with the environmental and social policies of the International Lenders (see below).
International Framework
The French Agency for Development (AFD), the African Development Bank (AfDB) and the Norwegian
Embassy in Tanzania are considering providing financial support for the construction of the Project. The
Project has been categorized as Category A under AFD and AfDB respective policy requirements, and as
such, a comprehensive ESIA and associated management plans have been prepared in alignment with the
following standards:
• The African Development Bank Operational Safeguards (OS).
• Exclusion list for AFD Group in foreign countries (2017)
• The World Bank’s Environmental and Social Standards (ESS).
• The IFC Good Practice Note regarding Environmental, Health, and Safety Approaches for Hydropower
Projects.
• The Good Practice Handbook for Environmental Flows for Hydropower Projects of the World Bank
Group.
DISCLOSURE AUTHORIZED - Kakono HPP_ESIA_Section 1_SUMMARY_June 2022 page 1-1

1.3 Project Description and Justification

The overall objective of the Project is to provide stability of power supply in northwest Tanzania and to
supply electric power to the national grid. With only 68 MW of installed capacity in Tanzania (mainly from
costly thermal plants) and up to 90% marginal losses for energy transported from hydropower and thermal
plants in the south, there is an urgent need for increased generation capacity in northwest Tanzania to meet
increasing demand. The Project is situated on the Kagera River in the northwest Tanzania near the border
with Uganda, approximately 90 km west of Bukoba Municipality.
The Project’s main characteristics are:
• A 284 m long and 60 m high Roller Compacted Concrete gravity dam and a 1,380 m long rockfill dam
on the left and right abutments.
• A 35-km long reservoir with a storage capacity of 150 million m3 covering an area of 17,000 ha.
• A hydropower plant with installed capacity of 87.8 MW, located at the foot of the dam.
• The Project will operate as a large reservoir run-of-river scheme and TANESCO have committed to
not operating the scheme with daily regulation and hydropeaking.
• The hydropower plant will have 2 Kaplan turbine units with a combined turbining capacity of
312 m3/s.
• A gated spillway, with 3 gates and a capacity to release a flow rate of 1,240 m3/s (i.e., the Maximum
Probable Flood).
• Two permanent access roads to both sides of the Kagera river at the dam site; a 28 km long
asphalted access road from a turn-off point on the existing Kyaka-Karagwe regional road (B182) to
the north bank of the dam site, and a 0.9 km long dirt road from the existing dirt road (B181) to the
left bank of the dam site.
• A temporary worker camp for the accommodation of an estimated 1,000 construction workers and a
permanent accommodation camp for the operation comprising 20 houses for management, 24
multiple accommodation facilities for workers, a clinic, canteen facilities and a school.
• A 220 kV switchyard and a 38.5 km long 220 kV power transmission line to the existing Kyaka sub-
station.
The construction works are currently planned to start in 2023 for a duration of an estimated 52 months.
Construction of the Transmission Line is approximately 21 months.
1.4 Description of the Project Environment

Study Area – General Setting
The site of the proposed dam and reservoir is situated on the lower Kagera River some 30 km direct distance
(and 58 km river length) upstream of the village of Kyaka. The dam and reservoir are situated on the reach
of the river where morphology changes to a meandering floodplain. The river channel from the site of the
future dam to the outfall into Lake Victoria some 250 km downstream is characterised by the presence of
oxbow lakes and a large band of seasonally flooded wetlands on each side of the river.
The right bank of the proposed reservoir footprint is sparsely populated and occupied by natural open
woodland habitat with small discrete plots of land that are cultivated by local people. The left bank of the
upper reach of the reservoir footprint is natural habitat and used by the National Ranching Company for
beef cattle grazing, and the lower reach of the reservoir is owned by Kagera Sugar Estates Limited and used
for growing sugar cane. Kagera Sugar is implementing an expansion project on the right bank downstream
of the proposed HPP that will result in large tracts of woodland downstream from the proposed dam site
to be cultivated with sugar cane. This includes several kilometres that will be traversed by the transmission
line for the project.
The reach of the Kagera River some 56 km (river length) upstream from the proposed dam site marks the
border between Tanzania and Uganda. The Kagera River crosses into Uganda some 168 km (river length)
downstream from the proposed dam site and the Kagera Estuary outfall into Lake Victoria is situated in
Uganda.

Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) for the Proposed 87 MW Kakono Hydropower Project and associated 220 kV Transmission Line
Figure 1-1 - Project Location

Physical Environment
Climate: There is a main dry season occurring June–August, a long-wet season February-May, and a short-
wet season September-November. Average rainfall over the basin is 1,000-1,200 mm/year, characterized
by significant spatial and temporal variability: High average rainfall of up to 1,800 mm/year in the west
mountain ranges in Rwanda and Burundi, with a descending gradient towards the east down to
800 mm/year. There is higher precipitation on the western shore of Lake Victoria. The area is in proximity
to the equator and consequently temperatures are almost constant. The average annual temperature is
lower in the western and northwest mountain range of the Kagera basin, at 15-18°C, and up to an average
of 22°C in the central portion of the basin. The mean minimum reaches 14.5°C and a mean maximum
reaches 27.5°C.
Geology: The site of the proposed dam and reservoir is situated in geological strata consisting of former
lake environment sedimentary deposits with rocky outcrops. The sedimentary deposits have a thickness
varying from a few metres to 50 m and are composed mainly of sand and silt with some coarse sand and
cobbles. The lower Kagera wetland (downstream from the proposed dam site extending to Lake Victoria is
underlain by sandstone.
Tectonics and seismicity: The occurrence of earthquakes in the Project area is influenced by the East Rift
Valley of Africa, which is the most extensive currently active zone of continental rifting on the Globe. The
Project is situated in the western branch of the rift system and in the proposed Project area the registered
Richter’s magnitude is in the range of 3-5.
Groundwater: The proposed dam and reservoir is located in an area overlying the Kagera aquifer, a
transboundary aquifer composed of unconsolidated sediments. The Kagera aquifer is a continuous aquifer
covering an area of 5,800 km2 overlapping areas in Tanzania and Uganda. The groundwater recharge is
predominantly from infiltration of rainfall and the water quality is generally good. The aquifer thickness
varies between 10-20 m and boreholes are often drilled to depths of 100-200 m.
Hydrology: The Kagera River Basin is the main tributary of Lake Victoria. It has a catchment area of
approximately 60,000 km² and contributes 34% of Lake Victoria’s inflow. The basin is characterised by the
existence of extensive shallow lakes and swamps upstream of the proposed Kakono reservoir in Rwanda
which act as a buffer, modulating the river flow at the proposed dam site. The average annual flow at the
proposed dam site is 213 m3/s. High seasonal flows occur in April-June and have a flow rate in
the order of 250 m3/s, and low seasonal flows occur in October-January and have flows in the range of 180-
200 m3/s. The 10-year, 100-year and 10,00-year floods have flow rates of 456, 722 and 810 m 3/s,
respectively. There are two main tributaries (Mwisa and Ngono Rivers) that join the Kagera River along the
250 km long reach between the proposed dam site and Lake Victoria. The average annual flow of the
combined flow of these tributaries is 43 m3/s.
Sediment: There are large volumes of sediment in the Kagera River – with more sediment during periods of
high seasonal flows. The large wetlands in the middle catchment trap and store sediment and there are
lower sediment concentrations downstream from the wetland. There has been an increase in sediment
transported by the river over the last 30 years because of increased soil erosion resulting from
deforestation and high rainfall. This has led to increased sediment deposition at the Kagera River estuary
where it enters Lake Victoria.
Geomorphology: The proposed dam is located at the upper end of the 200 km long meandering alluvial
floodplain. The floodplain is narrow along the upper reaches where the proposed reservoir will be located
and widens downstream of Kyaka until it reaches Lake Victoria. The riverbed is characterised by cobbles,
gravel and sand, and riverbanks are composed of gravel, sand, silt and clay. Steep alluvial cliffs in places
downstream of the project site are unconsolidated and prone to erosion.
Water Quality: The water quality of the Kagera River at the proposed dam site is characterised by high
nutrient loading and the presence of faecal coliforms, indicating anthropogenic influence mainly from
upstream sources. The upstream catchment is used for agriculture and has a population of 16 million
people. Most settlements are without sewage systems and the discharge of untreated sanitary wastewater
is common. The large area of lakes and swamps upstream of the Project site is probably also a source of
nutrients. River water temperature exhibit only small seasonal fluctuations and the waters have a high
dissolved oxygen concentration.

Biological Environment
Fish: Fish surveys and the aquatic assessment for the revised ESIA has identified the proposed Project direct
and indirect area of influence is situated in critical habitat for fish. An estimated 67 fish species have been
recorded in the 520 km of river between Lake Victoria in Uganda and Rusumo Falls in Rwanda of which
32 were confirmed in the 200 km long reach surveyed in 2020 for the ESIA. There are 14 fish species in the
lower Kagera River that potentially trigger critical habitat: three Critically Endangered species of which one
Labeo victorianus (ningu) is confirmed in the proposed reservoir area and upstream and downstream
reaches; seven restricted range species confirmed in slackwater habitats of the Project area comprising five
barb species including four undescribed1 Enteromius species, an undescribed catlet species (Zairechthys sp
nov.), and a restricted range large-bodied cyprinid (Labeobarbus acuticeps), and five migratory species (four
of which are confirmed in the Project area). In March 2022, the undescribed Enteromius species were also
confirmed in other parts of the Kagera catchment outside the Project Area of Influence (AoI), mainly in the
Ngono River but also upstream of Kikagati.
Terrestrial habitat and flora: The proposed Project is located in an area that is assessed as Natural Habitat
for terrestrial ecology with 7 vegetation types and 425 plant species. No threatened or restricted-range
plants were found during the biodiversity surveys for the revised ESIA. The vegetation types comprise
largely intact Vachellia woodland/bushclump mosaic, rocky grassland/outcrop mosaic, floodplain wetlands,
floodplain woodland/thicket, riparian forest/thicket and scarp forest.
Large mammals: African elephants (recently uplisted to Endangered by IUCN) are commonly encountered
in the area around the site of the proposed dam and reservoir and are believed to migrate from nearby
reserves to the Kagera River, moving along the dam access road corridor and to forage in woodland habitats
along the right bank of the river. They are reportedly becoming more prevalent with a breeding herd of
approximately 30 individuals confirmed during the 2020 survey. Hippopotamus and crocodiles are also
present in the area. Large buck are scarce but evidence of reedbuck, bushbuck and duiker were recorded.
Birds: Of the 623 bird species known to occur in the Victoria Basin Forest Savanna ecoregion, 285 species
were recorded during the ESIA’s biodiversity survey. Noteworthy species include the Endangered grey-
crowned crane and Near Threatened papyrus gonolek (both associated with floodplain habitats) and
4 raptors which prefer woodland habitats, including the Critically Endangered hooded vulture; and the
Endangered lappet-faced vulture; steppe eagle and bateleur eagle. Due to the wide distributions of these
species and low abundance and absence of breeding evidence in the project area, none were determined to
be critical habitat qualifying species.
Protected and internationally recognised areas: The sites of the proposed dam and reservoir and the
downstream reaches affected by the Project do not encroach on formally protected areas. The nearest
protected areas are the Burigi-Chato National Park (78 km to the south) and the Rumanyika-Karagwe
National Park (21 km to the west). Both these parks were gazetted in 2019 and comprise inland lakes,
rivers, swamps and woodland vegetation types. The Minzoro Forest Reserves (located approximately 120
km downstream from the Project) is an Important Bird Area that largely comprises swamp forest with
floodplains and borders the western side of the lower Kagera River with the Kikuru Forest Reserve to the
east. It is likely that migratory fish, such as the Critically Endangered Labeo victorianus may spawn in this
area. Approximately 168 km downstream from the proposed dam site, extending from the border of
Tanzania and Uganda to the Kagera Estuary lies the Sango Bay-Musamwa Island-Kagera Wetland System,
an International Bird Area and Ramsar site which is important for its floodplain wetlands and birdlife.
Socioeconomic Environment
Administrative organisation: The proposed Project area occupies lands that are in the Kyerwa, Karagwe and
Missenyi districts and within the jurisdiction of 6 Wards and 11 villages.
Demographics: The population in the area of the proposed dam and reservoir is approximately
16,000 people, who are from the Mushabaiguru, Bugara, Mugaba and Businde villages and the Kagera
Sugar Kifaru work camp. Along the transmission line, the population is concentrated in the Kyaka village,
where there are about 3,000 people. Along the 90 km of the Kagera river downstream from the proposed
dam, there are approximately 6,000 people living in the Kagera Sugar worker camps and further
1
Undescribed species is a term used to classify a species that has not been given a specific name in a formal scientific publication and
is therefore unknown to scientists. The potential implication of the finding of undescribed species in the study area is that these species
should be considered as to potentially not exist elsewhere until demonstrated by other studies.

downstream approximately 34,000 people living in seven villages. There are no settlements located in the
reservoir footprint, at the proposed dam site or along the planned access road. The transmission line is the
only Project component which crosses the outskirts of Kyaka where it connects to the existing Kyaka
substation.
Land use and land ownership: There are large tracts of land in the proposed Project that are used for
growing sugar cane and for beef cattle grazing. The remaining land is natural habitat with some areas with
small discrete plots cultivated by village people. The land in the area is owned by the Kagera Sugar
company, the National Ranching Company, the Kitengule prison and customary owned land of which only a
minority of owners have a granted right of occupancy.
Education: The socioeconomic survey performed for the ESIA has found that households affected by the
Project have access to schools, but 21% never attended school, and although 57% completed primary
school only 14% completed secondary school.
Health: Due to a lack of resources, within the Project area, the local health facilities face several issues:
waiting times, healthcare delivery quality, infrastructure, and disease control and prevention practices.
Upper respiratory infections, malaria, urinary tract infections and diarrhoea were the most common
diseases in the Project area in 2019. The Kagera region is one of the highest malaria risk regions in Tanzania
and malaria is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality, especially in children under age 5 and pregnant
women. Data from 2018 shows that HIV prevalence is 6.1% among the 15-49 aged population, which is
above the national average of 4.7%. HIV prevalence is higher among women (7.6%) than men (6.1%).
Surprisingly, there are no records of bilharzia from clinics at Kagera Sugar Estate or Bunazi. This may reflect
a combination of fast flow rates in the Kagera River which restricts habitat for host snails and limited human
contact with water due to river dangers (depth, high water speed and presence of hippo and crocs).
Language, religion, ethnicity: Christianity and Islam are the two predominant religions with a majority of
Christians. However, there are some animist practices. The majority of the population is of African Bantu
origin and the most common ethnic groups are the Wahaya and Wanyambo, which each have their own
tribal language, Kihaya and Ki-Nyambo respectively. Ki-Swahili is the unifying and official language. Other
ethnic groups including the Wasukuma, the Hangaza, the Subi are found in the study area. However, they
represent a minority. There are few legal migrants from Rwanda and Uganda who speak their native
languages, and hardly understand Ki-Swahili.
Gender: The villagers in the Project area live in traditional communities with patriarchal practices which have
been rarely exposed to social changes. Women can participate in the village affairs but are not involved in
economic activities and men take all household decisions.
Vulnerable people: Vulnerable people have been assessed to be those where a household is (i) headed by
someone older than 50 without any other breadwinner in the household, (ii) headed by someone disabled,
without any other breadwinner in the household, (iii) headed by a woman; and (iv) headed by a landless
person. The socioeconomic survey performed for the revised ESIA has found that 25% of households
surveyed can be considered as vulnerable.
Cultural heritage: There are no national or internationally recognized cultural heritage sites in the area.
However, there are cultural heritage sites that do not have national or international recognition such as
graves and sacrifice sites.
1.5 Project Alternatives

Do nothing option: If the Kakono HPP was not built, this option would result in a continuation of the current
situation with insufficient power from other regions being transported to the northwest of Tanzania,
resulting in high cost of access to electricity, an increase in poverty, diseases, ongoing deforestation, air
pollution. The role played by electricity production in economic development and education would not be
realised.
Alternative technologies: The government of Tanzania is promoting investment in renewable energy
projects. Wind and solar power projects are being developed in other regions of Tanzania but not in the
northwest region because conditions are not favourable. However, the cost of electrical transmission of
power generated by alternative technologies elsewhere in Tanzania to the northwest region would be
excessive and the power supply intermittent. There are several biomass power plants in Tanzania, but these
are not connected to the grid and the government is not promoting development of these types of plants.
The nearest geothermal resources are situated in southwest Tanzania and too far from the northwest

region to be a viable alternative. Thermal power is not a viable alternative because of the high greenhouse
gas emissions compared to hydropower.
1.6 Results of Comparison of Alternatives

Alternative dam location: The purpose of the Project is to provide power to the northwest region and the
Kagera River is the main river where large hydropower sites are available. However, the alternative sites
would incur higher construction costs as other areas of the lower Kagera River do not present narrow valleys
against which dam abutment could be built.
Alternative reservoir water level: Locating the proposed dam further downstream or increasing the dam
height would increase the reservoir water level and allow an increase in power production capacity.
However, this alternative is not compatible with the Nsongezi HPP which is being developed 56 km
upstream and would result in a larger reservoir flooding public roads, settlements and incur transboundary
impacts in Uganda.
Alternative transmission line routing: the proposed transmission line routing is on the right bank of the
Kagera River, an alternative is to construct the transmission line on the left bank. However, this has the risk
of resulting in more physical and economic displacement in Kyaka. There would be a need for 2 river-
crossings which would increases the risk of impacts on birds including the Endangered and Critically
Endangered vultures.
Alternative operating mode: The proposed facilities are designed to operate as a run-of-river scheme. An
alternative would be to operate with subdaily regulation which would allow several hours per day of peak
power production. However, this would cause significant environmental impacts on the downstream river
ecology and cause transboundary impacts on Uganda. As a result, TANESCO unequivocally committed to
not operate the Kakono HPP as a peaking power plant or with any sorts of sub-daily regulation.
1.7 Potential Impacts

Positive Impacts
The Project will stabilise power supply in northwest Tanzania and supply electric power to the national grid.
The improved supply of electricity will enhance economic development and quality of life and reduce the
use of charcoal (and associated deforestation, soil erosion and GHG emissions). The Project will create
approximately 1,000 direct employment opportunities during the construction phase, and this will generate
indirect employment opportunities that will benefit local communities and stimulate long-term economic
development in the area. The Kakono reservoir will have a potential for development of fisheries (if the risk
of alien fish species on indigenous biodiversity can be adequately managed).
Negative Environmental Impacts

Hydrology: The dam-reservoir component will be operated as a large reservoir run-of-river scheme, and
during normal operation there will be no alteration to river flow conditions. However, during reservoir filling
there will be reduced flow downstream from the dam, and the magnitude will be dependent on the rate of
reservoir filling and the season. The dam is equipped with a bottom outlet that allows the reservoir water
level to be lowered rapidly for safety reasons. In this event the flow rate of the Kagera River downstream
may be increased significantly for several days – but this would be a very rare occurrence and only in
exceptional circumstances. There may also be changes in flow conditions related to flushing of sediment
that has accumulated in the reservoir. This would occur for a short period (several days) every few years
depending on the adopted sediment management program.
Water quality: The biodegradation of the flooded biomass in the reservoir footprint will result in altered
water quality in the reservoir and downstream, but to a lesser extent with removal of most woody biomass
prior to flooding. Modelling has predicted that there will be increased nutrient levels and lowered levels of
dissolved oxygen (dissolved oxygen levels will slightly above threshold values for impacts on fish. The
degree of alteration will decrease overtime, moderating to levels slightly below baseline conditions after
10 to 15 years.

Geomorphology: The proposed dam-reservoir is predicted to trap ~60% of the river’s sediment load,
causing reduced sediment load downstream. This may lead to reduced rates of floodplain sedimentation
and floodplain fertility, bed erosion and bed coarsening along the first 20 km downstream of the dam over
the first 10 to 20 years. Bed incision is likely to propagate further downstream over time, affecting the areas
upstream and downstream of Kyaka after ~10 to 75 years and lower reaches at a slower rate. Lateral bank
erosion of a magnitude of several metres over several decades along either bank may follow. This process
is likely to start in the first 20 km downstream of the dam and possibly extend downstream over time,
affecting the areas upstream and downstream of Kyaka. The Kagera River Estuary and Lake Victoria may
receive less suspended sediment from the Kagera River. However, bank erosion contributions may offset
the reductions to some extent.
Fish and critical habitat: The principle potential adverse impact of the dam-reservoir is the impact on fish.
The ESIA has assessed that the Kagera River is critical habitat because of the presence of several species of
threatened, restricted range and migratory fish. The physical presence of the dam will act as a barrier to
seasonal upstream and downstream migration for feeding and spawning of several migratory fish,
including the Critically Endangered Labeo victorianus. The creation of the Kakono reservoir will transform
flowing water habitat to an open standing water habitat and this will favour some fish species to the
detriment of others such as the undescribed Enteromius barbs (potentially restricted-range species in the
Kagera Basin). There is a possibility that local fishers or entrepreneurs will introduce Nile perch (an alien
invasive species) into the Kakono reservoir to create a fishery and which would predate on the existing
indigenous fish population. The consequences of the trapping of sediment by the dam-reservoir (see above)
can result in degraded fish habitat and reduced fish (and bird) prey (shrimps) downstream. Parts of the
Kakono reservoir and the 10 km long reach of the Kagera River downstream are expected to have reduced
levels of dissolved oxygen (4-5 mg/l) because of the oxygen consuming biodegradation of flooded
vegetation in the reservoir footprint and this may affect many fish species that are not tolerant of low
dissolved oxygen levels until conditions stabilise after a few years.
Vegetation and flora: Dam construction and reservoir filling will directly and permanently impact at least
1,469 ha of natural habitat, while an additional 655 ha may be affected by internal access roads, quarries
and other infrastructure. Included in this, is the 26 ha in the footprint of the 28 km paved access road and
73 ha in the transmission line wayleave. Most (60%) of this loss is dominated by Vachellia
Woodland/Bushclump Mosaic (1,452 ha), followed by Rocky Grassland/Outcrop Mosaic (202 ha), Floodplain
Wetlands (187 ha), Floodplain Woodland/Thicket (161.5 ha); Riparian Forest/Thicket (86 ha) and Scarp
Forest (35.6 ha). Of these, only Riparian Forest/Thicket and Scarp Forest were assessed as having high
ecological importance as they are relatively localized, have low resilience to change, and support a range of
faunal species of conservation concern. The others are of medium ecological importance. All vegetation
communities are represented in other areas upstream and downstream of the Kakono HPP and none are
unique to the project impacted area. During operation of the dam-reservoir, the bank erosion (described
above) would result in degradation and loss of riparian and floodplain habitats along the riverbank and on
the floodplain. This may particularly affect the localised Floodplain Woodland/Thicket vegetation
community as the dominant Vachellia kirkii trees are not deep-rooted and loss of substrate around their
roots may cause them to collapse.
Fauna: Dam construction activities may pose a partial barrier to elephant movement along the Kagera River,
likely to force the elephants (Endangered) that are regular visitors to the right bank to alter their routes and
move across slopes to the north of the dam site but is not predicted to block their movement. After flooding,
the reservoir will form a relatively narrow lake with very slow moving or stationary water and it is possible
that elephants may be able to cross the reservoir in the upper reaches to access the ranching land and sugar
cane plantations (which are unfenced) on the left bank where they may cause pose a nuisance or cause
conflict with these land uses. This is likely to be an ongoing problem on the right bank as the sugar cane
project expands, which could result in potential persecution or hunting of problem animals. Hippopotamus
and crocodiles which occur in the Kagera River in the reservoir area and downstream are unlikely to be
significantly impacted by the Project and are expected to become established in the reservoir. However,
while there is limited human settlement near the reservoir, a potential influx of fishers to exploit the
expected increased abundance of fish in the reservoir after filling may result in increased human-wildlife
conflicts with hippo and elephant. The Endangered grey-crowned crane occurs primarily in the broader
floodplain habitats downstream of the proposed dam, where it is likely to nest low down in the papyrus
beds. Few cranes are expected to occur in the reservoir footprint as the floodplain habitats are relatively
narrow in extent compared to the downstream river reaches. The dam and reservoir construction, and the
run-of-river operation regime of the Kakono HPP are unlikely to directly impact on breeding habitat for
these cranes or have a significant impact on other wetland-dependent birds such as the endemic papyrus

gonolek. However, the overhead transmission line will pose a high risk of collision and electrocution for
certain birds such as raptors and wetland birds, including grey-crowned cranes. The risk is higher during the
peak migration period (October/November and March/April) when numerous large migratory birds (such as
the Endangered steppe eagle) are expected to move through the Project area.
Invasive alien species: Water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) is widespread in the Kagera River Basin and in
Lake Victoria. It forms dense mats on the surface of the water, causes a reduction in oxygen concentrations,
loss of biodiversity, increased evapotranspiration and negatively affects boat navigation, fishing,
hydropower generation, water supply and potential tourism/recreational activities. It also contributes to the
increase in the prevalence of water-related diseases such as bilharzia /schistosomiasis because it harbours
disease vectors by providing habitat for the host snails. During operation, accumulation of water hyacinth
is expected within the reservoir with consequences for dissolved oxygen levels and will provide increased
habitat for bilharzia snails. Active and ongoing water hyacinth management will be required. The Nile perch
(Lates niloticus) is an alien species that was introduced into Lake Victoria in the 1950s. Its introduction has
been attributed to adverse changes in the composition and functioning of the lake’s ecosystem, in particular
the extinction of more than 200 native species of fish and leading to changes in the food web. It is possible
that Nile perch may be progressively populating the lower reaches of the Kagera River although none were
caught during the fish surveys, but Kagera Sugar management confirmed that a Nile perch had been caught
a few kilometres downstream from the proposed dam site. Lantana camara is a terrestrial alien invasive
plant species that is an aggressive invader and was present at a few discrete sites away from the floodplain
and could be spread through construction activities if control and monitoring is not implemented.
Cumulative Impacts: The Cumulative Impact Assessment has assessed incremental impacts caused by
spatial and temporal overlap of the proposed Project impacts with impacts of other hydropower projects in
the catchment, mining activities in the catchment, the Kagera Sugar Company expansion project, other
transmission line projects and other road and bridge projects in the area. It is assessed that cumulative
impacts on water quality, terrestrial habitat and wildlife are expected with the Kagera Sugar expansion
project with regard to water quality, fish migration, human-animal conflicts and communities.
Transboundary Impacts: Transboundary impacts may arise from (i) reduction in upstream fish migration
between fish populations in the lower Kagera River and populations in Rwanda (upstream of Kikagati); (ii)
reduction in downstream fish movements for breeding and spawning at downstream floodplains; iii)
reduced gene flow between fish populations in the middle and lower Kagera reaches, including at the
Kagera Estuary and in Lake Victoria (in Uganda) in the event of natural events such as possible changes in
condition of the Lake Victoria or high fish mortality due to pollution; and (iv) reduction in sediment and
nutrient delivery to floodplains in the lower Kagera River and Lake Victoria, potentially affecting fish and
bird abundance.
Other impacts during construction: Other typical project impacts include alteration to air quality, ambient
noise levels and water quality from fixed and mobile equipment, operational discharges (such as
wastewater and runoff) and accidental spills and leaks of hazardous substances.
Negative Social Impacts

Land acquisition: The proposed Project land requirements total 2,453 ha of which 498 ha are occupied by
Kagera River and floodplain, 36 ha are for the 28 km long access road, and 135 ha are for the 38.5 km long
transmission line wayleave. The 1,986.9 ha of land acquired comprises 879 ha from the Kagera Sugar
Company, 673.8 ha from NARCO, 361.8 ha of communal village lands, 43.4 ha of customary owned lands
and 29 ha from Kitengule Prison.
Physical and Economic displacement: A total of 85 households will be affected by the land acquisition,
comprising 79 households affected by the transmission line and expansion of the existing Kyaka substation
and 6 households affected by the reservoir impoundment. Of the 85 households, 8 are physically displaced.
Kagera Sugar Company Pumping Stations: The pumping stations (6 existing and several planned future
stations) are used for irrigation of the sugar cane plantation and are situated on the banks of the Kagera
River that may be affected by the slow and progressive bank erosion process caused by the Project.
Agriculture: Some small plots of land used for agriculture by village people may be affected by the slow and
progressive bank erosion. Along the 50 km downstream from the dam there are 50 plots each of about 500
m2 (i.e. a total of 2.5 ha) that could be lost. However, the erosion process is slow and progressive, and
people currently need to adapt the choice of plots to be cultivated because of natural variations in annual
flooding.

Fisheries: The dam construction work and impoundment of the reservoir may prevent access to some
fishing areas used by a few local people.
Community Health and Safety: The Project construction phase represents several risks to community health
and safety, and these are related to noise and dust from worksite and Project traffic. Project induced in-
migration is likely during construction and an influx of 1,000 to 2,000 opportunity seekers are expected.
Such influx could induce risks of anti-social behaviour, pressure on social services, increase in sexually
transmitted diseases, and local inflation. These risks are also relevant for the construction workforce (1,000
workers), some of whom will be brought from other regions of Tanzania to work on the Project. Other risks
include health risks related to increased waterborne diseases and in-migration of fishers due to the creation
of the Kakono reservoir and exposure to electromagnetic fields within the transmission line right of way.
The permanently flooded reservoir area could create favourable habitat for the development and spread of
vectors of waterborne diseases: The likely development of water hyacinth on the surface of the water may
become a breeding ground for disease vectors such as mosquitoes, which transmit malaria. The proposed
HPP may increase the risk of bilharzia (schistosomiasis) among humans and livestock as the shoreline of
the proposed impoundment and accumulation of floating water hyacinth within the impoundment could
provide ideal habitat for aquatic macroinvertebrates that occur in standing water.
Cultural Heritage: Cultural heritage impacted by the Project comprises seven graves along the transmission
line wayleave, and a few artefacts from the late Iron Age and a sacrifice site in the vicinity of the proposed
reservoir.
1.8 Mitigation or Enhancement Measures and

Complementary Initiatives
The key enhancement measure is the Community Investment Program that will be developed and
implemented by TANESCO to ensure that the people in the districts of Missenyi, Karagwe and Kyerwa benefit
from employment opportunities, improvements to health care services, and benefit from support for
agriculture, safe drinking-water, sanitation. The key mitigation and complementary measures for the
potential impacts summarised in Section 1.7 are as follows:
Receptor / impact Key Mitigation and Management Measures Phase*

Environmental Impacts
Hydrology Definition of minimum environmental flow C, F
Reservoir filling plan F
Reservoir operating plan O
Develop basin scale rainfall-runoff model to make a more detailed assessment of O
climate change impacts on hydrology
Water quality Vegetation clearing prior to reservoir filling C
Removal of Invasive Weeds O
Monitoring and adaptive management (retrofitting of systems for reoxygenation of O
turbined waters)
Geomorphology Monitoring and adaptive management (sediment flushing/venting) O
Fish, aquatic habitats and Fish pass and fish friendly turbines included in design O
critical habitat
Alien fish management O
Mitigation for water quality and geomorphology – operating procedures and adaptive O
management
Implementation of biodiversity compensation actions for impacts on critical habitat O
Routing of TL and access road to avoid wetland areas C
Vegetation and flora Minimisation of project footprint at worksite requiring vegetation clearing C
Terrestrial alien invasive plant management plan C
Implementation of biodiversity compensation actions for impacts on natural habitat O
(e.g. investment in conservation in nearby parks)
Mitigation for geomorphology – operating procedures and adaptive management O
Fauna Traffic management plans (e.g. speed control) C
Faunal protection measures, e.g. snake rescue, faunal escape measures and checks in C
open trenches
Wildlife management and control C

Receptor / impact Key Mitigation and Management Measures Phase*

Elephant control measures (if needed) to be determined with input of TAWIRI (e.g. O
electric fencing on left bank of reservoir to minimise conflicts
Transmission Line design includes bird protection measures along entire length O
Cumulative impacts Mitigation measures for fish, fauna, community (as above) O
Dialogue with other owners of projects that contribute to cumulative impacts to C, O
determine additional mitigation if required.
Transboundary impacts Mitigation for geomorphology – operating procedures and adaptive management O
Dialogue with Government of Uganda C, O
Other impacts (air Soil and erosion control C
quality, noise, Stormwater management C
operational discharges
Pollution prevention and control C
and accidental spills and
leaks Sediment management C
Hazardous substances management C
Social Impacts
Land acquisition Resettlement Action Plan C
Kagera Sugar Company Maintain of minimum environmental flow during reservoir filling and HPP operation C
pumping stations Reservoir filling plan F
Monitoring and adaptive management O
Agriculture Mitigation for geomorphology – operating procedures and adaptive management O
Agricultural enhancement measures – through the Community Investment Program O
Fisheries Reservoir Fisheries feasibility study O
Reservoir Fishery Management Plan O
Alien fish management O
Reservoir and fish pass monitoring and adaptive management O
Community health and Influx Management Plan C
safety Local recruitment and skills development C
Community Investment Programme C, O
Community Health Programme C, O
Compliance with Tanzanian and International standards for noise, vibration, dust, C
effluent, Electromagnetic Radiation
Cultural heritage Grave reinstatement C
Chance finds procedure C
* C=Construction, F=Reservoir Filling, O=Operation
1.9 Expected Residual Effects and Environmental Hazard

Management
Residual Impacts
The following significant residual impacts are possible as the measures to avoid, mitigate and compensate
impacts may not be 100% effective or because additional studies are required to determine the
conservation and range restricted status of certain fish species.
• The restricted range and undescribed Enteromius barbs, a guild of species that do not migrate, is
expected to be impacted by the creation of the reservoir, changing its habitat (flowing river) to that
of a lake for which these barb species are not adapted. The construction of the fish pass will not
mitigate this impact as they are not migratory. In addition, these barb species are likely to be subject
to predation by Nile perch if this alien species is introduced into the Kakono reservoir. However, this
impact is lessened due to the fact that populations of these Enteromius barbs have been confirmed
recently in other river reaches outside of the Kakono Project area of influence, notably the Ngono
River and/or upstream Kagera River. Therefore, the residual risk of the Kakono HPP on these barbs is
significantly reduced to an acceptable level.
• The trapping of sediment in the proposed reservoir may progressively and slowly reduce nutrient
levels at the Kagera Estuary in Uganda, affecting shrimp populations which are a source of food for
fish, birds and other fauna, including the Critically Endangered species Labeo victorianus - a
migratory species that is present in the Project area. This impact combined with the barrier effect of

the physical presence of the dam may have a detrimental effect on the population of this species in
the lower Kagera. It should be noted that although the proposed dam will be equipped with a fish
pass, it may only have 10% efficiency (i.e. 1 in 10 fish reaching the dam barrier may successfully
enter the reservoir via the fish pass).
• The creation of the proposed Kakono reservoir represents a risk to the fish population of the middle
reaches of the Kagera River from introduction by Nile perch, an invasive alien species. Preventing the
introduction of Nile perch into the reservoir is necessary to protect indigenous fish but may not be
totally effective. Once introduced into the Kakono reservoir, it can be expected that the Nile perch
will progressively populate and predate on fish species in the middle reaches of the Kagera River
potentially including the Akagera lakes and wetlands upstream which are rich in aquatic biodiversity
and identified as a key biodiversity area (KBA).
Risk Management and Emergency Situations

The key risk management of emergency situations are as follows:
• An Independent Panel of Experts for dam safety will be appointed. The panel will be required to
review the design and all aspects of the work, including flood hydrology, hydraulics, seismology,
geology, concrete technology and turbines designed to operate in sediment laden water (TANESCO).
• A dam break risk assessment will be undertaken in alignment with the approach recommended by
the International Commission on Large Dams (ICOLD). Risk reduction measures will be integrated
into the design to ensure that the overall risk of dam break is tolerable as per ICOLD risk acceptability
criteria. (EPC Contractor).
• An Emergency Response Plan including a dam failure or gate failure/malfunction will be prepared
and include flood modelling of the worst-case scenario. (EPC Contractor).
• A comprehensive Dam Safety and Operation Manual will be developed and maintained. The manual
will meet the World Bank’s Dam Safety Policy concerning the design, construction, operation and
maintenance of the Project and downstream users (TANESCO).
• Dam inspection and maintenance procedures will be developed and implemented to ensure the
integrity of the Project structures and equipment as per ICOLD guidelines. (TANESCO).
1.10 GHG Assessment and Climate Resilience

GHG Emissions
Project construction Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions represent 225,445 t/year of equivalent carbon
dioxide (CO2e). The reservoir emissions, with and without vegetation clearing prior to reservoir filling,
(averaged over 100 years) represent 14,520 and 16,874 t/year respectively. The average annual combined
construction and reservoir emissions (over 100 years), with and without vegetation clearing, represent
36.5 and 32.0 gCO2e/kWh, which are typical values for hydropower projects reported by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
GHG emissions avoided by the implementation of the Project have been computed by comparing the
Project’s GHG emissions with emissions from generating the equivalent of the Project’s power generation
capacity with Tanzania’s current power mix. Generating 524 GWh of power with Tanzania’s current power
mix (445 gCO2e/kWh) will generate 232,939 tCO2e/year. Consequently, the Kakono Project, with and
without vegetation clearing prior to reservoir filling, will reduced GHG emissions by 216,164 and
213,810 tCO2e/year respectively.
Climate Resilience
A Climate Change Resilience study that follows the Hydropower Sector Climate Resilience Guide published
in 2019 by the International Hydropower Association (IHA) was undertaken for this 2022 ESIA. To
assessment concludes, there is a high likelihood of reduced energy production (in the range -10 to -20%)
over the 100-year life of the project. This justifies conducting long-term monitoring of the evolution of
climate change in the Kagera basin and Kagera River flows, so that adaptive actions can be taken in a
suitable timeframe. Regarding extreme flood estimates and potential implications on spillway design; as
there are significant differences between future climate scenarios, there is justification for the selection of

robust design criteria for spillway design that considers possible worst-case scenarios. A hydrological model
with finer resolution than that used in the 2022 ESIA should be performed by the EPC Contractor for the
Kakono dam site catchment in the next stage of the Project to further detail the trends identified, and
confirm or revise the design criteria for the safety structures of the dam (e.g. spillway).
1.11 Monitoring Programme

While the overall responsibility is assigned to Tanesco for the monitoring activities, some measures will
require involvement of other government institutions e.g. TAFIRI or TAWIRI. The key elements of the
monitoring programme are as follows:
Parameter Description Phase* Responsibility

Environmental Project standards and non-conformities will be managed through a C TANESCO
performance of the EPC non-conformity management process
Contractor
Physical environment
Kagera River flow rate Upstream and downstream of proposed Kakono reservoir O TANESCO
Water quality Kakono reservoir and downstream F, O TANESCO
Suspended sediment Kagera River waters upstream of the coffer dam, continuous C TANESCO
concentration monitoring
Sediment, water quality, At monitoring sites between the Kakono Reservoir and the Kagera C, F, O TANESCO
macro-invertebrate and Estuary starting prior to construction and continuing through operation
fish
Noise levels To demonstrate compliance with WHO and Tanzanian noise guidelines EPC
Effluent quality Discharged wastewater from construction worksites to check EPC
conformity with Tanzania’s and IFC General EHS Guideline discharge Contractor
limit values
Groundwater quality At construction worksite, monthly C EPC
Contractor
Soil erosion At construction worksites to check effectiveness of control measures. C EPC
Weekly Contractor
Sediment Sediment deposition on the floodplain and along the banks O TANESCO
downstream of the dam. before and after venting/sluicing events
Volumes and particle size, and suspended sediment particle size of O TANESCO
sediment deposited in the Kakono reservoir, on an annual basis
Physical dimensions and sediment characteristics of the river channel O TANESCO
and floodplain downstream of the dam, including a site near the Kagera
River Estuary, every 2 years
Suspended sediment concentration and dissolved oxygen downstream O TANESCO
of the dam during a week before, and a month after each venting or
sluicing event
The suspended sediment concentration will be monitored at the Kagera O TANESCO
River Mouth using satellite imagery, annually
Ecology
Aquatic biomonitoring In the Kakono reservoir and upstream and downstream. Starting one C, F, O TANESCO
year prior to start of construction. Annual
Fish Kagera River upstream and downstream of the proposed dam, C, F, O TANESCO
including Kagera Estuary. Biannual, starting one year prior to start of
construction and continuing until fish community stabilises or results
confirm extent of impact. To be implemented in partnership with the
Ugandan and Tanzanian Fisheries Departments
Birds Along the TL wayleave. Twice yearly. To be continued for at least two C, F, O TANESCO
years or as confirmed by ornithologist based on monitoring results
Invasive alien species Terrestrial alien invasive species along the TL wayleave. Twice yearly O TANESCO
until alien species encroachment under control
Aquatic alien invasive species in the Kakono reservoir and downstream. F, O TANESCO
Biannual
Fauna Presence of elephants (numbers, frequency, areas visited) and human- C, O, F TANESCO
wildlife conflict – to determine the need for control measures (e.g.
fencing) and other mitigation
Social

Parameter Description Phase* Responsibility

RAP implementation External monitoring of RAP implementation. Duration of 3 years from C TANESCO
the RAP implementation starts until three years after payment of
compensations. Performed by an Independent RAP consultant
Community Health Implementation of Community Health Management by the EPC C TANESCO
Contractor
Evolution of the prevalence of malaria and schistosomiasis by O TANESCO
consulting the records at local health centres located in the
communities near the reservoir. Monthly
Monitor presence of nails (genera Bulinus and Biomphalaria) carrying O TANESCO
schistosomiasis in the Kakono reservoir and slackwaters of the Kagera
River 10 km downstream from the proposed dam. Monthly
Monitor implementation of the Influx Management Strategy actions by C TANESCO
the EPC Contractor
Informal settlements Monitor TL wayleave to check on the absence of structures. Regular O TANESCO
monitoring, patrolling
Agriculture Monitor effectiveness of agricultural enhancement initiatives proposed O TANESCO
to flood recession farmers will be monitored. Twice yearly
Fisheries Monitor implementation of the Fishery Management Plan by Missenyi O TANESCO
District Fisheries Office
Monitor fishing activities downstream of the dam, to confirm the O TANESCO
predictions of the ESIA or undertake corrective measures if a change
against the baseline is detected and is caused by the project operation.
* C=Construction, F=Reservoir Filling, O=Operation
1.12 Public Consultations and Public Disclosure

Previous Stakeholder Engagement: The Project has conducted a number of stakeholder engagement
activities from 2013 to 2022: (i) Public hearings in the lower Kagera valley were conducted as part of the
2016 EIA, (ii) Focus groups, key informant interviews and households interviews were conducted as part of
the socioeconomic surveys for the 2022 ESIA from March to October 2020, (iii) Public information meetings
were conducted in February 2022 to discuss the findings of the 2022 ESIA study and the proposed
mitigation measures. Prior to the public meetings in February 2022, the draft version of the present 2022
ESIA had been disclosed on TANESCO website in December 2021.
Comments from Communities: Overall, there is a broad community consent in favour of the Project's
implementation. Persons affected by loss of land and/or loss of houses are aware of the Kakono Project
and are knowledgeable about the legal compensation process for land acquisition. Delays in payment since
the 2018 valuation has been the main issue raised by affected persons. Other issues raised by the
participants in February 2022 included: (i) Job opportunities for local villagers during construction and
operation; Priority given to RAP-affected persons for construction jobs; Local recruitment process and how
it would maximize the chances for local villagers to be employed; Supply chain during construction and
opportunities for local businesses; (ii) Community Investment Plan: What facilities or initiatives would be
financed through the Community Investment Plan; How would be allocated the Community Investment Plan
budget between the various affected communities; Timing for needs assessment and implementation; and
(iii) Human-Elephant conflicts: Cumulative effect with sugar cane plantation extension; Mitigation measures
taken by the Project.
Future Activities: Throughout the Project’s construction and operations phase, TANESCO will ensure that
stakeholders are well informed about the construction, reservoir filling and later, the operational activities.
Stakeholders will have the opportunity to express their opinion about the Project and about TANESCO,
including raising issues and complaints. The delivery of information will meet all applicable legal
requirements and will comply with the Lenders policies in terms of transparency, disclosure and grievance
mechanisms. To facilitate this, the Project will implement a grievance mechanism that will allow affected
people and other stakeholders to express their grievances or comments to the Project, with the aim of
finding an amicable solution to resolve the grievances. During construction, the EPC Contractor will also
conduct dedicated meetings to further explain local recruitment procedures, traffic management, and
important construction activities. Given the transboundary issues, the Project’s stakeholder engagement
program will also include consultation with the Ugandan authorities, as well as the Lake Victoria River Basin
Commission from the East Africa Commission.

1.13 ESMMP
The EPC Contract will develop and implement a Construction ESMP which defines the organisational and
technical provisions under responsibility of the EPC Contractor. The CESMP will comprise of three parts: Part
1- Environmental and Social Organisation; Part 2- Environmental and Social Protection; Part 3-
Environmental and Social Procedures. The Components of the ESMP to be implemented by TANESCO are
presented in the following table.
Plan Component Construction Operation per year
52 months First 3 years >3 years

Environmental ESMS 1.- System Development $- $- $-
and Social
ESMS 2.- System implementation $ 336,000 $ 156,000 $ 78,000
Management
System ESMS 3.- Environmental and Social Technical Assistance $ 1,714,000 $ 99,000 $ -
Management of MCP 1.- Screening $ 150,000 $- $-
Change MCP 2.- Assessment and approvals $ 300,000 $- $-
Procedure
MCP 3.- Public disclosure $ 25,000 $- $-
Detailed Design SURV 1.- Design of the fishpass and fish-friendly turbine $- $-
and E&S alternatives $ 3,500,000
Surveillance of SURV 2.- Review of detailed design in line with E&S considerations $- $- $-
Construction
Works SURV 3.- Environmental supervision of construction methods $- $- $-
Resettlement RAP 1 – Valuation report and payment of compensation $ 1,211,000 $- $-
Action Plan RAP 2 - Relocation, rehousing and livelihood restoration $ 435,000 $ 65,000 $-
RAP 3 – Monitoring and evaluation $ 127,000 $ 22,000 $-
Community CHS 1.- Construction Health & Safety $ 150,000 $ - $-
Health and CHS 2.- Community health and safety around and downstream of
Safety the reservoir $ 500,000 $ 400,000 $ 50,000
CHS 3.- Emergency Preparedness Plan $ 250,000 $ 50,000 $ 25,000
Influx INF1.- Planning and Monitoring $ 50,000 $ 25,000 $-
Management INF2.- Anticipating and managing Project-induced In-migration $- $- $-
INF3.- Addressing potential negative impacts $ 500,000 $ 50,000 $ 25,000
Community CIP 1.- Community Development Assessment $ 150,000 $- $-
Investment CIP 2.- Governance and Planning $ 50,000 $- $-
CIP 3.- Delivering community investment $ 1,440,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 250,000
Reservoir RZF 1.- Reservoir zoning $ 50,000 $ 25,000 $ -
Zoning &
Fisheries RZF 2.- Reservoir fisheries management $ 75,000 $ 75,000 $ 25,000
Alien Invasive AIS 1.- Aquatic weed management $ 250,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000
Species AIS 2.- Alien fish management $ 25,000 $ 50,000 $ 25,000
Biodiversity BAP 1.- Wildlife Management and Control $ 200,000 $ 60,000 $ 60,000
Action Plan BAP 2.- Biodiversity Compensation Strategy $ 1,200,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 500,000
BAP 3.- Additional Conservation Actions $ 925,000 $ 375,000 $ 75,000
Environmental EFMP 1.- Operating Procedures and Adaptative Management $ 50,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000
Flow EFMP 2.- Minimum flow during Reservoir filling or Maintenance $- $- $-
Management
EFMP 3.- Fishway Management $ 200,000 $ 50,000 $ 25,000
EFMP 4.- Sediment Management $ 100,000 $ 50,000 $ 25,000
EFMP 5.- Engagement with neighbouring countries $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000
Stakeholder SEP 1.- Community mobilisation and engagement $ 50,000 $ 25,000 $-
Engagement SEP 2.- Grievance Mechanism $ 50,000 $ 25,000 $-
SEP 3.- Engagement with NGOs and national level stakeholders $ 50,000 $ 25,000 $ -
SEP 4.- Disclosure and reporting $ 50,000 $ 25,000 $-
Monitoring MON 1.- Hydrology, Environmental Flow and Water Quality $ 200,000 $ 50,000 $ 25,000
MON 2.- Reservoir and River Geomorphology and Sediment $ 200,000 $ 150,000 $ 50,000
MON 3.- Reservoir Greenhouse Gas Emissions Monitoring $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ -
MON 4.- River habitat, Fish & Aquatic invertebrates $ 160,000 $ 60,000 $ 60,000
MON 5.- Bird Monitoring for Transmission Line Operation $ - $ 25,000 $ 25,000
MON 6.- Land use and Revegetation Progress $ 100,000 $ 50,000 $ 25,000
MON 7.- Fishery Activity $ 100,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000
MON 8.- Socioeconomic Households $ 100,000 $ 25,000 $-
MON 9.- Project-induced in-migration and local inflation $ 75,000 $ 25,000 $-
MON 10.- Reporting and public disclosure $ 75,000 $ 25,000 $-
TOTAL
$ 15,448,000 $ 4,487,000 $ 1,523,000

1.14 Conclusion
This ESIA identifies the main project's key environmental and social challenges, which are principally related
to the impact on fish and ecological continuity of the Kagera River which has been assessed as Critical
Habitat because of the presence of 14 fish species that meet the IFC performance standard thresholds
under Criterion 1 (Critically Endangered/Endangered); Criterion 2 (Restricted Range) and Criterion 3
(Migratory / Congregatory).
The installation of a fish pass via the Kakono stream is recommended to mitigate the barrier effect on
upstream migration by migratory fish species and to facilitate gene flow. However, there is no effective
mitigation for downstream fish migration or for impacts on the restricted range Enteromius barbs (although
they have recently been confirmed to occur in other parts of the middle-lower Kagera Basin outside the
Project AoI). In addition, the risk posed by introduction of Nile perch to the reservoir on indigenous species
is likely to be difficult to control as there is a real demand for fresh fish in the region, most of which is trucked
from Lake Victoria. The viability of developing aquaculture based on indigenous fish such as Labeo
victorianus is recommended as an alternative to introducing alien species. Management of this aspect will
require commitment by district and local stakeholders and routine monitoring of reservoir fish. Sediment
management will also be required to minimize the long-term effects on downstream erosion.
Impacts on the physical and social environment and the impacts related to construction activities;
emissions, noise pollution, accidental pollution, etc are expected. However, all these impacts can be
mitigated by implementing the appropriate measures contained in the ESMMP and the RAP. A total of 85
households are affected by economic displacement and which 8 households (affected by the transmission
line) will be physically displaced.
1.15 References and Contacts

The main references that have informed this ESIA Executive Summary are:
• SLR (2022), Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) for the Proposed 87.8 MW Kakono
Hydro Power Plant and Associated 220 kV Transmission Line to the Existing Kyaka Substation (38.5
km)
• SLR (2022), Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) for the Proposed 87.8 MW Kakono Hydro Power Plant
and Associated 220 kV Transmission Line to the Existing Kyaka Substation (38.5 km)
• Studio Pietrangeli (2019), Kakono Hydropower Plant and Transmission Line, Phase 2 – Basic design
• Missenyi District Valuers (2018), Valuation Report for Compensation of Affected Properties and
Farms on the Proposed Kakono Hydro Power Project in Kagera Region.
The main Contacts for further information are:

• Managing Director TANESCO - P. O. Box 453 Dodoma, Tanzania - Tel: +255 0262323456/7
• www.tanesco.co.tz
• Email: [email protected]

End of this Section
2 Introduction
Contents
2.1 Background ............................................................................. 2-1
2.2 Administrative Boundaries .................................................... 2-3
2.3 TANESCO is the Project Developer ....................................... 2-3
2.4 Project’s Development Status and Key Dates ..................... 2-5
2.5 Project’s Investment Costs .................................................... 2-5
2.6 ESIA Process ........................................................................... 2-5

Previous ESIA Process and Permitting ....................................................................................................................... 2-5
ESIA Area of Analysis .................................................................................................................................................... 2-6
One ESIA for all Project’s components ....................................................................................................................... 2-9
2.7 Organization of the ESIA Report ........................................... 2-9
2.8 Approach and Methodology ............................................... 2-10

ESIA Study Team ......................................................................................................................................................... 2-10
Phases .......................................................................................................................................................................... 2-11
Establishing the Baseline Situation .......................................................................................................................... 2-11
Use of Geographic and Topographic Information ................................................................................................... 2-11
Field Surveys ............................................................................................................................................................... 2-12
Impact Assessment .................................................................................................................................................... 2-12
Structure of the Impact Assessment Chapter ......................................................................................................... 2-14
Environmental Flows Assessment (EFA) ................................................................................................................. 2-14
Public Consultation Meetings .................................................................................................................................... 2-15
Annex 2-1 – References
Disclosure Authorized - Kakono HPP_ESIA_Section 2_INTRO_June 2022 Page a

List of Tables
Table 2.1 - Administrative boundaries and location of permanent facilities ......................................................................... 2-3
Table 2.2 - Project’s Investment Costs as Estimated in 2019 ................................................................................................. 2-5
Table 2.3 - Team of Experts for the ESIA Study ...................................................................................................................... 2-10
List of Figures
Figure 2-1 - Project Location ....................................................................................................................................................... 2-2
Figure 2-2 - Project Layout and Spatial Boundaries ................................................................................................................. 2-4
Figure 2-3 - ESIA Area of Analysis ............................................................................................................................................... 2-8
Disclosure Authorized - Kakono HPP_ESIA_Section 2_INTRO_June 2022 Page b

2.1 Background
TANESCO plans to develop the 87.8 MW Kakono Hydropower Project (HPP) on the Kagera River and to
construct a 38.5 km long 220 kV Transmission Line (TL) from the planned Kakono hydropower plant to the
132 kV/33 kV Kyaka substation in Missenyi District (See Figure 2-1). The overall project objective is to
provide stability of power supply in the Lake Victoria Zone and to supply electric power to the national grid.
The Kakono dam is located in Kagera Region in the North-western corner of Tanzania near the border with
Uganda, approximately 90 km west of Bukoba Municipality. The dam is planned to be a 61 m high concrete
gravity dam, with a 1,259 m long embankment section on the right abutment and a 124 m long
embankment section on the left abutment. The proposed powerhouse is at the foot of the dam. The dam
will create a reservoir with a volume of 150 MCM and a footprint of 17 km² at full supply level. It will extend
about 35 km upstream from the dam.
An Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) study for the Kakono Hydropower Plant and for the
Transmission Line was prepared for TANESCO between 2013 and 2016. The final version for the two reports
was issued in 2016 (Norplan, 2016a). The ESIAs were submitted to the National Environment Management
Council (NEMC) and the environmental permit issued in December 2016 with the conditions of implementing
the environmental management plans during operation. TANESCO updated the ESIA in 2017 (TANESCO,
2017a) and prepared a Resettlement Action Plan RAP) (TANESCO, 2017b). These 2017 documents were not
submitted to NEMC.
The French Agency for Development (AFD), the African Development Bank (AfDB) have expressed interest
to finance the construction of the proposed hydropower plant and Transmission Line components of the
Project. Both institutions currently support financially and technically the Government of Tanzania through
TANESCO. To ensure compliance with their Environmental and Social (E&S) policies, the potential Lenders
have recommended that complementary environmental and social studies be undertaken to supplement
the existing 2014/2017 ESIA/RAP studies.
The revised ESIA - referred as the 2022 ESIA in this report - will also be used by the Project to conform to
NEMC requirements through the submission of the update of (i) the Baseline Environmental chapter, (ii) the
Legal Framework Chapter and (iii) the Environmental and Social Management and Monitoring Plan
Assessment. In 2019, the AFD commissioned SLR Consulting associated to MTL Consulting to perform the
environmental and social investigations required to prepare the 2022 ESIA.
Since the environmental permit has been awarded in 2016 by NEMC, the Project was further developed at
the Basic Design Stage in 2019 by Studio Pietrangeli (Studio Pietrangeli, 2019). One of the changes brought
by the 2019 Basic Design is the operation regime: The Kakono HPP will operate as a large reservoir run-of-
river scheme.
The present document is the 2022 ESIA report. The report provides detailed information regarding the
environmental and social issues associated with the Project and the measures to avoid, minimise, control
and mitigate impacts that will be implemented.
Disclosure Authorized - Kakono HPP_ESIA_Section 2_INTRO_June 2022 page 2-1

Environmental & Social Impact Assessment Report (ESIA) for the Proposed 87 MW Kakono Hydropower Project and Associated 220kV Transmission Line

2.2 Administrative Boundaries
Figure 2-2 next page illustrates the footprint of the Project’s permanent facilities. All permanent facilities
are in the Kagera region although different components fall within three districts. Table 2.1 below provides
the administrative location of the project facilities.
Temporary facilities will also be required for the construction period only. These are:
• Construction camp(s);
• Access road(s);
• Cofferdams, river diversion channel;
• Disposal areas;
• Quarries and borrow pits.
Table 2.1 - Administrative boundaries and location of permanent facilities

Project Project Footprint Kagera River Bank District Ward % of Project Footprint
Component Within the Ward
Dam Site 579 ha Left bank Missenyi Kakunyu 51%
Right bank Karagwe Kihanga 49%
Reservoir 1,703 ha Left bank Missenyi Kakunyu 55%
35 km of Kagera Right bank Kyerwa Businde 34%
river Karagwe Kihanga 11%
Transmission 38.5 km long, Right bank Missenyi Kyaka 17%
Line 35 m wide Karagwe Kihanga 83%
Dam Access 30 km long, Right bank Missenyi Kyaka 3%
Road 6 m wide Karagwe Kihanga 97%
The location of the temporary facilities will be the decision of the Engineering, Procurement, Construction
Contractor (EPC Contractor). The main construction camp is likely to be located close to the dam site, i.e.
within the Kihanga Ward. If there is a construction camp for the Transmission Line, it will be within the
Kihanga Ward and/or the Kyaka Ward.
2.3 TANESCO is the Project Developer
Tanzania Electric Supply Company Limited (TANESCO) is the Project Developer.

TANESCO is a Parastatal organization established by Memorandum and Articles of Association incorporated
on 26 November 1931. The Company generates, purchases, transmits, distributes and sells electricity to
users on Tanzania Mainland with an estimated population of 50 million. It also sells bulk power to the
Zanzibar Electricity Corporation (ZECO), which in turn sells it to the public on the islands of Unguja and
Pemba. TANESCO owns most of the electricity generating, transmitting and distributing facilities in Tanzania
Mainland with an estimated population of 50 million people.
In undertaking its core functions, TANESCO is guided by the National Energy Policy of 2003 and Electricity
Act of 2008. TANESCO Ltd functions under the regulatory guidance of the Energy and Water Utilities
Regulatory Authority (EWURA) established by the EWURA Act of 2001.
EWURA is mandated to oversee and regulate the operations of Tanzania’s energy and water utilities. EWURA
has granted TANESCO with the Electricity Generation Licence n°EGL-2013-001 which is valid for 20 years
from 2013 to 2033 for Tanzania Mainland. This licence gives TANESCO the right to develop and operate the
Project.

Figure 2-2 - Project Layout and Spatial Boundaries

2.4 Project’s Development Status and Key Dates
In 2022, when the present ESIA was issued, the Project construction had not started yet. The EPC Contractor
was yet to be selected, and the detailed design was yet to be undertaken.
At the time of writing, key project development dates were as follows:
• 2022: environmental clearance from NEMC and agreement with the potential Lenders on the
international financing for the Project, including on the environmental and social covenants based
on the commitments of the present 2022 ESIA
• 2023: Selection and contracting of the EPC Contractor, start of the detailed design preparation.
• 2024: Start of the main construction period.
• 2028: Reservoir filling, commissioning of the Kakono HPP, start of operation.
2.5 Project’s Investment Costs
The Project’s investment cost as estimated in 2019 in the Basic Design (Studio Pietrangeli, 2019) is of 287.6
million USD. Table 2.2 below provides a breakdown of cost by construction item. Of note, the Design Team
did not consider the following potential costs in the estimate of the construction cost: land acquisition, local
taxes and import duties, supervision and administration, financial costs.
Table 2.2 - Project’s Investment Costs as Estimated in 2019

Description Cost in million USD
Infrastructure and Camps 14.6

Civil Works 147.2
Hydraulic Steel Structures 10.4
Mechanical Supply 16
Electrical Supply 35.6
220 kV Transmission Line 6.5
Access Road 9.7
Environmental & Social Management 21.2
Contingencies 21
Engineering, legal, Management 15.1
TOTAL for Project Investment Costs 297.3
2.6 ESIA Process
Previous ESIA Process and Permitting
The 2016 ESIA was based on the 2014 Design
An ESIA study for the Kakono HPP and an ESIA for the Transmission Line were prepared between 2014 and
2016 (Norplan, 2016a). The ESIAs, collectively referred to as the 2016 ESIA, were submitted to NEMC and
an environmental permit was issued in December 2016 with the conditions of implementing the
environmental management plans during operation.
The French Agency for Development (AFD), the African Development Bank (AfDB), Norway and the European
Union (EU) have expressed interest to finance the construction of the proposed hydropower plant and
Transmission Line components of the Project. To ensure compliance with their Environmental and Social
(E&S) policies, the potential Lenders have recommended that complementary environmental and social
studies be undertaken to supplement the existing 2016 ESIA.

The complementary E&S studies will also be used by the Project to obtain an update of the existing
Environmental Permit from NEMC through the submission of a new ESIA referred as the 2022 ESIA in this
report. The AFD and TANESCO commissioned SLR Consulting, associated to MTL Consulting, to perform the
environmental and social investigations required to prepare the 2022 ESIA. The 2016 ESIA examined the
impacts of a Project designed by Norplan in 2014 (Norplan, 2014c) at the Feasibility stage. Since the
issuance of the environmental permit by NEMC in 2016, the Project design has been further developed at
the Basic Design Stage in 2019 by Studio Pietrangeli (Studio Pietrangeli, 2019).
The 2022 ESIA is Based on the 2019 Design
The design and operation changes brought by the 2019 Basic Design compared to the 2014 Feasibility
Design are:
• For the civil works:
- Replacing Zoned Earthfill Dam with modern Concrete Face Rockfill dam;
- Improving the plastic cut-off below the rockfill dam;
- Replacing the conventional concrete dam with roller compacted concrete (RCC);
- Separating the powerhouse from the dam body with a structural joint;
- Increasing spillway design flood.
• For the electro-mechanical equipment:

- Optimisation of the turbine layout with a revised submergence and draft tube shaping;
- Black start capabilities of the power plant, to enable Kakono HPP to play a key role in the event
of re-energization of the national grid following major black-outs;
- Optimisation of the DC voltage level, i.e. 110 V instead of 220 V, more suitable (and cheaper) in
respect to loads and extension of the powerplant;
- Upgrading of the transmission system voltage level from 132 kV to 220 kV;
- Improved conductor selection based on a technical-economic assessment tailored to the
required evacuation capability of the 220 kV overhead line to Kyaka, harmonised to TANESCO’s
current practice.
• For the operation mode:

- The 2014 Feasibility Design and the 2019 Basic Design are both for run-of-river schemes (i.e.,
powerhouse outflow rate is equal to the reservoir inflow rate). The Project examined the
possibility to operate the reservoir with peaking power releases (e.g., morning and evening).
This operating mode would have caused sudden sub-daily increases and decreases of river
water level at certain periods of the year. The 2022 Environmental and Social studies
demonstrated that hydropeaking impacts on fish and downstream aquatic habitats would be
significant. As a result, TANESCO has unequivocally decided and committed to not operate the
Kakono HPP as a peaking power plant.
The above changes in design and operation do not modify the assumptions on which the 2016
environmental permit was awarded, except for the following aspects: the 27 m wide wayleave required by
the 132 kV Transmission Line (2014 Design) is narrower than the 35 m wide wayleave required for the
220 kV Transmission Line (2019 Design). This will have implications on the land acquisition process, as
additional households might be affected by loss of land or loss of access to land, and more households may
be more affected than initially planned.
ESIA Area of Analysis
The ESIA area of analysis is made of:

• the direct footprint of the project facilities, namely:
- the reservoir area at full supply level;
- the dam site and other permanent facilities (powerhouse, switchyard, permanent camp) as well
as the temporary required for the construction periods (quarry, disposal areas, camp);

- the Transmission Line wayleave from dam to the existing Kyaka sub-station; and
- the access roads.
• the upstream area of influence, namely the above referred direct footprint of the project facilities
and:
- for ecological aspects, the Kagera River from the upper part of the reservoir to the Nsongezi
waterfalls located circa. 15 km upstream of the upper part of the Kakono reservoir; and
- for social aspects, the wards along the reservoir area: Kihanga Ward (Karagwe District),
Businde Ward (Kyerwa District) and Kakunyu ward (Missenyi District).
• the downstream area of influence. The powerhouse of the Kakono HPP will be located at the basis
of the dam. There will be no dewatered river reach: the tailrace outlet will discharge the turbined
waters immediately downstream of the dam. The changes in hydrology will occur at 2 typical
periods: (i) During the reservoir filling, when part of the river discharge will be stored into the
reservoir. The Kagera river flow rate downstream of the dam would then be reduced by as much;
and (iii) During sediment flushing operations, the frequency and duration of which are yet to be
defined by the Design Team, the reservoir could be lowered and generate downstream river flows
will high concentration of suspended solids. For these types of flow alteration, the changes in river
flow will be attenuated with distance downstream from the Kakono dam due to routing effects and
contribution from downstream tributaries. In addition of these flow alterations, the proposed dam-
reservoir is predicted to trap part of the river’s sediment load, causing reduced sediment load
downstream. This may lead to bed erosion and bed coarsening downstream of the dam. The
maximum downstream extent of influence related to alterations in river flow would be the river
mouth in the Lake Victoria located 250 km downstream of the dam. The likely downstream extent
of influence related to alterations in river flow will be estimated through hydraulic modelling along
the first 60 km, for which topographical and bathymetry data are available. Under these
assumptions, the downstream area of influence is made of the above referred direct footprint of
the project facilities and:
- for ecological aspects, the Kagera River from the proposed Kakono dam down to the
confluence with the Mwisa River ~55 km downstream of the dam; and
- for social aspects, the wards along the Kagera River down to Kyaka, and the wards along the
Transmission Line wayleave and the proposed access road: in the Missenyi District, Kyaka ward,
Kakunyu ward, Nsunga ward and Kassambaya ward; and in the Karagwe District, Kihanga ward.
• The cumulative impact assessment area of analysis, made of the above referred direct project
footprint and upstream/downstream areas of influence, and the lower Kagera River from the
existing Rusumo Falls HPP to the Kagera River mouth in the Lake Victoria.
Figure 2-3 next page illustrates the extent of the ESIA Area of Analysis.

Figure 2-3 - ESIA Area of Analysis

One ESIA for all Project’s components
The Transmission Line, like the access road, the dam facilities and the reservoir, is an integral part of the
Project definition. All project facilities defined in this 2022 ESIA (See Section 3) will be developed and
operated by TANESCO. Likewise, all project facilities will be financed by the potential international Lenders
as a single project.
As a result, the Lenders have required that the 2022 ESIA covers all project facilities (hydropower facilities,
Transmission Line, access road) into one ESIA report.
This is because there will be interactions between all project components and that the impact assessment
must consider all impact-producing factors on habitats and receptors to provide a consistent and robust
analysis of the actual effects of the Project.
2.7 Organization of the ESIA Report
This 2022 ESIA report is organized into 10 Sections:

• Section 1, Executive Summary;
• Section 2, ‘Introduction’ provides the Project’s context, the status of the Project and the ESIA
process, and describes the methodology followed by the ESIA team;
• Section 3, ‘Project Description’, describes and maps project components including the dam and
associated facilities, the reservoir, the access roads, the Transmission Line and the substations.
This Section 3 also presents the temporary facilities required for the construction period only, as
well as the planned reservoir operating modes;
• Section 4, ‘Legal Framework’ lists and comments on the legal texts to be taken into consideration
for the environmental and social management of the Project;
• Section 5, ‘Environmental and Social baseline’, documents the physical and ecological resources,
and human and economic context, in the area potentially affected and influenced by the Project;
• Section 6, ‘Stakeholder Engagement’ describes the stakeholder engagement activities undertaken
during the 2016 ESIA process, completed by the 2022 ESIA process;
• Section 7, ‘Environmental and Social Impact Assessment and Mitigation Measures’ examines the
potential effects of the Project on the human and natural environment in detail, both on a short-
term and long-term basis, and proposes corrective actions aiming to eliminate, reduce or offset
any probable negative impacts, with a reservoir operated as a run-of-river scheme.
• Section 8 is the ‘Alternatives Analysis’ chapter, where alternative technologies, locations, designs
or operation modes are compared to the technical solution selected by TANESCO.
• Section 9 is the ‘Cost-Benefit Analysis chapter’
• Section 10 is the ‘Decommissioning’ chapter, where the timeframe, options, environmental and
social management relating to the decommission of the hydropower facilities and the transmission
line are described.
• Section 11 is the Environmental and Social Management and Monitoring Plan. It describes the
management actions required to implement the mitigation and compensation measures
recommended in Section 7 of the 2022 ESIA. This chapter particularly specifies the responsibilities,
timeframe and budget of the project’s commitments.
• Section 12 is the Conclusion of the 2022 ESIA.

2.8 Approach and Methodology
ESIA Study Team
SLR Consulting associated to MTL Consulting (Tanzania) were commissioned by the Lenders on behalf of
TANESCO to undertake the 2022 ESIA process for the Kakono Hydropower Project. The SLR Lead Team were
registered by NEMC in August 2020. The ESIA Lead Team were assisted by several specialists (see Table
2.3) to cover all areas of expertise required to address the social, ecological and environmental issues raised
by the construction and operation of the Kakono HPP.
Table 2.3 - Team of Experts for the ESIA Study

Name Role Firm
ESIA Lead Team
Dominique Buffin Team Leader SLR
Delphinus Kaballega National EIA - Local Coordination MTL
Jessica Hughes Biodiversity Lead SLR
Clément Repussard Social Lead SLR
Nicholas Bukowski Water Lead SLR
Tristan Rota GIS and Data Management SLR
Ecology Team
Bruce Paxton Fish Ecology Expert FRC
Benaiah Benno Fish Specialist MTL
Mathew Ross Fish Pass Specialist EnviRoss
Rob Palmer Invertebrate Ecology Lead NEPID
Charles Ezekiel Invertebrate Specialist MTL
Denis Tweddle Fish taxonomist SAIAB
Warren McCleland Terrestrial Ecology including Botany SLR
Duncan McKenzie Bird and Mammals Specialist Ecorex
Deogratius Lorri Field Biodiversity Specialist MTL
Social Team
Lauriane Gay Social Impact Assessment SLR
Nyamambara Songorwa Field Social Specialist and Stakeholder Engagement MTL
Clement Repussard Resettlement Action Plan SLR
Lucile Seguin Livelihood Restoration Plan SLR
Mwanahamisi A. Salehe Fisheries Specialist MTL
Water Team
Nicholas Bukowski Water Quality and Climate Change SLR
Michael McClain Environmental Flow Assessment IHE Delft
Bennie van der Waal Sediment and River Morphology SLR
Nicholaus Huchzermeyer Field River Morphology SLR
Marcelo Leite Hydropower and Hydrology Stucky
Emeline Calixte Hydraulic Modeling Stucky
Marina Launay Solid Transport Stucky
Ana Quaresma Climate Change Modelling MHYD
Pedro Manso Climate Change and Hydropower MHYD
Peer Reviewer
Japhet J. Kashaigili Review of the Environmental Flow Assessment SUA
Alex Pfeiffer Review of the ESIA SLR
Public Consultation Meetings Team
Graham F. Maeda Social Scientist MTL
Lucile Seguin Livelihood Restoration Specialist SLR
Grace Ngowi Social Scientist MTL
Baraka Bururyo Facilitator SLR
Mataba Majura Facilitator SLR

Phases
The assessment was organised in six overlapping phases:

• From December 2019 to June 2020: Scoping Phase, including the first field reconnaissance to
establish the study area for the baseline field surveys and meet the stakeholders.
• From March 2020 to October 2020: Environmental and Social Baseline field surveys. This period
was affected by the travel restrictions relating to the Covid Pandemic.
• From November 2020 to May 2021: Impact assessment, environmental flow assessment and
drafting of the main chapters of the 2022 ESIA.
• TANESCO and the Lenders reviewed, discussed and agreed on the main environmental and social
mitigation and compensation measures from July to October 2021.
• The stakeholder engagement meetings were organized in February 2022.
• The 2022 ESIA report and the 2022 Resettlement Action Plan were finalized taking into account
the comments from the stakeholders engaged in February 2022.
Establishing the Baseline Situation
Different methods were used depending on the environmental or social component to be documented.
These methods range from the use of existing published data to detailed field inventories led by SLR and
MTL. The following paragraphs justify and describe these methods. The sections of the 2022 ESIA report
dedicated to the detailed assessment of components provide more information on the specific
methodology applied for each inventory (e.g.: location of the observation or sampling stations).
Summary of existing information
The summary of existing information plays three roles:

• Benefit from studies and investigations carried about by other programmes in the past in order to
optimise and focus the resources of the 2022 ESIA Team on as yet unknown factors.
• Prepare for detailed field investigations by selecting the geographic areas and habitats to be
inspected as a priority.
• Establish the baseline situation for environmental or social components which, according to initial
analysis, should be little affected by the Project. No detailed inventory was carried out for these
components.
Annex 1 of Section 5 (Baseline Data) lists the bibliographical references consulted and used for summarising
existing information focusing on the areas affected by the Kakono Project. Generally, useful literature is
available at regional level; on the other hand, little literature exists at local level.
Use of Geographic and Topographic Information
The Baseline study area is covered by 5 sources of geographic information:

• Google Earth imagery dated 2016; 2017 and 2020 according to the area. The resolution is in the
order of 1 m and was used by the ESIA team to organize the field work and undertakes basic maps.
• Most recent EOS Land Viewer Satellite imagery (e.g. Sentinel-2 satellite) which provide daily images
of the project area but with a low resolution (10-50 m)
• LIDAR topographic data from a survey undertaken in 2009-10 for Kagera Sugar Company for their
irrigation development project.
• Drone images taken by SLR experts while in the field.
These images could be used to clearly distinguish land cover, including housing, and, depending on the
period of acquisition, farming land. These images were used to create land cover maps, vegetation maps,
and determine the position of constructions as observed when the images were taken.

SLR also carried out a bathymetric survey and a sediment particle size characterisation campaign within the
Kagera River reach affected by the project operation.
All of the information collected was geo-referenced and entered in the Geographic Information System (GIS)
established by SLR. ArcGis version 10.5.1 developed and published by ESRI is used for this purpose. The GIS
was used to locate the topical information contributed by each of the experts with regards the layout of
existing infrastructure/environment and future project facilities. It was also used to produce the maps
included in this report and, in this respect, represents a component of the pre-Project baseline
documentation.
Field Surveys
The following surveys were carried out to characterise the species and habitats in the areas affected by the
Project - See Section 5 for detailed methodology:
• Three field surveys were undertaken from 2020 to 2022 to obtain aquatic ecology data:
- February 2020: The first survey Primary data were collected during a field survey undertaken
from 21 to 28 February 2020 (macroinvertebrates -7 field survey days), and 21 February to 01
March 2020 (fish -11 field survey days). Data collected included field water quality, diatoms,
aquatic macroinvertebrates, and fish.
- October 2020: A second primary data collection survey was undertaken from 16 to 25 October
2020 for fish only (8 field days) for the purposes of ascertaining seasonal trends in species
distribution in the affected river reaches.
- February-March 2022: A third fish survey was undertaken from 27 Feb to 7 March 2022
(9 days) to confirm the presence of undescribed restricted range Enteromius barb species in
locations outside the Project Area of Influence. Sampling was done using electrofishing and
representative fish specimens were exported for further taxonomic identification at the South
African Institute for Aquatic Biodiversity (SAIAB) and eDNA barcoding for comparison with
filtered water samples from survey sites.
• Primary data on vegetation, birds and mammals were collected during a field survey undertaken at
the start of the wet season (short rains) from 22 October to 7 November 2020.
• Common fauna and flora species were identified by experts directly during their field mission.
Some fish species (barbs) caught between the site just upstream of the proposed Kakono HPP and
the Ngono-Kagera confluence that could not be identified in the field, were submitted to the South
African Institute of Aquatic Biodiversity (SAIAB) for investigation where they were confirmed as a
possible new species (Tweddle, D. pers. comm).
• One field survey was undertaken in October 2020 to obtain primary data on the Kagera river banks
morphological features and its sediment composition within the Project area.
• Water quality sampling from the Kagera River and from water boreholes used by the local
population along the Kagera River close to Kyaka were collected and analysed in October 2020 to
complement the survey undertaken in 2013 and 2014 by NORPLAN.
• Various socio-economic surveys were carried out in 2020 (March, July, August, October), at
household level as well as community level, aiming to characterise lifestyles, household structures,
associations, local decision-making procedures, land tenure, access to property, community health
and other key factors in understanding the social and economic issues relating to the launch of the
Project in the study area, and to document the Resettlement Action Plan.
Impact Assessment
The impact assessment process applied in the 2022 ESIA involves:

• Identifying and characterising impacts and their effects;
• Incorporating measures to avoid and mitigate negative impacts and effects;
• Assessing the significance of any residual effects after mitigation;
• Identifying appropriate compensation measures to compensate significant residual effects.

The assessment includes potential impacts on each physical environment, ecological and social feature
determined as important in the screening stage (see Section 7) from all phases of the project, e.g.
construction, operation and decommissioning. Impacts are characterised, through consideration of their
magnitude and/or extent, the route through which they occur (whether direct, indirect, secondary or
cumulative) and their duration and their reversibility. Positive impacts have been assessed as well as
negative ones.
The assessment of impacts took into account the baseline conditions to allow:
• A description of how the baseline conditions will change as a result of the project and associated
activities
• The identification of cumulative impacts arising from the proposal and other relevant
developments.
The significant effects were assessed in the context of the predicted baseline conditions within the area of
influence during the lifetime of the development. Liaison between the various disciplines (hydrology,
sediment, ecology, social, engineers) enabled more robust predictions for project-related bio-physical
changes and assessment of their ecological and social implications.
There could be any number of possible impacts on important hydrological, ecological or social features
arising from the proposed Kakono HPP development. However, it is only necessary to describe in detail the
impacts that are likely to be significant. Impacts that are either unlikely to occur, or if they did occur are
unlikely to be significant, have been scoped out during the scoping stage (See Section 7). For transparency,
justification for scoping out any environmental or social impact was provided. If in doubt, the potential
impact was assessed.
When describing ecological impacts and effects, reference was made to the following characteristics as
required at the end of each section of the impact assessment:
• Positive or negative change:
- Positive: A change that improves the quality of the environment e.g. by increasing species
diversity, extending habitat or improving water quality, improving livelihood or community
health. This may also include halting or slowing an existing decline in the quality of the
environment.
- Negative: A change which reduces the quality of the environment e.g. destruction of habitat,
removal of foraging habitat, habitat fragmentation, pollution - Or for social components, loss of
cultural heritage, loss of social cohesion, reduction in income or increased exposure to
diseases.
• The extent is the spatial or geographical area over which the impact/effect may occur under a
suitably representative range of conditions.
• Magnitude refers to size, amount, intensity and volume. It was quantified when possible and
expressed in absolute or relative terms e.g. the amount of habitat lost, percentage change to
habitat area, percentage decline in a species population, number of household affected, jobs to be
created.
• Duration was defined in relation to ecological or social characteristics as well as human
timeframes. For example, five years, which might seem short-term in the human context or that of
other long-lived species, would span at least five generations of some invertebrate species. The
duration of an activity may differ from the duration of the resulting effect caused by the activity.
For example, if short-term construction activities cause disturbance to fish during their breeding
period, there may be long-term implications from failure to reproduce that season.
• Frequency and timing: The number of times an activity occurs will influence the resulting effect.
The timing of an activity or change may result in an impact if it coincides with critical life-stages or
seasons e.g. bird nesting season or farming season in the floodplain.
• Reversibility: An irreversible effect is one from which recovery is not possible within a reasonable
timescale or there is no reasonable chance of action being taken to reverse it. A reversible effect is
one from which spontaneous recovery is possible or which may be counteracted by mitigation. In
some cases, the same activity can cause both reversible and irreversible effects.

Structure of the Impact Assessment Chapter
To ensure the consistent consideration of the different environmental or social issues, each sub-section of
the impact analysis (Section 7) has been broken down into an identical 5-part structure:
A Key Relevant Elements of the Baseline and Impact-Producing Factor
• Recap of key relevant elements of the baseline which inform the impact discussion and provide the
reader with context on impact discussion;
• Description of the aspects of the Project which result in an impact, and its frequency of occurrence;
B Pre-mitigation Impact Prediction
• Prediction of impact using quantitative or qualitive methodologies following source / pathway /

receptors logic.
• Definition of the area of influence (location and scale).
• Chronological information in impact occurrence: when the impact will start to be observed (timing and
project phases (construction, reservoir filling, operation)), how frequent it will occur per time unit, for
how long (duration).
• Link to knock-on effects (indirect and induced) on other environmental and social components (e.g.
hydrology to fish ecology to fisheries to livelihood).
C Proposed Mitigation and Monitoring Measures
• Conceptual description of the mitigation measures to avoid, mitigate or compensate the adverse
effect. Description of the objective, the expected result, who should implement it,
• Conceptual description of the monitoring program.
D Residual (Post-Mitigation) Impacts
Opinion on the effectiveness of the planned mitigation measures, to determine the significance of their
effects on ecological or social features, and if required the need for compensation or offset.
Environmental Flows Assessment (EFA)
A high-resolution Environmental Flows Assessment (EFA) has been undertaken in 2020-21. The main
objective of this EFA was to assess the potential adverse effects result from alternative operating modes,
including peaking regime. The EFA demonstrated that hydropeaking impacts on fish and downstream
aquatic habitats would be significant because of the sudden sub-daily increases and decreases of river
water level at certain periods of the year. Therefore, TANESCO decided and committed to not operate the
Kakono HPP as a peaking power plant, and as a consequence, the Environmental Flows Assessment report
(SLR, 2021) has not been publicly disclosed. However, part of the information produced through the 2021
EFA has been used in Section 7.3 ‘Hydrological and Geomorphological Impact Assessment’ and Section 8.3.4
‘Alternative Operation Mode: Run-of-river versus Hydropeaking’.
To provide the highest possible confidence assessment of flow needs, the EFA method selected for the
Kakono HPP was the Building Block Methodology (BBM).
The reasons for this choice are:
• It has been widely used and accepted in Tanzania;
• It is a whole-ecosystem (holistic) oriented methodology that addresses different aspects of the
entire riverine-floodplain ecosystem and incorporates both ecological and social data and
information (including traditional ecological knowledge);
• It is robust in the face of data shortages and usable with a blend of low- and high-resolution
datasets; and
• It is readily understandable not only to specialists but also to stakeholders who can usually see
how the process leads to the recommended flows and why these are felt to be necessary.

The BBM prescribes the minimum monthly river flow rates at periods of the year which are key for
maintaining the river ecosystems and ecosystem services, as well as high-flow pulses or floods of different
magnitudes and durations to meet specific ecological needs. Hydropeaking is not a factor considered in the
standard BBM method, thus the approach applied to the Kakono HPP EFA has been modified to consider
the daily variations of river flow due to hydropeaking. Outputs of the modified BBM include minimum
monthly river flow rates as well as acceptable daily variations of river flow rates at key periods of the year.
Public Consultation Meetings
The draft version of the 2022 ESIA, including the draft Resettlement Action Plan (RAP), was disclosed on
TANESCO website on 13 December 2021. The presentation of the findings of the 2022 ESIA and the
associated RAP, to the project-affected parties and the other interested parties has been undertaken in
February 2022.
Chapter 6 ‘Stakeholder Engagement’ provides the documented record of stakeholder engagement
undertaken by the Project Team from 2013 to 2022 within the Project area.

ANNEXES


IFC. (2018b). Good Practice Handbook - Environmental Flows for Hydropower Projects - Guidance for the Private Sector in
Emerging Markets.
Norplan. (2014c). Feasibility Study of Kakono Hydropower Project and Transmission Line - Final Feasibility Report - Vol.ume
I Main Report.
Norplan. (2016a). Environmental and Social Impact Assessment - Kakono Hydropower Project (87 MW) - Kagera River -
November.
SLR. (2021). Environmnetal FLows Assessment for the Kakono Hydropower Project - Final Report - Revision B - Not
published.
Studio Pietrangeli. (2019). Kakono Hydropower Plant and Transmission Line - Phase 2 Basic Design - Vol.1 Main Report
(Final). October.
TANESCO. (2017a). Environmental Impact Assessment for Kakono Hydropower Plant (87MW) in Kagera Region.
TANESCO. (2017b). Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) - Draft Report for the Proposed Kakono Hydropower Plant and the 132kV
Transmission Line Project (38.5km).
Disclosure Authorized - Kakono HPP_ESIA_Section 2_INTRO_June 2022

End of this Section
3 Project Description
Contents
3.1 Project Overview..................................................................... 3-1
3.2 Permanent Facilities .............................................................. 3-1

Dam ................................................................................................................................................................................ 3-1
Powerhouse ................................................................................................................................................................... 3-2
Switchyard ..................................................................................................................................................................... 3-2
Operator’s Offices ......................................................................................................................................................... 3-2
Reservoir ........................................................................................................................................................................ 3-8
Access Road to the Dam .............................................................................................................................................. 3-9
Transmission Line ......................................................................................................................................................... 3-9
3.3 Facilities Required for Construction Purposes Only ......... 3-11

Construction Camp ..................................................................................................................................................... 3-11
Quarry Areas ................................................................................................................................................................ 3-11
Technical Installations ................................................................................................................................................ 3-12
Spoil Disposal Areas ................................................................................................................................................... 3-12
Construction Access Roads ........................................................................................................................................ 3-13
River Diversion Works................................................................................................................................................. 3-13
3.4 Construction Activities and Reservoir Filling ..................... 3-13

Construction Contracts ............................................................................................................................................... 3-13
Construction Schedule ............................................................................................................................................... 3-13
Power Supply, Water Supply & Wastewater ........................................................................................................... 3-16
Materials Origin and Wastes ...................................................................................................................................... 3-17
Traffic ........................................................................................................................................................................... 3-18
Reservoir Clearing and Filling .................................................................................................................................... 3-18
Installation of the Transmission Line ....................................................................................................................... 3-19
Manpower Requirements .......................................................................................................................................... 3-21
3.5 Operation and Maintenance ............................................... 3-22

Annual Energy Generation ......................................................................................................................................... 3-22
Powerhouse Daily Operation ..................................................................................................................................... 3-22
Sediment Management .............................................................................................................................................. 3-22
Transmission Line Maintenance ................................................................................................................................ 3-22
3.6 Decommissioning ................................................................ 3-23

Hydropower Plant ....................................................................................................................................................... 3-23
Transmission Line ....................................................................................................................................................... 3-23
Disclosure Authorized - Kakono HPP_ESIA_Section 3_PROJECT_June 2022 Page a

3.7 Land Requirements and Land Ownership ......................... 3-24

Land Requirements .................................................................................................................................................... 3-24
Land Ownership .......................................................................................................................................................... 3-24
Disclosure Authorized - Kakono HPP_ESIA_Section 3_PROJECT_June 2022 Page b

List of Tables
Table 3.1 - Excavations required for the construction period ............................................................................................... 3-12
Table 3.2 - Estimated Construction Schedule ......................................................................................................................... 3-15
Table 3.3 - Industrial and drinking water requirements for construction purposes .......................................................... 3-16
Table 3.4 - Construction materials quantities ......................................................................................................................... 3-17
Table 3.5 - Estimate of the number of workers during the main construction period ...................................................... 3-21
Table 3.6 - Average monthly energy production and average monthly flow released by the turbines .......................... 3-22
Table 3.7 - Land Requirements for the Kakono HPP .............................................................................................................. 3-24
List of Figures
Figure 3-1 - Project Location ....................................................................................................................................................... 3-3
Figure 3-2 - General Layout of the Proposed Kakono Dam .................................................................................................... 3-4
Figure 3-3 - General Layout of the Proposed Kakono Reservoir ............................................................................................ 3-5
Figure 3-4 - Access road to the Dam .......................................................................................................................................... 3-6
Figure 3-5 - Transmission Line from Dam to Existing Kyaka Substation .............................................................................. 3-7
Figure 3-6 - Kakono Reservoir Area-Volume Curve ................................................................................................................. 3-8
Figure 3-7 - 220kV Transmission Line: Departure from dam (left) - Arrival to existing Kyaka substation (right) ......... 3-10
Figure 3-8 - 220kV Transmission Line: Towers....................................................................................................................... 3-10
Figure 3-9 - Location of Quarry Areas ...................................................................................................................................... 3-11
Figure 3-10 - Extension of the Existing Kyaka Substation for the Needs of the Kakono Project ..................................... 3-21
Disclosure Authorized - Kakono HPP_ESIA_Section 3_PROJECT_June 2022 Page c

3.1 Project Overview
The overall objective of the Project is to provide stability of power supply in the Lake Victoria Zone and to
supply electric power to the national grid. There is currently an urgent need for increased generation
capacity in northern Tanzania to meet increasing demand.
The Project is situated on the Kagera River in north western Tanzania near the border with Uganda and west
of Lake Victoria (See Figure 1.1 in Section 1). It is situated approximately 90 km west of the town of Bukoba,
located on the eastern shore of Lake Victoria.
The Project will be located downstream of 3 transboundary hydropower plants on the Kagera River (See
Figure 3-1), comprising:
• The 80 MW Rusumo Falls HPP, located on a reach of the Kagera River that represents the
Tanzania-Rwanda border. In October 2021, the Rusumo Falls project was under construction, with
overall progress at 82% (NELSAP, 2021) and commercial commissioning was anticipated in 2022
(World Bank, 2021);
• The 16 MW Kikagati-Murongo HPP, located on a reach of the Kagera River represents the
Tanzania-Uganda border. At the time of writing, construction was completed, turbines have been
commissioned in 2022; and
• The proposed 35-40 MW Nsongezi HPP, located on a reach of the Kagera River that represents the
Tanzania-Uganda border, it is 13 km downstream from the proposed Kikagati HPP and 15 km
upstream of the upper part of the Kakono reservoir. Construction has not started yet.
The Project’s main characteristics are:

• A 284 m long and 60 m high Roller Compacted Concrete (RCR) gravity dam and a 1,380 m long
rockfill dam on the left and right abutments.
• A reservoir with a storage capacity of 150 million cubic metres (MCM) covering an area of
17,000 ha.
• A hydropower plant with installed capacity of 87.8 MW, located at the foot of the dam.
• The hydropower plant will have 2 units, each comprising of Kaplan-type turbines.
• A gated spillway, with 3 gates, with a capacity to release a flow rate of 1,240 m 3/s (i.e., the
Maximum Probable Flood).
• Two permanent access roads to both sides of the Kagera river at the dam site; a 28 km long
asphalted access road from a turn-off point on the existing Kyaka-Karagwe regional road (T038) to
the north bank of the dam site, and a 0.9 km long dirt road from the existing dirt road (B181) to the
left bank of the dam site.
• A temporary worker camp with a capacity to accommodate 1,000 workers for the construction
phase of the project and a permanent accommodation camp for the operation of the hydropower
plant.
• A 220 kV switchyard and a 38.5 km long 220 kV power transmission line to the Existing Kyaka sub-
station.
3.2 Permanent Facilities
Dam
Figure 3-2 illustrates the general layout of the proposed Kakono dam. The main components include:
• A 61 m high and 284 long gravity dam in the riverbed;
• A rockfill dam on the left and right abutments (with a maximum height of 42 m and a total length
of 1,380 m).
Disclosure Authorized - Kakono HPP_ESIA_Section 3_PROJECT_June 2022 Page 3-1

The selected dam type for the dam abutments is a Concrete Face Rockfill Dam (CFRD), while in the riverbed
it is a Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) Dam with two Conventional Concrete blocks. The elevation of the
dam crest is 1,191.4 m asl.
The dam safety structures are hosted in the central blocks of the gravity dam:
• A gated spillway designed to protect the dam from extreme floods by safely evacuating the
reservoir inflow. It is designed to discharge a flood of 10,000 years return period ( 810 m3/s) and
exceptional flood (Probable Maximum Flood, 1,240 m3/s). The spillway is divided into three bays,
each controlled by a radial gate; and
• The bottom outlet designed to discharge a flow rate of 640 m3/s. The bottom outlet can be used to
(i) drawdown the reservoir in an emergency situation or for extraordinary maintenance, (ii) control
the rate of reservoir impounding during first filling, and (iii) flush the reservoir of deposited
sediment. The large bottom outlet will also be valuable during construction, for river diversion.
Powerhouse
The powerhouse is an aboveground structure, located at the dam toe. The turbining capacity of the
powerhouse is 316 m3/s, the installed power capacity is 87.8 MW and the head is 33 m.
The powerhouse will accommodate the two vertical Kaplan turbines (158 m3/s and 44 MW capacity each),
the generators, transformers, switchgears, and all auxiliary systems. The main building, which hosts the
two turbines and draft tubes, has main dimensions of about 59 m (length) x 47 m (width), and 30 m (height)
under the machine hall floor.
Switchyard
The 220 kV air insulated switchyard is aimed at evacuating the power generated by the powerhouse and to
connect to the Transmission Line. It will be located on the right bank, in a southerly direction, close to the
powerhouse. The main road serving the Kakono HPP from the south splits at a junction which provides
access to the dam crest on one side and the powerhouse/switchyard on the other.
Operator’s Offices
Close to the dam, TANESCO will install a permanent camp and office’s camp on the right (south) bank of the
Kagera River. These two camps will also be used during the construction period by the EPC Contractor to
accommodate its workforce as well as TANESCO staff. The permanent camp will include 20 houses for
management and 24 multiple accommodation for workers. It will also include a clinic, canteen facilities and
a school.


Figure 3-2 - General Layout of the Proposed Kakono Dam

Source: (Studio Pietrangeli, 2019)

Figure 3-3 - General Layout of the Proposed Kakono Reservoir


Figure 3-4 - Access road to the Dam


Figure 3-5 - Transmission Line from Dam to Existing Kyaka Substation


Reservoir
The dam will create a reservoir with a volume of 150 MCM and a footprint of 17 km² at full supply level
(FSL). It will extend about 35 km upstream from the dam (See Figure 3-3). The 150 MCM capacity of the
reservoir will be made of 90 MCM of active storage (water in the reservoir used for power production) and
60 MCM of inactive storage (i.e. water below the power intake level, used for storing the sediments which
unavoidably settle in the reservoir).
The FSL is the level of the water surface in the reservoir when the water storage is at maximum operating
level when not affected by flood water. The Kakono reservoir FSL is 1,189m asl. The normal operating water
level of the reservoir is kept at the full supply level.
The graph below (Figure 3-6) provides the Area-Volume Curve for the proposed reservoir. It shows the
variation of reservoir footprint and volume according to the water level in the reservoir.
The minimum operating level is determined by the minimum water level in the reservoir at which the Kaplan
turbine can operate. The Kakono Minimum Operating Level is 1,180m asl.
The maximum operating level is defined as the water level in the reservoir when an extreme flood occurs
in the Kagera River. For Q10,000 (810 m3/s), the Kakono Maximum Operating Level is 1,189 m asl, i.e. same
as the full supply level.
Immediately downstream of the reservoir, the water level in the Kagera River will depend on the reservoir
operation and the reservoir inflow, and would be:
• 1,160 m asl for exceptional flood level Q10,000 (810 m3/s);
• 1,158 m asl in normal operation, when the powerhouse operates at full capacity (316 m3/s); and
• 1,154 m asl when the powerhouse operates at minimum capacity (Q=32 m3/s).
Figure 3-6 - Kakono Reservoir Area-Volume Curve


Access Road to the Dam
Main Access on the Right Bank from the Existing Main Public Regional Road B182
The main access to the dam site for construction and operation will be from the South, on the right bank of
the Kagera River (See Figure 3-4). A new asphalt covered road will be constructed that branches off the
paved public Regional road B182 (connecting Kyaka and Karagwe). The road will be 28 km in length and will
pass through open woodland mostly following an existing dirt track to reach the Kakono HPP dam site.
In order to easily reach the upper right abutment of the dam, with direct access to the crest, powerhouse
and the switchyard, two service roads will depart from the main road approximately at chainage 27.8 km.
The main access road and its two service roads will be upgraded by the Project in compliance with the
‘Tanzania Road Geometric Design Manual 2011’. The main access road will be a 6 m wide asphalted road.
The new road will be used for reaching several villages scattered around the Project area. During
construction, there will be some sort of control by the Project to give preference to the Project’s vehicles.
Secondary Access on the Left Bank from the Existing Non-paved Road B181
For access to the dam site on the left (north) bank of the Kagera River, the Project will use the non-paved
road B181 and the dirt roads going through the Kagera Sugar Company lands (See Figure 3-4). The project
will build a new 900 m access road (See Figure 3-4) connecting the existing dirt roads going through the
Kagera Sugar Estate to the dam embankment on the left bank. The same 6 m wide design class and
dimension will be adopted, but as this left bank access is secondary only, it will not be asphalted and will
remain a gravel surface only.
Connection Right Bank - Left Bank
The right and left bank of the Kagera River will be connected via a road across the dam crest.
Transmission Line
Towers, Conductors and Sub-Stations
The Transmission Line associated with the HPP will connect the Kakono HPP switchyard to the existing
Kyaka Substation, where it will connect to the national grid (See Figure 3-5 and Figure 3-7). The route
extends over 38.5 km length, following the shape of the Kagera River. The transmissions line does not cross
the Kagera River, remaining on the right bank but crosses the Mwisa River before connecting the Kyaka
substation.
The existing Kyaka substation will be upgraded to receive the power generated by the Kakono HPP but also
to accommodate increased power from the lines from Rusumo Falls HPP and Nyakanazi substation.
The Kakono 220 kV Transmission Line will be of single circuit type strung on lattice towers. There will 117
towers, i.e. one every 335 m (See Figure 3-8).

Switchyard at
Kakono Dam
Existing substation
at Kyaka
Figure 3-7 - 220kV Transmission Line: Departure from dam (left) - Arrival to existing Kyaka substation (right)
Figure 3-8 - 220kV Transmission Line: Towers


Wayleave
TANESCO procedures require the establishment of a zone of protection or way leave along the Transmission
Line with the width dependent on the voltage of the Transmission Line. For the Kakono 220 kV Transmission
Line, the wayleave is 35 m (or 17.5 m either side of the central alignment of the line).
Within these protection zones buildings must not be constructed and certain activities are restricted to
ensure the safe operation of the lines and for the safety of people. It is also necessary to remove trees and
tall bushes from within the wayleave for the safe operation of the Transmission Line.
3.3 Facilities Required for Construction Purposes Only
Construction Camp
An estimated 1,000 workers will be required during the construction phase (Norplan, 2014c) at peak
construction period. The location of the construction camp is the same as the location of the permanent
camp as the plan is to hand over to TANESCO the construction camp when the operation starts (See
Figure 3-2 for location).
Quarry Areas
The materials for rockfill and for aggregates suitable for concrete production will be sourced from quarries
nearby the dam site (See Figure 3-9 for proposed locations). These will be focussed on a Quartzite [Qz] and
Schist [Sh] outcrop along the ridge aligned North West-South East just downstream of the dam site.
Figure 3-9 - Location of Quarry Areas

Two possible quarry sites for Quartzite were identified:

• Qz_left, located on a small hill between the Kakono tributary and road B181; and

• Qz_right, located on the east side of Rwekubo Hills.
One possible quarry site for Schist was identified:

• Sc_left, located between in the upper part of the Kakono tributary watershed.
The estimated size of Qz_left is 500,000 m3 and the estimated size of Qz_right is 3,000,000 m3. Further
investigations will be carried out during the detailed design phase in order to achieve a better
characterization of the construction materials and to define with precision the rockfill volumes available
from the quarries.
Technical Installations
The construction activities will require various yards and technical installations such as:
• Crushing and Screening plant to crush quarry blocks into the appropriate aggregate size;
• Batching plant to produce the concrete required for the dam and the powerhouse;
• Workshop to maintain and repair all vehicles, plants and other machinery used on site;
• Warehouse to store the construction material such as cement bags, iron steel;
• Refuelling station to provide fuel to the project vehicle fleet;
• Parking areas to park cars, trucks and machinery; and
• Explosive magazine if blasting is required for the foundation works or the quarry areas.
As most of the facilities are temporary, the location of these technical installations will be defined by the
EPC Contractor during the Detailed Design phase, i.e. post ESIA submission to NEMC. The construction camp,
the dam site and the quarry areas are all located within a radius of 1 km from the dam axis. As a result, the
location of the technical installations is very likely to be within the same radius of 1 km to minimize the
distance between facilities, hence reducing operating costs.
Spoil Disposal Areas
The material excavated for the foundations of the dam and other permanent facilities will be deposited in
designated Spoil Disposal Areas. The quantity and location of Spoil Disposal Areas has not been defined in
the 2019 Basic Design as this will be the responsibility of the EPC Contractor during the detailed design
phase. Table 3.1 below provides the volume to be excavated during construction for the foundations of the
permanent facilities.
Table 3.1 - Excavations required for the construction period

Excavation for: Volume of excavation
in m3
Rockfill Embankment 564,300
Non-Overflow Dam 430,000
Spillway 119,000
Bottom Outlet 31,000
Powerhouse 100,000
Switchyard 86,000
Transmission Line Towers 1,000
Total 1,331,300
The estimated volume of material to be excavated is 1,331,300 m3. Assuming that no excavated material
would be reused for construction purposes (conservative scenario), and using a swell factor 1 of 30%, around
1,750,000 m3 of spoil will have to be disposed of.
1
A cubic yard of earth measured in its natural position swells to more than a cubic yard after it is excavated.

The 2022 ESIA is prescriptive in terms of environmental construction methods and avoidance of sensitive
areas for the Spoil Disposal Areas (See Section 10 - ESMMP).
Construction Access Roads
As all facilities required for the construction of the dam facilities (i.e. dam, powerhouse, camp, switchyard)
are located at the dam site, the construction access road will be the same as the service road used for the
operation phase (See Section 3.2.6 for more detail and Figure 3-4 for location).
The erection of the Transmission Line towers will require temporary access tracks. These accesses will be
defined by the EPC Contractor during the detailed design phase (i.e. post submission of the ESIA to NEMC).
The 2022 ESIA is prescriptive in terms of construction method and avoidance of sensitive areas for the
temporary access roads (See Section 10 - ESMMP).
River Diversion Works
In order to construct the dam wall, the river must be temporarily diverted. The river diversion will be carried
out in three phases:
• Phase 1, construction of a diversion canal on the left bank together with the construction of an
upstream and downstream cofferdams. While the river flows through the canal, the construction of
the gravity dam, the powerhouse, the spillway, the bottom outlets, the right embankment dam and
part of the left embankment dam, will be undertaken.
• Phase 2, once the cofferdam is raised properly and the canal is closed, the river will flow through
the bottom outlets, and if necessary (during high floods) by the overflowing section of the dam
already completed. During this phase the embankment dam will be completed.
• Phase 3, during the dry season, while carrying out the other activities, the remaining part of the
dam blocks will be constructed.
3.4 Construction Activities and Reservoir Filling
Construction Contracts
The construction works will be executed by an EPC Contractor. An EPC Contract is a prominent form of
contracting agreement in the construction industry. The EPC Contractor carries out the detailed engineering
design of the Project, procures all the equipment and materials necessary, and through various
subcontracts then constructs the Project to deliver a functioning facility to TANESCO.
Construction Schedule
Table 3.2 on the next page provides the estimated construction schedule. At the time of writing, the detailed
design and the construction activities were planned to start in fiscal year 2023-2024.
The whole construction period is estimated at 52 months (Studio Pietrangeli, 2019). Within these
52 months, the construction of the Transmission Line is estimated to take 21 months.
The main construction stages are as follows:
• Early works, which are the first activities to be performed before the commencement of excavation
and construction works. They include mobilization, access roads, and river diversion. Duration of
the early works is 12 months. The early works include all the activities to make the site accessible,
build engineering and contractor’s camps, secure and prepare site areas for subsequent works. In
this phase access roads will be developed to a sufficient level for site use to enable early access to
the different working areas. Roads will be later finished later to their permanent layout. The river
diversion will be carried out in three phases, as described in Section 3.3.6, of which Phase 1 will be
undertaken as part of early works.

• Gravity dam and auxiliary structures: The construction of the gravity dam will start as soon as
possible after the construction of the access roads, once Phase 1 of the river diversion is
completed. The construction of the gravity dam includes excavation, foundation treatment, dam
and relevant concrete works, and the water intake structure. The excavation works will include the
powerhouse area. The construction of the gravity dam and auxiliary structures starts from the right
abutment, then proceeds to the left side, and is completed in the third phase of the river diversion
with the raising of the lower blocks.
• Embankment dam: The construction of the dam includes excavation, construction of a cut off wall,
rockfill laying, concrete face works, and drainage structures. The construction of the dam
embankment will start from the left bank moving toward the river. Construction activities for the
embankment dam on the right bank will start the 25 th month. Rockfill placement will start from the
central part of the dam following the clearing activities, leaving upstream trench available for cut-
off construction.
• Powerhouse: The construction of the structural parts of the powerhouse will start 22 months after
starting mobilization. It includes the structural concrete works, finishing and architectural works,
tailrace canal excavation and riverbanks protection.
• Hydraulic Steel Structures (e.g. radial gates, bottom outlet gates, gantry crane, stoplogs, draft tube,
trashrack). The installation of hydraulic steel structures on site will start 19 months after starting
the mobilization, during construction of the concrete dam. They include the following phases:
procurement, design, fabrication, testing, delivery, acceptance and installation.
• Mechanical Equipment (e.g. turbines, machine hall crane). Site installation of the mechanical
equipment will start 15 months after the starting of mobilization, during construction of the
concrete dam. They include the following phases: procurement, design, fabrication, testing,
delivery, acceptance and installation.
• Electrical equipment (e.g. auxiliary power and cables, control and telecommunication,
transformers, generators and switchgear). Site installation will start 21 months after the starting
of mobilization, during construction of the concrete dam.
• The construction of the switchyard will start 26 months after the starting of mobilization. It
includes equipment supply, civil works and electrical equipment installation.
• The construction of the 220 kV Transmission Line (from Kakono HPP to Kyaka substation) will
indicatively begin 25 months after the starting of mobilization for dam construction, together with
the installation of the mechanical equipment. This time frame includes design activities,
procurement, transport of the equipment to site, construction of civil works, installation of the
equipment and relevant commissioning.

Table 3.2 - Estimated Construction Schedule

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Duration 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52
# Activity in month M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9 M10 M11 M12 M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9 M10 M11 M12 M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9 M10 M11 M12 M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9 M10 M11 M12 M1 M2 M3 M4
TOTAL 52
1 EPC Design 43
1.1 Access Roads EPC Design 3
1.2 Power Plant EPC design 42
2 Infrastructure and Temporary Works 52
2.1 Mobilisation 1
2.2 Temporary and Permanent Roads and Camps 11
2.3 Site installations and camps 3
2.4 Works for river diversion Phase 1 (canal, cofferdams) 6
2.5 Works for river diversion Phase 2 (cofferdam extens., canal closure 2
2.6 Works for river diversion Phase 3 (lower concrete blocks completion) 2
2.7 Demobilization 4
3 Gravity Dam: Spillway, B.O., PH, Left and right blocks 38
3.1 Excavations 8
3.2 Foundation Treatment 8
3.3 Dam concrete works 36
4 Embankment dam - Right abutment 6
4.1 Excavations and preparation of foundation 3
4.2 Cut off wall 2
4.3 Embankment construction and concrete works 3
5 Power House 22
5.1 Reinforced Concrete works 18
5.2 Finishing and Architectural Works 7
5.3 Tailrace Canal Excavation 1
6 Embankment Dam - Left abutment 25
6.1 Excavations and preparation of foundation 19
6.2 Cut off wall 14
6.3 Embankment construction and concrete works 18
7 Hydrauilic Steel Structures Installation 28
7.1 Procurement, design, fabrication, factory testing and delivery 18
7.2 Draft tube gantry crane 1
7.3 Bottom outlets gates 2
7.4 Bottom outlet stoplogs 2
7.5 Draft Tube Stoplog 2
7.6 Intake gantry crane 1
7.7 Spillway Flap gates 2
7.8 Intake trashracks 2
7.9 Intake stoplogs 2
7.1 Intake wheel gates including servomotors and hydraulic unit 2
7.11 Intake trashrack cleaning machine with lifting winch 2
8 Mechanical Equipment 32
8.2 Draft Tubes lining installation 3
8.3 Erection of machinehall crane 1
8.4 Kaplan turbine's installation 4
8.5 Auxilliary Equiment. Cooling, drainage, etc 4
8.6 Workshop Equipment 1
9 Electrical Equipment 27
9.2 Auxiliary Power and Cables 10
9.3 Control and telecommunication 8
9.4 Installation of Transformers 3
9.5 Installation of Generators 4
9.6 Switchgear MV 4
10 Switchyard 16
10.1 Supplying 12
10.2 Civil Works 4
10.3 Electrical Equipment 4
11 Transmission Line & Kyaka Sub. Extension 21
11.1 Engineering 4
11.2 Procurement 12
11.3 Civil Works and line equipment installation 18
11.4 Commissioning 2
12 Testing and Commissioning 6
12.1 Testing and Commissioning of the Power Plant 6

Power Supply, Water Supply & Wastewater
Power Supply
The main worksite in the dam area will be supplied with electricity through generator plants installed by the
EPC Contractor for the construction period. A network of distribution lines will link the generator to the
workplaces.
Water supply
The water requirements for the construction period are summarized in Table 3.3. Water requirements for
the construction period include water needs for industrial uses (e.g. washing & screening of aggregates,
concrete batching, field compaction, dust suppression, wet-drilling) and domestic uses (e.g. drinking, food
preparation and other canteen operations, laundry, bathrooms and other sanitary facilities located within
the Project temporary facilities such as accommodation camps, offices, container offices).
The source of water supply required for the construction period will be defined by the EPC Contractor in the
detailed design phase. Based on similar existing facilities in the area (e.g. water supply for the Kagera Sugar
Company installations and workforce), the raw water required for the Kakono HPP construction period is
likely to be pumped from the Kagera River and then be treated to applicable standards. From there on, the
industrial waters will be distributed to construction facilities (e.g. batching plant) through buried pipelines.
Water used for drinking is likely to be further treated through a water treatment plant before distribution to
workers’ facilities.
Table 3.3 - Industrial and drinking water requirements for construction purposes
Activity Daily water Duration in days Pumping hours Pumping rate in Total in m3 over the
needs in m3 per day m3/s full construction period
Dam Road, Dam Road, Dam Road, Dam Road, Dam Site Road, TL,
Site TL, Site TL, Site TL, Site TL, remote
remote remote remote remote sites
sites sites sites sites
Concrete 200 30 1,095 750 20 3 0.003 0.003 219,000 22,500

Production
Compaction 100 10 548 365 20 3 0.001 0.001 54,750 3,650
Washing / 400 1,095 20 0.006 - 438,000 -
Screening Plant
Concrete Curing 30 15 876 750 2 2 0.004 0.002 26,280 11,250
Dust 60 40 657 1,095 5 5 0.003 0.002 39,420 43,800
Suppression
Other 120 40 1,095 750 6 5 0.006 0.002 131,400 30,000
Site offices, 6 5 1,643 2 5 0.001 0.000 9,855 -
water
dispensers
Camps (1,000 300 1,460 5 0.017 - 438,000 -
pers. at peak)
Total 1,216 140 0.040 0.011 1,356,705 111,200
Source: SLR
During construction, the Project could extract up to 1,360 m3 per day from the Kagera River, which
represents 0.05 m3/s during the pumping hours. During operation, the water supply needs will be about
30 m3 per day at the two main powerhouses. These figures are conservative: most of the water will return
to the river system after treatment.
Wastewater
During construction, in the construction camp, domestic wastewater is likely to be treated by modular unit
type wastewater treatment plants, which include preliminary treatment (physical screening), secondary
treatment (biological and chemical), and tertiary treatment (e.g. chlorination disinfection and sand filter).

The quality of treated effluents will be monitored on a regular basis and will comply with the national
standards for sanitary wastewater discharges to surface waters and the discharge standards set out in the
World Bank EHS Guidelines before discharge into the Kagera River. Effluent of the wastewater treatment
plant will be collected in an impounding tank and it may be used for industrial process or dust suppression
where it is available. Wastewater from offices, warehouse and workshops will be directed to septic tanks.
Sewage trucks will regularly maintain these septic tanks and transport the effluents to the wastewater
treatment plants. Oily effluents collected in oil separators will be collected and transported to a specialized
facility in Tanzania for treatment and disposal.
Materials Origin and Wastes
Concrete Aggregates
Concrete aggregate will be taken from quarries. Quartzite is a very common base for concrete aggregates
and is plentiful on both the north and the south side of the river. See Section 3.3.2 for the potential quarry
sites. Likewise, aggregate sand will be produced from the quarry outtake, potentially mixed with local sand
to limit crushing (Norplan, 2014c).
Rockfill Embankment Materials

Material coming from both quarries (Qz-left and Qz_right, see Section 3.3.2) are generally appropriate as
rockfill dam materials (Studio Pietrangeli, 2019).
The surface soils in the dam area consist of mainly sand, silt and clay and variations of these. On the north
side of the river the clay content generally increases with distance from the river, while on the south side,
clay is found down to the right bank. Borrow pits for clay material may be set up on the south bank, close
to Qz right.
Quantities of Material
The quantities of rocks and aggregates (including sand) required for the construction period are provided
Table 3.4. These quantities are conservative as they do not consider possible screening and recycling of
material excavated for the foundations of the dam, the spillway or the rockfill embankments.
Table 3.4 - Construction materials quantities

Project component Quantities Calculation method
Aggregates for Gravity Dam concrete, incl. 390,000 m3 80% of RCC volumes and 75% of Reinforced
powerhouse, spillway, intakes and outlets Concrete volumes in (Studio Pietrangeli, 2019)
Rocks and Aggregates for Rockfill 360,000 m3 80% of RCC volumes and 75% of Reinforced
Embankment Concrete volumes in (Studio Pietrangeli, 2019)
Aggregates for access road 45,000 m3 (Norplan, 2016a)
Quarry run and silty clay for Upstream and 100,000 m3 (Norplan, 2016a)
Downstream cofferdams
Cement for RCC and reinforced concrete 95,000 tonnes 10% of RCC volumes and 15% of Reinforced
Concrete volumes in (Studio Pietrangeli, 2019)
Fly ash for RCC and reinforced concrete 28,000 tonnes 30% of cement quantities
Aggregates and rocks will be extracted from the Project quarries (See Section 3.3.2). Cement, fly ash, as
well as Steel Reinforcement (rebar), Explosives and Detonators will be procured from Tanzania or the
international market.
Spoils
To minimise the quantities of spoil to be disposed of the civil works will be designed to optimise the reuse
of excavated material from the dam foundation digging and road construction works for backfilling
purposes. This will be undertaken by the EPC Contractor during the next stage of Project implementation.
However, at the current stage in the Project the quantities of spoil and identification of spoil disposal sites
has not been carried out. Nevertheless, it can be anticipated that not all excavated material can be used for

backfilling purposes, and that there will be a need for some spoil disposal. The usual practice for the
management of spoils for hydropower projects is to dispose of spoils at designated spoil disposal sites that
are situated within the footprint of the future reservoir area. If this is not technically possible, it can be
expected that spoil disposal sites will be established at suitable locations near the worksites and on lands
acquired by the Project. The EPC Contractor bidding documents include provisions for the management of
spoils, spoil disposal site design will follow industry design codes and include features for the management
of runoff and ensure stability.
Wastes
The typical waste generated by hydropower schemes such as Kakono HPP include the following:
• Non-hazardous waste: Waste from the camps and canteens, paper, cardboard, plastics, wood and
vegetation, inert wastes from construction and demolition (concrete, scrap iron, bricks, etc). The
2016 ESIA estimated the quantities of waste based on the ESIA consultant’s experience from other
construction sites under similar conditions. The amount of domestic waste to be generated from
the workers’ camp was estimated at 0.5 kg/capita/day, or about 500 kg/day for 1,000 workers.
• Hazardous waste: Engine oils and used hydraulic fluids, residues of paint, solvents and resins, fluids
from transformers, medical wastes, sludge from septic tanks, and various concrete additives.
Quantities of hazardous waste are variable and project specific. The EPC Contractor bidding
documents require the Contractor to prepare a waste management plan, which will require
preparation of a detailed inventory of wastes, estimation of quantities and identification of
management solutions in alignment with Tanzanian regulations and Good International Practice.
Traffic
During the construction period, most of the Project traffic will be between (i) the main worksites and camps,
and (ii) the quarry/borrow areas and spoil disposal areas. As all temporary facilities will be within the area
around the dam site, most of the construction traffic will remain off-roads apart from delivery of
construction equipment and supplies (e.g. cement). This will significantly minimize community health and
safety risks (e.g. dust, traffic safety, night-time noise). The type of vehicles that will be used during
construction will include:
• Light vehicles (<3.5 tonnes) such as cars, SUV’s, minibus and pickups;
• Heavy vehicles for transportation of goods (>3.5 tonnes) such as conventional trucks, fuel
browsers, cement delivery trucks, semi-trailer trucks;
• Tippers used for transporting loose material such as sand and aggregates as well as mobile
concrete mixers and cement bulkers;
• Large articulated dump trucks for much of the main earthmoving. These are generally off-road
trucks but will be used for access road construction;
• Mobile plants and equipment such as: mobile cranes, earth moving equipment (e.g. concrete pump,
backhoe, mobile cranes, loader), rock excavation drills, air compressors, boring machines,
bulldozers; and
• Flatbed trucks for the transportation of heavy loads such as construction equipment and
formwork. Oversize loads require more space than is available on a closed body, such as turbine,
transformers, and will be transported with lowbed or flatbeds truck with special care.
The bulk of the traffic will comprise the dump truck fleet which will mainly drive on the service roads built
for the construction period, moving material between quarries, disposal area and dam site. The construction
activities will generate additional traffic on public roads at certain period of the whole construction period,
especially during the mobilization/ demobilization stages when equipment, vehicles and other supplies will
be delivered. No estimates of vehicle loads are currently available. The 2022 ESIA is prescriptive in terms of
traffic planning and management (see Section 9 ESMMP).
Reservoir Clearing and Filling
Clearing and grubbing of the reservoir footprint (17 km²) is scheduled to take place during the second year
of the construction period and would take about 12 months (Norplan, 2014c). Trees and brush will be

cleared from the reservoir to reduce problems with debris loading during operation of the power station.
The removal of the vegetation will also reduce the amount of carbon that would be released following
impoundment. This may provide opportunities for local communities to harvest wood from the reservoir
area prior to filling.
With an annual average flow of 213 m3/s, the Kagera River would theoretically fill the Kakono reservoir in
less than 10 days. However, as a great part of the river flow will have to continue flowing downstream for
ecological and socioeconomic reasons during reservoir filling, the actual time taken for this phase is
estimated to take between one and two months under average conditions. If water filling coincides with a
low flow period, a longer filling period would be required to reduce downstream consequences.
Installation of the Transmission Line
Site Preparation, Establishment and Reinstatement
Construction of all components of the Project would commence with site clearance and ground preparation
of Project working areas, the installation of access tracks and the erection of temporary construction
compounds and associated laydown areas. This would typically involve the removal and appropriate
storage of topsoil (for later reinstatement). Some working areas may require the use of crushed stone
potentially overlain on a reinforcing geotextile membrane if the ground conditions are soft.
A Access Tracks
Where possible, existing roads and access tracks would be used for the construction of the Transmission
Line. In many cases the working areas are remote, and no direct access is currently available from the public
highway and local road network or existing access tracks are too narrow and in a poor condition; therefore,
access tracks would be required to provide suitable access for the delivery of materials, plant and the
workforce to the working areas. Access tracks would be approximately 4.5 m wide although could be wider
in places depending upon topography and access requirements.
B Tree and Vegetation Removal
The removal (or height reduction) of trees and ground vegetation would be required ahead of soil stripping
or any excavation and foundation works. Tree removal and vegetation clearance would be kept to a
minimum within the 35 m wide wayleave and would be required to comply with the specifications set out in
the 2022 ESIA. The safe operation of the Transmission Lines takes into account the maximum sag of the
conductor line (which is typically in the hottest weather conditions), the maximum swing of conductor lines
in strong winds and also an allowance to enable tree and vegetation cutting maintenance cycles to be no
more frequent than every 5 years.
C Project Working Areas
Working areas would vary in size. Tower base working areas would typically be 15 m x 15 m for 220 kV
Transmission Line suspension tower bases. These areas would be slightly larger for the tension and
terminal towers.
Temporary Construction Compounds
The construction of the line may require the use of construction compounds at intervals along the
Transmission Line, should the distance between the worksite and the main construction camp be too long
or should construction be done simultaneously from either end. The precise location of temporary
construction compound(s) is not yet determined but will be required to meet environmental and social
standards which are set out in Section 9 ESMMP of the 2022 ESIA. These temporary compounds could
include site offices, welfare and sanitation facilities and laydown areas for equipment and materials for the
works. The size, shape and layout of compounds would vary depending on the nature of each site location.
Typical site compounds could encompass an area of up to 50 m by 50 m. Movements of materials and
personnel from these compounds to the working areas would be by a combination of heavy goods vehicles
(HGVs), and small trucks.

Installation of the Transmission Line Towers and Conductor Lines
Following construction of the working areas and the clearance of the wayleave, the construction of the
Transmission Line would begin with the construction of the foundations for the towers. In flat or moderately
hilly areas, the foundations would generally comprise either standard pad and chimney, concrete block
designs or be piled depending on ground conditions. Pre-mixed concrete would be delivered to site along
with steelwork for the foundation frames and bases. The foundation would comprise reinforcing steelwork
cylinders encased in concrete, with ‘stubs’ projecting through the concrete above ground to which the tower
legs would be attached. The modular lattice towers would be erected in sections, with a mobile crane.
The conductor lines would be delivered to site on drums using HGVs as would the tensioning and pulling
machines. The preparation of the working corridor is undertaken in advance of the conductor stringing. This
may require the use of scaffolding in some instances to protect members of the public and assets from
Transmission Line construction works. Items that may require protection include roads, tracks, buildings,
and lower voltage Transmission Lines. The works may also require the crossing over or diversion of lower
voltage local distribution lines. This would typically be undertaken in advance of the Project’s construction
works and in a manner that ensured continuity of local energy supplies to local communities. Some tree
and vegetation removal would also be required to enable the stringing works to take place, particularly in
wooded areas.
The conductor lines are installed in sections between approximately 10 towers at a time. The pilot wires are
run at ground level (and over any temporary scaffolding protecting obstacles and roads) along the full
length of the section, between the ‘pulling site’ and the ‘tensioning site’ where the new conductor is
positioned. If necessary, a corridor of up to 5 m wide would be cleared of trees and vegetation. However,
such clearance would be avoided where possible by passing the pilot wire around areas of tree and
vegetation. The pilot wires are then lifted and fed through running wheels on the cross arms of all the
towers in the middle of the section, and then fed around a special machine at the final tower or pulling site
in the run of towers being strung. In order to keep the conductor lines off the ground and avoid any damage
to property, the tensioning site has a similar machine that stops the conductor line running freely when the
pulling machine ‘pulls’ the pilot wire. When the pilot wire is tensioned it pulls through the conductor line
avoiding contact with the ground through the towers before connecting to the final tower in the run. The
required tension and height above ground are made and the process begins again for the next section of
towers.
Extension of the Kyaka Substation
Figure 3-10 below illustrates the footprint of the new 220 kV section of the existing Kyaka substation which
will be required to meet the future plans of the national grid system. This includes the area for the reception
of the power generated by the Kakono HPP as well as the lines from Rusumo Falls HPP and Nyakanazi
substation.

Extension
required for
the Project
Existing
sub-station
220kV line
to Kakono
Figure 3-10 - Extension of the Existing Kyaka Substation for the Needs of the Kakono Project
Manpower Requirements
For the construction phase, the Project will require a peak workforce of circa 1,000 people (Norplan, 2014c)
and the duration of the construction is expected to be in the order of 52 months. Table 3.5 provides an
estimate of the number of staff (separated into management, skilled and unskilled workers) based on SLR
experience with large dam construction sites.
Table 3.5 - Estimate of the number of workers during the main construction period
Component Number of workers (Peak) Total
Management Semi-skilled and Skilled Unskilled
Kakono HPP worksite 117 707 176 1,000
About 80% to 90% of the workforce will work at the dam site.
The other 10% to 20% will be mobilized for the construction of the Transmission Line and the upgrading of
the Kyaka sub-station. The workers for the Transmission Line construction will be organised in several
crews working in parallel, moving along the Transmission Line. Each crew will work only a few days at each
work site. Each tower installation will likely be spread over two weeks. The Transmission Line crews would
work only temporarily in an area of approximately 10 towers, and the construction works in each area will
be completed in about one month.
Providing employment opportunities for people in the Project area is one of the benefits of the Project. The
2022 ESIA will be prescriptive in terms of local recruitment targets as well as targets for recruitment of
women (See Section 11 - ESMMP).

The operation of the scheme will require only a small number of staff in the order of 30 people.
3.5 Operation and Maintenance
Annual Energy Generation
The installed capacity in the powerhouse is 87.8 MW. The firm power, which corresponds to the power
available 95% of time of the energy production period (during the operation period of the hydropower plant,
100% of the year) is 38.5MW based on daily inflows of the average year.
The average annual energy production is planned to be 524 GWh excluding power generation losses due to
sediment flushing. The energy production will follow the natural variation in river inflow rate seasonally. On
a monthly basis, the powerhouse outflow will equal the reservoir inflow - see Table 3.6 below.
Table 3.6 - Average monthly energy production and average monthly flow released by the turbines
Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Project Monthlya Energy 39 36 41 44 49 48 50 48 43 42 40 42 524 a
Production [GWh]
Monthly turbined 183 183 193 222 249 250 250 232 211 196 195 195 213b
discharge [m3/s]
a
: Total annual energy production excluding loss of generation due to sediment flushing
b
: Average annual turbined discharge
Powerhouse Daily Operation
The average monthly energy production will vary from one month to another as shown in Table 3.6.
The actual daily production of the Kakono HPP will depend on the flow rate of the Kagera River as the flow
rate of the Kagera River and the power demand. Project will operate as a large reservoir run-of-river
scheme.
The TANESCO Grid Control Centre in Dar Es Salaam has the responsibility for the daily dispatch of power
plants. Every day, the availability of each plant’s power generation capacity is provided to TANESCO by each
plant operator who stipulates any constraints affecting their operation. The Grid Control Centre then
determines the power dispatch of the plants in the overall system with the objectives to satisfy system
demands, maintain reasonable provisions for system reliability, and operate economically.
Sediment Management
The total annual estimated amount of the sediments which accumulate in the reservoir is expected to be in
the range of 1 million tonnes per year (Studio Pietrangeli, 2019). Since the dead volume of the reservoir is
range of 50 MCM, the dead volume would be adequate for the project lifetime to store the sediments.
Monitoring sediment accumulation after a few years of operation is the standard practice. TANESCO would
then decide if, how and when sediment flushing is required. The bottom outlet could be used to flush the
sediments from the reservoir during operation.
Transmission Line Maintenance
The Transmission Line would be operated remotely by TANESCO and would require very little ongoing
maintenance. However, the lines would be subject to annual inspections from the ground. The inspection
would identify if there are any visible faults or signs of wear or safety risks, including the presence of any
physical structures or tree regrowth in the wayleave that infringe safety clearance and require attention.
Inspections would also confirm when refurbishment is required.

Small 4-wheel drive vehicles would be used to carry out routine maintenance works. Trucks would only be
used to bring new materials and equipment to site and remove old equipment if major repairs were
required. Maintenance of the wayleave corridor would be undertaking using manual cutting to minimise the
intrusion into the vegetated corridor.
Refurbishment of the Transmission Line may be required throughout the life of the Project and this could
involve:
• The replacement of conductors and earth wire;
• The replacement of insulators and steelwork that holds the conductors and insulators in place;
• Painting or replacing the tower steelwork; and
• Replacement of tower furniture (anti-climbing devices, colour identification plates, danger of death
notices, number plates).
3.6 Decommissioning
Hydropower Plant
The hydropower plant has a minimum economical life expectancy of approximately 50 years. The actual
length of service is however difficult to estimate. The decommissioning of the Kakono HPP might involve
removal of the dam and the powerhouse and returning the Kagera river to its original situation, but this is
unlikely. Depending upon the length of service, the Kakono reservoir may have established a new valuable
ecosystem also beneficial to local communities. In this instance, removal of the civil works could create a
considerable negative effect. In general, decommissioning of a hydropower project requires as much
planning as the construction of the Project in the first place. Considerable consultation would be required.
It could be assumed that prior to decommissioning the Kakono HPP, the other dams on the Kagera River
would also be decommissioned and would provide valuable lessons for planning for decommissioning of
the Kakono HPP.
Transmission Line
The Kakono Transmission Line would be made up of a variety of materials, from concrete and steel for the
foundations, steelwork for the tower and aluminium/steel for the conductors. All these materials have an
expected lifespan, which varies depending on how the Transmission Line is used and where it is located.
The Transmission Line has a minimum design life expectancy of approximately 50 years. After construction,
the components of the Project would become an integral part of the Tanzanian transmission network. As
such the lifespan of the Transmission Line may be longer than the anticipated 50 years, depending on their
condition, refurbishment and the future transmission network requirements. If the Transmission Line is no
longer required as part of the network of electricity transmission, it may be removed. Upon removal, much
of the material would be suitable for recycling. Similar access would be required as outlined for
construction.
Fittings, such as dampers and spacers, would be removed from the conductors. The conductors would be
cut into manageable lengths or would be winched onto drums in a reverse process to that described for
construction. The fittings would be removed from the towers and lowered to the ground. The tower may be
dismantled by crane, with sections cut and lowered to the ground for further dismantling and removal from
site. Depending on the space available, it may be possible to cut the tower legs and then pull the tower to
the ground using a tractor. The tower can then be cut into sections on the ground. Unless there is a
compelling need for removal of all the foundations, to avoid ground disturbance steel work may be removed
to ground level with subsurface elements left in situ.
The lifespan of equipment within the Kyaka substation would be approximately 40 years. If its useful life
has expired it would be removed and replaced as the substation would form an important part of the
Tanzanian transmission network. Much of the material removed from the substation would be suitable for
recycling. Similar methods of installation and equipment would be required as for construction.

3.7 Land Requirements and Land Ownership
Land Requirements
The land requirements for the Kakono HPP include:

• The area needed for the permanent works. It includes the dam site, the reservoir footprint, the
access roads, the footprint of the permanent camp and office, the switchyard, the Transmission
Line wayleave, and the area required for the extension of the existing Kyaka sub-station; and
• The area needed for the temporary facilities. It includes the construction camp and the site
installations. It also includes the quarry areas, the borrow areas and the disposal areas, as well as
the service roads along the Transmission Line, and at the dam site between the worksites and the
site installations. These structures are considered as temporary because they will be used during
the construction period only. Upon completion of the construction period, the area affected by the
temporary works will be rehabilitated.
The total footprint of the Kakono HPP and the Transmission Line are 2,453 ha distributed as indicated in
Table 3.7. It should be noted that this area includes 498ha occupied by the Kagera River and its floodplain.
Consequently 1,955 ha of land will need to be acquired.
Table 3.7 - Land Requirements for the Kakono HPP

Components / sites Total land take area (ha)
Reservoir footprint at full supply level 1,703
Dam site and associated facilities a 579
b
Southern access road 36
220 kV wayleave c 135
Total 2,453
a
Include permanent works (Dam and embankments, Powerhouse, Switchyard, Permanent camp and office, Services roads)
and temporary facilities (Quarry areas, Construction camp, technical installations and disposal areas). The assumption is
that disposal areas will be either located in the dam site facilities perimeter, or within the reservoir dead volume.
b
28 km length with 6 m wide right of way.
c
38.5 km length with 35 m wide wayleave, include Kyaka substation extension.
Land Ownership
Land Acquisition Process
The land acquisition process was initiated in 2018 by the Missenyi District Council on behalf of TANESCO
following the provisions of the 1967 Land Acquisition Act, the 1995 Land Policy, the 1999 Land Act and the
2001 Land Regulations. The Valuation Report was approved by the Chief Government Valuer in April 2018.
Compensations are yet to be paid at the time of writing.
The 2018 Valuation Report states that 1,924 ha will be acquired by the Project, which is less than the
1,955 ha of land to be acquired mentioned on the previous page (Section 3.7.1). This is because the
wayleave of the Transmission Line considered in the Valuation Report in 2018 was 27 m, whereas the 2019
Basic Design has a wayleave of 35 m. The increase in the width of the wayleave is due to the increase in the
voltage of the Transmission Line from 132 kV to 220 kV.
The areas and percentage of total land acquired by the Project from the four landowners as reported in the
2018 Valuation Report, are as follows:
• Kagera Sugar Company (947 ha, 49% of the land to be acquired);
• Villages (378 ha, 19.8%), including 15.5 ha of land owned by households;
• National Ranching Company NARCO (577 ha, 30%); and
• Kitengule Prison (22 ha, 1.2%).

Kagera Sugar Company (KSC) Land
KSC land is affected by all project components: The reservoir footprint, the dam site facilities, the
Transmission Line wayleave, and the access road right of way encroach into land owned by the Kagera
Sugar Company.
Village Land
The reservoir footprint and the dam site facilities encroach into village land of:
• Bugara;
• Businde; and
• Mugaba.
The Transmission Line wayleave encroaches into village land of Kyaka.

The access road does not cross village land.
National Ranching Company (NARCO)
Kitengule and Missenyi ranches are administered by the NARCO. NARCO’s land will be affected by the
reservoir footprint and dam site facilities, and by the access road. NARCO sub-leasers, will also be impacted
by the reservoir footprint and dam site facilities. The Transmission Line does not cross NARCO’s land.
Kitengule Prison
The land owned by the Kitengule Prison will be affected by the Transmission Line wayleave only.

ANNEXES


Berkeley Energy. (2020, June 01). AREF - Kikagati – Hydro – Uganda / Tanzania. Retrieved from Berkeley Energy:
https://www.berkeley-energy.com/project/kikagati/
Emerging Markets.
NELSAP. (2021, October 9). PRESS RELEASE Rusumo Border, Kirehe Rwanda - Ngara, Tanzania (October 9, 2021).
Retrieved from Rusumo Falls Hydroelectric Project:
https://www.rusumoproject.org/images/Documents/Press_Release_CoM_Visit_Meeting_9Oct2021.pdf
Norplan. (2014c). Feasibility Study of Kakono Hydropower Project and Transmission Line - Final Feasibility Report -
Vol.ume I Main Report.
November.
(Final). October.
World Bank. (2021). AFR RI-Regional Rusumo Falls Hydroelectric Project (P075941) - Implementation Status & Results
Report - Seq No: 14 | ARCHIVED on 05-Apr-2021 - ISR44684 .
Disclosure Authorized - Kakono HPP_ESIA_Section 3_PROJECT_June 2022 Page 1

End of this Section
4 Policy, Legal and Institutional
Framework
Contents
4.1 Institutional Framework ........................................................ 4-1

National Level – Ministries and Government Agencies ............................................................................................ 4-1
Water Basin and District Level Organisation ............................................................................................................. 4-2
Regional Organisations ................................................................................................................................................ 4-3
4.2 Strategy and Policy Framework ............................................ 4-7

Tanzania Development Vision 2025 (1999).............................................................................................................. 4-7
National Environmental Policy (NEP – 1997) ............................................................................................................ 4-7
National Water Policy (2002) ...................................................................................................................................... 4-8
Agriculture and Livestock Policy (1997) .................................................................................................................... 4-9
National Fisheries Policy (2015) ................................................................................................................................. 4-9
National Land Policy (1995) ........................................................................................................................................ 4-9
Cultural Heritage Policy (2008) ................................................................................................................................. 4-11
Administration and Local Authorities ....................................................................................................................... 4-11
National Employment Policy (2008) ........................................................................................................................ 4-11
Energy Policy (2008) .................................................................................................................................................. 4-12
Road Safety Policy (2009) ........................................................................................................................................ 4-13
National HIV/AIDS Policy (2001) ............................................................................................................................... 4-13
National Strategy for Gender Development (2005) ............................................................................................... 4-13
National Human Settlements Development Policy (2000) ................................................................................... 4-14
Other Relevant Policies .............................................................................................................................................. 4-14
4.3 Environmental and Social Legislation ............................... 4-15

Environmental Impact Assessment Procedures ..................................................................................................... 4-15
Land Acquisition & Resettlement ............................................................................................................................. 4-15
Stakeholder Engagement .......................................................................................................................................... 4-19
Water, Air and Noise Standards ................................................................................................................................ 4-19
Management of Transmission Line Wayleave ........................................................................................................ 4-20
Watershed Jurisdictions and Environmental Flow Assessment Framework ...................................................... 4-21
Other Relevant Acts and Regulations....................................................................................................................... 4-22
4.4 Regional and International Agreements ........................... 4-23

Agreement Between Uganda and Tanzania about Joint Water Resources Management of the Transboundary
Kagera River Basin ...................................................................................................................................................... 4-23
NELSAP Kagera River Basin Management Project .................................................................................................. 4-23
4.5 International Conventions .................................................. 4-24
4.6 Lenders’ Standards ............................................................. 4-25
Disclosure Authorized - Kakono HPP_ESIA_Section 4_LEGAL_June 2022 Page a

Disclosure Authorized - Kakono HPP_ESIA_Section 4_LEGAL_June 2022 Page b

List of Tables
Table 4.1 - List of Tasks Recommended and Undertaken for Each Step of the NBI E-flows Framework ......................... 4-6
Table 4-2 – Conventions and Agreements Relevant to the Project ..................................................................................... 4-24
Table 4-3 – Project related Environmental and Social Standards of the World Bank ........................................................ 4-25
List of Figures
Figure 4-1 – Environmental Impact Assessment Process in Tanzania ................................................................................ 4-16
Disclosure Authorized - Kakono HPP_ESIA_Section 4_LEGAL_June 2022 Page c

4.1 Institutional Framework
National Level – Ministries and Government Agencies
At the national level the responsibility for policy formulation and regulations concerning all aspects of water
resources rest with the following administrative units:
Vice President’s Office – Division of Environment
The mission of the Vice President’s Office is to be highly efficient and effective in harmonizing and
strengthening union and non-union matters and coordinating environmental management for the
improvement of the welfare of Tanzanians. Its activities with respect to the environment comprise (i)
preparation of regulations and guidelines in accordance with the requirements the environmental
management act (2004); (ii) coordinate and monitor environmental programmes, plans and strategies; (iii)
coordinate implementation of multilateral regional and sub-regional environmental agreements; (iv)
coordinate commemoration of environmental days, and (v) coordinate preparation of the state of the
environmental report.
The Environment Division is responsible for coordination of national and international matters related to
environmental conservation and management. The Division is led by a Director and comprises three
Sections as follows:
• Environmental Natural Habitats Conservation: This section is responsible for developing, reviewing
and coordinating implementation of environmental policies, acts, regulations, guidelines,
programmes and strategies which are related to natural habitats and environmental conservation.
Some of the specific areas of focus include biosafety; State of the Environment reporting; and
biodiversity conservation of major lake basins such as Lake Tanganyika and Lake Nyasa. In addition,
the section coordinates the Global Environment Facility (GEF).
• Environmental Management of Pollution: The section is charged with the preparation, review and
provision of advice on policies, legislation and guidelines which are related to environmental
management of pollution. Some of the specific areas of focus include ozone depleting substances;
persistent organic pollutants (POPs); and sustainable consumption and production.
• Environmental Impact Assessment: The main responsibilities of this section is to prepare and review
environmental management policies, legislatives, regulations, guidelines, criteria and procedures for
environmental impact assessments, risk assessments and Strategic Environmental assessments.
Some of the specific areas of focus include climate change; poverty and environment
mainstreaming; approval of Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Strategic Environmental
Assessment (SEA).
Ministry of Water
The vision of the Ministry is to have sustainable management and development of water resources for social
and economic development, and to enhance sustainable irrigation development that drives to increase
productivity, profitability, increased incomes, food security, and therefore contribute effectively in economic
growth and poverty reduction. The Ministry’s mission is to ensure that water resources are developed and
managed sustainably and in collaboration with all stakeholders. The Ministry’s mission is also to facilitate
participatory irrigation so as to enhance sustainable production and productivity, food security, poverty
reduction and achieve national economic development. In order to achieve the above objectives different
authorities have been established these include:-
• Basin Water Boards: The Basin Water Boards are under Ministry of Water and its main function with
others is to issue water permits and create water management plans; prepare guidelines for
construction of water-source structures; collect and analyze data for water resources management;
monitor water use and pollution; resolve intra-basin water conflicts; and serve as a channel of
communication to water users. Basin Water Boards maintain a registry of water permits issued.
• Urban Water and Sanitation Authorities: In urban areas, Urban Water and Sanitation Authorities
(UWSSAs) manage water and sanitation services. Water supply in small towns is covered by District
Urban Water Supply and Sanitation Authorities, while Community Owned Water Supply
Disclosure Authorized - Kakono HPP_ESIA_Section 4_LEGAL_June 2022 Page 4-1

Organizations (COWSOs) are created to manage water supply and distribution in rural areas; the
Energy and Water Utilities Regulatory Authority (EWURA), licenses all providers of urban water
services, sets technical standards and monitors performance.
Ministry of State for Regional Administration and Local Government
The ministry will have responsibilities of overseen development activities and permission to conduct any
activity in a particular area in the district or municipality i.e. it is responsible for coordinating the roles and
duties of local authorities and community organizations. Permission of undertaking any activities within the
local governments has to come from the district/ municipal council directors.
Ministry of Energy - TANESCO
TANESCO is a parastatal organisation under Ministry of Energy and Minerals. TANESCO have responsibilities
of generates, transmits, distributes and sells electricity, and owns most of the electricity generating,
transmitting, and distributing facilities in Tanzania. TANESCO will be the buyer of the electricity in bulk and
distributes to the customers therefore it will have the responsibilities for all environmental management.
National Environmental Management Council - NEMC
The National Environmental Management Council (NEMC) is under Vice–President Office and its principal
functions are to advise the Government on all matters relating to the Environment, in particular relevant for
this project:
• To ensure the requirement of the Act with regard to Environmental Impact Assessment
• To review Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) through the Multi- Sectoral Technical Review
Committee (TRC). Advice and recommends to the Minister responsible for environment to issues an
Environmental Impact Assessment Certificate upon the EIS meets the acceptable standard.
• Follow up and monitoring of implementation of environmental mitigation measures as planned.
• Advice on all environmental matters related to this project.
Furthermore, The Environmental Management Act Cap 191 provides an institutional set-up for
environmental management with details of responsibilities at national and village. The institutional set up
involves the following main decision making points:
• National Environment Advisory Committee;
• Minister Responsible for Environment;
• Director of Environment (DOE);
• National Environmental Management council (NEMC);
• Sector Ministries;
• Regional Secretariats;
• Local Government Authorities [City, Municipality, District, and Town Councils;
• Township; Hamlet (Kitongoji); Ward; Street (Mtaa); and Village].
• Ministry of Land and Human Settlement Development
Advice and monitoring all issues, which will be related with Land Acquisition and Resettlement
Water Basin and District Level Organisation
Lake Victoria Basin Water Board
Water resources planning in Tanzania is organized within nine major river basins, each administered by a
Basin Water Board. The Kagera River is a sub-basin of Tanzania’s Lake Victoria Basin and is administered by
the LVBWB. The LVBWB was established in 2000 in accordance with Water Utilization and Allocation Act
1974. The board has the mandate of managing water resources within the basin as guided by the Water
Resources Management Act number 11 of 2009. There are three main LVBWB Functions:
• Water Resources Assessment and Monitoring:

- Assessment and maintenance of water monitoring network, Establish and update rating curves
of River;
- Prepare reports on the state of water resources (Surface and ground) in the basin;
− Protection of water sources (protected zones or groundwater-controlled area).
• Water Resources Allocation:

- Prepare guidelines and standards for construction of dams, metering system and weirs out left
for various infrastructures;
- Process, approve, issue and revoke water use and discharge permit;
- Establish, update water register for permit holders and water user associations;
− Development of water allocation tool(s) to manage conflict and ensure optimal access
• Water sources protection and pollution control:

- Conduct awareness program on pollution prevention and law enforcement;
- Identification of existing point and non-point pollution sources;
− Periodic water quality monitoring in lakes, rivers, mining sites and industrial effluents.
Informal discussions with a representative of the Department of Water Resources Engineering, Institute of
Resource Assessment at the University of Dar es Salaam show that:
• It is unlikely that a Kagera River Basin/Sub-catchment authority/board exists at present as part of
the wider Lake Victoria Basin Water Board;
• There is no Kagera Integrated Water Resources Management and Development Plan, or Kagera
River Basin Management Plan for Tanzania at present;
• A Lake Victoria Integrated Water Resource Development Plan for the Ministry of Water in Tanzania
was under preparation at the time of writing. This assignment is not expected to produce final
outcome before 2022. Several experts are working on this plan, and recommendations on
watershed institutional arrangements will be one of the outcomes.
According to the 2009 Water Resources Management Act (2009), each Basin Water Board is to develop an
Integrated Water Resources Management and Development Plan. The plan for the Lake Victoria Basin is
currently under development and will include the Kagera among other sub-basins. Water allocation
planning is an integral component of Integrated Water Resources Management and Development plans
being developed by Water Boards in Tanzania and will be incorporated into the Lake Victoria Basin Plan as
it is developed. In addition, activities specific to water allocation planning are being, and have been, carried
out in cooperation with the efforts of the Water Board. We are not aware of current initiatives supporting
the development of a water allocation plan for the Lower Kagera River Basin. Between 2012-14, a Water
Allocation Plan for the Kagera River was prepared based on the NBI Decision Support System.
District Authorities and Village Councils
District Authorities (District Councils, Town Authorities and Village Councils) are responsible for maintaining
peace, order and good governance. They promote the social welfare and economic well-being of all persons
within its area of jurisdiction. They comply with the national policy and plans for the rural and urban
development and foster the social and economic development of its area of jurisdiction. Village Councils are
formed by Standing Committees: (i) Committee for finance, administration, planning and economy; (ii)
Committee for works, and economic affairs; (iii) Committee for defence and security; (iv) HIV/Aids
Committee.
Regional Organisations
Defunct Kagera Basin Organisation
Rwanda, Burundi and Tanzania reached an important milestone in terms of cooperation on the
management of the Kagera River basin on 24 August 1977 in Rusumo establishing the Organisation for the
Management and Development of the Kagera River Basin, known as the Kagera River Basin Organization

(KBO) (BRL, 2008). Uganda acceded to the KBO in 1981. The purpose of the KBO was "to address all matters
relating to the activities carried out in the Kagera River basin" in the fields of electricity production, fisheries,
agriculture, mining, industry and tourism. The Organisation was composed of a Commission for the
Management and the Development of the Kagera River Basin, the entity representing the member countries
and a Secretariat in charge, under the direction of the Commission, of preparing, refining and maintaining a
comprehensive plan for the development of the Basin. The Commission was composed of three
Representatives of each country. Its role was "to decide which projects, works or programmes of inter-state
scope affecting the development of the Kagera River basin will advance to the stage of feasibility, final
design and financing, and to approve the said projects"
The Heads of State of the four countries finally signed the agreement of dissolution of the KBO on 7 July
2004 following a decision taken at the January 2000 extra-ordinary KBO Council of Ministers meeting, that
KBO activities be transferred to the EAC when it is reactivated and Burundi and Rwanda are admitted as
members. An agreement to liquidate the Organisation was signed on 18 February 2005 at the Council of
Ministers of Foreign Affairs of each State.
East African Community and Lake Victoria Basin Commission
The East African Community (EAC) is a regional organisation mandated by the governments of Burundi,
Kenya, Rwanda, South Sudan, Uganda and Tanzania to spearhead the East African economic, social and
political integration agenda. The Treaty for the Establishment of the EAC entered into force in July 2000.
The EAC has a number of semi-autonomous institutions that help it implement its mandate, including the
Lake Victoria Basin Commission and the Lake Victoria Fisheries Organization.
The Lake Victoria Basin Commission (LVBC) -based in Kenya- focusses on coordinating the various
interventions on the Lake and its Basin. The LVBC is responsible for the coordination of stakeholder
participation in sustainable development of the natural resources of the Lake Victoria Basin, and the
harmonization of polices, laws, regulations and standards concerning the Lake Victoria Basin (EAC, 2019).
The LVBC provides guidance on the implementation of sectoral projects and programmes, and it receives
and considers reports from Partner States’ institutions on their activities relating to the management of
Lake Victoria.
The Protocol for Sustainable Development of Lake Victoria Basin (EAC, 2003) governs the Partner States
Cooperation in the Sustainable Development of Lake Victoria Basin.
• Article 12 is about Environmental Impact Assessment:
- Where pursuant to an environmental impact assessment, a Partner State determines that a
project is likely to have a significant transboundary effect on the resources of the Basin; such a
State shall avail to other Partner State and the Secretariat, the environmental impact
statement for comments;
− In determining whether to approve an environmental impact statement for a project with
transboundary effects, the Partner State in whose jurisdiction the project is proposed, shall take
into account the comments of the other Partner States;
• Article 13 is about Notification Concerning Planned Measures:

- A Partner State shall notify other Partner States and the Secretariat of planned activities within
its territory that may have adverse effects upon those other Partner States.
− The notifying Partner State shall provide technical data and information concerning the planned
project to enable the notified Partner States to evaluate the effects of the planned measures.
The Kakono HPP is a planned activity in Tanzania that may have adverse effects on the lower Kagera river
downstream of the dam, hence in Uganda. Technical data such as the 2019 Basic Design may have to be
provided to Uganda and the Secretariat of the LBVC for comments, together with the 2022 ESIA.
Nile Basin Initiative and NBI Environmental Flows Framework for the Nile Basin
The Nile Basin Initiative (NBI) is an intergovernmental partnership of 10 Nile Basin countries, namely
Burundi, DR Congo, Egypt, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, South Sudan, The Sudan, Tanzania and Uganda.
Established in 1999, it aims to provide a forum for consultation and coordination among the Basin States
for the sustainable management and development of the shared Nile Basin water and related resources.

The EAC signed a memorandum in 2006 with the NBI to ensure the efficient management of the Lake
Victoria Basin.
The 2011 Nile Basin Sustainability Framework (NBSF) lays down NBI’s approach to developing guiding
principles for water resource management and development across the Nile Basin countries. While it is not
a legal framework, the NBSF – which is a suite of policies, strategies, and guidance documents – functions
as a guide to national policy and planning process development and seeks to build consensus. The NBSF is
therefore supporting the enabling environment for transboundary investment projects. Of relevance for the
Kakono Project are the following transboundary policies and strategies:
• The 2012 Gender Mainstreaming Policy and Strategy;
• The Information Disclosure Policy;
• The 2013 Environmental and Social Policy;
• The Communication and Stakeholder Engagement Strategy 2018-2023;
• The 2013 Wetland Management Strategy; and
• The Strategy for Management of Environmental Flows in the Nile Basin.
Tanzania joined the NBI in 1999 as one of the original nine countries to create the partnership. Through this
partnership, it agrees to follow transboundary water management strategies developed by NBI, which
include the above listed Wetland Management Strategy (NBI, 2013a) and the Strategy for Management of
Environmental Flows in the Nile Basin (NBI, 2016a). As the lower Kagera River has a transboundary status
with its river mouth in Uganda, the principles of the NBI Strategy for Management of Environmental Flows
will need to apply. In support to its Strategy for Management of Environmental Flows, NBI has developed
an environmental flows management framework to suit the Nile Basin context (NBI, 2016b). This
framework was developed by NBI to ensure a standard process is followed for the increasing number of
Environmental Flows Assessments being conducted in the Nile Basin. There are seven main steps in this
framework. These steps are summarized in Table 4.1 together with a description on the way the Kakono
2022 ESIA aligns with each of these steps.

Table 4.1 - List of Tasks Recommended and Undertaken for Each Step of the NBI E-flows Framework
Phase NBI Recommended Tasks Alignment or alternative approach adopted for the Kakono EFlows Assessment
Phase 1: Basin • Review existing local and trans-boundary governance structures relevant to E-flows • Completed policy review related to the reserve in Tanzania;
Scale management activities, • Compiled available information related to environmental flows including field data, scientific literature,
Situation • Review available information (incl. knowledge) relevant to E-flow assessments /management, project reports, and other EFAs completed in Tanzania;
Assessment • Align E-flow activities to existing local and trans-boundary activities, • Engagement with Lake Victoria Basin Water Board in Tanzania, and with NBI-NELSAP and Lake Victoria Basin
and Alignment • Describe available resources, evidence for E-flows assessment and monitoring and Commission at regional level, have been recommended to TANESCO.
Process management capacity, and Describe uncertainties and provide recommendations
Phase 2: • Establish suitable stakeholder group for RQO determination, • The Kakono EFA objective is not to determine Resource Quality Objectives which would rule existing and
Resource • Determine Resource Quality Objectives for E-flows assessment: Rapid preliminary Vision and future water uses of the Kagera river waters. It is to (i) examine the adverse effects of the planned Kakono
Quality RQO setting, Vision and RQO setting, and Describe spatial area (risk region) demarcation operation regime on downstream ecology and social reliance, and as applicable (ii) define a feasible
Objectives process to choose suitable spatial areas for E-flows assessment. mitigation strategy which would achieve no net loss of biodiversity in downstream aquatic habitats and no
Setting • Consider adaptive management processes/requirements, and loss of livelihood for downstream population.
• In this framework, the Resource Quality Objectives determined for the Kakono EFA are to maintain the future
• Describe uncertainties and provide recommendations.
environmental management class of the river, downstream of the dam, at the same level as the
environmental management class of the Present Socio-Ecological State.
Phase 3: • Generate reference hydrology/hydrographs for EFA, • Detailed hydrological analyse for the lower Kagera River completed, including generation of monthly and
Hydrological • Generate developed hydrographs for EFA, annual average flows, annual and monthly duration curves and flood frequency analysis.
Foundation • Descriptive hydrology using appropriate statistics and update database, and
Phase 4: • Classify ecosystems types of E-flow assessments based on: Hydrological Characteristics, • Existing ecosystem and river classification systems or maps used in Tanzania reviewed;
Ecosystem Geomorphic Characteristics, and Biological Characteristics. • Ecological, socio-economic, and geomorphology assessment undertaken to determine and map the
Type • Consider the effect of existing ecosystem wellbeing on response of socio-ecological classification of EFA study sites.
Classification components to different types of ecosystems,
• Provide descriptive maps and update database, and
Phase 5: Flow • Evaluate flow alterations for E-flow assessment; • Potential flow alteration from existing and planned upstream hydropower developments examined and
Alterations • Develop hydrological scenarios to represent flow options; described.
• Provide descriptive hydrological statistics and update database, and • Minimal effects expected from domestic and agricultural use at low flows.
Phase 6: • Describe flows-ecosystems-ecosystem services relationships for assessment; • A modified Building Block Methodology implemented, with a starter document developed for each ecological
Flow- • Consider additional non-flow drivers of change, and social component (hydrology/hydraulics, geomorphology, fish & macroinvertebrates, riparian vegetation,
Ecological- and social use) which details the field work conducted and relationships to flow.
• Establish Flows-ecosystems-ecosystem services hypotheses, and
Ecosystem • Each starter document contains: Site description and metrics; Indicators and management objectives;
• Describe uncertainties and recommendations
Services Required conditions for different hydrological conditions (built off of flow-ecology-ecosystem linkages); and
Linkages Confidence levels and data gaps.
Phase 7: E- • Set E-flow requirements through application of selected method (note: highlight the • If net loss of biodiversity or loss of livelihood cannot be avoided or mitigated otherwise, changes in operating
Flows importance of discussing the E-flow requirements, particularly on a site or micro-basin scale, in regime are recommended to maintain existing downstream significant ecological and social reliance.
(Reserve) the context of upstream/downstream users etc.); • Environmental Flow Management Plan prepared? Monitoring Plan recommended as a roadmap to ensure
Setting and • Describe uncertainties associated with E-flow requirements: Describe uncertainty associated compliance with, and effectiveness of, the Environmental Flow Management Plan.
Monitoring with the cumulative effects of non-flow drivers of change, and Discuss uncertainty associated • Discussions on uncertainties and special considerations undertaken.
with the EFM used and resource and evidence availability.
• Provide recommendations to reduce uncertainty for E-flow requirements and establish
adaptive management process, and
• Develop a monitoring plan and recommendations for adaptive management.

4.2 Strategy and Policy Framework
Tanzania Development Vision 2025 (1999)
Growth and Development are at the heart of the Development Vision. Composite Development Goal for the
Tanzania Development Vision 2025 (Tanzania Development Vision 2025, 1999) is a long-term
development philosophy that articulates a desirable future condition. It foresees the alleviation of poverty
through improved socio-economic opportunities, good governance, transparency and improved public
sector performance. These objectives not only deal with economic issues, but also include social challenges
such as education, health, the environment and the increasing involvement of the people in working for
their own development. The thrust of these objectives is to attain a sustainable development of the society.
The Vision 2025 seeks to mobilize the people, the private sector and public resources towards achieving
shared goals and achieve sustainable semi-industrialized middle market economy by year 2025. Several
strategies aimed at realizing the Development Vision as the National Strategy for Growth and Poverty
Reduction II (NSGPR) established in 2010 (Growth and Poverty Reduction II, 2010) to be a continuation of
government and national commitments to accelerate economic growth and fight poverty. Indeed, the
NSGPR addresses the aspiration of the Tanzania Development Vision for high and shared growth, high
quality livelihood, peace, stability, unity, quality education and international competitiveness. In rural areas,
aspirations of the Development Vision are developed in the Rural Development Strategy. Indeed, the
majority of the people in Tanzania (about 80%) live in the rural areas, where poverty is widespread and
deep. The strategy has the primary objectives of stimulating growth in the rural economy by building on
gains in the national economy and by empowering rural poor people to overcome poverty through better
access to land, water, energy, financial resources and markets. There is a large population still lacking
electricity in Tanzania.
The construction of the Project aims at increasing power supply to enable development to take place.
Indeed, it will increase the power generated in rural areas thus stimulating more development and
investment opportunities nationwide. Therefore, the Project will contribute to the NSGPR goals by providing
reliable, high quality energy source for economic activities that will result into economic growth,
employment and improved livelihood. As a result, it will contribute to the achievement of the long-term
Development Vision.
National Environmental Policy (NEP – 1997)
The National Environment Policy (NEP) of 1997 (National Environment Policy, 1997) is the main policy
framework governing environmental management. The NEP highlights national, natural and social issues
arising from environmental issues, and promotes key principles of sustainable development. Therefore, the
NEP defines environmental issues as both natural and social concerns and adopts the key principle of
sustainable development. The NEP has also proposed the framework for environmental legislation to be
taken into account by the numerous agencies of the Government involved in regulating the various sectors.
The NEP defines strategic plans for environmental management at all levels and provides an approach for
mainstreaming environmental issues for decision-making.
In this context, the Wildlife policy of 2007 (Widllife Policy, 2007) recognizes that wildlife is of great
importance: biological, economic and climatic. The contribution it makes to water and soil conservation,
environmental cleansing, climate amelioration and nutritional values must be conserved. The long-term
goal of the policy is to maintain great biological diversity, which contributes to a healthy environment and
an increased contribution to the national economy. The policy recognizes the implication of human and
development activities on wildlife resources inside and outside protected areas and calls for environmental
assessments for proposed development in order to minimize negative impacts.
The global objectives of both policies are achievable through two main acts. First, the Environmental
Management Act Cap 191 of 2004 requirements (EMA) is the principal legislation governing environmental
management in the country. It recognises “the right of every citizen to a clean, safe and healthy
environment, and the right of access to environmental resources for recreational, educational, health,
spiritual, cultural and economic purposes” (Environmental Management Act, 2004). Section 7 (2) states that
EMA “provides a legal framework for coordinating harmonious and conflicting activities by integrating those

activities into overall sustainable environmental management systems by providing key technical support
to Sector Ministries”. For effective implementation, the EMA has identified and outlined specific roles,
responsibilities and functions of various key players. It provides for a comprehensive administrative and
institutional arrangement.
This is an umbrella framework Act that overrides all legislations related to the general environmental
management in Tanzania. It provides the legal and institutional framework for management of the
environment, the management of impacts, such as the prevention and control of pollution and waste
management. It also provides regulation regarding human activities in certain areas. For instance,
Section 57 (1) forbids human activities of a permanent nature within 60 metres of riverbank, water dam or
reservoir.
The Wildlife Conservation Act of 2009 (Wildlife Conservation Act, 2009) also provides for the conservation,
management, protection and sustainable utilisation of wildlife and wildlife products. In addition, it makes
specific provision for the management and conservation of biodiversity, including any species of wild and
indigenous animals and plants as well as habitats and ecosystems found on or in land or water. The Act also
provides for designation of wildlife corridors, dispersal areas, buffer zones and migratory routes.
Furthermore, the Act provides for the creation of game reserves and the protection and use of vegetation
in the reserve i.e. user rights of game reserve residents. Indeed, it stipulates the conditions upon which
areas could be declared protected zones, restrictions on entry, use and residence within such areas. It also
gives restrictions on grazing livestock within game reserves and regulates hunting within the controlled
game reserves.
According to these policies and regulations, the Project requires a full ESIA. This ESIA is a response to the
requirements of these laws and assesses the potential social and environmental impacts of the Project.
Indeed, the ESIA has undertaken a detailed environmental assessment of the Project to avoid or minimise
any negative impact it might cause. During implementation, appropriate measures will be taken to preserve
the wildlife throughout the construction phase.
National Water Policy (2002)
The National Water Policy of 2002 (National Water Policy, 2002) has developed a comprehensive plan for
sustainable development and management of Tanzanian water resources and has put in place an effective
legal and institutional framework for its implementation. The policy aims at ensuring that beneficiaries
participate fully in all stages of water resource developments.
The Policy recognizes the fundamental and intricate linkages between water and socio-economic
development, including environmental requirements. The Policy expounds on the importance of water for
domestic use, agriculture, livestock keeping, mining, energy, fisheries, environment, human health, wildlife
and tourism, forestry, navigation and trans-boundary requirements.
Additionally, two main Acts are managing the water resources: the Water Resources Management Act
(WRMA) (Water Resources Management Act, 2009) and the Water Utilization and Sanitation Act (WUSA)
(Water Utilization and Sanitation Act, 2009) . The Water Resources Management Act of 2009 repeals the
Water Utilization (Control and Regulation) Act of 1974 and provides institutional and legal framework for
prevention, conservation, control and development of water resources; it outlines principles for water
resources sustainable management; and provides for the participation of water users and the general public
in the implementation of the National Water Policy. Its main objective is to ensure that the nation’s water
resources are protected, used, developed, conserved, managed and controlled in ways that meet the basic
human needs of present and future generations, prevent and control pollution of water resources and
protect biological diversity, especially aquatic ecosystems.
Section 9 of the WRMA states that any proposed development in a water resource area or watershed to
which this Act applies, whether that development is proposed by or is to be implemented by a person or
organisation in the public or private sector shall carry out an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in
accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Management Act (EMA). The Act also restricts free
water abstractions from the groundwater sources other than to hand-dug wells. The Act further prohibits
discharge of waste streams into any water body without written permit from the water officer. Such
discharges are required to adhere to present environmental standards of receiving water bodies. Any
discharges into underground strata or groundwater recharge areas are strictly prohibited for any person
with or without the effluent discharge permit.

The Water Utilization and Sanitation Act of 2009 provides for the preventions and control of water pollution;
provides for participation of stakeholders and the general public in the implementation of the National
Water Policy. The Act vests all water in the country to the Government of United Republic of Tanzania, sets
procedures and regulations for the extraction of water resources and for receiving waters and effluent.
The relevance of these legislations to this Project is the obligation of the Project proponent to ensure
protection and conservation of water sources. The present ESIA has undertaken a detailed environmental
assessment in the Project area to avoid or minimise any negative impact the Project might cause with
respect to water resources. During implementation, appropriate measures will be taken to preserve water
resources throughout the construction phase.
Agriculture and Livestock Policy (1997)
The Agriculture and Livestock Policy of 1997 (Agricultural and Livestock Policy, 1997) aims at improving the
wellbeing of the people whose principal occupation and way of life is based on agriculture. Most of these
people are smallholders and livestock keepers, who do not produce surplus. Therefore, the focus of this
policy is to commercialize agriculture so as to increase income levels. The general goal of the policy is to
assure basic food security for the nation, and to improve national standards of nutrition by increasing
output, quality and availability of food commodities.
The Agriculture and Livestock Policy of 1997 addresses changes that affect the agricultural sector in
Tanzania and specifically address restrictions to agricultural practices stemming from the national land use
Policy of 1995. The Agriculture and Livestock policy also addresses the needs of women in agriculture and,
the needs for agricultural practices to evolve to promote integrated and sustainable use and management
of natural resources such as land, soil, water and vegetation in order to conserve the environment.
National Fisheries Policy (2015)
The National Fisheries Policy of 2015 (National Fisheries Policy, 2015) ensures that fisheries resources are
developed, managed, conserved and utilized sustainably for economic growth and improved human
livelihood. The policy aims at reducing national poverty through sustainable management and utilization of
the fisheries resources. The overall objective of the National Fisheries Policy is to develop a robust,
competitive and efficient fisheries sector that provides food security and nutrition, growth of the national
economy and improvement of the wellbeing of fisheries stakeholders while conserving environment.
Management of fisheries resources is hampered by under capacity in terms of human and financial
resources, technologies and information regarding fisheries resources base, illegalities, insufficient
involvement of community in fisheries resources management, utilization, and overdependence on
fisheries resources. Therefore, the policy main task is to ensure effective management of fisheries
resources through proper conservation, protection and rational utilization for sustainable development.
Some of the areas along the Kagera River, in the proposed reservoir footprint or inside the wayleave of the
Transmission Line are utilized for crop production, livestock farming and fishery. Changes in land and water
uses may reduce all activities, and possibly impact on food security. The present ESIA addresses the issue
of land and water uses changes and their implication on agriculture, livestock farming and fishery. TANESCO
and the EPC Contractor will observe all the requirements of both policies wherever possible and will ensure
that agricultural and livestock farming will not be jeopardized, and that no pollution or mismanagement of
the existing water courses will jeopardize the fishery.
National Land Policy (1995)
The National Land Policy of 1995 addresses the various and everchanging land use needs. The Policy aims
" to promote and ensure a secure land tenure system, to encourage the optimal use of land resources and
to facilitate broad-based social and economic development without endangering the ecological balance of
the environment” (National Land Policy, 1995). Specific objectives are outlined in the Land Policy. However,
the following are directly related to the Project:
• Ensure that existing rights in land, especially customary rights of small holders (i.e. peasants and
herdsmen who are the majority of the population in the study area), are recognized, clarified, and
secured in law;

• Protect land resources from degradation for sustainable development; and

• Ensure that land is put to its most productive use to promote rapid social and economic development
of the country.
The Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania (The Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania,
1997) also recognises through article 24 that every person is entitled to own property and has a right to the
protection of his/her property in accordance with the law. Therefore, based on the Constitution, any
individual or company who will suffer loss of property due to implementation of the Project, has a
constitutional right to claim compensation for the lost properties.
The 1999 Land Act (Land Act, 1999) details the land rights everyone is entitled to. The Land Act provides for
the basic law in relation to land (other than the village land), the management of land, settlement of
disputes and related matters. The Village Land Act (No. 5 of 1999) (Village Act, 1999) provides for the basic
law in administration and management of land in relation to land in villages. Tanzanian land falls under
three categories, namely:
• Reserved Land is land set aside for wildlife, forests, marine parks, etc., and the ways these areas are
managed is explained in the laws that protect each sector (e.g. Wildlife Conservation Act, National
Parks Ordinance, Marine Parks and Reserves Act). Specific legal regimes govern these lands under
the laws used to establish them;
• Village Land includes all land inside the boundaries of registered villages, where the Village Councils
and Village Assemblies are given power to manage. The Village Land Act gives the details of how this
is to be done. The Village Land Act is governing this land; and
• General Land is land, which is neither reserved land nor village land and is therefore managed by the
Commissioner. The Land Act governs this land.
The Land Act lays down fundamental principles for occupying and using the land. Among them, is the
principle that any land user shall ensure that land is used productively and that any such use complies with
the principles of sustainable development. The Land Act confirms National Land Policy directive that all land
in Tanzania is public land vested in the President as trustee on behalf of all citizens.
The Village Land Act of 1999 governs village land and all matters related to land tenure under the Village
Councils. Section 8 (1), (2) and (3) of the Village Land Act empowers the Village Council to manage all village
lands in accordance with the principles of a trustee with the villagers being the beneficiaries. In exercising
these functions, the Village Council is required to have regard to the following principles:
• sustainable development and the relationship between land use, other natural resources and the
environment in and contiguous to the village and village land;
• the need to consult with and take account of or comply with the decisions or orders of any public
officer or public authority with jurisdiction over any matter in the area where the village is; and
• the need to consult with and take into account the views of other local authorities with jurisdiction
over the village.
The Project may lead to the following:

• Land will be taken up for the construction of the reservoir area, the dam and powerhouse site, the
access road, the Transmission Line and all permanent and temporary facilities (e.g. substation,
offices, labour camp and spoil disposal site); and
• People living near the Kagera River and along the wayleave will lose land for farming, grazing,
settlement and cultural functions (e.g. burials or sacrificial functions).
Consequently, this will compound land tenure and land use matters in the villages near the reservoir and
along the wayleave. This ESIA addresses the current situation on the land use and tenure with respect to
the Project. Issues such as physical and economic displacements of the local communities, impact on their
livelihoods and future land uses have been addressed within the context of the Project following the specific
land acquisition regulations described in Section 4.3.2.

Cultural Heritage Policy (2008)
The Cultural Heritage Policy of 2008 (Cultural Heritage Policy, 2008) defines Cultural Heritage Resources as
any tangible and intangible material that represent contemporary, historic, and pre-historic human life
ways. Movable and immovable heritage resources found on land surface or underwater, one hundred (100)
years old or more. It also encompasses those which due to their significance and according to Government
laws and regulations on cultural heritage, have been identified and declared national monuments by the
Minister responsible for cultural heritage resources. Section 2.1 of this policy points out that already
discovered Cultural Heritage Resources shall be preserved and conserved in the National Museum of
Tanzania. Additionally, Sections 4.2.1 to 6 elaborates on how other stakeholders including government
institutions, private sectors and the public as a whole should be involved in all activities of conservation and
management of Cultural Heritage Resources.
The Antiquities Act of Tanzania, enacted in 1964 (amended in 1979 and 1985) (Antiquities Act, 1985), is the
basic legislation for the management, protection, and preservation of movable and immovable tangible
cultural heritage resources. The Act provides for the recognition and protection of cultural properties
including relics, monuments, protected objects, conservation areas and ethnographic objects. Also, the Act
identifies the Director of Antiquities to act as administrator and ensure that such pre-development impact
assessments are properly conducted and that resources found in an area of impact are scientifically
examined.
The Antiquities Act also includes the principle that no archaeological research can be undertaken without
the permission of the Director of Antiquities. According to this Act, local government authorities can pass
by-laws for the preservation of archaeological heritage in their area of jurisdiction.
With regards with Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH), there is no official list of the Tanzanian ICH up to date.
However, Tanzania has become a State Party to the 2003 convention for the safeguarding of the Intangible
Cultural Heritage on January 2012. A workshop on community-based inventorying took place in Zanzibar in
February 2012 to train people in identifying, defining, inventorying and documenting the Intangible Cultural
Heritage (ICH) elements of Tanzania.
The present ESIA is compliant with the Antiquities Act as it proposes a Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment.
With regards to Intangible Cultural Heritage, any area associated with Intangible Cultural Heritage activities
will be identified and analyzed in order to propose adequate mitigation measures in case of negative
impacts that could not be avoided. TANESCO and the EPC Contractor will adhere to the Act requirements,
will be actively engaged in the conservation of any tangible cultural heritage elements found in the Project
area, and will comply with this Act in case archaeological artefacts are found in the Project area.
Administration and Local Authorities
The Local Government (District) Authorities Act (No. 7 of 1982) (Local Government (District) Authorities Act,
1982) provides for, inter alia, the establishment, composition, functions and legislative powers of district,
township councils and village authorities. District Councils are in charge of the administration of day-to-day
activities within their territories, Wards review and approve the proposed Village Council projects for further
processing by the District Development Committee, while the Village Council's functions include planning
and coordinating activities, assistance and advice to the village residents to undertake and participate in
communal enterprises.
TANESCO and the EPC contractor are expected to liaise with the relevant authority during the execution of
the project development or corporate social responsibility activities.
National Employment Policy (2008)
The overall vision of this National Employment Policy of 2008 (National Employment Policy, 2008) is to
engage society in decent gainful employment capable of generating adequate income, to reduce poverty
as envisaged by the Tanzania Development Vision 2025 and the National Strategy for Growth, and to face
the challenges of labour Market gaps in a globalized economy. The specific objectives of the policy include:
• Promote equal access to employment opportunities and resources endowments for marginalized
and vulnerable groups, including women, youth and People with Disabilities (PWDs); and

• Safeguard the basic rights and interests of workers in accordance with International Labour
Standards.
The policy also endeavours to rationalize the employment of foreigners in Tanzania due to the tendency of
investors to employ foreigners in jobs that could well be performed by Tanzanians thus depriving them of
their rights of employment and, in many cases, the transfer of skills is not effectively undertaken. The policy
objectives are implemented through the Employment and Labour Relations Act (No. 6/04 of 2004)
(Employment and Labour Relations Act, 2004) guarantees fundamental labour rights and establishes basic
employment standards. It describes the fundamental labour rights at workplace and makes provisions for
core labour rights, basic employment standards, framework for collective bargaining, prevention and
settlement of disputes, and related matters. The Act prohibits employment of child labour (children below
the age of 18 years) and forced labour.
The Act provides broad protection against discrimination. Specifically, the Act mandates that employers
promote equal opportunity in employment and strive to eliminate discrimination in any employment policy
or practice. It prohibits direct or indirect discrimination by employers, trade unions and employers'
associations on a number of grounds, including gender, pregnancy, marital status or family responsibility,
disability, HIV/AIDS and age. Harassment of an employee on any of these grounds is equally prohibited. The
Act also requires employers to take "positive steps" to guarantee women and men the right to a safe and
healthy environment.
The Act requires an establishment of a contract between employer and employee that specifically states
the obligations of employer and employee. The contract term shall observe the labour requirements of
hours of work, night work, public holidays, work leave, wages standards and employment termination
procedures. The Act provides an access to employer’s premises by the organization representing the
employee and gives the employees the rights to strike and lockout.
TANESCO and the EPC Contractor should comply with stipulated objectives and conditions so as to fulfil the
requirement of the employment policy and law and to maintain good working relations at workplace.
Energy Policy (2008)
The Energy Policy of 2003 (Energy Policy, 2003) objectives are to ensure availability of reliable and
affordable energy supplies and their use in a rational and sustainable manner in order to support national
development goals, through an efficient, sustainable and environmentally friendly energy production,
procurement, transportation and distribution.
The Energy Policy recognises that economic development correlates strongly with energy consumption and
energy dependence. Efficient use of energy is therefore a necessary condition for sustainable economic
development. With increasing energy demand and energy dependence, energy expansion projects are
inevitable.
However, the policy recognises the environmental impacts of energy exploitation, production, distribution
and consumption. Thus, it calls for Environmental and Social Impacts Assessment which, in order to address
identified impacts, includes the formulation of rigorous environmental management measures on all
energy activities including the application of economic instruments for changing market behaviour to adopt
energy efficient and clean energy technologies.
On energy supply - particularly electricity - the national energy policy requires for the government to ensure
sufficient and cost-effective energy supply to meet the increasing demand in commerce, to promote energy
management practices and to ensure that generation of electric power is fully open to private and public
investors as independent power producers.
The Electricity Act of 2008 (Electricity Act, 2008) provides for the facilitation and regulation of generation,
transmission, transformation, distribution, supply and use of electricity energy. It provides for cross-border
trade in electricity and the planning and regulation of rural electrification and for related matters. The Act
has given powers to Energy and Water Utilities Regulatory Authority (EWURA) to oversee and grant licences
to generate, and sell electricity.
The Energy and Water Utilities Regulatory Authority Act of 2001 (Energy and Water Utilities Regulatory
Authority Act, 2001) consolidates the laws in relation to energy and water utilities in Tanzania Mainland.
Under this Act, the EWURA with prior approval of the Minister, make rules in respect of the regulated goods
and services (electricity, petroleum, natural gas, water and sewerage). The Act gives EWURA the legal

mandates to issue renew and cancel licences of service providers in the regulated sectors. Existing licence
holders and potential license applicants may submit their applications to EWURA for a new license or licence
renewal. EWURA considers licence applications and decides whether to grant a licence renewal by using fair
and non-discriminatory procedures. Furthermore, Cap 414 makes it mandatory for EWURA to conduct
public inquiry before exercising its powers to issue, renew or cancel a licence.
The relevance of this policy towards the Project concerns the potential negative social and environmental
effects due to the construction of Project. The present ESIA assesses the environmental and social impacts
and proposes mitigations measures to the potential impacts when avoidance is not possible. The Project
falls also within the regulated sectors and will therefore require approvals from EWURA.
Road Safety Policy (2009)
In Tanzania, the vision of the Road Safety Policy of 2009 (Road Safety Policy, 2009) is to have a safe
environment for Road Traffic System which is in accordance with internationally accepted standards. In
pursuit of a safe, sustainable and efficient traffic environment, the policy’s two main goals are:
• To continually reduce the occurrence and severity of road crashes and consequently the level of
fatalities and injuries, in an efficient and professional manner; and
• To reduce road deaths by at least 25% by 2015, taking 2008 as the base year.
TANECO and the EPC Contractor will adhere to the policy requirements whenever possible.
National HIV/AIDS Policy (2001)
One of the most important public health concerns remains HIV/AIDS. The overall goal of the National
HIV/AIDS Policy of 2001 (National HIV/AIDS Policy, 2001) is to provide a framework for leadership and
coordination of the national multi-sectoral response to the HIV/AIDS pandemic. This includes the
formulation by all sectors of appropriate interventions, which will be effective in preventing transmission of
HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted infections, protecting and supporting vulnerable groups and
mitigating the social and economic impacts of HIV/AIDS.
The HIV/AIDS Act (Prevention and Control) of 2008 (HIV/AIDS Act, 2008) provides for the prevention,
treatment, care, support and control of HIV/AIDS, for promotion of public health in relation to HIV/AIDS;
appropriate treatment, care and support using available resources to people living with or at risk of HIV/AIDS
and to provide for related matters.
Relevant parts are provided in Part III on Public Education and Programmes on HIV/AIDS; Part IV on Testing
and Counselling; Part V on Confidentiality; Part VI on Health and Support Services; Part VII on Stigma and
Discrimination; Part VIII on Rights and Obligations of Persons Living with HIV and AIDS; Part XI on Offences
and Penalties; and Part XII on Miscellaneous Provisions.
Section 9 requires every employer to establish and coordinate a workplace programme on HIV & AIDS for
employees under his control and such programme shall include provision of gender responsive HIV/AIDS
education, distribution of condoms and support to people living with HIV/AIDS.
TANESCO and the EPC contractor should comply with the requirements of the policy and the Act, whenever
possible, to protect workers and the communities around the project area against HIV/AIDS.
National Strategy for Gender Development (2005)
In Tanzania, women are still inadequately represented in the decision-making process at all levels, despite
affirmative actions taken by the Government in the past years. At household level, attitudes still exist that
men are automatic heads and breadwinners. These attitudes are based on the patriarchal structures that
limit women’s voices to adequately be heard and influence family decisions on resources and other social
matters. Therefore, in order to promote gender equality, the Government has amended the 1977
Constitution in 2000 and 2004, to increase women’s participation in the National Parliament and Local
Authorities. In 2000, the Government also formulated the Women and Gender Development Policy (Women
and Gender Development Policy, 2000) to promote gender equality and equal participation and
opportunities for men and women.

To ensure effective implementation of the Women and Gender Development Policy, a National Strategy for
Gender Development (NSGD) to promote gender equality and equity was also prepared by the Tanzanian
Government in 2005 (National Strategy for Gender Development, 2005). This strategy covers key areas of
gender concerns stipulated in the Women and Gender Development Policy. The aim of the NSGD is to
consolidate and speed up implementation of the Women and Gender Development Policy, which strives to
redress gender gaps and inequalities between men and women. It also aims to guide implementers to
incorporate gender concerns into their policies, plans, strategies and programmes with a view to
implementing commitments at international, regional and national levels. The Objective of NSGD is to guide
and involve all stakeholders to bring about gender equality in a more harmonized manner for enhanced
development.
TANESCO and the EPC Contractor are therefore expected to promote gender equality while undertaking the
development initiatives. Additionally, the Project contractor will attempt to address gender issues in order
not to disrupt community cohesion and prevent potential abuse of local population.
National Human Settlements Development Policy (2000)
The overall objective of the National Human Settlements Development Policy (NHSDP) of 2000 (National
Human Settlements Development Policy, 2000) is to promote the development of sustainable human
settlement and to facilitate the provision of adequate and affordable shelter to all people, including the
poor.
The policy outlines several objectives including environmental protection within human settlements and
protection of natural ecosystems against pollution, degradation and destruction. The NHSDP recognizes
planning and management of human settlement areas as one of the broad human settlement issues. In
this regard, the NHSDP identifies environmental protection as one of the strategic issues in human
settlement planning and development. NHSDP also addresses the following issues:
• Lack of solid and liquid waste management, leading to environmental deterioration;
• Emission of noxious gases from vehicles and industrial activities as a major cause of air pollution in
urban areas;
• Encroachment into fragile and hazardous lands (river valleys, steep slopes and marshlands) leading
to land degradation, pollution of water sources; and
• Increasing dependence on firewood and charcoal as a main source of energy in human settlements
leading to depletion of forest, environmental deterioration and air pollution.
This policy applies in case the Kakono project affects the natural ecosystems and causes physical
displacements. The Project has first avoided physical displacements. Mitigations measures in line with this
policy will be developed when negative effects on the ecosystems cannot be avoided.
Other Relevant Policies
Other relevant policies for the Project environmental and social assessment and management are:
• National Construction Industry Policy (2003)
• National Health policy of (2017)
• National Transport Policy (2003)
• National Community Development Policy (1996)
• National Wildlife Policy, 1998 Revised in 2007
• National Forest Policy, 1998

4.3 Environmental and Social Legislation
Environmental Impact Assessment Procedures
Part VI of the Environmental Management Act Cap 191 of 2004 requirement directs developers to
undertake Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) at their own cost prior to commencement of a project.
The types of projects requiring EIA are listed in the Third Schedule of the Act. The EMA prohibits any
development to be initiated without an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) certificate from the Minister
responsible for Environment. It also outlines the requirement for public participation in environmental
management. In addition, it sets the environmental quality standards and advocates for developers’
compliance with licence conditions including the EIA certificate.
In Tanzania, the regulations needed to be followed to develop an Environmental Impact Assessment are
set out in the Environmental Impact Assessment and Audit Regulations No. 349 of 2005 (Environmental
impact Assessment and Audit Regulations, 2018). The regulations provide the basis for undertaking
Environmental Impact Assessments and Environmental Audits for various types of development projects
with significant environmental impacts. The full ESIA procedure is illustrated by Figure 4-1.
The First Schedule of the Environmental Impact Assessment and Audit Regulations, 2005 guides screening
by listing projects requiring a mandatory EIA. This includes the Kakono HPP as the Project will induce
resettlement of people. The regulations require the developer to register a project by submitting Form No.
1 that summarises the project and identifies the project proponent and the environmental assessment
expert who will be responsible for meeting the regulatory requirements to the National Environment
Management Council (NEMC). Form No. 1 needs to be accompanied by a project brief, in the prescribed
format, that provides, in greater detail, the project description and its likely effects. Upon registration, NEMC
performs a screening exercise to determine whether the developer must prepare an EIA and submit the
screening result to the project proponent within 45 days.
After submission of the EIS, the NEMC and a technical advisory committee (TAC) composed of no fewer than
12 multidisciplinary specialists from sectors responsible for environmental and resource management
review the EIS. The NEMC notifies the public and requests people to present their views and comments,
which the NEMC then collates for the TAC’s consideration. Following the official consultation period, NEMC
will decide whether it is necessary to hold a public hearing (particularly in cases where strong public concern
over the project has been expressed), before making a recommendation to the Minister.
When the report is submitted, the Ministry’s Directorate of Environmental Impact Assessment will review
the NEMC recommendation and provide their recommendation to the Minister who will give a decision within
30 days of receipt. If a project receives environmental approval, the Minister will issue an EIA certificate that
is valid for three years, after which the proponent will have to apply for an extension to the NEMC. At the
end of the project life, the proponent must prepare a decommissioning report that indicates their
commitment to rehabilitating the site and submit it to the NEMC.
According to this regulation, the Project requires a full Environmental Impact Assessment. This present ESIA
is a response to the requirements of this act and assesses the potential social and environmental impacts
of the Project. The ESIA has undertaken a detailed environmental assessment in the Project area to avoid
or minimise any negative impact the Project might cause. Appropriate measures will be taken to preserve
the wildlife throughout the construction and operation phases.
Land Acquisition & Resettlement
To date, the Tanzanian Government has no specific policy or procedural guideline on involuntary
resettlement planning. However, the Government has set out three overriding objectives to guide
resettlement planning and implementation: avoidance, compensation, and replacement. The basic premise
is that the People Affected by the Project (PAPs) should not be left in a worse position than they were before
the project implementation. The spirit of the compensation is to ensure that affected households neither
lose nor gain as a result of their land or property being appropriated for public interests.

Figure 4-1 – Environmental Impact Assessment Process in Tanzania

Source: The Environmental impact Assessment and Audit Regulations, 2018.

Resettlement planning is required to follow the legal provisions contained in the following, together with
their associated Regulations:
• The Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania (1977 – 1995, Revised 1997);
• Land Acquisition Act (No. 47 of 1967 amended in 2002);
• Land Act (No. 4 of 1999);
• Village Land Act (No. 5 of 1999);
• Land Disputes Court Act (No. 2 of 2002);
• Land (Compensation Claims) Regulations (2001);
• Land (Assessment of the Value of Land for compensation) Regulations (2001); and
• Land Use Planning Act (No. 6 of 2007).
As far as the land acquisition for the Transmission Line and the Reservoir is concerned, the acquisition
process does not differ. All land located within the Transmission Line wayleave should be acquired.
In Tanzania the President is the custodian of land. Individual land holders have usufruct rights through
statutory granted rights of occupancy or customary rights (Land Act of 1999). Tanzanian land laws
(Sections 3 and 11 of the Land Acquisition Act) give the President overwhelming powers to compulsorily
acquire land for public use or interest whereas fair and prompt compensation is to be paid to displaced
population. Section 3 of the Village Land Act of 1999 and Section 1 of the Land Act of 1999 detail that fair
and prompt compensation must be paid to any person whose right of occupancy or recognized long-
standing occupation or customary use of land is acquired or revoked or otherwise interfered with to their
detriment by the State. Therefore, the Tanzanian state has the power to expropriate private property for
public use without necessarily seeking the owner’s consent.
Based on the Tanzanian Constitution, any individual or company who will suffer loss of property due to
implementation of the Project, has a constitutional right to claim compensation for the lost properties as
per Article 24 (2). Section 12 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act also highlights that the President may, with the
consent of the person entitled to compensation, make to the affected person a grant of public land not
exceeding in value the value of the land acquired in lieu of or in addition to any compensation payable.
The Land Acquisition Act and the Land Act both stipulate that affected owners should be paid full, fair and
prompt compensation. Holders of granted rights of occupancy or persons with recognised customary land
rights are entitle to the same compensation rights.
In Tanzania, compulsory land acquisition involves several key steps:
• Declaring the purpose for which a land is required by order published in the Government Gazette;
• Planning to acquire land including field visit to ascertain whether the land is adapted for such
purpose;
• Decision to acquire the land;
• Legal preliminaries including getting statutory authority;
• Notice of intention to acquire the land to the persons interested or claiming to be interested in such
land;
• Field investigations including valuation;
• Payment of compensation to displaced people; and
• Expropriation.
At first, the land requirement for public interest must be validated by the President and signified by
resolution of the National Assembly and by order published in the Government Gazette. Thereafter, a
preliminary investment on the chosen land may take place to ascertain whether it is adapted for such
purpose.
From the date of the publication of the notice in the Gazette, the person(s) upon whom the notice is required
has 6 weeks to vacate the land. As a matter of exception, this period can be reduced provided that the
President has certified that the land is urgently required. If the land is subject to a dispute or a disagreement
not settled by the parties within the six weeks from the date of the publication of the notice, the Minister or
any person claiming any interest on the land may institute a suit in the Court for the determination of the
dispute.

However, the Land Acquisition Act stipulates that no compensation shall be awarded in respect of land
which is vacant. In Tanzania, the land must be developed adequately to be compensated, whether the land
is located in an urban or a rural area. Indeed, the Land Act of 1999 lays down fundamental principles for
occupying and using the land and, among them, is the principle that any land user shall ensure that land is
used productively and that any such use complies with the principles of sustainable development.
Therefore, according to the law, a developed land must be used for cultivation or pasturage or mixed
cultivation and pasture.
The Land Acquisition Act (Section 15) also specifies that the land could be taken before the compensation
has been paid to the affected person. Indeed, the Land (Assessment of the Value of Land for compensation)
Regulations of 2001 details that "prompt payment of compensation" means payment of compensation
within six months after the subject land has been acquired or revoked. However, interest should be paid to
the affected person if compensations remain unpaid for six months after acquisition or revocation. If the
person does not agree with the amount or method of payment or is dissatisfied with the time taken to pay
compensation, he/she may apply to the High Court for redress. If proved justifiable, the High Court shall
determine the amount and method of payment, determine any additional costs for inconveniences incurred,
and order the plaintiff to be paid accordingly.
Land compensation regulations are fixed by Section 10 (1) of the Land (Compensation Claims) Regulation
2001. Compensation shall take the form of:
• Monetary compensation;
• Plot of land of comparable quality, extent and productive potential to the land lost;
• A building or buildings of comparable quality, extent and use comparable to the building or buildings
lost;
• Plants and seedlings; and
• Regular supplies of grain and other basic foodstuffs for a specified time.
The Regulation (Assessment of Value for Compensation) states "the basis for assessment of the value of
any land shall be the market value of such land". The market value is arrived at by the use of the comparative
method substantiated by actual recent sales of similar properties, or by use of income approach or
replacement cost method, in case the property is of special nature and not saleable.
The assessment of the value of land and any improvements will be done by a Qualified Valuer and verified
by the Chief Valuer of the Government or his/her representative. In addition, the Regulation defines affected
people who are eligible for compensation/resettlement if some of their properties are affected by a
proposed development:
• Holder of right of occupancy;
• Holder of customary right of occupancy whose land has been declared a hazard land;
• Holder of customary and who is moved or relocated because his/her land becomes granted to other
person;
• Holder of land obtained as a consequence of disposition by a holder of granted or customary right
of occupancy, but which s refused a right of occupancy; and
• Urban or peri-urban land acquired by the President.
If the person does not agree with the amount or method of payment or is dissatisfied with the time taken
to pay compensation, he/she may apply to the High Court for redress. If proved justifiable, the High Court
shall determine the amount and method of payment, determine any additional costs for inconveniences
incurred, and order the plaintiff to be paid accordingly.
In case of any disputes or complaint concerning land, it shall be instituted in the Court having jurisdiction to
determine land dispute in the given area. The Courts of jurisdiction include:
• The Village Land Council;
• The Ward Tribunal;
• District Land and Housing Tribunal;
• The High Court (Land Division); and
• The Court of Appeal of Tanzania.

The Land Disputes Courts Act of 2002 (Land Disputes Courts Act, 2002) gives the Village Land Councils
powers to resolve land disputes involving village lands (Section7). If the Council fails to resolve the dispute,
the matter may be referred to the Ward Tribunal as established by the Land Act (1999) and the Village Land
Act. If any dispute will arise because of this Project, the provision of this Act shall be observed.
Stakeholder Engagement
The Environmental Impact Assessment and Audit Regulations (2005) is the major legislation in Tanzania
defining the process of stakeholder engagement when undertaking a project. Part IV of the Regulation,
Article 17 (Public Participation) requires the developer to seek views of any person who is or is likely to be
affected by the Project. It further explains that in seeking the views of the public, the following shall be done:
• Publicize the Project and its anticipated effects and benefits by:
- Posting posters in strategic public places near the site of the Project informing the affected
parties and communities of the Project;
- Publishing a notice on the Project for two successive weeks in a newspaper that has a nationwide
circulation;
- Making an announcement of the notice in both Kiswahili and English languages in a radio with a
nationwide coverage for at least once a week for two consecutive weeks;
• Hold, where appropriate, public meetings with the affected parties and communities to explain the
project and its effects, and to receive their oral or written comments;
• Ensure that appropriate notices are sent out at least one week prior to the meetings and that the
venue and times of the meetings are convenient for the affected communities and the other
concerned parties; and
• Ensure that a suitably qualified co-ordinator is appointed to receive and record both oral and written
comments and any translations of it as received during the public meetings.
Sections 89 and 90 of the Environmental Management Act (EMA, 2004) also provides details regarding
public participation and stakeholders engagement in the ESIA process. According to the EMA, the review of
the Environmental Impact Statement needs to be conducted through public hearings. In this context, all
relevant reports, documents and written submissions need to be made publicly available during and after
the period of review until the public hearing is finalized.
Water, Air and Noise Standards
Regarding air quality regulation, the Tanzanian legislation has developed a guideline (TZS 845:2005 Air
Quality – Specification1) derived from WHO Guidelines. The set of baseline parameters on air quality and
emissions given in the standard are based on a number of considerations so as to come out with practical
and acceptable limits that will help developers such as industrialists to keep up to date with environmentally
friendly technologies. The limits given by the standard are of general application and are divided according
to different pollutants.
Tanzanian noise standard is regulated by the TZS 932:2006 Acoustics - General Tolerance Limits for
Environmental Noise. This standard was developed partly due to the requirements of the Law (EMA, 2004)
and partly because of the public outcry on loud noises emanating from various locations including places of
entertainment, industries and households. Therefore, the limit values provided will provide the basis for
authorities to assess and manage environmental noises. Maximum Permissible levels for general
environment are given according to the type of residency during day and night time.
Regarding water, the ZS 789:2003 Drinking water standard gave requirements for both drinking waters and
bottled drinking waters. This standard prescribes the quality requirements for drinking water distributed in
the food industry, domestic and catering purposes. It applies to bacteriological, biological, virological,
physical, chemical and radiological quality criteria. It is intended also to community piped water supplies (i.e.
those water systems serving cities, municipalities and townships, community standpipes and wells and
1
TZS 845:2005 Air Quality – Specification - National_Environmental_Standards_Compendium.pdf (tzdpg.or.tz)

drinking water distributed by tankers). The primary requirement of this standard highlights that water for
human consumption is supposed to be pleasant and safe, but also free from micro-organisms and from
chemical substances which may be hazardous to health. During both construction and operation phases,
the Project will have to comply with the above standards.
Management of Transmission Line Wayleave
The Land Act of 1999 (Section 151) states that the Minister "may create rights of way which shall be known
as public rights of way" (Land Act, 1999) to serve the purpose of the proposed development. It defines that
a "wayleave" may be any public wayleave created for the benefit of the Government, a local authority, a
public authority, or any corporate body to enable all such organizations, authorities and bodies to carry out
their functions within the designated area.
Regarding the application for a wayleave for the Transmission Line, the Land Act establishes that:
• except where the Commissioner is proposing of his own motion to create a wayleave, an application
from any ministry or department of Government, or local authority or public authority or corporate
body shall be made to the Commissioner;
• an application shall be made on the prescribed form and shall be accompanied by any information
which may be prescribed or which the Commissioner may in writing require the applicant to supply
and the Commissioner shall not begin the process of creating a wayleave until all information which
may be prescribed or required is submitted to him;
• the applicant shall serve a notice on:
- All persons occupying land under a right of occupancy over which the proposed wayleave is to be
created, including persons occupying land in accordance with customary pastoral rights;
- All local government authorities in whose area of jurisdiction the proposed wayleave to be
created is located;
- All persons in actual occupation of land in an urban and peri-urban area over which the proposed
wayleave is to be created; and
- Any other interested person.
• The Commissioner shall give publicity to the application along the route of the proposed wayleave
clearly and in a comprehensible manner, and inform all persons using the land over which the
proposed wayleave is like to be created.
Apart from the general statement from the Land Act cited above, the Transmission Line wayleave is also
managed by internal regulations. When TANESCO owns a Transmission Line, the entire land under
Transmission Line wayleave corridor is legally acquired during the p e r i o d of construction.
Indeed, TANESCO acquire and fully compensates for the whole corridor hence, gets full rights of the
wayleave (Land Acquisition Act of 1967, Land Act of 1999 and its Regulations of 2001).
The width of the wayleave is set according to the voltage of the power line. The dimensions of the
corridor have been developed to provide the required minimum safety corridor around power lines
with consideration to safety clearances.
Restrictions imposed by TANESCO as a landowner in prohibiting access to its land and the way it uses
its existing properties within the rights-of-way are designed to protect TANESCO workers and general
public from injury and existing electrical facilities from damage. Encroachments to TANESCO wayleave
may be unsafe to TANESCO workers, community members and general public and may impair the safe
operation of TANESCO's electric transmission lines while transmitting Electrical Energy. No human
activities are allowed inside TANESCO's wayleave as they are regarded as unsafe for human activities.
Any activity in the wayleave is illegal and violates the public safety and TANESCO's Safety rules
(TANESCO Safety Policy, 2008; TANESCO Engineering Instruction).
The list of forbidden activities and structures is presented below (URT regulations on wayleave
corridors (source: TANESCO Safety Policy, 2008, TANESCO Engineering Instruction, Land Acquisition Act
of 1967, Land Act of 1999 and its Regulations of 2001):
• Buildings;
• Building extensions and additions (homes, businesses, garages, barns);

• Swimming pools;
• Above ground fuel tanks;
• Tall signs or billboards;
• Tall trees;
• Trading;
• Obstructions;
• Farming (and mounding of soil in the wayleave);
• Any road construction involving raising the natural grade; and
• Any topographic changes shall require TANESCO’s review and approval in writing in advance.
If any such encroachment is found to be under construction, TANESCO normally requests immediate
stoppage and removal of the encroachment. Should the encroacher refuse to cooperate, TANESCO
normally seeks legal enforcement to have the object removed. As a landowner, TANESCO should
follow the Land Act regulations.
Watershed Jurisdictions and Environmental Flow Assessment

Framework
Tanzania Policy Review
The 2002 National Water Policy (URT, 2002) sets out long-term objectives for water resources
management across the country, with a specific focus on rural water supply, urban water supply and
sanitation, and how the development of water resources intersects with the economic development of
water-dependent sectors. With regard to water and the environment, the National Water Policy contains
the following objective:
• ‘To have in place water management system which protects the environment, ecological system
and biodiversity...Water for the environment, in terms of quantity and quality, and levels, and for
both surface and groundwater resource shall be determined on the best scientific information
available considering both the temporal and spatial water requirements to maintain the health and
viability of riverine and estuary ecosystems, and associated flora and fauna.’
The 2006-2015 National Water Sector Development Strategy (URT, 2008) sets out how the Ministry
responsible for Water will implement the 2002 National Water Policy. It lays the framework for water
resources assessment, planning, and development at the local, national, and international scale. For each
water resources management component, it defines a problem statement, policy direction, goals,
strategies, and activities to guide future implementation. Component #3.6 is:
• Result: Environmental Protection and Conservation on Water resource Management;
• Goal: Increased environmental protection and conservation measures contribute to the
sustainability of all aspects of water development, management and use;
• Indicator: Environmental protection and conservation measures and enforcement mechanisms
identified and implemented in all basins.
• Activities:
- Identify and monitor conditions in environmentally susceptible locations and legally establish
reserve areas.
- Develop and implement programmes for catchment restoration, protection and management,
and support resettlement programmes.
- Design and implement public awareness and community involvement in conservation, and co-
ordination mechanisms between relevant agencies;
- Determine environmental flow requirements for ecosystems for all key rivers.
− Establish guidelines and mechanisms for EIAs and their enforcement.
The 2009 Water Resources Management Act (URT, 2009) establishes the hierarchical government structure
for water management as prescribed in the documents above, including the Minister of Water, the Director

of Water Resources, the National Water Board, Basin water boards, sub-catchment committees, and Water
User Associations. It also provides specific details on how water is to be managed, including permitting, fees,
protected areas, and risk management. The Water Resources Management Act includes the formal
definition of the reserve:
• ‘reserve’ means the quantity and quality of water required for:
- (a) satisfying basic human needs by securing a basic water supply for people who are now or
who shall in the reasonably for near future, be (i) relying upon (ii) taking water from; or (iii)
being supplied from the relevant water resources; and
− (b) protecting to protect aquatic ecosystem in order to secure ecologically sustainable
development and use of the relevant water resources.
Environmental Flows Assessment Guidelines in Tanzania
The 2016 Draft Environmental Water Requirements Assessment Guidelines for Tanzania (URT, 2016) were
still under review by the Ministry of Water at the time of writing and were yet to be finalized and approved.
These guidelines for determining environmental water requirements (i.e. environmental flows) were
developed to help basin water boards determine the aquatic ecosystem protection requirements of the
reserve. The document recommends methodologies for different types of water bodies, including rivers,
lakes, estuaries, and wetlands. It suggests methodologies for rapid assessments (level 1) as well as more
detailed holistic assessments (level 2). Level 2 assessments should be completed ‘for specific rivers or river
reaches where such existing environmental problems are caused by anthropogenic activities and a
compromise is needed between environmental health of rivers and human development’. It outlines
potential methodologies that could be used (including the BBM) but suggests that any methodology could
be used as long as it is capable of providing environmental water requirement values for different
management classes.
Other Relevant Acts and Regulations
Other relevant acts for the Project environmental and social assessment and management are:
• The Road Act of 2007
• The Occupational Health and Safety Act No.5 of 2003
• The Workers Compensation Act. of 2008
• Water Supply and Sanitation Act. of 2019
• Public Health Act. Of 2009
• The Standards Act No. 2 of 2009
• The Mining Act of 2010
• The Contractors Registration Act (1997)
• Wildlife Act, 2009
• Forest Act, 2002
The other regulations relevant for the Project environmental and social assessment and management are:
• The Environmental Management (Fees and Charges) Regulations, 2019
• The Environmental Management (Hazardous Waste Control and Management) Regulations, 2019
• The Environmental Management (Solid Waste Management) (Amendment) Regulations, 2016
• The Environmental Management
• (Water Quality Standards) Regulations, 2007
• The Environmental Management (Soil Quality Standards) Regulations, 2007
• The Environmental Management
• (Noise and Vibration regulations, 200)

4.4 Regional and International Agreements
Agreement Between Uganda and Tanzania about Joint Water

Resources Management of the Transboundary Kagera River Basin
The above-referred Protocol for Sustainable Development of Lake Victoria Basin (EAC, 2003) requires that
a Partner State (here, Uganda) be informed about the outcome of technical and environmental studies of
any projects - hence the Kakono HPP - which may affect transboundary rivers - hence the Kagera River, by
the Partner State where the Project is developed (here, Tanzania).
As part of the NELSAP Kagera River Basin Management Project (see below), a Memorandum of
Understanding (MoU) between the republics of Burundi, Rwanda, Tanzania, and Uganda on one hand, and
the NBI-NESLAP on the other hand was signed in June 2015 about the Integrated Management and
Development of the transboundary water resources of the Kagera Basin. This 2015 MoU targets requires
cooperation between State parties (hence Tanzania and Uganda) and the NBI-NELSAP for the preparation
and implementation of projects for the management of the water resources of the Kagera Basin. It further
promotes the exchange of information on the matters of common concern regarding the shared water
resources of the Kagera Basin, as well as the cooperative decision making on the management,
development and utilization of the shared water resources of the Kagera Basin.
NELSAP Kagera River Basin Management Project
NELSAP is one of two investment programs under NBI. NELSAP provides funds and support for various
transboundary projects related to water and energy between Tanzania and its neighbouring countries in the
Nile River Basin, including the Kagera River Basin Management Project.
From 2005 to 2017, NELSAP prepared and then implemented the Kagera River Basin Management Project
in collaboration with the Governments of Burundi, Rwanda, Tanzania and Uganda. From the information
publicly disclosed on the NELSAP web site (NELSAP, 2020), it is understood that the Kagera River Basin
Management Project:
• Developed and formalized a cooperative framework to facilitate basin cooperation in water
resources;
• Developed Kagera river basin monograph, Information database, Basin development plan and
Water allocation model;
• Designed a hydrometric network for the basin and installed key hydrometric stations;
• In each of the four countries:
- Identified and prepared regional water infrastructure projects for multipurpose uses of
irrigation, hydropower, water supply;
- Completed the construction of water supply system;
- Completed construction of rainwater harvesting tanks for schools;
− Implemented Agro-forestry projects
• Reviewed and advised on the status of the Kagera River Navigability.
Out of the above-listed achievements, the following outputs could be of particular relevance to the Kakono
2022 ESIA:
• Kagera Basin Development Plan and Water Allocation Model;
• Feasibility studies and Independent ESIA and RAP studies for proposed multipurpose WRD projects
of Ngono (13,680 ha, 2.5 MW – Tanzania).
As part of the preparation of this 2022 ESIA, SLR collected the following documents which are believed to
be outputs of the Kagera River Basin Management Project:

• Aurecon, 2012, ‘Development of a Basin-wide IWRM-based Development Plan for the Kagera
Basin” for NELSAP. Diagnostic Report (Aurecon, 2012a) and Basin Development Plan (Aurecon,
2012b)
• BRL, 2008, ‘Kagera River Basin Transboundary Integrated Water Resources Management and
Development Project’ for NELSAP. Kagera River Basin Monograph. Basin Development Report (BRL,
2008)
• WSP 2003 ‘Kagera River Basin Integrated Water Resources Management Project’ for NELSAP (WSP,
2003);
4.5 International Conventions
Table 4-2 shows all the relevant conventions and agreements that apply to the Project.
Table 4-2 – Conventions and Agreements Relevant to the Project

Type of Convention Name of Convention Relevance to the Project
Biodiversity UN Convention on Biological Diversity (1992) (Ratified by The project will involve clearing of
Tanzania in 1996) vegetation, degradation of terrestrial and
UN Convention to Combat Desertification in Countries aquatic habitats, disturbance to wildlife
Experiencing Serious Drought and/or Desertification species, and possible impacts on
Particularly in Africa (1994) endangered species. Mitigation measures
have been proposed to minimise land
Cartagena Protocol on Bio-safety to the Convention on degradation and loss of biodiversity.
Biological Diversity (2000)
The Convention on International Trade and Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) (1973)
The Convention of Wetlands of International Importance
especially as Waterfowl Habitat (The Ramsar Convention)
(1971) (Ratified by Tanzania in 1998)
African Convention on the Conservation of Nature and
Natural Resources (1968)
Lusaka Agreement on Co-operative Enforcement
Operations Directed at Illegal Trade in Wild Fauna and
Flora (1994)
Climate change UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (1992) The project is assumed to replace fossil
Kyoto Protocol (1997) fuel-based electricity generation, hence
reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Vegetation should be removed from the
reservoir in order to minimise GHG
emissions during the operation phase.
Hazardous Waste, Basel Convention on the Control of Trans-boundary Hazardous wastes and chemicals shall be
Chemicals and Movements of Hazardous Waste and their Disposal (1989) managed in compliance with national
Ozone Rotterdam Convention legislation and the applicable international
conventions and agreements. No ozone
Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants
depleting substances or persistent organic
pollutants will be permitted.
Vienna Convention on Protection of Ozone Layer
Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone
Layer (1987)
Basel Protocol on Liability and Compensation on Damage
Resulting from Trans boundary Movement of Hazardous
Waste and their Disposal (2000)
Bamako Convention on the Ban of the Import into Africa
and the Control of Trans- boundary Movement of
Hazardous Wastes Within Africa (1990)
Cultural and Natural Convention Concerning the Protection of World Cultural Evidence of intangible and intangible
Heritage and Natural Heritage (1972) cultural and natural heritage has been
Convention for the safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural assessed and appropriate mitigation
heritage (2003) measures will be implemented.
Other Conventions The East African Community (EAC) Treaty (1999) Information about the Kakono hydropower
(promotes shared planning of developments on shared project should be disclosed to all
waters through information sharing for sustainable stakeholders with whom Kagera River
resource use) waters are shared and utilised.

The Project must comply with the international conventions and agreements that Tanzania has signed or
ratified and ensure the conservation of the environment as per the agreements of conventions.
4.6 Lenders’ Standards
The Project is supported by both the Agence Française de Développement (AFD) and the African
Development Bank (AfDB). For hydropower projects, this implies the application of the following standards:
• The African Development Bank Operational Safeguards of 2013 (OS);
• The World Bank’s Environmental and Social Standards of 2018 (ESS);
Projects of 2018; and
• The Good Practice Handbook for Environmental Flows for Hydropower Projects of the World Bank
Group of 2018.
The requirements of the World Bank are defined in the 10 Environmental and Social Standards (ESS) of the
World Bank Environmental and Social Framework (2018)2. The requirements of the African Development
Bank (AfDB) are defined in the 5 Operational Safeguards (OS) of the African Development Bank Group’s
Integrated Safeguards System (2018)3.
Both ESSs and OSs include:
• Explicit objectives that define the environmental and social outcomes to be achieved; and
• Requirements that help Borrowers achieve ESS and OS objectives through means appropriate to
nature, scale and risks of the Project.
Table 4-3 lists the ten Environmental and Social Standards of the World Bank Environmental and Social
Framework and the five Operational Safeguards of the African Development Bank and analyses their
relevance to the Project.
Table 4-3 – Project related Environmental and Social Standards of the World Bank
World Bank and African Bank of Applicable Observation
Development requirements to the
Environmental Operational Project
and Social Safeguards (OS)
Standards (ESS)
ESS1 - OS1 – Yes An Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) of the Project
Assessment Environmental should be carried out to assess the environmental and social risks and
and and Social impacts of the Project throughout the project life cycle. It is in line with the
Management of Assessment Tanzanian legislation (Environmental impact Assessment and Audit
Environmental Regulations, 2018). The environmental and social assessment will apply a
and Social mitigation hierarchy which will:
Impacts • Anticipate and avoid risks and impacts;
• Where avoidance is not possible, minimize or reduce risks and impacts

to acceptable levels;
• Once risks and impacts have been minimized or reduced, mitigate; and
• Where significant residual impacts remain, compensate for or offset

them, where technically and financially feasible.
The mitigation measures will be incorporated into an ESMP document
which will be carried out by the contractor and the developer during
construction and operation.
2
The full definition and details of each ESS can be found at the following webpage: https://www.worldbank.org/en/projects-
operations/environmental-and-social-framework.
3
The full definition and details of each OS can be found at the following webpage:
https://www.afdb.org/en/documents/document/afdbs-integrated-safeguards-system-policy-statement-and-operational-
safeguards-34993.


Standards (ESS)
ESS2 - Labour OS5 – Labour Yes The implementation of the Project will require to employ or engage
and Working conditions, people to perform direct, contracted, community or primary supply work.
Conditions; health and ESS2 and OS5 main objective is to ensure that the employment of project
safety workers will be based on the principle of equal opportunity and fair
treatment, and there will be no discrimination with respect to any aspects
of the employment relationship. It is in line with the Tanzanian legislation
with regards with employment (Employment and Labour Relations Act,
2004) (National Employment Policy, 2008) .
ESS3 - OS4 – Pollution Yes The Project might generate pollution to air, water, and land, and consume
Resource prevention and finite resources that may threaten people, eco-system services and the
Efficiency and control, environment at the local. ESS3 and OS4 main objective is to avoid or
Pollution hazardous minimise adverse impacts on human health, project related emissions of
Prevention; materials and short and long-lived climate pollutants, generation of hazardous and
resource non-hazardous waste, and minimise or manage the risk and impacts
efficiency associated with pesticide use. It is in line with the Tanzanian legislation
with regards with resource efficiency and pollution prevention
(Environmental Management Act, 2004) (National Environment Policy,
1997) (Widllife Policy, 2007).
ESS4 - Refer to OS1 – Yes Project activities, equipment, and infrastructure could increase
Community Environmental community exposure to Project-related traffic and road safety risks,
Health and and Social diseases and hazardous materials. Furthermore, there is a possibility of
Safety; Assessment prostitution due to influx of new workers which may ultimately result in
human trafficking. It might also increase the prevalence of sexually
transmitted diseases. EES4 and OS1 promote quality and safety in the
design and construction of infrastructure, including dams. It ensures that
community exposure to project-related traffic and road safety risks,
diseases and hazardous materials will be avoided or minimised. All
adverse impacts on the health and safety of project-affected
communities during the project life cycle from both routine and
nonroutine circumstances should be anticipated and avoided whenever
possible. The Tanzanian legislation answers part of those objectives
(HIV/AIDS Act, 2008) (Road Safety Policy, 2009) (National HIV/AIDS Policy,
2001).
ESS5 - Land OS2 – Yes The Project will require land acquisitions and restrictions on land use.
Acquisition, Involuntary Therefore, it might cause physical displacement (relocation, loss of
Restrictions on resettlement: residential land or loss of shelter), eco-nomic displacement (loss of land,
Land Use and land acquisition, assets or access to assets, leading to loss of income sources or other
Involuntary population means of livelihood), or both. ESS5 and OS2 both consider that an
Resettlement; displacement affected person could have formal legal rights to land, a claim to land or
and assets that is recognised or recognizable under national law or under the
compensation customary laws of the country, or no recognizable legal right or claim to
the land or assets he/she occupies or uses.
ESS5 and OS2 ensure that the tree types of affected persons will receive
compensation at replacement cost, and other assistance as may be
necessary to help them improve or at least restore their standards of
living or livelihoods. The Tanzanian legislation regarding land tenure, land
rights and land acquisitions recognises customary tenure arrangements
and ensures that full, fair and prompt compensation will be paid to any
person whose right of occupancy or recognized long-standing occupation
or customary use of land is revoked or otherwise interfered with to their
detriment by the State (Land (compensation Claims) Regulation, 2001)
(National Land Policy, 1995) (Land Act, 1999) (Village Act, 1999) (Land
Acquisition Act, 2002) (Land Disputes Courts Act, 2002).
ESS6 - OS3 – Yes The construction of the reservoir area, the dam and powerhouse site, the
Biodiversity Biodiversity, access road, the Transmission Line and all permanent and temporary
Conservation renewable facilities could lead to the destruction of naturals habitats and the
and Sustainable resources and biodiversity that they support. Both ESS6 and OS3 recognize the
Management of ecosystem importance of maintaining core ecological functions of habitats, including
Living Natural services forests, and the biodiversity they support. Therefore, they both promote
Resources; sustainable management of living natural resources that provide
ecosystem services upon which communities are dependent. It is in line
with the Tanzanian legislation with regards with biodiversity conservation
and sustainable management of living natural resources (Environmental
Management Act, 2004) (National Water Policy, 2002) (Wildlife
Conservation Act, 2009) (Widllife Policy, 2007) (Water Resources
Management Act, 2009) (National Environment Policy, 1997).


Standards (ESS)
ESS7 - Refer to OS1 – No There are no indigenous people in the Project area that could be impacted
Indigenous Environmental (see by the Project. Therefore, ESS7 and OS1 are not triggered.
Peoples; and Social Section 5)
Assessment
ESS8 - Cultural Refer to OS1 – Yes There is on sacrifice site located in the reservoir footprint that could be
Heritage; Environmental impacted by the Project. Furthermore, the construction could have an
and Social impact on tangible heritage resources i.e. when excavations are made
Assessment there is a possibility of finding areological elements. ESS8 and OS1 main
objective is to protect tangible and intangible cultural heritages which
may be recognised and valued at a local, regional, national or global level
from the adverse impacts of project activities and support its
preservation.
The Tanzanian legislation ensures the management, protection and

preservation of movable and immovable tangible cultural heritage
resources (Land Acquisition Act, 2002). With regards with Intangible
Cultural Heritage (ICH), there is no official list of the Tanzanian ICH, but
Tanzania has become a State Party to the 2003 convention for the
safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage on January 2012.
ESS9 - Financial Refer to OS1 – No The project does not have Financial Intermediaries.
Intermediaries, Environmental
and Social
Assessment
No
ESS10 - Refer to OS1 – Yes As part of the requirement of ESS1, ESS10 and OS1, the Project will have
Stakeholder Environmental to engage with stakeholders throughout the project life cycle, and
Engagement and Social maintain a constructive relationship with them, in particular for the
and Information Assessment project-affected parties. ESS10 ensures meaningful consultations with all
Disclosure. stakeholders will be put in place and that timely, relevant, understandable
and accessible information will be provided. It promotes different or
separate forms of engagement for the disadvantaged or the vulnerable.
This will take into account considerations relating to age, including the
elderly and minors, and including in circumstances where they may be
separated from their family, the community or other individuals upon
which they depend.
The Tanzanian legislation ensures that the developer of a project will seek
views of any person who is or is likely to be affected by the Project
(Environmental Management Act, 2004). However, there is no special
provision with regards with disadvantaged or vulnerable people.
In addition to the E&S safeguards described above, the Project will also apply recognised international good
practices:
Projects (2018) is a technical document focusing on EHS issues associated with Hydropower
activities along with recommendations for their management. It details specific examples of Good
International practice (GIP) with regard to Hydropower Projects 4.
• Lastly, the Good Practice Handbook for Environmental Flows for Hydropower Projects of the World
Bank Group5 share information about private sector approaches for addressing a range of
hydropower project impacts on downstream river ecosystems and people, and determine their
Environmental Flows (EFlows) commitments. Unlike the IFC guidelines, it mainly focuses on EFlows
context and assessment methods.
4
The full document can be found at the following webpage:
https://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/topics_ext_content/ifc_external_corporate_site/sustainability-at-
ifc/publications/publications_gpn_ehshydropwer
5
The full document can be found at the following webpage:
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/372731520945251027/Environmental-flows-for-hydropower-projects-guidance-for-
the-private-sector-in-emerging-markets

ANNEXES


Agricultural and Livestock Policy. (1997).
Antiquities Act. (1985).
Aurecon. (2012a). Development of a Basin-wide IWRM-based Development Plan for the Kagera Basin. Diagnostic Report.
Final.
Aurecon. (2012b). Development of a Basin-wide IWRM-based Development Plan for the Kagera Basin. Basin Development
Plan. Final Report.
BRL. (2008). Kagera River Basin Transboundary Integrated Water Resources Management and Development Project.
Kagera River Basin Monograph. Basin Development Report.
Cultural Heritage Policy. (2008).
EAC. (2003). Protocol for sustainable Development of Lake Victoria Basin.
EAC. (2019). The East African Community - The Lake Victoria Basin Commission Bill.
Electricity Act. (2008).
Employment and Labour Relations Act. (2004).
Energy and Water Utilities Regulatory Authority Act. (2001).
Energy Policy. (2003).
Environmental impact Assessment and Audit Regulations. (2018).
Environmental Management Act. (2004).
Growth and Poverty Reduction II. (2010).
HIV/AIDS Act. (2008).
Land (compensation Claims) Regulation. (2001).
Land Acquisition Act. (2002).
Land Act. (1999).
Land Act. (1999).
Land Disputes Courts Act. (2002).
Local Government (District) Authorities Act. (1982).
Mining Act. (1998).
National Employment Policy. (2008).
National Environment Policy. (1997).
National Fisheries Policy. (2015).
National HIV/AIDS Policy. (2001).
National Human Settlements Development Policy. (2000).
National Land Policy. (1995). The Ministry of Lands and Human Settlements. Dar Es Salaam.
National Strategy for Gender Development. (2005).
National Water Policy. (2002).
NBI. (2013a). Nile Basin Initiative. Wetland Management Strategy.
NBI. (2016a). Nile Basin Initiative. Strategy for the Management of Environmental Flows in the Nile Basin.
NBI. (2016b). Nile Basin initiative. Preparation of NBI Guidance Document on Environmental Flows: Nile E-flows Framework
Technical Implementation Manual. Prepared by HYDROC GmbH .
Disclosure Authorized - Kakono HPP_ESIA_Section 4_LEGAL_June 2022

NELSAP. (2020, July 16). http://nelsap.nilebasin.org/attachments/article/34/Kagera%20Factsheet%20May2015.pdf.

Retrieved from http://nelsap.nilebasin.org/.
Road Safety Policy. (2009).
Tanzania Development Vision 2025. (1999).
The Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania. (1997).
URT. (2002). United Republic of Tanzania. National Water Policy. Ministry of Water and Livestock Development.
URT. (2008). United Republic of Tanzania. National Water Sector Development Strategy. 2006 to 2015.
URT. (2009). United Republic of Tanzania. The Water Resources Management Act.
URT. (2016). Ministry of Water and Irrigation. Environmental Water Requirements Assessment Guidleines for Tanzania. Final
Draft.
Village Act. (1999).
Water Resources Management Act. (2009).
Water Utilization and Sanitation Act. (2009).
Widllife Policy. (2007).
Wildlife Conservation Act. (2009).
Women and Gender Development Policy. (2000).
WSP. (2003). Kagera River Basin Integrated Water resources Management Project. Project Document. Draft.
Disclosure Authorized - Kakono HPP_ESIA_Section 4_LEGAL_June 2022

End of this Section
5 Environmental and Social
Baseline Data
Contents
5.1 Kagera Watershed ............................................................................... 5-1
5.2 Physical Environment .......................................................................... 5-3

Climate ......................................................................................................................................................... 5-3
Geology and Hydrogeology ....................................................................................................................... 5-3
Groundwater ............................................................................................................................................. 5-11
Hydrology .................................................................................................................................................. 5-13
River Geomorphology & Sediment Transport ....................................................................................... 5-21
Water Quality ............................................................................................................................................. 5-47
Sediment Quality....................................................................................................................................... 5-53
5.3 Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology ...................................................... 5-55

Study Area and Survey Methodology ..................................................................................................... 5-55
Aquatic Ecology ......................................................................................................................................... 5-93
Terrestrial Ecology ..................................................................................................................................5-153
Protected and Listed Areas ...................................................................................................................5-211
Habitat Status Assessment ...................................................................................................................5-215
5.4 Socio-economic Conditions ........................................................... 5-252

Study Area and Methodology ................................................................................................................5-252
Settlement History, Demography and Land Tenure ..........................................................................5-267
Land Use: Sugar Cane Plantations, Flood Recession Farming, Dry Land Farming, Livestock farming5-
291
Water Use ................................................................................................................................................5-321
Fisheries ...................................................................................................................................................5-336
Community Infrastructure and Utilities ................................................................................................5-341
Community Health ..................................................................................................................................5-350
Gender Issues ..........................................................................................................................................5-353
Vulnerable Groups ..................................................................................................................................5-355
Cultural Heritage .....................................................................................................................................5-356
5.5 Ecosystem Services ........................................................................ 5-364

Identification of ecosystems the Project could impact ......................................................................5-364
Screening of Ecosystem Services in the Study Area...........................................................................5-367
Scoping of Ecosystem Services in the Study Area ..............................................................................5-368
Types and Value of Ecosystem Services ..............................................................................................5-368
DISCLOSURE AUTHORIZED - Kakono HPP_ESIA_Section 5_BASELINE_June 2022 Page a

Annexes
Annex 5-2 – Daily River Flow Data
Annex 5-3 – Water Quality Results
Annex 5-4 – Sediment Quality Results
Annex 5-5 – Biodiversity Survey Itineraries
Annex 5-6 – Terrestrial Habitats Survey sites
Annex 5-7 – Aquatic Ecosystem Types
Annex 5-8 – List of Diatoms
Annex 5-9 – List of Macroinvertebrates
Annex 5-10 – TARISS1 Data Sheet
Annex 5-11 – List of Fish Species
Annex 5-12 – Fisher Interviews
Annex 5-13 – Plant List
Annex 5-14 – Bird List
Annex 5-15 – MacKinnon Bird List Data
Annex 5-16 – Persons Met during Social Surveys
Annex 5-17 – Ecosystem Services Scoping Process
DISCLOSURE AUTHORIZED - Kakono HPP_ESIA_Section 5_BASELINE_June 2022 Page b

List of Tables
Table 5.1 - Distribution of Kagera River Basin in Countries Crossed by the River ................................................................ 5-1
Table 5.2 - Morphometric Parameters of the Kagera Catchment at the Proposed Kakono Dam Site .............................. 5-2
Table 5.3 - Average Monthly Flows of the Kagera River at the Proposed Kakono Dam Site ............................................ 5-13
Table 5.4 - Flood Maximum Daily Discharges in the Kagera River Estimated at the Proposed Dam Site ....................... 5-17
Table 5.5 - Kagera Watershed and Sub-Watershed Areas from Dam to Lake Victoria ..................................................... 5-18
Table 5.6 - Monthly Average Flow in m3/s of the Ngono River in 1978 and 2019 ............................................................. 5-20
Table 5.7- Particle Size Classes for site Descriptions (Adapted From Gordon et al. (2004) and Rowntree (2013)). ..... 5-29
Table 5.8 - Sediment Particle Size for the Various Geomorphic Features 11km Upstream of the Kakono Dam........... 5-32
Table 5.9 - Sediment Particle Size for the Various Geomorphic Features at EFA 1 ........................................................... 5-36
Table 5.10 - Sediment Particle Size for the Various Geomorphic Features at EFA 2 ......................................................... 5-39
Table 5.13 – Evolution of Kagera River Channel over the 2013-2016/2017 Period ......................................................... 5-46
Table 5.14- Water Quality Data for the Kagera River at the Proposed Dam Site and Downstream – 2013, 2014, 2017 5-
48
Table 5.15 - Water Quality Data for the Kagera River at the Proposed Dam site and Downstream - 2020 ................... 5-48
Table 5.16 - Discussion on Individual Water Quality Parameters ......................................................................................... 5-51
Table 5.17 - Metal Concentrations in Fine Sediment Along the Floodplains of the Lower Kagera River ........................ 5-54
Table 5.18 - Available Data on Aquatic Macroinvertebrates in the Kagera River ................................................................ 5-58
Table 5.19 - Summary of Data Collected at Each Aquatic Ecology Sampling Site in 2020 ............................................... 5-60
Table 5.20 - Present Ecological State Classification ............................................................................................................... 5-74
Table 5.21 - Methods Used to Sample Aquatic Macroinvertebrates .................................................................................... 5-75
Table 5.22 - Assumptions and Limitations .............................................................................................................................. 5-80
Table 5.23 - Details of Terrestrial Survey Sites/Transects and Sampling Dates ................................................................ 5-84
Table 5.24:- Assumptions and Limitations .............................................................................................................................. 5-92
Table 5.25 - Conservation Classification of the Lake Victoria Basin Freshwater Ecoregion .............................................. 5-94
Table 5.26 - Aquatic and Riparian Biotopes ............................................................................................................................. 5-97
Table 5.27 – Field Water Quality Results .............................................................................................................................. 5-108
Table 5.28 - Summary of Diatom Results ............................................................................................................................. 5-109
Table 5.29 - Aquatic Biotopes and Associated Macroinvertebrate Taxa ........................................................................... 5-114
Table 5.30 -Estimated Number of Non-haplochromine Fish Species in Each Family Within or Intersecting with the Lake
Victoria Basin Ecoregion (IUCN 2018). ................................................................................................................................... 5-124
Table 5.31 – February 2020 Abundance of Fish Caught, or Recorded in Fisher Catches, in the Kagera River ............ 5-129
Table 5.32 – October 2020 Abundance of Fish Caught, or Recorded in Fisher Catches, in the Kagera River .............. 5-130
Table 5.33 – February/March Fish Caught in the Kagera River Basin ................................................................................ 5-137
Table 5.34 -Combined Presence/Absence of Fish Species Caught in the 2020/2022 and Previous Fish Surveys for HPPs in
Kagera River. * = likely misidentifications. ............................................................................................................................ 5-143
DISCLOSURE AUTHORIZED - Kakono HPP_ESIA_Section 5_BASELINE_June 2022 Page c

Table 5.35 – Ecological Fish Guilds, Predominant Habitats and Associated Fish Species in the Kagera River in Zone 2 .. 5-
146
Table 5.36 – Wet (Mar-Aug) and Dry Season (Sep-Feb) Catches Indicated by Fishers Interviewed on the Kagera River Near
Kyaka. ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 5-150
Table 5.37 - Potentially Occurring Plant Species of Conservation Concerns and Likelihood of Occurrence ................ 5-174
Table 5.38 - Dominant Bird Species in the Forest/Thicket Assemblage ........................................................................... 5-178
Table 5.39 - Dominant Bird Species in the Floodplain Woodland/Thicket Assemblage ................................................. 5-179
Table 5.40 - Dominant Bird Species in the Woodland Assemblage ................................................................................... 5-181
Table 5.41 - Dominant Bird Species in the Wetland Assemblage ...................................................................................... 5-183
Table 5.42 - Dominant Bird Species in the Open Water Assemblage ................................................................................ 5-185
Table 5.43 - Dominant Bird Species in the Artificial Assemblage (Agriculture) ................................................................ 5-187
Table 5.44 - Dominant Bird Species in Settlements ............................................................................................................ 5-187
Table 5.45 - Lake Victoria Basin Endemic Bird Species Confirmed to Occur in the Study Area ...................................... 5-194
Table 5.46 -Species Composition of the Mammal Assemblages in the Study Area ........................................................ 5-196
Table 5.47 - Criteria for Determining Conservation Importance of a Receptor ............................................................... 5-203
Table 5.48 - Criteria for Determining Functional Integrity of a Receptor .......................................................................... 5-204
Table 5.49 - Biodiversity Importance Two-way Matrix........................................................................................................ 5-204
Table 5.50 - Criteria for Determining Receptor Resilience .................................................................................................. 5-204
Table 5.51 - Ecological Importance Two-way Matrix .......................................................................................................... 5-205
Table 5.52 - Guidelines for Interpreting Ecological Importance of Receptors ................................................................. 5-205
Table 5.53 - Summary of the Integration of Ecological Importance of Vegetation Communities and Faunal Habitats5-207
Table 5.54 - Assessment of Ecological Importance by Habitat Type/Vegetation Community ...................................... 5-207
Table 5.55 - Quantification of Areas of Extent of Habitat Types and their Ecological Importance Categories in Project
Footprint and Area of Influence .............................................................................................................................................. 5-208
Table 5.56 - Summary Quantification of Areas of Extent different Ecological Importance Categories ........................ 5-209
Table 5.57 - Priority Biodiversity Areas in the Lower Kagera Basin ................................................................................... 5-211
Table 5.58 – Natural and Modified Habitats Represented in the Study Area ................................................................... 5-220
Table 5.59- Application of the ESS6 Criteria to the Kakono Aquatic CHA ......................................................................... 5-225
Table 5.60 - Priority Fish Species Confirmed in the Project Area ....................................................................................... 5-229
Table 5.61 - Aquatic Species and Potential Critical Habitat Triggers in Different Zones of the EAA ............................. 5-233
Table 5.62 – Criterion 1 Qualifying Fish Species Showing the Percentage of the Global EOO Within Each Zone ........ 5-234
Table 5.63 - Criterion 2 Qualifying Fish Species Showing the Percentage of the Global EOO Within Each Zone ........ 5-235
Table 5.64 - Criterion 3 Qualifying Fish Species Showing the Percentage of the Global EOO that Falls Within Each Zone5-
236
Table 5.65 - Criterion 4 Qualifying Ecosystems Based on Identified KBAs (Sayer et al., 2018) ..................................... 5-236
Table 5.66 - Criterion 5 Qualifying Ecological Processes .................................................................................................... 5-237
Table 5.67 - Screening of Potentially Occurring Terrestrial Flora and Fauna CH-qualifying Species in the Project Area.
Species Confirmed in the Project Area during fieldwork are highlighted in grey ............................................................. 5-243
Table 5.68 - Extent of Occurrence and Population Size of Potential Critical Habitat Triggers in the defined EAA ...... 5-245
Table 5.69 - Distribution Maps of Potential Terrestrial Critical Habitat-Qualifying Species ........................................... 5-246
Table 5.70 - Application of Critical Habitat Criteria to Terrestrial Biodiversity of the Kakono HPP EAA ....................... 5-248
DISCLOSURE AUTHORIZED - Kakono HPP_ESIA_Section 5_BASELINE_June 2022 Page d

Table 5.71 - Habitat Status of Vegetation Communities/Fauna Habitats Represented in the Study Area .................. 5-251
Table 5.72 - Potential Direct Impacts and Associated Study areas ................................................................................... 5-252
Table 5.73 - Potential Indirect Impacts and Associated Study Areas ................................................................................ 5-252
Table 5.74 - Villages Included in the Study Area .................................................................................................................. 5-253
Table 5.75 - Institutions whose Land Could be Affected by a Project Component ......................................................... 5-253
Table 5.76 – Interviews Conducted During the Three Social Field Surveys ...................................................................... 5-260
Table 5.77 – District Population Census ................................................................................................................................ 5-272
Table 5.78 – District Population per sex in 2012 ................................................................................................................. 5-272
Table 5.79 - Village Population .............................................................................................................................................. 5-273
Table 5.80 – Camps Population.............................................................................................................................................. 5-273
Table 5.81 – Age Population at the National and Region Level ......................................................................................... 5-274
Table 5.82 – Age Population at the District Level ................................................................................................................ 5-275
Table 5.83 – Age Groups of the Affected Households Population .................................................................................... 5-275
Table 5.84 – Education Level of the Affected Households Population ............................................................................. 5-276
Table 5.85 – Number of land plots owned by the Affected Households .......................................................................... 5-283
Table 5.86- Proportion of Village lands within the Project affected area ......................................................................... 5-286
Table 5.87 – Land Use in Village Lands and Institutional Stakeholders Within the Project-Affected Area .................. 5-295
Table 5.88 – Structures Located in the Reservoir and the Wayleave of the Transmission Line .................................... 5-296
Table 5.89 – Main Activities Conducted on Dry Land in Kyaka Village ............................................................................... 5-304
Table 5.90 – Main activities conducted on the land located in the floodplain .................................................................. 5-316
Table 5.91 – Main Fish Species Targeted in the Project Area ............................................................................................. 5-338
Table 5.92 – Catch Values per Week in the Study Area ....................................................................................................... 5-339
Table 5.93 – Main Social Issues Among the Affected Households .................................................................................... 5-348
Table 5.94 – Health Facilities used by the Villages and Camps of the study area ........................................................... 5-351
Table 5.95 – Top ten diseases in 4 health facilities ............................................................................................................. 5-351
Table 5.96 – Number of Surveyed Households by Vulnerability Category ....................................................................... 5-356
Table 5.97 - Classification of habitats types making the ecosystems .............................................................................. 5-365
Table 5.98 – Ecosystem Services Potentially Present in the Study Area .......................................................................... 5-367
Table 5.99 – Values of Ecosystem Services in the Study Area ........................................................................................... 5-369
List of Figures
Figure 5-1 - Mean Annual Rainfall in the Kagera Basin ............................................................................................................ 5-4
Figure 5-2 - Geological Map of Tanzania Showing the Kakono Dam Area in Relation to the main Geological Formations5-
5
Figure 5-3 – Geology ..................................................................................................................................................................... 5-6
Figure 5-4 - Geological Groups of the Lower Kagera River ..................................................................................................... 5-6
Figure 5-5 - Lithology of the Kagera River in the area of the Proposed Kakono Dam Site ................................................. 5-7
DISCLOSURE AUTHORIZED - Kakono HPP_ESIA_Section 5_BASELINE_June 2022 Page e

Figure 5-6 - Geology of the Kakono Dam Site ........................................................................................................................... 5-8

Figure 5-7 - Sediment Type of the Kakono Dam Site ............................................................................................................... 5-9
Figure 5-8 - Landforms Traversed by the Kagera River in Northwestern Tanzania........................................................... 5-10
Figure 5-9 - The Floodplain and Landforms Along the Lower Kagera River ....................................................................... 5-10
Figure 5-10 – Geotechnical Profile below the Kakono Dam Axis .......................................................................................... 5-12
Figure 5-11 - Average Monthly Flows of the Kagera River at the Proposed Kakono Dam Site in m 3/s .......................... 5-13
Figure 5-12 - Long-term distribution of daily flows sorted into high, seasonal and low flow components. ................. 5-15
Figure 5-13 - Daily flows of the Kagera River at the Kakono Dam Site Between 1967 and 2017 ................................... 5-16
Figure 5-14 - Daily flows of the Kagera River at Kakono dam site for three typical years (wet, average, dry) .............. 5-16
Figure 5-15 - Flow Duration Curve (1967 - 2017) .................................................................................................................. 5-17
Figure 5-16 - Flow Duration Curves for January-February (left) and June-July (right)...................................................... 5-18
Figure 5-17 - Sub-watersheds of the Kagera River from Proposed Kakono Dam to Lake Victoria ................................. 5-19
Figure 5-18 - Estimated Mwisa River Average Monthly Flow at the confluence with the Kagera River .......................... 5-19
Figure 5-19 - River Discharge for the Kagera River Basin as simulated by COWI in 2002 ................................................. 5-20
Figure 5-20 - Kakono Stream: Watershed Boundaries and Photos Taken in October 2020 (Rainy Weather) ............... 5-21
Figure 5-21 - Land Use Change in the Kagera River Catchment ........................................................................................... 5-22
Figure 5-22 - Sediment Concentrations of the Upper Kagera River at Rusumu Falls Showing an Increase in Sediment
Concentrations since 1975. ........................................................................................................................................................ 5-23
Figure 5-23 - Sediment Yield Estimations for Africa with the Kagera River Indicated in Blue .......................................... 5-24
Figure 5-24 - Discharge and Turbidity Data for the Kagera River at Nyakanyansi G-area Station ................................... 5-25
Figure 5-25 - Monthly Satellite Images for the Kagera River Mouth .................................................................................... 5-26
Figure 5-26 - Sediment particle size for Nsongezi ................................................................................................................. 5-26
Figure 5-27 - Longitudinal Profile of the Lower Kagera River ............................................................................................... 5-28
Figure 5-28 - Georadar Riverbed Mapping for the Kagera River at the Kakono Dam Site ................................................ 5-28
Figure 5-29 - Aerial View of the Site 11km Upstream of the Kakono Dam ......................................................................... 5-31
Figure 5-30 - Images of the site Upstream of the Dam ......................................................................................................... 5-31
Figure 5-31 - Images Showing Sample Locations .................................................................................................................. 5-32
Figure 5-32 - Plan View of EFA 1 ............................................................................................................................................... 5-33
Figure 5-33 - Images of EFA 1 ................................................................................................................................................... 5-34
Figure 5-34 - The Channel Cross Section at EFA 1.................................................................................................................. 5-34
Figure 5-35 - Images of Sampling Sites ................................................................................................................................... 5-35
Figure 5-37 - Images of EFA 2 ................................................................................................................................................... 5-37
Figure 5-38 - Channel Cross Section at EFA 2 Showing the Main Geomorphic Features and the Location of the Sampling
locations ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 5-37
Figure 5-39 - Images of the Sample Locations ....................................................................................................................... 5-38
Figure 5-40 - Plan View of EFA 3 Showing the Main Geomorphic Features and Sediment Substrate. ............................ 5-39
Figure 5-41 - Images for EFA 3 ................................................................................................................................................. 5-40
Figure 5-42 - Channel Cross Section at EFA 3 Showing the Main Geomorphic Features and the Location of the Sampling
Sites ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 5-40
Figure 5-43 - Sampling Site Locations at EFA 3 ...................................................................................................................... 5-41
DISCLOSURE AUTHORIZED - Kakono HPP_ESIA_Section 5_BASELINE_June 2022 Page f


Figure 5-45 - Images for EFA 4 ................................................................................................................................................. 5-43
Figure 5-46 - Cross Section at EFA 4 ........................................................................................................................................ 5-43
Figure 5-47 - Bathymetry Scan Along the Kagera River at EFA 4 ......................................................................................... 5-44
Figure 5-48 - Sediment Sampling Locations for EFA 4 .......................................................................................................... 5-44
Figure 5-49 - Location of Water Quality Sampling Stations in November 2020 ................................................................ 5-50
Figure 5-50 - Project Area of Influence .................................................................................................................................... 5-56
Figure 5-51 - Map of Aquatic Sampling Sites for February and October 2020 and February/March 2022 .................... 5-61
Figure 5-52 - Aquatic Sampling Site K-68: Kikagati (S1.05768; E30.66203) ..................................................................... 5-62
Figure 5-53 - Aquatic Sampling Site K-12: Pump Station 32 (S1.17417; E31.01806) ...................................................... 5-62
Figure 5-54 - Aquatic Sampling Site K0: Kakono HPP (S1.19284; E31.09284) .................................................................. 5-63
Figure 5-55 - Aquatic Sampling Site K+3: Pump Station 3 (S1.18944; E31.139167)........................................................ 5-63
Figure 5-56 - Aquatic Sampling Site K+6: Station G (S1.188056; E31.22117) ................................................................... 5-64
Figure 5-57 - Aquatic Sampling Site K+18: Station G (S1.20391; E31.22117) ................................................................... 5-64
Figure 5-58 - Aquatic Sampling Site K+43: Camp 5 (S1.25106; E31.30360) ..................................................................... 5-65
Figure 5-59 - Aquatic Sampling Site K+40: Prison (S1.25000; E31.32500) ........................................................................ 5-65
Figure 5-60 - Aquatic Sampling Site K+56: Camp 2 (S1.24498; E31.37332) ..................................................................... 5-66
Figure 5-61 - Aquatic Sampling Site K+59: Quarry at Mwisa River Confluence (S1.24695; E31.39246) ........................ 5-66
Figure 5-62 - Aquatic Sampling Site K+94: Mainstem Kagera Site on floodplain downstream Kyaka (S1.209444;
E31.392460) ................................................................................................................................................................................ 5-67
Figure 5-63 - Aquatic Sampling Site S1 (S1.17088; E31.01668) ......................................................................................... 5-67
Figure 5-64 - Aquatic Sampling Site S2: Kakono Stream (S1.19272; E31.08868) ............................................................ 5-68
Figure 5-65 - Aquatic Sampling Site S3: Kibologo River near confluence with Kagera River (S1.18879; E31.18074) . 5-68
Figure 5-66 - Aquatic Sampling Site S4: Kagera Sugar Estate (S1.21268; E31.27278) .................................................... 5-69
Figure 5-67 - Aquatic Sampling Site S5: Mwisa River (S1.26474; E31.38162) ................................................................... 5-69
Figure 5-68 - Aquatic Sampling Site S6: Ngono River (S1.18667; E31.61917) .................................................................. 5-70
Figure 5-69 - Aquatic Sampling Site S7: Ngono River near confluence with Kagera River (S1.12523; E31.59430) ..... 5-70
Figure 5-70 - Aerial Image at Site K-12: Pump 32 .................................................................................................................. 5-71
Figure 5-71 - Aerial Image at K0: Kakono HPP ........................................................................................................................ 5-71
Figure 5-72 - Aerial Image at K+18: Pump Station G ............................................................................................................. 5-72
Figure 5-73 - Aerial Image at K+59: Mwisa River confluence with Kagera River ................................................................ 5-72
Figure 5-74 - Aerial Image at S7: Ngono River confluence with Kagera River .................................................................... 5-73
Figure 5-75 - Photographs of Macroinvertebrate Survey Activities (February 2020) ........................................................ 5-76
Figure 5-76 - Photographs of Fishing Survey Activities in 2020 ........................................................................................... 5-78
Figure 5-77 - Photographs of Fishing Survey Activities in February/March 2022 .............................................................. 5-79
Figure 5-78 - Map showing Terrestrial Ecology Survey Transects in the Study Area ........................................................ 5-86
Figure 5-79 - Map showing Terrestrial Ecology Survey Sites in the Study Area ................................................................. 5-87
Figure 5-80 - Terrestrial Sampling Site KK1: Kakono Stream ............................................................................................... 5-88
Figure 5-81 - Terrestrial Sampling Site KK2: Kakono/Kagera Confluence .......................................................................... 5-88
Figure 5-82 - Terrestrial Sampling Site KK3: Rubira Hill ........................................................................................................ 5-89
DISCLOSURE AUTHORIZED - Kakono HPP_ESIA_Section 5_BASELINE_June 2022 Page g

Figure 5-83 - Terrestrial Sampling Site KK4: Missenyi Ranch ............................................................................................... 5-89
Figure 5-84 - Terrestrial Sampling Site KK5: Missenyi Ranch ............................................................................................... 5-90
Figure 5-85 - Photographs of Terrestrial Ecology Survey Activities .................................................................................... 5-92
Figure 5-86 - Richness of Freshwater Fish Species in Lake Victoria Basin .......................................................................... 5-94
Figure 5-87 - Representative Aquatic Ecosystems in Lower Foothill Zone [A] and Lowland River Zone [B] ................. 5-95
Figure 5-88 - Kakono Stream Immediately Downstream of Kakono HPP dam wall (Feb. 2020) .................................... 5-96
Figure 5-89 - Aquatic Biotopes in Lower Foothills of the Kagera River ............................................................................... 5-98
Figure 5-90 – Floodplains and Oxbow Features Associated with the Lowland River Portion of the Kagera River ........ 5-99
Figure 5-91 – Aquatic biotopes of the Kakono Project Area: Overall Map –K-42 to K+132 ........................................... 5-100
Figure 5-92 – Aquatic biotopes of the Kakono Project Area: Upstream Kakono HPP Reservoir (Lowland Foothill Reach)– K-
42 ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 5-101
Figure 5-93 – Aquatic biotopes of the Kakono Project Area: Kakono HPP Reservoir (Lowland Foothill Reach) – K-125-102
Figure 5-94 – Aquatic biotopes of the Kakono Project Area: Kakono HPP Reservoir (Lowland Foothill Reach) – K 0.0
(showing Kakono Stream on left bank) ................................................................................................................................. 5-103
Figure 5-95 – Aquatic biotopes of the Kakono Project Area: Downstream of Kakono HPP (Lowland River Reach) – K+18
(showing Kagera Sugar Estate on left bank) ......................................................................................................................... 5-104
Figure 5-96 – Aquatic biotopes of the Kakono Project Area: Downstream of Kakono HPP (Lowland River Reach) – K +57
.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5-105
.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5-106
Figure 5-98 – River Substrates from Shallow Portions of the Main Channel of the Kagera River ................................ 5-107
Figure 5-99 - Cliffs Along the Kagera River at the Junction with the Kibologo River at S3 ............................................ 5-107
Figure 5-100 - Suspended Particles in the Kagera River .................................................................................................... 5-109
Figure 5-101 - Aquatic Vegetation in the Kagera River ....................................................................................................... 5-111
Figure 5-102 - Selected Aquatic Plants – Kagera River ...................................................................................................... 5-112
Figure 5-103 - Selected Aquatic Plants – Ngono River ....................................................................................................... 5-113
Figure 5-104 - Macroinvertebrates: Porifera ........................................................................................................................ 5-116
Figure 5-105 - Macroinvertebrates: Crustacea .................................................................................................................... 5-116
Figure 5-106 - Macroinvertebrates: Ephemeroptera. ......................................................................................................... 5-117
Figure 5-107 - Macroinvertebrates: Zygoptera. ................................................................................................................... 5-118
Figure 5-108 - Macroinvertebrates: Anisoptera. .................................................................................................................. 5-119
Figure 5-109 - Macroinvertebrates: Hemiptera. ................................................................................................................. 5-120
Figure 5-110 - Macroinvertebrates: Trichoptera and Lepidoptera. ................................................................................... 5-121
Figure 5-111 - Macroinvertebrates: Coleoptera .................................................................................................................. 5-122
Figure 5-112 - Macroinvertebrates: Nematocera ................................................................................................................ 5-122
Figure 5-113 - Macroinvertebrates: Brachycera .................................................................................................................. 5-123
Figure 5-114 - Macroinvertebrates: Mollusca ..................................................................................................................... 5-123
Figure 5-115 - A) Rusumo Falls [Source: Artelia, 2013) and B) Nsongezi Falls ............................................................... 5-126
Figure 5-116 - Cyprinidae [A] Labeobarbus altianalis; [B] Labeobarbus altianalis; [C] Labeo victorianus; [D] Enteromius
paludinosus; [E] Enteromius cf. magdalanae; [F] Enteromius nyanzae; [G] Enteromius jacksoni; [H] Enteromius kerstenii.
.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5-131
DISCLOSURE AUTHORIZED - Kakono HPP_ESIA_Section 5_BASELINE_June 2022 Page h

Figure 5-117 – Mormyridae Species [A] Gnathonemus longibarbus; [B] Hippopotamyrus grahami; [C] Mormyrus kannume,
[D] Mormyrid sp. nov., Cichlidae: [E] Haplochromis sp 4; [F] Haplochromis sp. 2; [G] Haplochromis sp. 5 [H] Oreochromis
leucostictus (alien) .................................................................................................................................................................... 5-132
Figure 5-118 – Bagridae [A] Bagrus dockmak; Clariidae [B] Clarias liocephalus; Mochokidae [C] Synodontis afrofischeri [D]
Synodontis afrofischeri (colour variant); [E] Synodontis afrofischeri (colour variant) [F] Synodontis cf. ruandae; Schilbiidae
[G] Schilbe intermedius; Amphiliidae [H] Zaireichthys sp. nov. ........................................................................................... 5-133
Figure 5-119 - Mastacembelidae [A] Mastacembelus frenatus; Clariidae [B] Poecilia reticulata (alien); Latidae [C] Lates
niloticus (alien) .......................................................................................................................................................................... 5-134
Figure 5-120 - (a) Enteromius sp. nov ‘broken stripe’, (b) Enteromius sp. (cf. atkinsoni), (c) Enteromius sp. (d) Enteromius
sp. (cf. cercops), (e) Zaireichthys sp. nov. ............................................................................................................................... 5-135
Figure 5-121 – Comparison of Enteromius species between 2020 and 2022 Surveys ................................................. 5-139
Figure 5-122 -Seasonal Distribution of Key Fish Species in the Kagera River between February and October 2020.5-141
Figure 5-123 – Broad Grassy Floodplains in the Vicinity of the Ngono-Kagera Confluence downstream of Kyaka ... 5-145
Figure 5-124 - Ningu, Labeo victorianus ............................................................................................................................... 5-148
Figure 5-125 – Fishers Interviewed at Landing Site ‘Vanilla’ and Camp No. 6 Kagera Sugar on 29 th February 2020 by Mr
Charles Ezekiel of the Lake Victoria Basin Fisheries Organisation. .................................................................................... 5-151
Figure 5-126 – Fishes Caught by Fishermen ........................................................................................................................ 5-151
Figure 5-127 - Global Terrestrial Ecoregions within Kagera District in Northwestern Tanzania ................................... 5-155
Figure 5-128 - VECEA Vegetation Types Represented in the General Vicinity of the Study Area ................................. 5-156
Figure 5-129 - Overview of Habitat Types of the Kakono Project Area ............................................................................ 5-158
Figure 5-130 - Photos of Riparian Forest/Thicket and a Few Constituent Plant Species ............................................... 5-159
Figure 5-131 - Typical Cross-section of Riparian Forest and Associated Vegetation Communities ............................. 5-160
Figure 5-132 - Photos of Floodplain Woodland/Thicket and a Few Constituent Plant Species .................................... 5-161
Figure 5-133 - Cross-section of Typical Floodplain Woodland/Thicket along the Kagera River ................................... 5-162
Figure 5-134 - Photos of Scarp Forest and a Few Constituent Plant Species ................................................................. 5-164
Figure 5-135 - Photos of Dry Evergreen Forest and a Few Constituent Plant Species .................................................. 5-165
Figure 5-136 - Typical Cross-section of Dry Evergreen Forest and Associated Vegetation Communities .................. 5-166
Figure 5-137 - Photos of Acacia Woodland/Bushclump Mosaic and a Few Constituent Plant Species ....................... 5-167
Figure 5-138 - Typical Cross-section of Vachellia Woodland/Bushclump Mosaic ........................................................... 5-169
Figure 5-139 - Photos of Rocky Grassland and a Few Constituent Plant Species (Rubira Hill) ..................................... 5-170
Figure 5-140 - Typical Cross-section of Rocky Grassland and Rocky Outcrop Thickets on Rubira Hill ........................ 5-171
Figure 5-141 - Photos of Floodplain Wetlands and a Few Constituent Plant Species.................................................... 5-172
Figure 5-142 - Photos of Some of the Threats Facing Vegetation in the Study Area ..................................................... 5-176
Figure 5-143 - Photos of Some Invasive Alien Plant Species in the Study Area .............................................................. 5-177
Figure 5-144 - Species Accumulation Curve using 10-Species List Avifaunal Data ........................................................ 5-178
Figure 5-145 - Photos of Typical Bird Species of the Forest/Thicket Assemblage ......................................................... 5-179
Figure 5-146 - Photos of Typical Species of the Floodplain Woodland/Thicket Assemblage ....................................... 5-180
Figure 5-147 - Photos of Typical Bird Species of the Woodland Assemblage ................................................................. 5-182
Figure 5-148 - Photos of Typical Bird Species of the Wetland Assemblage .................................................................... 5-184
Figure 5-149 - Photos of Typical Bird Species of the Open Water Assemblage .............................................................. 5-186
Figure 5-150 - Photos of Typical Bird Species of the Artificial Assemblage (Agriculture) .............................................. 5-187
Figure 5-151 - A Selection of Priority Bird Species Recorded During Fieldwork .............................................................. 5-188
DISCLOSURE AUTHORIZED - Kakono HPP_ESIA_Section 5_BASELINE_June 2022 Page i

Figure 5-152 - Photos of Several Lake Victoria Basin Endemic Bird Species Recorded During Fieldwork .................. 5-193
Figure 5-153 - Photos of Mammals Recorded During Fieldwork on Camera Traps ....................................................... 5-197
Figure 5-154 -Photos of Mammals Recorded on Walked Transects ................................................................................ 5-198
Figure 5-155 - Location of Evidence of African Elephant Occurrence in the Study Area ................................................ 5-200
Figure 5-156 - Photos of Hippopotamus (top left) and Elephant (top right and bottom) Observed in the Study Area5-201
Figure 5-157 - Ecological Importance of Habitats in the Kakono HPP Area of Influence (Inundation Zone) ............... 5-210
Figure 5-158: Protected Areas/IBAs in the Kagera River Basin .......................................................................................... 5-214
Figure 5-159 - Habitat Status Map showing Distribution of Modified and Natural Habitats in the Kakono Project AOI5-222
Figure 5-160 - Ecological Area of Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 5-228
Figure 5-161 - Distribution of Potamonates emini .............................................................................................................. 5-231
Figure 5-162. Distribution of Agriocnemis palaeforme ....................................................................................................... 5-232
Figure 5-163- Ecological Area of Analysis for the Terrestrial Critical Habitat Assessment ........................................... 5-241
Figure 5-164 – Interviews with members of the village Council in Businde village (05/03/2020) ............................... 5-260
Figure 5-165 – Focus group with women in Mushabaiguru village (28/02/2020) .......................................................... 5-261
Figure 5-166 – Focus group with women in Mugaba village (04/032020) ...................................................................... 5-261
Figure 5-167 – Focus group with farmers and livestock keepers in Mushabaiguru village (28/02/2020) .................. 5-262
Figure 5-168 –Interview with KSC workers at Kifaru Camp in KSC (03/03/2010) ........................................................... 5-262
Figure 5-169 – Interviews with Households Impacted by the Transmission Line in Kyaka village (28/07/2020) ...... 5-263
Figure 5-170 - Interviews with farmers cultivating in the floodplain in Omundungo village (28/07/2020) ............... 5-263
Figure 5-171 - View of Kagera River and the Sugar Plantations from the Top of Chabadaki Hill in Bugara Village
(02/03/2020) ............................................................................................................................................................................ 5-269
Figure 5-172 – Landscape in the KSC Land Crossed by the Transmission Line ............................................................... 5-269
Figure 5-173 – View of Kyaka Village Along the B182 Road .............................................................................................. 5-270
Figure 5-174 – Age Pyramid of the Affected Households Population .............................................................................. 5-275
Figure 5-175 – Ethnicity of the Affected Households Population ..................................................................................... 5-277
Figure 5-176 – Religions of the Affected Households Population .................................................................................... 5-278
Figure 5-177 – Main Language Spoken at Home in the Affected Households ................................................................ 5-278
Figure 5-178 – Affected Households’ Reasons for Moving in the Project Area ............................................................... 5-281
Figure 5-179 – Legal migrants from Rwanda living near the proposed reservoir in Mugaba village (29/02/2020) .. 5-282
Figure 5-180 - Village Boundaries of Businde Village Land Certificate (5/03/2020) ...................................................... 5-284
Figure 5-181 – Land Plots Opened by Villagers in the Floodplain in Omundungo Village (19/10/2020) .................... 5-288
Figure 5-182 – Headquarter of Missenyi Ranch in Missenyi District (27/02/2020)......................................................... 5-289
Figure 5-183 - Advertising Signs for Block n°287/3 and Block n°287/6 in Missenyi Ranch (01/03/2020) ................. 5-290
Figure 5-184 - Agricultural Land Owned by Kitengule Prison, lent to Agricultural Research Institute of Maruku
(27/02/2020) ............................................................................................................................................................................ 5-290
Figure 5-185 - Land Use Within the Wards of the Study area ............................................................................................ 5-291
Figure 5-186 – House in Kyaka Village Surrounded by Banana Garden Crossed by the Transmission Line (01/03/2020)5-
297
Figure 5-187 – Abandoned House Located in the Proposed Reservoir in Bugara Village (03/03/2020)..................... 5-297
Figure 5-188 - Plots of Land Cultivating by KSC Employees for the Camp Workers in Camp n°2 (21/10/2020) ....... 5-301
Figure 5-189 Crop calendar in the Project area ................................................................................................................... 5-303
DISCLOSURE AUTHORIZED - Kakono HPP_ESIA_Section 5_BASELINE_June 2022 Page j

Figure 5-190 - Small Garden Near the Riverbank in Mugaba Village (29/02/2020) ....................................................... 5-304
Figure 5-191 - Households in Mugaba Village Living just outside the border of the future Reservoir (29/02/2020) 5-305
Figure 5-192 - Eucalyptuses Trees in the Background Crossed by the Proposed Transmission Line (01/03/2020) 5-305
Figure 5-193 - House and Garden Belonging to Employees Working in Block n°287/3 in Missenyi Ranch ................. 5-306
Figure 5-194 - Livestock in Block n°288/12 on the Proposed Access Road in Kitengule Ranch (01/03/2020) ......... 5-306
Figure 5-195 - Temporary Shelter for Shepherds in Block n°288/9 (01/03/2020) ........................................................ 5-307
Figure 5-196 - Shepherds Camp n°4 Belonging to KSC (02/08/2020) ............................................................................. 5-307
Figure 5-197 – Permanent Structures Belonging to Block n°288/9 Leased to Chaburwa Ranch in Kitengule Ranch
(02/08/2020) ............................................................................................................................................................................ 5-307
Figure 5-198 - Grazing Land and Cattle in Mushabaiguru Village (29/02/2020) ............................................................ 5-308
Figure 5-199 - Wooden Structure to Treat Cattle in Mugaba Village (29/02/2020) ....................................................... 5-309
Figure 5-200 - Temporary structure for cattle keepers in Businde village, down the Chabadaki hill (05/03/2020) . 5-309
Figure 5-201 – Entrance Panel to the Grazing Area Kanywa in the Floodplain in Mushasha Village (01/11/2020) ... 5-310
Figure 5-202 – Cattle Grazing Land on the river bank in Nyabihanga Village (26/10/2020) ......................................... 5-310
Figure 5-203- Abandoned Shelters Located in KSC land, in the Southern Part of PH2B* (06/03/2020)..................... 5-311
Figure 5-204 - Wooden Structure used to Treat Livestock Against Parasites Located on KSC Land in the Southern Part of
PH2B* (06/03/2020) ................................................................................................................................................................ 5-311
Figure 5-205 – Agricultural Plots Along the Left Bank of the Kagera River Near Camp n°4 on KSC Territory (22/10/2020)
.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5-312
Figure 5-206 – Agricultural Plots Along the Left Bank of the Kagera River on the KSC Territory (26/10/2020) ........ 5-313
Figure 5-207 – “Island” Located on the Northern Part of the Papyrus Near KSC Workers Camp n°5 on the Left Bank of the
Kagera River (21/10/2020) ..................................................................................................................................................... 5-313
Figure 5-208 – Agricultural Plots in the Floodplain Located on the “Island” Near the KSC Workers Camp n°5 on the Left
Bank of the Kagera River (21/10/2020) ................................................................................................................................ 5-314
Figure 5-209 - Agricultural Plot Along the Left Bank of the Kagera River on the KSC Territory (26/10/2020) .......... 5-314
Figure 5-210 – Agricultural Plot Along the Right Bank of the Kagera River Located in KSC Territory (28/10/2020) . 5-315
Figure 5-211 – Temporary structure Along the Right Bank of the Kagera River Located in KSC Territory (28/10/2020) 5-
315
Figure 5-212 – Plot of Land cultivated on the River Bank in Nyabihanga Village (27/10/2020) .................................. 5-317
Figure 5-213 – Plot of land Cultivated on the River Bank in Mushasha Village (03/11/2020) ...................................... 5-317
Figure 5-214 – Plot of Land Cultivated on the River Bank in Bulifani Village (29/10/2020) .......................................... 5-318
Figure 5-215 – Cultivated land plot half under water in Bulifani Village (29/10/2020) ................................................. 5-318
Figure 5-216 – Trees Nursery on the Rriver Bank in Mushasha Village (2/11/2020) ..................................................... 5-319
Figure 5-217 – Vegetables Nursery on the River Bank in Mushasha Village (2/11/2020) ............................................. 5-319
Figure 5-218 – Agricultural Plot in the Floodplain Located in Kaliko Area, Mushasha village (03/11/2020) .............. 5-320
Figure 5-219 – Temporary Structure Near the Kagera River Used by Farmers to Guard the Plots in Omundungo Village
(21/10/2020) ............................................................................................................................................................................ 5-320
Figure 5-220 - Site Construction of the Pump Station NRP2 Located in the Footprint of the Reservoir (04/02/2020) ... 5-
321
Figure 5-221 – New Pump Station Under Construction Near Camp n°6 on the Right Bank of Kagera River (28/10/2020)5-
322
Figure 5-222 - Handpumps and Water Tanks at Camp n°9 (28/02/2020) ...................................................................... 5-322
Figure 5-223 – Sources of Water Used by the Households ................................................................................................ 5-323
DISCLOSURE AUTHORIZED - Kakono HPP_ESIA_Section 5_BASELINE_June 2022 Page k

Figure 5-224 – Pumping well in Omundungo village (20/10/2020) ................................................................................. 5-325

Figure 5-225 – Location of the New Water Supply Project in Kyaka village (23/10/2020) ........................................... 5-325
Figure 5-226 – Private pipe used by a business man in Gabulanga village (05/11/2020) ............................................ 5-326
Figure 5-227 – A women Washing Clothes at the Kagera River near KSC workers camp n°5 (22/10/2020) .............. 5-326
Figure 5-228 - Water Point Collection for the Kyaka Primary School (02/03/2020) ...................................................... 5-327
Figure 5-229 – Tanks Feed by an Underground Pumping System in Block n°288/9 of Kitengule Ranch (01/03/2020) . 5-
328
Figure 5-230 – Water Tower fed by underground pumping system in block n°9 of Kitengule ranch (01/03/2020) . 5-328
Figure 5-231 - A Cattle Water Point near the Proposed Dam on KSC territory (25/10/2020) ...................................... 5-329
Figure 5-232 - Bubale Cattle Water Point on KSC Territory (28/02/2020) ...................................................................... 5-330
Figure 5-233 – Wooden Canoes in Mugaba Village (29/02/2020) .................................................................................... 5-330
Figure 5-234 – Left - Residents from Mugaba Village Crossing the River to go to Kifaru Camp (29/02/2020) .......... 5-330
Figure 5-235 – Right - Businde villager Who has Crossed the River to Sell Goods in Kitoboka Sub-Village ............... 5-330
Figure 5-236 – Fisher’s ranking of income sources ............................................................................................................. 5-338
Figure 5-237 – Fishing Spot in Kyaka Village (02/03/2020) .............................................................................................. 5-340
Figure 5-238 – Fisherman Near the Bridge Construction Site in KSC (28/02/2020) ....................................................... 5-340
Figure 5-239 – Fishers at KSC camp n°5 (20/10/2020) ...................................................................................................... 5-341
Figure 5-240 – Fish Sellers at Bunazi open Market (21/10/2020) .................................................................................... 5-341
Figure 5-241 – New Bridge under Construction Connecting the Right Bank to the Left Bank (29/02/2020) ............. 5-342
Figure 5-242 - B182 Tarmac Road from Kyaka to Bugene (03/032020) ........................................................................ 5-343
Figure 5-243: Left - End of the Exiting Path on the Proposed New Access Road (01/03/2020) .................................. 5-343
Figure 5-244: Right - Dirt Road Parallel to the Proposed New Access Road (03/032020) ............................................ 5-343
Figure 5-245 – Kyaka Primary School (28/02/2020) .......................................................................................................... 5-346
Figure 5-246 – Mushabaiguru Primary School (29/08/2020) ............................................................................................ 5-346
Figure 5-247 – Access to Sanitation among the Affected Households ............................................................................ 5-347
Figure 5-248 – Last time the Affected Household saw a Wild Animal .............................................................................. 5-349
Figure 5-249 – Wild Animal Reaction .................................................................................................................................... 5-349
Figure 5-250 – Location of the Wild Animal ......................................................................................................................... 5-350
Figure 5-251 – Kyaka Village Dispensary (27/02/2020) .................................................................................................... 5-353
Figure 5-252 – Grave located in Kyaka village in the wayleave of the Transmission Line (29/07/2020) .................... 5-358
Figure 5-253 – Catholic church located in Mugaba village approximately 500m from the reservoir (29/02/2020).. 5-358
Figure 5-254 – Catholic church located 50m from KSC camp n°9 (28/02/2020) ........................................................... 5-359
Figure 5-255 – Catholic church located along the road B-181 approximately 200m from camp n°8 (Mar. 2020) .... 5-359
Figure 5-256 - Sacrifice Site in the Communal Village Land of Bugara located inside the reservoir (03/03/2020) ... 5-360
DISCLOSURE AUTHORIZED - Kakono HPP_ESIA_Section 5_BASELINE_June 2022 Page l

List of Maps
Map 5-1 – Social Baseline Study Area.................................................................................................................................... 5-254
Map 5-2 – Administrative Boundaries ................................................................................................................................... 5-255
Map 5-3 – Location of the Interviews Undertaken during the 2020 Social Surveys ....................................................... 5-265
Map 5-4 – Settlement Patterns and Institutional lands in the Study Area ....................................................................... 5-271
Map 5-5 – Distribution of Land Ownership ........................................................................................................................... 5-285
Map 5-6 – Land Uses................................................................................................................................................................ 5-294
Map 5-7 – Structures in the Project Footprints .................................................................................................................... 5-298
Map 5-8 – Existing and Planned Sugar Cane Plantation Developments........................................................................... 5-302
Map 5-9 – Water Uses .............................................................................................................................................................. 5-331
Map 5-10 – Roads in the Study Area...................................................................................................................................... 5-344
Map 5-11 – UNESCO World Heritage Sites and UNESCO World Heritage tentative list for Tanzania ............................ 5-361
Map 5-12 – Local Cultural Heritage Sites in the Project Area ............................................................................................. 5-362
Map 5-13 – Ecosystems Identified in the Study Area .......................................................................................................... 5-366
DISCLOSURE AUTHORIZED - Kakono HPP_ESIA_Section 5_BASELINE_June 2022 Page m

5.1 Kagera Watershed
The Kagera River Basin is the main tributary of Lake Victoria in the headwaters of the White Nile. It has a
catchment area of approximately 60,000 km², 30% of the total catchment area of Lake Victoria and
contributes 34% of the total inflow to Lake Victoria. An estimated 85% of the total volume entering the lake
is from rainfall with river inflow comprising the remaining 15%. Evaporation from the lake constitutes 85%
of the total outflow (Aurecon, 2012a).
The Kagera River has its source in the Rwandan and Burundian highlands as shown in Table 5.1 below and
illustrated in Section 1. The main branches in the upper watershed are the Nyabarongo River, the Akanyearu
River and the Ruvubu River, all three of which rise in the Congo-Nile divide. The Kagera River itself originates
at the outlet of Lake Rweru. From there it flows over about 60 km along the Rwanda/Burundi border to its
confluence with the Ruvubu River, about 2 km upstream of Rusumo Falls. Downstream of the falls it turns
towards the north, along the Rwanda/Tanzania border joining the Kagitumba River and then flowing east
to Lake Victoria.
Table 5.1 - Distribution of Kagera River Basin in Countries Crossed by the River
Country Total Area (km2) % of the Kagera River Basin
Burundi 13,060 22%
Rwanda 20,550 33%
Tanzania 20,210 35%
Uganda 5,980 10%
Total 59,800 100%
Source: (Studio Pietrangeli, 2019a)
The Kagera Basin is characterised by the existence of many lakes and swamps. Most of the lakes are very
shallow (3-7 m deep), except for the Rwandan lakes Burera, Ruhondo and Muhazi (BRL, 2008). Most of
these lakes and swamps are upstream of the proposed Kakono reservoir, as follows:
• Upstream of the proposed Kakono dam:
− Lake Mohasi, in the headwaters of the Nyabugogo River, is fed by the Mohagumbo River at the
eastern end, and by 13 other small streams.
− Cyohoha South Lake, located on the Rwanda/Burundi border, is fed at the south-eastern end (in
Burundi) by the Muburiba River, and draining to the Akanyaru River. Lake Cyohoha North is
situated entirely in Rwanda and fed at its southern end by a river from Burundi, and drains from
its north-eastern end through permanent swamps to the Akanyaru River.
− The Nyabarongo /Akanyaru Floodplains are located below the confluence of its major
headwater tributaries arising in the forested highlands (Birurume and Lukarara /Mwogo Rivers).
The Nyabarongo flows eastwards through boggy highland country, before descending and
entering a deep and narrow valley which is inundated in the wet seasons. The Akanyaru is the
most important tributary of the Nyabarongo. In its lower course the river flows through a broad
belt of permanent swamps.
− The Rweru/Mugesera (Rugwero) Swamp, fed by the Nyabarongo River, comprises an extensive
complex of swamps and lakes. The river frequently overtops its banks, filling depressions which
contain lakes, and inundating a zone of permanent swamps and a peripheral floodplain. Within
the main swamp complex there are four lakes on the east bank (Lake Mugesera, an unnamed
lake, and Lakes Birira and Sake) and eight lakes on the west bank (Lakes Gashaga, Murago,
Rumira, Milay, Kilimbi, Gaharwa, Rwero and Kazigiri) with Mugesera and Rwero being the
largest.
− The Rugezi wetland is situated in the mountainous north-eastern area of the Basin immediately
east of Lakes Bulera and Luhondo below the high peaks of the Virunga volcanoes. It drains via
the Hondo River, from its north-western end, over two waterfalls, into Lake Bulera.
- The Akagera Swamp and Lakes lie in an anticline on the Rwanda/Tanzania border between two
ridges of low hills, below Rusumo Falls. The Kagera River meanders along the centre of the flat-
bottomed valley for about 110 km, spilling over to inundate a swamp belt. The largest lakes are
Ihema (9,100h a), Mujunju (2 250ha), and Bisongo (2,000 ha).
• Downstream of the proposed Kakono dam:
DISCLOSURE AUTHORIZED - Kakono HPP_ESIA_Section 5_BASELINE_June 2022 Page 5-1

- Sango Bay-Musambwa Island-Kagera Wetland System (SAMUKA) is a designated RAMSAR

wetland of international importance. It is a complex system composed of the Sango Bay swamp
forest; Kagera wetlands and floodplains and the Musambwa Island.
The Kakono HPP is located on the Kagera river, near the confluence with the Kakono stream, about 250 km
upstream of the Lake Victoria (river length, not geodesic distance), in north east Tanzania at about 60 km
from Bukoba (geodesic distance), the capital of Kagera Region. The Kagera watershed at the Kakono dam
site is 46,470 km².
Table 5.2 below describes the main morphometric parameters of the Kagera catchment at the proposed
Kakono dam site. The average slope of the Kakono catchment is about 8.9%, however the main portion of
the basin is almost flat (slope less than 2%).
Table 5.2 - Morphometric Parameters of the Kagera Catchment at the Proposed Kakono Dam Site
Drainage Area 46,471 km²
Length of the main river course 734 km
Maximum elevation 4,495 m asl
Minimum elevation 1,156 m asl
Average elevation 1,606 m asl
Average slope of the catchment 8.9%
Average slope of the main river course 1%
Drainage Density1 0.4 km/km²
Form factor2 0.1
The drainage density for the whole Kakono catchment is 0.4 km/km² (very low/coarse value). It shows a
poorly drained basin with a slow hydrologic response. The form factor is another parameter that can be
directly linked to peak discharge. Smaller the value of form factor, more elongated will be the watershed.
Typically the form factor is between 0.1- 0.8. Watersheds with high form factors have high peak flows of
shorter duration. For the Kagera basin at the Kakono site, the form factor is 0.1, which means that the
watershed is elongated with low peak flow of longer duration (Studio Pietrangeli, 2019a).
Time of concentration measures the response of a watershed to a rain event. It is defined as the time
needed for water to flow from the most remote point in a watershed to the watershed outlet. It is a function
of the topography, geology, and land use within the watershed. The time of concentration for the Kagera
River at the proposed Kakono dam site is 7 days (Studio Pietrangeli, 2019a).
1
Drainage density is the total length of all the streams and rivers in a drainage basin divided by the total area of the drainage basin. It
is a measure of how well or how poorly a watershed is drained by stream channels.
2
Form factor is defined as the ratio of basin area to square of the basin length. Form factor is a dimensionless number.

5.2 Physical Environment
Climate
The climate of the Kagera river basin is influenced by topography, latitude position, as well as by the
presence of water bodies (Studio Pietrangeli, 2019b). Within the basin, there is a bimodal rainfall pattern
with the main dry season occurring between June – August:
• Between February and May, with the longer South-East monsoon bringing rain, and
• From September to November, with the shorter North-East monsoon.
Average rainfall over the basin amount to 1,000-1,200 mm/year, characterized by significant spatial and
temporal variability: High average rainfall up to 1,800 mm/year in the west mountain ranges in Rwanda and
Burundi, with a descending gradient towards the east down to 800 mm/year. Precipitation increases again
on the western shore of Lake Victoria as a result of the convective rainfall that depends from the semi-
permanent low-pressure trough over the Lake. Figure 5-1 shows the rainfall pattern within the watershed.
The proximity to the equator implies that the temperatures are almost constant. The average annual
temperature is lower in the Western and North-West mountain range of the Kagera basin, at 15-18°C, and
up to an average of 22°C in the central portion of the basin. The mean minimum reaches 14.5°C and a mean
maximum reaches 27.5°C (Studio Pietrangeli, 2019b).
Geology and Hydrogeology
This section presents the regional and site geology and how the geology influences the geomorphic setting
of the Kagera River. The majority of this information was taken from Studio Pietrangeli (2019a) unless
stated otherwise.
Regional Geology
The lower Kagera River flows across the major Kibaran Belt (Karagwe-Ankolean Belt forms part of this) and
the Bukoban Formation (Figure 5-2). The Kibaran Belt runs NNE-SSW across Burundi, Rwanda, northwest
Tanzania, Uganda and eastern Zaire and forms the Kibara Mountains.
The northwest trending Karoo rift that is superimposed on the Palaeoproterozoic Russizian basement high
divides the Kibaran Belt in two. The northern part forms the Karagwe-Ankolean Belt (KAB; Figure 5-3), a
southeast fold and thrust belt, which is surrounded by the Congo Craton to the north and west, and the
Tanzania Craton to the east (Koegelenberg & Kisters, 2014).
The KAB is divided into three Super Groups (Figure 5-3):
• Masoproterozoic Kibara Super Group
• Akunyaru Super Group
• Kagera Super Group (with Bukoba, Munyagu and Ruvubo sub goups)
The lower Kagera, upstream of the proposed Kakono Dam site, flows along fault lines in the Muyaga Group
(close to the contact with the Akanyaru Super Group) in a south-easterly direction. The Kagera turns east
across the Muyaga Group where a meandering pattern with narrow floodplain is followed (Figure 5-4).
The Muyaga Group consists mainly of Lacustrine deposits (former lake environment) with outcrops of
Quartzite and Phylite forming ridges (where the dam will be constructed, Figure 5-5). This lacustrine series
varies in thickness from a few metres to 50 m and is mainly composed of non-cohesive sand and silt with
some coarser layers of alluvial deposits (coarse sand to cobbles). The lower Kagera wetland (last 100 km
to Lake Victoria) is mainly underlain by sandstones of the Bukoba Group.

Figure 5-1 - Mean Annual Rainfall in the Kagera Basin

Source: (Aurecon, 2012a)

Figure 5-2 - Geological Map of Tanzania Showing the Kakono Dam Area in Relation to the main Geological
Formations
Source: Map from Studio Pietrangeli (2019a), data from https://www.mutusliberint.com/tanzania-regional-
geology

Figure 5-3 – Geology

Showing: (a) Simplified Central-East African Geological Belts, (b) Zoomed in Regional Framework of the Karagwe-
Ankole Belt (KAB) with Major Magmatic Outcrops. Project area indicated with red circles.
Source: (Koegelenberg & Kisters, 2014) cited by (Studio Pietrangeli, 2019a)
Figure 5-4 - Geological Groups of the Lower Kagera River


Figure 5-5 - Lithology of the Kagera River in the area of the Proposed Kakono Dam Site
Local Geology
At a finer scale the geology around the Kakono Dam site can be divided into (Figure 5-6 and Figure 5-7)
(Studio Pietrangeli, 2019a):
• Quartzite, Phyllites and Shale bedrock forming the ridge at the dam site and underlying the
colluvium, lacustrine sediment and the alluvial sediment (some smaller dolerite dykes and sills
inside the rock mass).
• Colluvium forming detritus and gravel deposits on the hillslopes and along lateral drainage lines
(eroded from the ridge) - composed of boulders, cobbles and coarse sand.
• Lacustrine sediment composed of non-cohesive sand and silt, with cobbles and coarse sands along
deeper sections deposited by the paleo-Kagera River. This layer can be seen on cut banks forming
high near vertical banks and terraces.
• Recent alluvial deposits forming the riverbanks and flood plain. These alluvial deposits are
composed of boulder, cobble, gravel and sand (Figure 5-7). The alluvial deposits from the
floodplain from the dam to Lake Victoria, with particle fining expected from the dam downstream.

Figure 5-6 - Geology of the Kakono Dam Site


Figure 5-7 - Sediment Type of the Kakono Dam Site

Source: (Norplan, 2014a)
The Geology and Geomorphology of the Lower Kagera River
The Kagera River flows along and alluvial plain through Tanzania and Uganda, surrounded by escarpments
and plains and crossing hills in the area where the Kakono Dam is planned (Figure 5-8). These hills are
composed of relatively soft rocks that are easily weathered (BRL, 2008). This alluvial plain formed through
tectonic activity of the African Rift area that resulted in down warping of the area occupied by Lake Victoria
today (Doornkamp, 1968; Rach, 1992). This resulted in the reversal of the previously west-flowing Kagera
River with it flowing east into Lake Victoria since the Precambrian period, supplying sediment and water to
the lake basin. This fluvial sediment deposition along the western shore of Lake Victoria led to the eastward
migration of the lake shore as sediment was deposited (Doornkamp, 1968). This eastward move of the lake
shore led to the incision of the Kagera River into the previously deposited lacustrine deposits, resulting in
headward retreat and down cutting of the Kagera River and the formation of rapids and small waterfalls
where bedrock is intersected, such as Nsongesi Falls, higher up along the Kagera River (Doornkamp, 1968).
The geology of the Kagera River below the proposed dam consists of the lacustrine alluvium that has been
incised by the Kagera River to depth of 40 m. Lateral planation by the Kagera River through meandering has
developed a floodplain that is filled with quaternary age fluvial sediment (BRL, 2008) (Figure 5-9), mainly
composed of gravel, sand, silt and clay. The floodplain widens and the sediment fines as you move
downstream from the dam (Figure 5-9). Some of the main geomorphic features of the wider low gradient

floodplain is meanders, oxbows and backswamps (Mwanukuzi, 1993). The presence and extent of these
features increase as you move downstream from the dam. Overbank flows result in alluvial ridge or levee
formation, trapping water on the floodplains to form backswamps (Mwanukuzi, 1993).
Figure 5-8 - Landforms Traversed by the Kagera River in Northwestern Tanzania

Source of Landform data: Harvard (2003)
Figure 5-9 - The Floodplain and Landforms Along the Lower Kagera River
Source of Landform data: Source: Harvard (2003)

Groundwater
Kagera Aquifer
Mapping of the hydrogeology of Tanzania by the British Geological Survey (Sangea H, 2018) indicate that
the Kakono Project dam and reservoir are located in an area overlaying the Kagera aquifer, a transboundary
aquifer composed of unconsolidated sediments.
The Kagera aquifer is a continuous aquifer covering an area of 5,800 km2 overlapping areas in Tanzania and
Uganda (International water Management Institute, 2014). The British Geological Survey (Sangea H, 2018)
report that currently no significant issues have been identified concerning the management of Tanzania’s
transboundary aquifers―including the Kagera aquifer. The key features of the unconsolidated aquifers in
Tanzania reported by the British Geological Survey (Sangea H, 2018) are summarised as follows:
• The water-bearing rocks are alluvial deposits found along river valleys and which consist largely of
unconsolidated sediments, with some consolidated limestone deposits;
• No major groundwater quantity issues are identified;
• Groundwater quality is generally good;
• Rainfall is the dominant source of recharge, but infiltration also occurs from rivers;
• Thickness is usually not well defined, but the water table depth tends to vary between 10-20 m
and boreholes are often drilled to depths of 100-200 m; and
• Aquifers have low to high productivity.
Basement Complex Aquifers
The higher ground set back from the Kagera River valley is composed of Basement Complex rocks. The key
features of the Basement Complex aquifers in Tanzania reported by the British Geological Survey (Sangea
H, 2018) are summarised as follows:
• Groundwater occurrence is largely limited to secondary permeability, such as weathered zones,
joints, fractures, faults or solution features, aquifers are generally discontinuous, and often
confined;
• The potential of weathered zones depends on the degree and depth of weathering and associated
fracturing, and the saturated thickness;
• Higher yields are encountered in narrow bands of gneisses and metasediments, in which
permeability can be enhanced by a greater degree of fracturing due to their proximity to fault
zones;
• Higher yields are also obtained where thick weathered zones are associated with bedrock
fracturing, and in fractured quartzite and metasediments in otherwise dense gneisses;
• Borehole yields are generally around 3 l/s and vary with lithology; and
• Aquifers are typically up to 50 m thick. Boreholes are drilled to depths of 40-250 m depending on
the system.
Groundwater Conditions Measured at the Kakono Dam Site
In March-April 2014 and November 2018 as part of the feasibility study and basic design studies 9 bore
holes were sunk and groundwater levels measured along the Kakono dam axis. It was found that the
groundwater level along the dam axis at distances of up to 850 m from the river were similar to the level of
water in the river. Figure 5-10 overleaf illustrates the geotechnical profile below the Kakono dam axis and
shows the alluvial sediment layer which is the water-bearing strata.

Figure 5-10 – Geotechnical Profile below the Kakono Dam Axis

Source: (Studio Pietrangeli, 2019b)

Hydrology
Average Flows at the Dam Site
Most of the information presented in this section is taken from the Hydrological Report of the 2019 Basic
Design (Studio Pietrangeli, 2019b).
Data used to estimate the average river flows at the dam site come from the following hydrometrical
stations:
• Water levels at Kyaka Ferry (1967-2017);
• Water level at Nyakanyansi (1970-2012);
• Water level at Nyakanyansi G. Area Pumping station (2014-2018);
• Monthly flow at Kyaka Ferry (1950 - 1994 and 2009 - 2013); and
• Monthly flow at Rusumo Falls (1956 – 1996).
The analysis of the runoffs is mainly based on daily water level series measured at the Kyaka Ferry station
converted to flows through its rating curve and on the daily and monthly flows series measured at the same
gauging station, close to the dam site.
Additional recent data recorded at the Nyakanyansi G. Area Gauging station have also been used to estimate
the historical series at the dam site. The rating curve of the Nyakanyansi G. Area station has been verified
and validated by Studio Pietrangeli in 2018.
The Average Annual Flow (AAF) at the Kakono dam site is 213 m3/s. The average monthly flows at the
Kakono dam site are provided in Table 5.3 below and illustrated in Figure 5-11 below.
Table 5.3 - Average Monthly Flows of the Kagera River at the Proposed Kakono Dam Site
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Mean
Average Monthly 183 183 193 222 249 250 250 232 211 196 195 195 213
Flows in m3/s
300
250
Monthly Average Flow [m 3/s]
AAF= 213m3/s
200
150
100
50
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Figure 5-11 - Average Monthly Flows of the Kagera River at the Proposed Kakono Dam Site in m 3/s
Flow Components
Flow components integrate the concepts of seasonal and interannual variability (The Nature Conservancy,
2010). Three ecological flow components:

• High flow events and floods provide cues for fish migration, maintain channel and floodplain
habitats, inundate submerged and floodplain vegetation, transport organic matter and fine
sediments;
• Seasonal flows represent a ‘typical’ range of flows in each month and are useful for describing
variation between seasons. They are also useful for describing variation among years. Most of the
time – in all but the wettest and driest portions of the flow record – flows are within this range.
Seasonal flows provide habitat for spawning fishes; ensure that eggs in various substrates are
wetted; maintain bank habitat for nesting mammals; and maintain a range of persistent habitat
types. Naturally‐occurring variability within seasons helps maintain a variety of habitats and
provides conditions suitable for multiple species and life stages; and
• Low flows provide habitat for aquatic organisms during dry periods, maintain floodplain soil
moisture and connection to the hyporheic zone, and maintain water temperature and dissolved
oxygen conditions.
Available Daily River Flow Data
The Project has reconstituted the daily flow data of the Kagera River at the proposed dam site, using the
historical series of data available at the various hydrometrical stations. Annex 5-2 provides the daily river
flow data for every day of the following years:
• 1967 - 1968;
• 1971 - 1977;
• 1982 - 1983;
• 1985 - 1987;
• 1989 – 1997;
• 2003, 2007, 2009; and
• 2015 to 2017.
These data are useful to describe the river flow components at the dam site, to analyse the flood frequency
and describe the probability of occurrence of low flow within a year.
Seasonal Variability
Flow components are used to highlight specific portions of the hydrograph and discuss the ecological
importance of each portion. Flow exceedance values (Qex) are used to divide flows into three components.
For example, a 10‐percent exceedance probability (Q10) represents a high flow that has been exceeded
only 10% of all days in the flow period. Conversely, a 99‐percent exceedance probability (Q99) represents a
low flow, because 99% of daily mean flows in the period are greater than that magnitude. Figure 5-12
illustrates the long-term distribution of daily flows sorted into high, seasonal and low flow components. It
shows that at the Kakono dam site:
• the Kagera River does not show several high flow pulse events spread over the year: high flows
and floods always occur within the period May to August in response to heavy rain in Rwanda and
Burundi;
• the baseflow component of the Kagera flow is high, resulting from storage in upstream lakes and
swamps (IAHS, 1999). Minimum flows have always been higher than 100 m3/s;
• the Kagera River has a slow hydrologic response with low peak flow of long duration as described
in Section 3.

600 600
High Flows and Floods (Max to Daily Q10)

Seasonal Flows (Daily Q10-Q75)
500
Low Flows (Daily Q75-Q95) 500
Daily Q95-Min
400 400
Flow in m3/s
300 300
200 200
100 100
0 0
D1 D31 D61 D91 D121 D151 D181 D211 D241 D271 D301 D331 D361
J an Feb Mar Ap r May Jun Jul Au g S ep Oc t Nov Dec
Figure 5-12 - Long-term distribution of daily flows sorted into high, seasonal and low flow components.
The defining characteristic of the river flow regime isDaysa gradual and predictable annual cycle of rising and
falling water levels, with higher flows from March through September. This is illustrated most strikingly in
the smooth maximum and minimum river levels in Figure 5-12. The smooth variations in seasonal and low
flows are a further reflection of the consistency and predictability of flow variations in the system. The
morphometric parameters of the Kagera catchment (Studio Pietrangeli, 2019b) explains this flow pattern:
• With a drainage density almost 0.40 (see Section 3), the catchment is little drained, and therefore it
is characterised by a slow answer to rainfall input, i.e. a great infiltration takes place;
• The elongation ratio equal to 0.3 shows that the catchment is moderately elongated. This extends
the concentration time and consequently reduces the maximum discharge of floods;
• The slope of the whole catchment is gentle (around 9%) and it supports losses for infiltration; and
• The many swamps and lakes extending for around 30% of the overall catchment provides a source
of losses for evaporation, as well as a reason for a strong moderation of the maximum discharge
of floods.
Interannual Variability
Figure 5-13 below provides the Daily flows of the Kagera River at the Kakono Dam Site between 1967 and
2017. It shows high variability between years in terms of high flows, but low variability for low flows.
Figure 5-14 below provides the annual hydrographs (daily flows) for three typical years at the dam site:
1989 (wet year), 2016 (average year) and 2017 (Dry year). When a year is dry, the river flow is actually low
every day of the year. Conversely, when a year is wet the river flow is actually high every day of the year.
The river flows observed in 2017 (Dry year) were every day lower than the lowest daily flow recorded in
1989 (wet year).
Within a year, the Kagera river does not show sudden increase or decrease of daily flow rates. During flood
events, the flows stay high during weeks if not months. Likewise, in dry years, there are no flood pulse
events at all during the year. The hydrologic response of the watershed is slow at the Kakono dam site, and
the river flow rate increases or decreases progressively. It is a key feature of the Kagera River in its lower
reach: the river flow shows inertia and low variability from one day to the other a fortiori within a day.

Daily River Flow [m 3/s]
600
500
400
300
200
100
10557
1
10193
10921
1093
1457
1821
2185
2549
2913
3277
3641
4005
4369
4733
5097
5461
5825
6189
6553
6917
7281
7645
8009
8373
8737
9101
9465
9829
365
729
1967 1973 1977 1986 1991 1995 2003 2016
Figure 5-13 - Daily flows of the Kagera River at the Kakono Dam Site Between 1967 and 2017
600
Daily River Flow [m 3/s]
500
1989 Wet Year
400
300
2016 Average Year
200
2017 Dry Year

100
Figure 5-14 - Daily flows of the Kagera River at Kakono dam site for three typical years (wet, average, dry)
Flood and Low-Flow Analysis
A Flood Frequency Analysis
The flood frequency analysis undertaken by the Project was mostly based on the daily discharges observed
at the Kyaka Ferry. A statistical approach (Gumbel model) has been considered more accurate for floods
with a lower return period than 100 years. A rainfall-runoff model has been applied for the evaluation of
the extreme floods (100, 1,000, 10,000-year return periods). This is because the 36 years of available data
provides some limitations to any statistical model extrapolation for return periods greater than 100 years.
Table 5.4 provides the estimate of Flood Maximum Daily Discharges in the Kagera River Estimated at the
Proposed Dam Site.

Table 5.4 - Flood Maximum Daily Discharges in the Kagera River Estimated at the Proposed Dam Site
Return Period in Year Daily Maximum Flow in m3/s
2 301
5 393
10 456
20 517
50 597
100 722
1,000 768
10,000 810
B Low Flow Analysis
B.1 Flow Duration Curve
A flow duration curve shows the percentage of time that flow in a river is likely to equal or exceed some
specified value of interest. Figure 5-15 below is the flow duration curve of the Kagera River at the Kakono
dam site. It shows that:
• 99% of the time, the Kagera river flow can be expected to exceed 108 m3/s. 108 m3/s is a flow rate
very rarely experienced by the river system downstream of the future dam.
• A flow rate of 315 m3/s occurs or is exceeded only 6% of the time. It is therefore a flow rarely
experienced by the river system downstream of the proposed dam.
600
500
400
River Flow [m 3/s]
Q6%= 315m3/s
300
200 Q95%= 140m3/s

Q99%= 108m3/s
100
0
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Frequency of Exceedance
Figure 5-15 - Flow Duration Curve (1967 - 2017)
B.2 Seasonal Analysis
A similar analysis was undertaken for the low-flow months only (January-February, and the high-flow
months only (June-July). The flow duration curves in Figure 5-16 show that:
• In low-flow period (January to February), the river system never experienced a flow as high as
315 m3/s immediately downstream of the dam.
• In high-flow period (June-July), the river system experiences less than 15% of the time a flow
higher than 315 m3/s.

Figure 5-16 - Flow Duration Curves for January-February (left) and June-July (right)
Downstream Tributaries
Table 5.5 below provides the area in km² for each sub-watershed of the Kagera River from the proposed
Kakono dam down to the Lake Victoria. They are illustrated on Figure 5-17. Downstream of the dam, there
are 2 main tributaries located on the left bank, the Mwisa River and the Nnogo River, the sub-watersheds
of which cover more than 80% of the Kagera watershed area between the dam and the Lake Victoria.
Table 5.5 - Kagera Watershed and Sub-Watershed Areas from Dam to Lake Victoria
Component Watershed outlet Area in km²
Kagera River At the proposed Dam Site: 46,471
Immediately upstream of the confluence with the Mwisa River: 47,369
Immediately downstream the confluence with the Mwisa River: 54,064
Immediately upstream of the confluence with the Ngono River: 54,438
Immediately downstream with the confluence with the Ngono River: 57,650
At the Lake Victoria: 58,370
Sub-watersheds Kagera River between Dam Site and Mwisa River 898
Mwisa River at confluence with the Kagera River 6,695
Kagera River between Mwisa River and Ngono River confuences 374
Ngono River at confluence with the Kagera River 3,212
Kagera River between Ngono River and Lake Victoria 720
Total sub-watershed area from Dam to Lake Victoria 11,899
Immediately downstream of the dam, the Kakono stream joins the Kagera River on the left bank. This
stream gave to the Project its name. Although of small size (23 km²), it is described in the next paragraphs
because it could be used for accommodating the fishway proposed in the 2022 ESIA.

Figure 5-17 - Sub-watersheds of the Kagera River from Proposed Kakono Dam to Lake Victoria
A Mwisa River
The Mwisa River inflow at its confluence with the Kagera River (~57 km downstream of the dam) was
estimated using the difference of flow in the Kagera River upstream and downstream of the confluence:
• The Kagera River flow immediately upstream of the confluence was calculated by scaling the
monthly flow at dam site by the watershed area ratio with t e following formula:
- QKagera_2 = (AKagera_2/AKagera dam) * QKagera dam
• The Kagera River flow immediately downstream of the confluence was estimated using the Kagera
Ferry gauging station observations (1950-1994; 2009-2013).
Figure 5-18 below provides the estimated Average Annual Flow (13m 3/s) and the Average Monthly Flows
(24 m3/s in August, 4 m3/s in November) at its confluence with the Kagera River.
Figure 5-18 - Estimated Mwisa River Average Monthly Flow at the confluence with the Kagera River
B Ngono River
A different approach was used to estimate the Ngono River inflow into the Kagera River. This is because
there is a gauging station for the Ngono River, and it drains an area of heavy rainfall.
Two years of flow data are available for the Ngono River at its confluence with the Kagera River (See Table
5.6):
• 2019, from the Hydrological Year Book (2010-2019) River Flows Data (URT, 2020); and
• 1978-1979, from the Global Runoff Data Centre 56068 Koblenz, Germany.

Table 5.6 - Monthly Average Flow in m3/s of the Ngono River in 1978 and 2019
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Average
a
1978 10 23 73 125 42 34
1979 a 52 34 53 63 54 33 25 17 9 8 7 32
2019 b
21 16 19 22 50 46 12 9 8 23 67 63 30
[a]: Data downloaded on 14/09/2020 from GRDC
[b]: (URT, 2020)
The precipitations for the same 1978 and 2019 years are not available; the hydrological comparisons
between the two years cannot be undertaken. Both years show an Annual Average Flow of 30 m3/s. The
river discharge of the Kagera River and the Ngono River were simulated using a Rainfall-runoff model in
(COWI, 2002). See Figure 5-19 below for the outcome.
30 m3/s
Figure 5-19 - River Discharge for the Kagera River Basin as simulated by COWI in 2002
It shows that during the period 1980 to 1989, the maximum monthly flow was approx. 100 m3/s (in 1986)
and that the annual average flow observed in 1978 and 2019 in situ (i.e. 30 m3/s) could also be considered
for the period 1980-1989 as first approximation.
C Kakono Stream
Figure 5-20 below illustrates the catchment area of the Kakono stream and the conditions of the riverbed
in October 2020. This stream is seasonal, there is no gauging stations or any other sort of flow monitoring.
Using the specific discharge of the Mwisa and the Ngono rivers as first approximation of that of Kakono
stream, the Kakono Stream annual average flow would be between 0.2 and 0.05 m3/s.

Kakono Stream watershed

23km²
Figure 5-20 - Kakono Stream: Watershed Boundaries and Photos Taken in October 2020 (Rainy Weather)
D Conclusion on the Downstream Tributaries Contribution
The Annual Average Flow of the Kagera River at the Lake Victoria is estimated at 260 m3/s in (COWI, 2002).
This is compatible with the estimated contribution of 13m 3/s (Mwisa River) and 30 m3/s (Ngono River) of
the two main downstream tributaries.
Overall, the Ngono River would contribute three times more than the Mwisa River to the hydrology of the
Kagera River downstream of the proposed Kakono Dam. In average, the contribution of these two
downstream tributaries to the Kagera River flow is of the order of 20% of the Kagera River flow at the
proposed Kakono Dam (~5% from the Mwisa and ~15% from the Ngono River). In wet years in the Ngono
watershed area, the Ngono River is likely to contribute a highly seasonal flow to the lower Kagera (IAHS,
1999).
River Geomorphology & Sediment Transport
Regional Context
This section presents data on the regional trends for sediment supply, sediment transport, sediment
particle size and sediment supply to Lake Victoria.
A Sediment Supply in the Kagera River Basin
Limited published data on sediment supply is available for the Kagera River. Existing records are for spot
measurements and often associated with calculation errors resulting in unrealistic values.

Soils are protected by vegetation from detachment through splash, sheet, rill and gully erosion. Reductions
in vegetation cover through over grazing, burning, harvesting and ploughing enhance soil erosion. The
eroded sediment is transported over land to drainage features, such as drainage lines and stream, and
makes its way down to the rivers. This decrease in vegetation cover and resultant increase in soil erosion
has been reported for the Kagera River basin (LVEMP, 2005). Basin wide changes in land cover indicate that
cultivated land, grassland and woodland has increased, whereas bare land and bush land has decreased
from 1990 to 2011 (Figure 5-21). Soil erosion is associated with expansion in cultivated land and this has
been extensive in the upper regions of the Kagera River catchment (FAO, n.d.). Other sources of soil erosion
are cultivation of riverbanks and floodplains, road and stormwater runoff driving erosion and reduced
sediment buffering by degraded wetlands and riparian strips (FAO, n.d.). These changes in land use and land
cover and associated erosion and increased sediment yield have been recorded in other areas of Tanzania,
pointing to regional trends of land degradation (Miller & Doyle, 2014; Dutton, et al., 2019).
Figure 5-21 - Land Use Change in the Kagera River Catchment

Source: (Hagai, 2019)
Work has been conducted on the effect of the increased erosion and resultant sediment yield of to the
Kagera River catchment. In 1972 the sediment yield of the Kagera River was calculated to be 10 t/km2/year
(Studio Pietrangeli, 2019b). Subsequent measurements 30 years later show an increase in the sediment
concentrations and calculations indicate that the Kagera’s sediment yield has doubled since measurements
by Hydromet in 1972 (Studio Pietrangeli, 2019b); Figure 5-22). A recent sediment yield of 21.4 t/km2/year
is calculated for the dam site based on the 2000-2005 LVEMP data (Studio Pietrangeli, 2019b). This
increase in sediment loading is ascribed to soil erosion as a result of the intense cultivation in the high
rainfall areas of the basin as seen in Figure 5-21. These calculations agree broadly with the regional
estimate 10 – 100 t/km2/year by Vanmearcke et al. (2014) (Figure 5-23).

Figure 5-22 - Sediment Concentrations of the Upper Kagera River at Rusumu Falls Showing an Increase in
Sediment Concentrations since 1975.
PPM Equals mg/L at These low Concentrations (https://water.usgs.gov/admin/memo/SW/sw93.21.html).
Source: (Studio Pietrangeli, 2019b)

Figure 5-23 - Sediment Yield Estimations for Africa with the Kagera River Indicated in Blue
Source: (Vanmaercke, Poesen, Broeck, & Nyssen, 2014).
Other sediment load calculations were more optimistic and possibly more uncertain. Measurements at
Nyakanyansi G-Area and the Dam site over a limited flow range (262–290 m3/s) shows relatively low
variability between the sites and unrealistically low suspended sediment readings of 0.09–0.16 mg/l
(Norplan, 2014). The Nyakanyansi G-Area (25 km downstream of the dam) has on average higher readings
than at the Dam site, but due to the low suspended sediment concentration values this difference is not
significant. These samples were taken at the riverbank, so will be an underrepresentation of the suspended
load across the channel. A subsequent report presents concentrations of 130-200 mg/l during low flow
conditions (Norplan, 2016a). NORPLAN’s annual sediment load calculations range between 0.0012 (or
0.0006 million m3; based on the unrealistically low observed sediment concentrations) and 0.50 million
tonnes/year for the dam site, but these estimates are based on samples taken over a very narrow band of

observed flows and is associated with significant uncertainty. Sediment concentrations around Rusumo
falls have been reported to be higher compared to the lower reaches of the Kagera River, with the Kagera
swamps acting as a significant sediment sink, so not of much use for the lower Kagera River (Norplan,
2016a).
B Sediment Transport Processes Along the Kagera River
Large volumes of sediment are expected to move along the Kagera River. Sediment monitoring in the
Kagera catchment shows that there is a decrease in sediment loading along the Kagera River and is a result
of the large wetlands along the middle catchment that trap and store sediment (BRL, 2008).
No long-term measurements are available on sediment transport, but some insights can be deduced from
shorter term monitoring data. Figure 5-22 indicates that sediment concentrations increase for higher
discharges, which is a common occurrence in rivers worldwide. Based on this we can assume that sediment
transport peaks during the high flow season.
Some continuous turbidity readings over a short time period (October 2013 to March 2014) show increases
in turbidity and suspended sediment concentrations with increases in flow rate (Figure 5-24). Unfortunately,
the reduction in battery voltage influenced the turbidity sensor sensitivity negatively, leading to unrealistic
spikes that do not align with hydrological changes, making the relationship between discharge and
sediment concentration more uncertain for the latter half of the measurement period presented in Figure
5-24.
Figure 5-24 - Discharge and Turbidity Data for the Kagera River at Nyakanyansi G-area Station
Source: (Norplan, 2014)
C Sediment Discharge into Lake Victoria
Based on monthly satellite imagery for the Kagera River mouth during 2019 it is clear that the sediment
concentration remains high throughout the year and that the contribution of suspended sediment to Lake
Victoria is significant (Figure 5-25). Due to the increase in flow rate from April to September it is expected
that the volume of sediment delivered to Lake Victoria will peak during the same period.

Figure 5-25 - Monthly Satellite Images for the Kagera River Mouth
Showing Suspended Sediment Plumes Flowing into Lake Victoria.
Image Source: Planet Labs
D Sediment Particle Size in the Kagera River
It is expected that the Kagera River transports a range of sediment sizes with the majority of it being finer
sediment that is carried in suspension. Information on particle size for bed sediment is not available from
the literature, the information described in this report in Section 5.2.5.2 originates from the field
investigations undertaken in 2020 as part of the 2022 ESIA preparation. Suspended sediment particle size
analysis by SNC-LAVALIN for the upper Kagera River (Kagera at Rusumu Falls and the Ruvubu River) shows
that 80% of the material is finer than 0.05 mm (silt and clay) and 100% finer than 0.1 mm (fine sand) (Studio
Pietrangeli, 2019b). Lower down the Kagera River, at Nsongezi Falls, the suspended sediment particle size
had a D10 of 0.0025 mm (clay), D50 of 0.017mm (silt) and a D90 of 0.045 mm (Silt; Figure 5-26; based on 17
samples taken at a high flow rate of 380m 3/s). Based on the available data, the suspended sediment is
likely to be in the clay, silt and very fine sand particle size range.
Figure 5-26 - Sediment particle size for Nsongezi

Source: (Nsongesi Feasibility Study)
Information on bed sediment particle size was not available in reports or the literature.

Lower Kagera River
This section presents the geomorphic character of the Lower Kagera River and the site-specific geomorphic
character.
A Reach Geomorphic Character Along the Lower Kagera River
The lower Kagera River, from Nsongesi Falls to Lake Victoria, ranges from the lower foothills geomorphic
zone to a lowland river based on river gradient and geomorphic features (Figure 5-27). The lower foothill
zone is described as a river with a moderate gradient (0.001-0.005) mixed bed (often bedrock and cobble),
pool riffle/rapid sequences and a narrow floodplain composed of sand, gravel and cobble (Rowntree &
Wadeson, 1999). The lowland zone has a low gradient (0.001-0.0001), fine grained alluvial bed,
meandering planform in a distinct floodplain and unconfined valley setting (Rowntree & Wadeson, 1999).
The following reaches were identified for the Lower Kagera River (Figure 5-27):
• Reach A is classified as lower foothill and the channel characteristics fits the description of a very
narrow discontinuous floodplain (floodplain width less than channel width), straight to wandering
channel, bedrock sections, bedrock islands, rapids;
• Reach B, where the dam will be built, can be classified as a lowland zone based on the longitudinal
slope (0.00075), but its character fits the lower foothill description better mostly due to its
confined valley setting, narrow flood plain (floodplain width similar to channel width) and sinuous
wandering channel, coarse bed material (bedrock, boulders, cobbles), coarse to fine bank and
floodplain material (cobbles, gravels and sand). The georadar observations of bedrock presence at
the dam site confirms the more mixed bed character of Reach B (Figure 5-28);
• Reach C is a transitional reach that exhibits a moderate floodplain width (floodplain width similar to
4 channel widths), a partly confined valley setting allowing meander development, wandering to
meandering channel planform, coarse to moderate bed material (cobbles and gravels), fine to
moderate floodplain material (gravel, sand and silt);
• Reach D has a partly confined valley setting, moderate floodplain width (floodplain width similar to
8 channel widths), wandering to meandering channel pattern, moderate to fine bed material
(cobbles, gravels and sand), fine bank and floodplain material (sand, silt and clay); and
• Reach E has an unconfined valley setting, wide floodplain (floodplain width similar to 10+ channel
widths), meandering channel pattern, moderate to fine bed material (gravel and sand), fine bank
and floodplain material (sand, silt and clay).
The valley confinement decreases and floodplain width increases from reach D to E with meander and
alluvial floodplain features, such as oxbows and backswamps, becoming dominant.
Five sites were studied in more detail, with site observations, for the need of this baseline study (see Figure
5-27 for their location):
• Upstream site, located 11 km upstream of the dam, representative of the reach A and of the
morphology of the river in the proposed reservoir footprint;
• Site EFA 1, located 3 km downstream of the proposed dam, representative of the reach B;
• Site EFA 2, located 19 km downstream of the proposed dam, representative of the reach C;
• Site EFA 3, located 56 km downstream of the proposed dam, representative of the reach D; and
• Site EFA 4, located 93 km downstream of the proposed dam, representative of the reach E.

Figure 5-27 - Longitudinal Profile of the Lower Kagera River

Showing the main Reaches and Geomorphic Characteristics of the river
Source: Elevation data extracted from SRTM 30
Figure 5-28 - Georadar Riverbed Mapping for the Kagera River at the Kakono Dam Site
Source: NORPLAN (2014)

B Methodology
A field survey was undertaken in October 2020 to describe the morphological features and its sediment
composition at the study sites.
The Kagera River is a deep, fast-flowing river with steep banks and dense vegetation cover on its banks.
These conditions limit sediment collection to grab and surface core samples in the channel and on the
inundated floodplain where conditions are suitable. The following methods were used by SLR in October
2020 to collect sediment samples:
• Bottom grab sampler – a stainless steel Van Veen grab sampler covering a surface of 275 cm2 was
used to collect gravel and finer particles of the river bed, bank and floodplain;
• Core sampler – a 40 mm diameter PVC pipe of 3 m length was used to sample sand, silt and clay
deposits in deeper water on the banks and floodplain; and
• Hand corer – a 30 mm diameter stainless steel hand corer of 200mm length was used to sample
sediment above water level;
• 5m survey staff was used to measure water depth at the sampling locations and probe the bed and
banks for bedrock, boulders and cobble where velocities were too high for sample collection. The
staff was also used to probe the flooded floodplain where dense vegetation made the use of the
sampling equipment impossible.
• Deeper Pro+ sonar was used to scan cross sections of the bed surface where ADCP scans were not
available. The sonar was also used longitudinally to detect if sand dunes were present along the
lower reaches.
These instruments were used to collect sediment samples of various geomorphic features such as:
• River bed;
• Bars;
• Banks;
• Levees or alluvial ridges;
• Floodplain; and
• Terraces.
B.1 Physical Particle Size Descriptions
Each sample per geomorphic feature was a composite of 5 randomly selected sub-samples to optimise
representativity of the geomorphic feature. Sediment samples were graded in the field where possible.
Gravel and cobble sized samples were assessed by measuring the B-axis of 100 randomly selected particles
(Fryirs & Brierley, Geomorphic Analysis of River Systems: An Approach to Reading the Landscape, 2013).
Sand samples were air dried and assessed in the field using an Eijkelkamp Sand Ruler. Fine sediment
samples (sand, silt and clay) were collected for laboratory analysis at the Tanzania National Roads Agency:
Materials Testing Laboratory, Mwanza, Tanzania. The following methods were used to analyse the
sediment for particle size in the laboratory:
• Samples were dried at 105°C and disaggregated with a pestle and mortar;
• The sediment was sieved through a stack of square hole sieves with an aperture ranging from 75 µm
to 2,000 µm (sizes range in µm: 108, 125, 150, 212, 250, 300, 425, 500, 600, 710, 850, 1,000, 1180,
1400, 1700). The sieve stacks were placed on the sieve shaker for 15 minutes and the fraction
remaining on each sieve was determined by mass; and
• The clay concentration was determined by sedimentation analysis using the hydrometer method.
The particle classes were described based on the Wentworth size classes as presented in Table 4. Clay
content is an indication of the cohesiveness of the bank and floodplain sediment, where a clay concentration
of more than 10% results in less erodible material (Fryirs & Brierley, 2013).
Table 5.7- Particle Size Classes for site Descriptions (Adapted From Gordon et al. (2004) and Rowntree (2013)).
Wentworth size class Grain diameter (mm) Feel or analogy
Very large boulder 2048 - 4096 Compact car
Large boulder 1024 - 2048 Small trailer
Medium boulder 512 - 1024 Wheelbarrow
Small boulder 256 - 512 Day pack

Wentworth size class Grain diameter (mm) Feel or analogy

Large cobble 128 - 256 Soccer ball
Small cobble 64 - 128 Coffee mug
Coarse gravel 16 - 64 Cricket ball
Medium gravel 8 - 16 Golf ball
Fine gravel 2-8 Pea
Coarse sand 0.5 - 2 Brown sugar
Medium sand 0.125 - 0.500 White sugar
Fine sand 0.063 - 0.125 Caster sugar
Silt 0.002 - 0.063 Silky
Clay < 0.002 Sticky
B.2 Chemical analysis of the sediment samples
Heavy metal concentrations for Mercury (Hg), Arsenic (As), Cadmium (Cd), Chromium (Cr), Copper (Cu), Nickel
(Ni), Lead (Pb), Zink (Zn) and Aluminium (Al) were determined for the silt and clay sediment fraction of the
floodplain sediment at EFA 1 to 4. The metal concentrations were determined by Atomic Absorption
Spectrometry and Inductive Coupled Plasma Spectroscopy at the Africa Assay Laboratory in Mwanza,
Tanzania.
B.3 Mapping Sample Locations and Historic Changes
Sampling locations were recorded on field maps and handheld GPS. Handheld and oblique aerial photos
were used to document the various geomorphic features and their sediment composition.
High resolution (<3m pixel size) satellite images were used to assess changes of the Kagera River planform
over the available dataset and approximate monthly sediment loading of the Kagera River mouth over
2019. The following satellite image sources were used:
• GoogleEarth that provides Airbus and Maxar Technologies images
• PlanetScope that provides Planet Scope images
Geomorphic features were mapped onto Google Earth images based on field maps and field observations.
B.4 Limitations
During the field campaign in October 2020 the flow levels were high (~290 m3/s), with depths of 5+ m and
velocities of up to 2 m/s. Bed and bank material sampling were possible up to a depth of 5m in areas with
velocities up to 1 m/s. Sampling in all parts of the main channel was thus not possible, making the
assessment of channel incision uncertain as the size and depth of the bed material is uncertain. Regardless
of the flood conditions, samples of the channel bed (along the river margins where depth and velocity
allowed), banks and floodplains were collected for each site. TSS was sampled for the water quality study.
C Geomorphic Character of the Kagera River 11km Upstream of the Kakono Dam
C.1 General Site Description
This reach is located in a confined valley setting with a very narrow discontinuous flood zone transitioning
into gentle hillslopes away from the river channel (Figure 5-29). The channel is incised into the surrounding
landscape and the channel follows a fairly straight to sinuous planform and mixed bedrock channel type
with a relatively steep channel gradient (compared to downstream reaches). The river follows a poorly
developed pool-rapid sequence during low flow, but this is largely drowned out during high flows.
Bed material consists mostly of bedrock, boulders, cobbles and gravel. Gravel, sand, silt and clay make up
most of the bank sediment (Figure 5-30; Table 5.8). The floodplain has a high clay content of 28 % making
it cohesive (Table 5.8). Cobble and gravel bars form along the banks, with sand, silt and clay deposits where
velocities are lower due to dense vegetation cover (Figure 5-30). Cobbles and boulders in the channel are
highly imbricated (packed to form a stable bed) across the active channel. Flow velocities increase towards
the left-hand bank with increased flow turbulence.

Figure 5-29 - Aerial View of the Site 11km Upstream of the Kakono Dam
Showing the Main Geomorphic Features and Sediment Types
Image source: Google Earth (September 2016)
Figure 5-30 - Images of the site Upstream of the Dam

Showing: a) Gravel and Sand Along the Bank; b) Narrow Floodplain Along the Right Bank; c) Cobble Deposits Along
the Right Bank Forming a Riffle Habitat; d) well Vegetated Banks of a Sandy Substrate
The sediment sample locations in Table 5.8 and Figure 5-31 can be described as:

• 5.1 - Left hand backwaters. Substrate consists of medium sand and silt embedding large gravels
and small cobbles. Water depth 0.45 m, deeper towards active channel. No visible flow;
• 5.2 - Left hand bank situated in the Riparian forest. Bank consists of gravels and small cobbles.
Above WL;
• 5.3 - Floodplain on the right side of the channel. Silty and fine sand substrate with a high organic
content. Water depth 0.6 m with no visible flow; and
• 5.4 - Floodplain left of main channel. Water depth of 0.1 m with no visible flow. Silty and fine sand
substrate with a high clay content.
Table 5.8 - Sediment Particle Size for the Various Geomorphic Features 11km Upstream of the Kakono Dam
Sample Geomorphic
Comment D16 (mm) D50 (mm) D84 (mm) Clay content %
number feature
5.1 Backwater (LHB) Medium Sand 0.018 0.12 0.24 9
5.2 Left hand bank Coarse gravel 11 18 32 0
Medium sand 0.15 0.27 0.35 1
5.3 Floodplain (RHB) Silt 0.0001 0.015 0.1 28
5.4 Sand/silt bank Fine sand
0.009 0.08 0.15 9
(LHB)
Figure 5-31 - Images Showing Sample Locations

a) Backwater Along the Left Bank with Silt and Sand over Large Gravels and Small Cobbles (Sample 5.1); b) Gravelly
Left Bank above Water Level (Sample 5.2); c) Organic rich Silt and Fine Sand Substrate on the Floodplain Along the
Right Bank (Sample 5.3); d) Silt and Fine Sand on left bank (Sample 5.4)
C.2 Geomorphic Character of EFA 1 Located 3km Downstream of the Dam
The site is characterized by a narrow floodplain and levee along the right bank, steep left cut bank, terrace
and a sinuous channel (Figure 5-32, Figure 5-33 and Figure 5-34). The left bank is composed of
consolidated cohesive silt and clay and the right depositional bank is composed of alluvial material such as
medium sand, silt and clay (Figure 5-32). The bed is composed of bedrock, imbricated boulders that are

embedded in cobbles, gravels and sand (Figure 5-32). Georadar scans show that the bed of the Kagera 3 km
upstream of EFA 1 has alternating bedrock and gravel to sand sections (Figure 5-28). Some bedrock might
be present at the EFA 1 site, but it could not be confirmed due to the depth of active channel during the field
survey (depth over 5 m and flow velocity over 1 m/s). Bank stability investigations by NORDPLAN (2014)
upstream of EFA 1 at the dam location reported:
• Steep banks (70-90°) composed of loose sandy gravel with cobble on cut banks and gentler banks
in depositional areas;
• Higher banks are covered in trees;
• Rock outcrops at river level;
• Terraces consist of silt and sand with scattered gravels;
• Normally stable banks, but older concave bank collapse scars that have since been vegetated are
visible along the reach; and
• Gently sloping terrain away from the riverbanks.
The field observations are similar to these descriptions by NORDPLAN (2014), except for the absence of
rock outcrops at EFA1.
Figure 5-32 - Plan View of EFA 1

Showing the Main Geomorphic Features and Substrate.

Figure 5-33 - Images of EFA 1

Showing: a) Turbulent Fast Flow and Steep Left Bank; b) Vertical Variation in Left Cut Bank Sediment; c) Dense
Floodplain Vegetation; d) Aerial View of the Narrow Floodplain and Location of the Transect (White Line)
Figure 5-34 - The Channel Cross Section at EFA 1

Showing the Main Geomorphic Features and the Location of Sampling Sites
Profile source: Hydraulic model cross section

The levee or alluvial ridge forming along the right bank consists of medium sand and silt and has lateral
channels or crevasse splays breaching the levee to link the floodplain with the channel. This is a major
pathway for water and sediment onto the floodplain (Figure 5-35 (f)). Similar channels were observed on
the low terraces where the riparian trees are growing (Figure 5-35 (e)).
The sampling locations shown in Figure 5-34 and Figure 5-35 can be described as:
• EFA 1.1 - Floodplain on the right of the active river channel. Water depth 0.84 m with low flow. Silty
substrate with very high organic matter content. Vegetation is a mixture of papyrus and a creeper.
• EFA 1.2 - Active channel bed adjacent to the floodplain. Water depth 2.92 m with moderate to high
flow velocity. Substrate consists of medium gravels with sandy deposits in the interstitial spaces
causing embeddedness.
• EFA 1.3 - Edge of cut bank. Substrate consists of consolidated silt with high clay content and a
water depth 1.3 m with a high velocity. Clay substrate extends 1.8m up the bank before changing
to medium sand and medium gravel (EFA 1.4).
• EFA 1.4 - Steep bank on left of active channel comprised of medium sand and medium gravel (2m
of bank) finning upwards to sand and soil (2 m of bank).
• EFA 1.5 - Floodplain/low terrace at head of floodplain composed of medium sand deposits in
riparian trees. Finest sand and silt found in backwater pools, coarser sand up on banks/bars. Side
channel also present that flows from active channel into floodplain. In this area observed silt over
angular cobbles, possibly local input off the banks. Backwater depth 0.2-0.35 m deep with low
flow velocity in the side channel.
• EFA 1.6 - Exposed levee of medium sand on the right of the active channel upstream of the
transect. Gradual drop into main channel with several small lateral side channels cutting through
the levee and feeding the floodplain.
• EFA 1.7 - Active channel bank consisting of medium sand adjacent to levee. Moderate flow and
depth of 0.9 m.
Figure 5-35 - Images of Sampling Sites

Showing a) Organic Rich Silt on the Floodplain on the Right side of the Channel (Sample EFA 1.1); b) Coarse Gravels
and Sand Collected Along the Edge of the Active Channel along the Right Bank (Sample EFA 1.2); c) Steep left bank
Showing Consolidated Clays up to 1.8 m Above Water Level; d) the top Section of the Left Bank Consisting of
Gravels and Sand Fining Upwards (Sample EFA 1.4); e) Low Terrace with Trees Showing Sand and Silt Deposits
Along Small Flood Channels (Sample EFA 1.5); f) Levee Composed of Silt and Sand (note the Crevasse Splay Where

the Boat is Parked; Sample EFA 1.6); g) Active Channel along Right Bank Consisting of Medium Sand (Sample EFA
1.7).
Table 5.9 - Sediment Particle Size for the Various Geomorphic Features at EFA 1
Sample Geomorphic feature Comment D16 D50 D84 %
number (mm) (mm) (mm) Clay
EFA 1.1 Floodplain right bank Missing sample
EFA 1.2 Active channel adjacent to floodplain right bank Coarse gravel 9 21 27 0
EFA 1.3 Left cut bank lower section Consolidated silt 0.0045 0.045 0.14 14
EFA 1.4 Upper left bank Medium sand 0.016 0.21 0.59 11
Medium gravel 7 8 9 0
EFA 1.5 Low terrace in riparian trees Medium sand 0.12 0.23 0.27 0
EFA 1.6 Levee along right bank Medium sand 0.07 0.17 0.26 7
EFA 1.7 Active channel adjacent to right bank Medium sand 0.07 0.17 0.27 6
C.3 Geomorphic Character of EFA 2 Located 23 km Downstream of the Dam
EFA 2 is characterised by a moderate width floodplain, alluvial banks and bed and sinuous channel (Figure
5-36 and Figure 5-37). The bed is composed of boulders, cobble, gravel and sand and the banks contain
cohesive finer material of sand, silt and clay size, with horizontal layers of finer sediment lenses (Figure
5-38 and Table 5.8). A sandy levee formed on the right bank and the floodplain stores cohesive silty
sediment with a high organic content. The terrace areas are composed of fine gravels, sand and silt (Table
5.8). The riverbanks, floodplain and terraces have a cohesive nature with a clay content ranging from 10 to
38%. The floodplain had the highest clay content.
Recent bank slumping was evident just upstream of the site, but this might be a result of clearing vegetation
and bank modifications for water abstraction infrastructure.

Showing the Main Geomorphic Features and Sediment Substrate.

Figure 5-37 - Images of EFA 2

Showing: a) Sand and Gravel Deposits Along the Left Bank; b) Sandy Bank with Horizontal Silt and Clay Lenses; c)
Gravel Deposit Along Left Bank; d) Aerial View of the Floodplain Showing the Transect Location (white line)
Figure 5-38 - Channel Cross Section at EFA 2 Showing the Main Geomorphic Features and the Location of the
Sampling locations
Profile source: Hydraulic Model Cross Section

The locations for the sediment samples are shown in Figure 5-39 and the particle size data is presented in
Table 5.10. The sample locations can be described as:
• EFA 2.1 - Steep exposed left bank (100 m upstream of the cross section) which is exhibiting some
slumping. Very fine sand with horizontal lenses of finer sediment (darker line). This could be due to
disturbance from the pump house construction coupled to the recent floods.
• EFA 2.2 - Right bank terrace downstream of cross-section. Medium gravels, sand, silt and clay in
riparian trees. Depth in channel adjacent to bank is 1.2–1.8 m.
• EFA 2.3 - Floodplain (30 m) right of active channel. Silt and clay substrate with high organic matter.
Water depth 1.12 m with no flow. Water is connected to active channel.
• EFA 2.4 - Floodplain (6 m) right of active channel forming a low levee. Silty substrate with high
organic matter. Water depth 1.26 m with no flow.
• EFA 2.5 - Active channel bank with sandy texture. Depth 3.8 m with moderate flow.
• EFA 2.6 - Steep left bank of consolidated fine sand, silt and clay.
• EFA 2.7 - Backswamp area in riparian trees downstream of cross-section. Some areas connected
by shallow (0.23 m depth) side channels (at this discharge). Fine gravels, medium sand and silt
substrate. Slippery clay/mud layer below recent sand deposit. Silt and fine sand deposited on sand
bars with coarser sand and gravel in side-channels.
• EFA 2.8 - Right bank at 1.64 m depth with high flow velocity and sandy substrate.
• EFA 2.9 - Deposits on floodplain/levee close to main channel. Water depth 0.85 m with low flow
velocity.
Figure 5-39 - Images of the Sample Locations

for: a) Recently Eroded Left Bank 100m Upstream of EFA2 Cross Section (EFA 2.1); b) Right Terrace/Bank (EFA 2.2);
c) Floodplain (EFA 2.3); d) Edge of Floodplain (EFA 2.4); e) Edge of Channel (EFA 2.5); f) Steep Consolidated Clay Left
Bank (EFA 2.6); g) Distal Floodplain (EFA 2.7); h) Right Bank (EFA 2.8); and i) Submerged Levee Along Right Bank
(EFA 2.9)

EFA 2.1 Exposed left bank Fine sand 0.001 0.075 0.26 19
EFA 2.2 Right bank terrace Silt 0.001 0.063 0.25 27
Medium gravel 7 10 16 0
EFA 2.3 Floodplain Silt 0.001 0.005 0.065 38
EFA 2.6 Steep left cut bank Fine sand 0.001 0.07 0.31 23
EFA 2.7 Riparian trees backswamp Medium sand 0.013 0.22 0.55 10
EFA 2.9 Floodplain adjacent to active channel Fine sand 0.001 0.09 0.19 18
EFA 3 is located 500 m upstream of the confluence of the Mwisa River. This alluvial site has a wider
floodplain and sinuous to meandering channel (Figure 5-40 and Figure 5-41). Oxbows are visible on the
floodplain and form deeper water habitat. The riverbed is composed of small cobble, gravel and sand Figure
5-42. The banks are composed of sand, silt and clay and are of a cohesive nature (14% clay content). The
floodplain consists of fine sand, silt and clay with a very high clay content (44%).
Cultivation is taking place on the left bank on a raised sand bar/bank within the floodplain.
Figure 5-40 - Plan View of EFA 3 Showing the Main Geomorphic Features and Sediment Substrate.
Image Source: Google Earth (July 2017)

Figure 5-41 - Images for EFA 3

Showing: a) Sandy Left Bank; b) Medium Sized Sand Deposited on the Floodplain; c) Dense Floating Vegetation
Marking the Edge of the River Channel; d) Cultivation on the Floodplain and Location of the Cross Section (White
Line)
Figure 5-42 - Channel Cross Section at EFA 3 Showing the Main Geomorphic Features and the Location of the
Sampling Sites
Profile Source: Hydraulic Model Cross Section
The locations and particle size for the sediment samples are given in Figure 5-43 and Table 5.11 and can
be described as:
• EFA 3.1 - Small floodplain on left of active channel. Water depth 1.1 m with no flow. Substrate silt
and very fine sand with high clay (44%) and organic content.
• EFA 3.2 - Raised sand bar in cultivated area next to active channel. Cohesive fine sand with silt and
clay (14%).

• EFA 3.3 - Floodplain on right of active channel. Water depth 1.6 m and no flow. Silty substrate with
high organic matter.
• EFA 3.4 - Levee next to active channel (right). Water depth 1.2 m. Silt with compacted clay (38%).
• EFA 3.5 - Edge of active channel. Medium sand substrate. Moderate flow, water depth of 4.1 m.
Figure 5-43 - Sampling Site Locations at EFA 3

Showing: a) Floodplain Along Left Bank (EFA 3.1); b) Raised Sand Bar Along the Left Bank (EFA 3.2); c) Floodplain
Along the Right Bank (EFA 3.3); d) Submerged Levee on Right Bank (EFA 3.4), e) Edge of Active Channel (EFA 3.5)
EFA 3.1 Floodplain along left bank Silt 0.0001 0.006 0.07 44
EFA 3.2 Left bank bar/levee Fine sand 0.006 0.11 0.21 14
EFA 3.3 Floodplain along right bank Missing sample report
EFA 3.4 Levee along right bank Silt 0.0001 0.006 0.04 38
EFA 3.5 Active channel bank Medium sand, Sand ruler 0.3

EFA 4 is characterised by a well-developed floodplain with an alluvial channel and meandering pattern
(Figure 5-44 and Figure 5-46). The floodplain is slightly incised into a wide low relief plain. Oxbows are
common on the floodplain and form deeper backswamp type habitats (Figure 5-44 and Figure 5-45). The
steep banks and floodplain are composed of sand, silt and clay and of a cohesive nature (Figure 5-46). A
small levee developed along the right bank and is composed of sand, silt and clay. The bed is composed of
gravel and sand, with sand dunes migrating down the channel (Figure 5-47). This suggests significant
volumes of sand moving along the channel as bedload at a flow rate of 280 m3/s.
The higher parts of the floodplain along both banks are cultivated. The recent floods have eroded the loose
sediment from the cultivated areas leaving the deeper cohesive sediment exposed (Figure 5-45c).

Showing the Main Geomorphic Features and Sediment Substrate.
Image Source: Google Earth (July 2017)

Figure 5-45 - Images for EFA 4

Showing: a) Narrow Floodplain Along Left Bank; b) Vertical Clay Bank Marking the Transition from Channel to
Floodplain; c) Eroded Floodplain Surface Exposing Consolidated Silt and Clay; d) Deeper Water Along the
Backswamp area with Main Channel in the Background (the Arrow Indicates the Flow Direction in the Main Channel)
Figure 5-46 - Cross Section at EFA 4

Showing the Main Geomorphic Features, Sediment Types, Water Level (WL) and the Location of the Sediment
Samples

Figure 5-47 - Bathymetry Scan Along the Kagera River at EFA 4

Showing Dune Type Features (Flow is from Right to Left).
Images of the sediment sample locations are show in Figure 5-48 and the particle size data are presented
in Table 5.12.
Figure 5-48 - Sediment Sampling Locations for EFA 4

Showing the: a) Narrow Floodplain Along the Left Bank (EFA 4.1); b) Wide Floodplain Along the Right Bank (EFA
4.2); c) Left Bank Downstream of Transect (EFA 4.3); d) Sandy Levee Along Right Bank Downstream of the Cross
Section (EFA 4.5); e) Organic rich Silt Deposited in the Backswamps (EFA 4.6).
The sampling locations can be described as:

• EFA 4.1 - Small floodplain (6-8 m wide) along the left bank. Silty cohesive (clay content of 37%)
substrate with high organic matter. No flow, 0.6 m deep.
• EFA 4.2 - Floodplain along right bank. Fine silt and organic matter. No flow, 1.5 m deep.
• EFA 4.3 - Right bank adjacent to floodplain, cohesive sand, silt and clay (clay content of 26%).
• EFA 4.4 - Left bank (submerged cultivation) with vertical step into main channel (Figure 5-45).
Consolidated clay (22%) with silt and fine sand. Overtopping at this discharge and feeding
backwaters/floodplain. Bank into active channel is stable (not crumbling) despite the vertical
nature.
• EFA 4.5 - Levee along right bank, composed of cohesive fine sand, silt and clay (clay content of
12%).
• EFA 4.6 - Floodplain behind levee (EFA 4.5). Cohesive fine sand, silt and clay (22% clay) with high
organic matter content.

Sample Geomorphic feature Comment D16 (mm) D50 (mm) D84 (mm) % Clay
number
EFA 4.1 Left floodplain Silt 0.0001 0.016 0.1 37
EFA 4.3 Right bank Fine sand 0.0001 0.065 0.2 26
EFA 4.4 Vertical left bank Fine sand 0.0001 0.075 0.2 22
EFA 4.5 Levee Fine sand 0.005 0.075 0.21 12
EFA 4.6 Floodplain behind levee Fine sand 0.0001 0.070 0.15 22
Historic Changes to the Kagera River Planform
River morphology evolves over time, with meandering channels being the most likely to shift position as it
migrates laterally. Straighter channels are less likely to move laterally, thus more stable over time. The
Kagera River ranges from a sinuous (EFA 1) to a meandering river (EFA 4) along the ~100 km section below
the proposed Kakono Dam. The bank material fines along this section of the Kagera River, with an increase
in clay content in the banks along the lower reaches. The high clay content results in cohesive banks that
resist fluvial erosion and results in slow rates of lateral channel migration. This is evident from the available
high-resolution satellite images that do not show detectable lateral movement at any of the EFA sites over
a 3-4 year period (Table 5.13). No significant bank erosion can be observed for this relatively short period,
possibly due to the dense vegetation cover along the banks obscuring some of the finer details of channel
modifications. Older satellite images are only available in 30 m resolution and was not suitable to detect
changes in channel position.

Table 5.13 – Evolution of Kagera River Channel over the 2013-2016/2017 Period
EFA 1: September 2013 September 2016
EFA 2: September 2013 September 2016
EFA 3: September 2013 July 2017
EFA 4: September 2013 July 2017
Image Source: Google Earth

Water Quality
Upstream Context
The Kagera River water quality at the Kakono Project site is influenced by the natural and anthropogenic
factors in the Kagera Basin upstream. There is little information available on surface water quality in the
Basin, and the most recent document published with pertinent information is the Kagera River Basin
Monograph (BRL, 2008) and the key points regarding the water quality are summarised as follows:
• Most of the Ruvubu River catchment (upper Kagera catchment) is situated in Burundi. Studies
(Sekamana, 1989). Have found that the surface waters of Burundi are in general contaminated
with faecal coliforms, the waters are generally warm (19-26°C), acidic, of relatively low
conductivity (< 100µS/cm), very soft and rich in dissolved oxygen. Some waters contain iron and
manganese concentrations that are above the water potability limits. Nitrogen and phosphorous
loads are high. This is caused by leaching of fertilisers from agricultural soils and the
concentrations in the rivers increase during the rainy season. It is noteworthy that most of
Burundi’s gold mining is in the Muyinga province (within the Kagera Basin) and gold mining is a
potential source of surface water pollution from the ore treatment processes that use mercury.
• The lower catchment of the Ruvubu River (upper Kagera catchment) is situated in the Ngara district
of Tanzania, which is a nickel and tin mining area, thus representing a risk of pollution from
industrial wastewaters.
• The upper Kagera catchment is situated in Rwanda. Rwanda is expected to be relatively the most
industrialised of the Kagera’s riparian countries, and industries comprise farm produce facilities,
(para)chemical industries and mining industries. The capital city, Kigali, is the main hotspot where
industrial and municipal wastewater is discharged into the Nyabugogo River―a tributary of the
Kagera River―without treatment.
• The middle reaches of Kagera are downstream of the upper catchment areas in Burundi and
Rwanda that are subject to anthropogenic modification of water quality. The middle reaches cross
a vast area of swamps and lakes which have a buffering effect. Studies carried out in the frame of
the Lake Victoria Environmental Programme show that the Ngono wetlands have a retention
capacity of 50-80% for suspended solids and total phosphorus, and 40-60% for total nitrogen.
Downstream Context
Downstream from the Kakono project area, the Kagera River discharges into Lake Victoria. To a certain
extent, the lake’s water quality is influenced by the Kagera River’s water quality. Salient information on the
water quality of Lake Victoria and inflow from the Kagera River (LVEMP, 2005) is summarised as follows:
• The anthropogenic loads of nitrogen, phosphorus and other pollutants in the lake began to
increase during the 20th century and by 1950 loading rates of these materials were well above
natural baseline and continuing to increase.
• Increases in nutrient loading rates―especially phosphorus―have led to the eutrophication of the
lake.
• Pollution sources are municipal and industrial wastewater discharges and which account for 10-
25% of the anthropogenic increase in pollution loading. This source of pollution is increasing as
populations within the basin continue inward migration to urban centres and towns. Fishing
villages have also grown rapidly in recent decades because of the growth of the fishery, but these
villages have little or no facility to handle the increased human wastes that is deposited directly to
Lake Victoria.
• The Kagera River inflow into Lake Victoria represents 32.7% of the catchment inflows and is the
largest river flowing into the lake.
• Of the lake’s inflowing rivers, the Kagera River has the highest Total Nitrogen (TN) loadings and is
the lake’s largest source of nitrogen and phosphorus. The volume weighted mean concentrations
of TN, Total Phosphorus (TP) and Total Suspended Solids (TSS) in the Kagera River are 1.856,
0.253 and 155.2 mg/L respectively.
• The Kagera Sugar Company Estate is nominated as the principal source of industrial pollution
entering the Lake Victoria with the waters of the Kagera River. Biological Oxygen Demand from the
estate is estimated to be 400 kg/day

Water Quality at the Kakono Project Site
Results of the water quality measurements undertaken at the Project site in the previous ESIAs are
presented in Table 5.14 (see Annex 5-3 for water quality data). Results of complementary sampling
undertaken in November 2020 are presented in Table 5.15. Figure 5-49 provides the location of the 2020
sampling stations. Discussion on individual water quality parameters is provided in Table 5.16.
• The waters contain high concentrations of iron, and this may be from natural sources in the
catchment. The high values are consistent with findings reported in literature for the catchment
and may be from natural sources and/or mining operations in the catchment.
• Nitrate and phosphorus concentrations are high and probably from leaching of fertilizers in the
catchment. The high values are consistent with findings reported in literature for the catchment
and Lake Victoria.
• Biological Oxygen Demand is high, and this may be because of the proximity to the Kagera Sugar
Company Estate.
• Total coliforms and Faecal coliform counts are high probably because of widespread discharge of
untreated municipal wastewaters into surface waters in the upstream catchment.
Table 5.14- Water Quality Data for the Kagera River at the Proposed Dam Site and Downstream – 2013, 2014,
2017
Parameter Dam site 6 km Downstream site
30/09/2013 29/11/2013 07/03/2014 20/07/2017 30/09/2013 29/11/2013 07/03/2014 20/07/2017
pH 6.82 7.44 7.54 6.7 7.42 7.26 7.6 6.7
Temperature (°C) 21.1 22.2 27.5 23.5 22.2 21.1 27.2 23.1
Conductivity (mg/l) 138.4 136.0 197.3 121.5 136.0 138.4 133.4 121.8
TDS (mg/l) 138.0 136.0 197.0 60.0 136.0 138.0 134.0 60.0
Total Iron (mg/l) 1.85* 0.88 2.56* 0.23 1.75* 0.91 2.54* 0.38
NO3 (mg/l) <1.0 0.40 5.50 0.829 <1.0 0.60 6.40 1.331
NO2 (mg/l) 0.02 0.004 0.015 <0.02 <0.02 0.007 0.024 <0.01
Total Phosphorus (mg/l) 0.127 11.4 87.34 0.82 0.139 15.6 137.3 0.39
TSS (mg/l) 0.011 0.063 0.018 0.014 0.115 0.05
Alkalinity (mg/l) 62.0 68.0 56.0 84.0 62.0 48.0 48.0 97.4
TOC (mg/l) 14.22 27.65 31.6 15.15 22.12 32.39 37.92 15.16
Oil Content (mg/l) ** 36.0 53.5
Chorophyll-a 0 0 0 0 0 0
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l) 5.96 7.88 8.50 8.6 6.67 8.28 7.70 7.9
BOD (mg/l) 72.0* 60.0* 42.0* 25.0 54.0* 54.0* 46.0* 25.0
COD (mg/l) 84.0 102.24 46.33 45.45 92.0 82.02 202.87 45.45
Total coliforms (CFU/100 ml) 25* 75* 90* 2 50* 35* 70* 3
Faecal coliforms (CFU/100 ml) 5* 45* 60* 0 30* 25* 30* 0
Source: (TANESCO, 2017a) (Norplan, 2016a)
__ Value exceeds WHO drinking water standards, * Value exceeds the Tanzania Water Quality Standards TZS 789:2008 (Note:
Not all parameters have standards or guideline values attached to them),** Units indicated in the source report are probably
incorrect and are probably µg/l.
Table 5.15 - Water Quality Data for the Kagera River at the Proposed Dam site and Downstream - 2020
Sample station / November 2020
Parameter Unit
K-11 K-12 BH-01 BH-02
TDS mg/l 91.0 93.0 2129 819
TSS mg/l 61.5 15.0 14.0 21.6
Sulphate mg/l 12.5 8.1 527 211
Nitrate mg/l 2.5 1.4 1.5 8.9*
Nitrite mg/l <0.01
Total Phosphorus mg/l <0.04
Phosphate mg/l <0.04
BOD mg/l <0.10
COD mg/l <0.10
Ammonia-N mg/l <0.003
Ammonium* mg/l <0.003
TPH mg/l <1.0

Sample station / November 2020

Parameter Unit
K-11 K-12 BH-01 BH-02
Total Coliforms CFU/100ML 192* 230* <1 117
Faecal Coliforms CFU/100ML <1
As mg/l Not detected <0.001
Hg mg/l Not detected <0.001
Sb mg/l Not detected <0.001
Se mg/l <0.002 0.003
Fe mg/l 4.0* 2.1* 0.10 0.43
Cd mg/l Not detected <0.001
Cr mg/l Not detected <0.005 0.016 <0.005
Cu mg/l 0.093 <0.005 0.007 <0.005
Be mg/l <0.002
Ag mg/l <0.005
Ni mg/l 0.008 <0.005 0.018 0.007
Pb mg/l 0.037 <0.005 0.009 0.018
Zn mg/l 0.010 0.040 0.060 0.050
Sn mg/l <0.01
TI mg/l <0.005
TOC mg/l 5.6 5.1 1.4 1.1
Naphthalene mg/l Not detected <0.00002 mg/l)
Pesticides & PCBs mg/l Not detected (<0.00002 mg/l)
Source: SLR
__ Value exceeds WHO drinking water standards,
* Value exceeds the Tanzania Water Quality Standards TZS 789:2008 (Note: Not all parameters have standards or guideline
values attached to them)
K: samples taken from the Kagera River
BH: samples taken from boreholes used by Kyaka villagers

Figure 5-49 - Location of Water Quality Sampling Stations in November 2020

Table 5.16 - Discussion on Individual Water Quality Parameters

Parameter Background information Range of measured Commentary
concentration in the
Kagera at the project site
pH The pH scale runs from 0 to 14 (i.e. very acidic to very alkaline), with pH 7 representing a neutral 6.7 – 7.6 The pH of the river is within the range of most natural
condition. surface waters, and measured values range from slightly
The pH of most natural waters is between 6.0 and 8.5, although lower values can occur in dilute waters acidic to slightly basic. The fluctuations in values are
high in organic content, and higher values in eutrophic waters, groundwater brines and salt lakes. probably due to natural chemical process in the river.
Temperature Surface waters are usually within the temperature range 0°C to 30°C. These temperatures fluctuate 21.1 – 27.5°C The river water temperature is within the normal range for
seasonally with minima occurring during winter or wet periods, and maxima in the summer or dry surface waters, and there is no sign of influence from
seasons, particularly in shallow waters. anthropogenic activities.
Conductivity The conductivity of most freshwaters ranges from 10 to 1,000 µS cm-1 but may exceed 1,000 µS cm-1, 121.5 – 197.3 µS cm-1 The values are typical of unpolluted river.
especially in polluted waters, or those receiving large quantities of land run-off.
Nitrate The nitrate ion (NO3-) is the common form of combined nitrogen found in natural waters. Natural source <0.1 – 8.9 mg/l The values indicate that the river water quality is modified by
of nitrate in surface waters include igneous rocks, land drainage and plant and animal debris. human activities such as inorganic nitrate fertilisers, in the
Natural levels, which seldom exceed 0.1 mg/L NO3-(N), may be enhanced by municipal and industrial upstream catchment and possibly from the Kagera Sugar
wastewaters. In rural area the use of inorganic nitrate fertilizers can be a significant source. When Company estate which is adjacent to the river at the project
influenced by man’s activities, surface waters normally contain concentrations up to 5 mg/L NO3-(N). site, and from sanitary wastewater.
Two measurements exceed the WHO drinking water
standards.
Nitrite Nitrite concentrations in freshwater are usually very low, 0.001 mg/l NO2-(N) and rarely higher than 1 0.004 – 0.02 mg/l Typical values for freshwater river.
mg/l NO2-(N).
Phosphate Phosphorus is an essential nutrient for living organisms and exists in water bodies as both dissolved and 0.82 – 137.3 mg/l Values are very high for a freshwater river. This could be a
particulate species. It is generally the limiting nutrient for algal growth and therefore controls the primary result of the use of inorganic phosphorus containing
productivity of a water body. Artificial increases in concentrations due to man’s activities are the principal fertiliser in the upstream catchment and at the Kagera Sugar
cause of eutrophication. In natural water phosphorus occurs mostly as dissolved orthophosphates and Company Estate adjacent to the project site.
polyphosphates, and organically bound phosphates. The high phosphorus concentrations represent a risk of
In most natural surface waters, phosphorus ranges from 0.005 to 0.02 mg/l PO4--P. Concentrations as creating eutrophic conditions in the reservoir.
low as 0.001 mg/l PO4—P may be found in some pristine waters and as high as 200 mg/l PO4—P in some
enclosed saline waters.
Dissolved Oxygen content of natural water varies with temperature, salinity, turbulence. In freshwater dissolved 5.96 – 8.5 mg/l Concentrations are within the normal range for the river
oxygen oxygen ranges from 15 mg/l at 0°C to 8 mg/l at 25°C. Concentration in unpolluted water are usually water temperature.
close to but less than 10 mg/l.
Iron The occurrence of iron in aqueous solution is dependent on environmental conditions, especially 0.23 – 4.0 mg/l Unusually high concentration of iron, this may be from
oxidation and reduction. Flowing natural leaching or from mining operations in the catchment
surface water, that is fully aerated, should not contain more than a few micrograms per litre of basin
uncomplexed dissolved iron at equilibrium in the pH range 6.6 to 8.5.
Total Organic Total organic matter can be a useful indication of the degree of pollution. 14.22 – 37.92 mg/l Concentrations are higher than general values for
Carbon (TOC) In surface waters, TOC concentrations are generally less than 10 mg/L, unless the water receives unpolluted surface water and may be attributed to the
municipal or industrial wastes, or is highly coloured due to natural organic material, as in swamps. In discharge of industrial and municipal wastewaters in the
such situations, TOC concentrations may exceed 100 mg/L (TOC concentrations in municipal catchment and the presence of upstream swamp areas
wastewaters range from 10 to > 100 mg/L, depending on the level of wastewater treatment). Total
organic carbon consists of dissolved and particulate material and is, therefore, affected by fluctuations in
suspended solids, which can be quite pronounced in rivers.
Biological Unpolluted waters typically have BOD values of 2 mg/L O2 or less, whereas those receiving wastewaters 25 – 72 mg/l High value of BOD, probably which is typically an indication
Demand (BOD) may have values up to 10 mg/L O2 or more, particularly near to the point of wastewater discharge. of pollution from wastewaters.

Parameter Background information Range of measured Commentary

concentration in the
Kagera at the project site
Raw sewage has a BOD of about 600 mg/L O2, whereas treated sewage effluents have BOD values
ranging from 20 to 100 mg/L O2 depending on the level of treatment applied.
Chemical The concentrations of COD observed in surface waters range from 20 mg/L O2 or less in unpolluted 45.45 – 202.87 mg/l The values of COD are in indication that the waters are
Oxygen waters to greater than 200 mg/L O2 in waters receiving effluents. Industrial wastewaters may have COD receiving some industrial wastewaters.
Demand (COD) values ranging from 100 mg/L O2 to 60,000 mg/L O2.
Total Coliforms Counts of bacteria of faecal origin in rivers and lakes around the world which suffer little human impact 2 – 90 CFU/100 ml The counts show evidence of pollution from sanitary
Faecal vary from < 1 to 3,000 organisms per 100 ml. However, water bodies in areas of high population density 0 – 60 CFU/100 ml wastewaters in the catchment
Coliforms can have counts up to 10 million organisms per 100 ml.

Sediment Quality
Fine sediment is an effective vector of pollutants. The mining activities and anthropogenic activities in the
Kagera River catchment might have resulted in metal contamination of the fine sediment. As bed, bank and
possibly floodplain erosion downstream of the dam is expected as a result of the Project, deposited
sediment will be remobilised. Furthermore, sediment scouring from the Kakono Reservoir might take place
in the distant future. The aquatic environment downstream could then be exposed to these remobilised fine
sediments and if it contains high levels of metals it could have some adverse effects on the water users,
biota and related food chains (bioaccumulation). This is similar to releasing dredging spoil into aquatic
environments, where the quality of the material has to be known to ensure that adverse effects can be
avoided.
Sediment quality guidelines for freshwater environments are highly variable as background levels and
bioavailability of metals are linked to catchment lithology and local aquatic conditions (Burton, 2002).
Sediment guidelines can best be used as a first screening until further catchment-based baseline data and
toxicity tests can be done on a wide range of biota to confirm sediment quality guidelines applicable for the
local setting (Burton, 2002).
As Tanzania, or any other country in Africa, do not have published Sediment Quality Guidelines for
freshwater environments, the metal concentrations in the fine sediment were screened against the
Australian toxicant default guideline values for sediment quality in aquatic environments (see
https://www.waterquality.gov.au/anz-guidelines/guideline-values/default/sediment-quality-toxicants).
These standards are partly based on those for the Northern Hemisphere but are adapted for Australia which
has a warmer and is thus more similar to that of Tanzania.
Two sediment quality levels are identified:
• Default Guideline Value - indicate the concentrations below which there is a low risk of
unacceptable effects occurring; and
• Guideline Value High - indicate concentrations at which you might expect to observe toxicity-
related adverse effects.
The results for the metal concentrations in fine sediment deposited on the floodplain along the lower
Kagera River is presented in Table 5.17 (see Annex 5-4). These surface samples represent fine sediment
carried in suspension that were deposited on the floodplain in recent years. Based on the results it is evident
that the heavy metal concentrations of fine sediment in the lower Kagera River and deposited on the surface
of the floodplains along the Lower Kagera River are below the default guideline values of the Australian
sediment quality guidelines. It is recommended that further fine sediment sampling and toxicity testing be
done as part of the future ESMMP implementation, to improve the spatial representation of the baseline
heavy metal concentrations in fine sediment carried in suspension and stored along the floodplain of the
Lower Kagera River and to determine natural background levels of heavy metal concentrations.

Table 5.17 - Metal Concentrations in Fine Sediment Along the Floodplains of the Lower Kagera River
Sample Particle Floodplai Mercury Arsenic Cadmiu Chromiu Copper Nickel Lead Zink
number size D50 n position (Hg (As m (Cd m (Cr (Cu (Ni (Pb (Zn
(mm) mg/kg) mg/kg) mg/kg) mg/kg) mg/kg) mg/kg) mg/kg) mg/kg)
Level I 0.15 20 1.5 80 65 21 50 200
Possible
effect
Level II >1 >70 >10 >370 >270 >52 >220 >410
Likely
effect
EFA 1.1 Right <0.025 0.12 ± <0.05 ± 34.8 ± 12.2 ± 7.8 ± 7.4 ± 34.4 ±
bank ± 0.0008 0.004 0.02 0.017 0.014 0.014 0.006
0.0008
EFA 2.3 0.005 Right <0.025 0.16 ± <0.05 ± 46.0 ± 15.3 ± 9.1 ± 4.4 ± 83.5 ±
bank ± 0.0008 0.004 0.02 0.017 0.014 0.014 0.006
0.0008
EFA 3.1 0.006 Left bank <0.025 0.10 ± <0.05 ± 40.3 ± 13.2 ± 6.2 ± 4.7 ± 38.1 ±
± 0.0008 0.004 0.02 0.017 0.014 0.014 0.006
0.0008
EFA 3.3 Right <0.025 <0.025 <0.05 ± 55.8 ± 16.3 ± 10.2 ± 4.4 ± 76.6 ±
bank ± ± 0.004 0.02 0.017 0.014 0.014 0.006
0.0008 0.0008
EFA 4.1 0.016 Left bank <0.025 <0.025 <0.05 ± 12.0 ± 9.2 ± 4.6 ± 7.9 ± 28.4 ±
± ± 0.004 0.02 0.017 0.014 0.014 0.006
0.0008 0.0008
EFA 4.2 Right <0.025 <0.025 <0.05 ± 25.9 ± 9.7 ± 5.8 ± 2.8 ± 25.5 ±
bank ± ± 0.004 0.02 0.017 0.014 0.014 0.006
0.0008 0.0008
The Sediment with Heavy Metal Concentrations Below the Default Guideline Values Pose a Low Risk of Unacceptable Effects
Occurring to Aquatic Ecosystems (Shaded Green).
Source: https://www.waterquality.gov.au/anz-guidelines/guideline-values/default/sediment-quality-toxicants

5.3 Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology
Study Area and Survey Methodology
Area of Influence
The Area of Influence (AoI) of the project on terrestrial and aquatic ecology is separated into direct and
indirect areas for the purpose of defining the baseline environment context which may be affected by the
project. It is defined as follows:
Direct AoI:
• 35 km of the Kagera River and adjacent habitats that will be inundated within the Kakono reservoir;
• Footprint of the dam wall and associated infrastructure;
• Up to 92 km of the Kagera River downstream of the Kakono HPP that may be influenced by
alteration in flows from hydropower operation (Kakono Dam wall to EFA 4); and
• The area within the corridor of the powerline (38.5 km) and access roads to dam (28 km).
Indirect AOI: The indirect AOI is the area that may be affected by indirect or induced impacts of the project
such as social influx and associated impacts on habitats and wildlife. The estimated Indirect Area of
Influence of the proposed development on terrestrial ecosystems comprises the wider area traversed by
the reservoir, powerline and road that may impact on fauna moving through the area (e.g. elephants, birds).
The direct AOI is estimated to be approximately 6,883 ha and the indirect AOI covers approximately
103,575 ha (see Figure 5-50).
Study Area
The study area for the aquatic ecology surveys focussed primarily on the Project’s potential direct and
indirect AoI described above. However, an additional fish survey was conducted in areas outside of the AoI
in February/March 2022 to confirm the wider distribution of Enteromius barb species in the Kagera
catchment. Therefore, the study area in which survey sites are located extended beyond the Project AoI, as
shown in Figure 5-51.

Figure 5-50 - Project Area of Influence

Aquatic Survey Methodology
A Approach
To assess potential impacts of the proposed development on aquatic ecosystems within the Potential Area
of Influence, key ecological drivers and responses must be understood, and how these are predicted to
change from baseline conditions. The key drivers to be considered will be water quality and water quantity,
and the key ecological responses are benthic diatoms, aquatic macrophytes, aquatic macroinvertebrates
and fish.
Baseline conditions were based on a review of available information, plus data collected during the course
of two field surveys – a comprehensive survey in February which included diatoms, aquatic macrophytes,
macroinvertebrates and fish and a second survey in October 2020 which included only fish. The information
was used to classify and delineate aquatic ecosystems, and to assess the Present Ecological State and
sensitivity of aquatic ecosystems within the potential Area of Influence. The assessment considered the
presence of threatened and protected species and ecosystems, areas of high biodiversity, corridors and
other relevant features.
A third fish survey was conducted in February/March 2022 to confirm the presence of undescribed
Enteromius barbs in parts of the Kagera Basin outside the Project AoI in order to de-risk the project impacts
on these species.
B Data Review
Key sources of available information on aquatic ecology for the Kagera Region comprised the following:
• Initial ESIA for proposed Kakono HPP (Norplan, 2016a);
• ESIA for proposed Rusumo Falls HPP (Artelia, 2013a&b);
• Basic Design Report for proposed Kakono HPP (Studio Pietrangeli, 2019a);
• Hydrological Report for proposed Kakono HPP (Studio Pietrangeli, 2019b);
• Report on freshwater biodiversity in the Lake Victoria Basin (Sayer et al., 2018);
• IUCN Red list of threatened species (www.iucnredlist.org);
• Field guide to freshwater fish of Tanzania (Eccles, 1992);
• Global Biodiversity Information Facility (www.gbif.org);
• Global information system on fishes (www.fishbase.org);
• African Dragonflies and Damselflies Online (http://addo.adu.org.za/); and
• Published data on key species (various sources).
The literature review was supported by informal consultation with William Darwall (Head of Freshwater
Biodiversity Unit for IUCN Global Species Programme) on the application of the Sayer et al. 2018 KBA study
and inputs from Jos Snoeks at the Royal Museum for Central Africa on the assessment of Labeo victorianus.
Fish species identifications were supported and verified by fish taxonomist Denis Tweddle at Southern
African Institute for Aquatic Biodiversity (SAIAB).
A summary of the available data on macroinvertebrates and fish in the Kagera River are summarised below.
B.1 Macroinvertebrates
Available data on aquatic macroinvertebrates in the Kagera River was limited to information presented in
the initial ESIA for Kakono HPP (Norplan, 2016a), the Rusumo Falls ESIA (Artelia, 2013), and various studies
of specific taxa (Table 5.18). The initial ESIA for the proposed Kakono HPP describes the macroinvertebrates
in the Kagera River in 2013 as being dominated by the freshwater shrimp Caridina nilotica, followed by
unidentified water bugs of family Belostomatidae (Norplan, 2016a). Other macroinvertebrates were
identified to family level only, and comprised Ampullariidae, Dysticidae, Gomphidae, Leptophlebiidae,
Lestidae, Libellulidae, Naucoridae and Thiaridae (Norplan, 2016a). No further information on aquatic
macroinvertebrates was presented in the initial ESIA.
The ESIA for the proposed Rusumo Falls HPP describes the macroinvertebrates in the Kagera River near
Mitako, downstream of the falls, as comprising low abundance of aquatic earthworms (oligochaeta),

leaches (hirudinea), flatworms (turbellaria), fly larvae (diptera) and beetles (coleoptera) (Artelia, 2013a). No
further information on aquatic macroinvertebrates was presented in this Rusumo Falls study.
Table 5.18 - Available Data on Aquatic Macroinvertebrates in the Kagera River

Taxon Available Data
Odonata The status and distribution of dragonflies and damselflies in the Lake Victoria Basin was assessed in 2018
based on data from the Odonata Database of Africa, but there were no records from the Kagera River
Catchment (Clausnitzer, et al. 2018). However, the libellulid dragonfly Zygonyx natalensis, a rheophilic
species, was recorded in the Kagera River between Kikagati and Nsongezi in Uganda (Corbet, 1962).
Crabs Potamonautes katsyore was described from the Kagera River in Uganda near Kikagati in 2017, and was
recorded along with P. niloticus, a common and widespread species endemic to the Nile River Basin
(Cumberlidge and Clark, 2017). No further information on crab species in the Kagera River was found.
Beetles The dysticid beetle Bidessus ruandensis was described from the Kagera River in Rwanda (Omer-Cooper
1974).
Blackflies The Kagera form of the blackfly Simulium damnosum complex, was recorded in the Kagera River near
Kikagati and Kyansoro Island in Uganda (Raybould and White, 1976). This form is a potential vector of the
nematode Onchocerciasis that causes river blindness in humans (Raybould and White, 1979). However, a
survey of blackflies biting humans alongside the Kagera River at Kyaka failed to record biting activity by
blackflies, although a survey at Kikagati recorded the non-biting S. hightoni (McCrae et al., 1968).
Snails Bellamya unicolor was recorded from the Kagera River in Rwanda (Pilsbry and Bequaert, 1927).
Bilharzia A review of the epidemiology and control of human bilharzia in Tanzania found that the disease was absent
from the Kagera region and the authors attributed this to the absence of intermediate host snails (Mazigo et
al., 2012).
Ephemeroptera The mayfly Tricorythus tinctus, was recorded from the Kagera River in Rwanda in 1955 (Kimmins, 1960).
B.2 Fish
Fish data for the Kagera River in the reaches both upstream and downstream of the Kakono HPP were
compiled for this report from previous studies on the Kagera River, including the original ESIA for the Kakono
HPP (Norplan, 2014), a 2016 update of this ESIA (Norplan, 2016), but also from the three other proposed
hydropower projects further upstream, i.e. Nsongezi (Longdare, 2012), Kikagati (Newplan, 2011) and
Rusumo (Artelia, 2013a). However, as the sampling methods were not standardised across the studies, the
analysis and comparisons were only performed with respect to species presence/absence and not for
abundance or catch per unit effort (CPUE).
Kakono HPP ESIA (2014 and 2016)
For the purposes of the original Kakono HPP ESIA (Norplan, 2014), field surveys were undertaken in
September and then again in November/December 2013 over two weeks on each occasion (Appendix to
the report). Fishing was done at four sites: i) upstream section of planned reservoir, ii) mid-section of
planned reservoir, iii) proposed dam site, and iv) 6 km downstream of the dam site on the main stem. Fish
survey methods involved:
• Gillnetting: Nets were set near the riverbank and in the backwaters to avoid the strong water
current. The nets were left overnight before being inspected for any catch the next morning;
• Electroshocking: An electroshocker was used in backwaters;
• Fisher interviews: fishers near the bank were interviewed and their catch was recorded; and
• Additional fisher interviews: Interviews were conducted with 38 fishermen in May, June and August
2014, at three locations between the river mouth at Lake Victoria to the reaches upstream of
Kakono. An open-ended questionnaire was administered in combination with key informant
interviews and focus group discussions. The interviews were held at eight landing sites: one at the
lake-river interface (Kasensero), one between approximately 3-5 km from the river mouth (Kagera
landing site), two in the Nsongezi area (Katooma, Ruyanga), and four in the Kikagati area (Nasiri-
Kasiketi, Kagera-Kikagati, Kyakatabazi, Rukumbya).
The Norplan report did not provide site-specific data, interviews or questionnaires, but did provide a
summary of their findings. Fifteen fish taxa were identified but several were identified to genus level only.
The list includes six types of Barbus recorded in the Kakono HPP area that included Enteromius and
haplochromine species. It is not clear if there was any attempt to obtain identifications of these taxa. The
survey recorded no Labeo victorianus which were assessed as Least Concern in 2013 (later uplisted to
Critically Endangered in 2016). The 2016 ESIA (Norplan 2016) did not undertake any additional field surveys
and instead relied on data and information collected in 2013. Given the seven years since the 2013 surveys

were undertaken by Norplan and the data gaps in the fish data, additional surveys in 2020 were warranted
to assess project impacts on fish.
Rusumo Falls HPP (2013)
The ESIA for the Rusumo Falls HPP (Artelia, 2013a (Vol 1 Main Report)) prepared an inventory of fish fauna
in the vicinity of Rusumo Falls, including Lake Rweru. A field survey was later undertaken in the Ruvubu
River and immediately downstream of the falls (Artelia, 2013b (Vol 2 Appendices)).
A total of 616 fishes were caught by means of gillnets and interviews with local fishers were undertaken.
The Artelia report listed additional sources for the fish inventory but did not provide citations. The species
listed in this inventory has nevertheless been included in the current report (Artelia 2013b (Vol 2
Appendices).
A more recent baseline fish report (Bosco, 2015) presented results of additional fish surveys in May and
September 2015 from five sites near Rusumo HPP (three upstream and two downstream of Rusumo Falls).
C Field Surveys
Two field surveys were undertaken during 2020 to obtain aquatic ecology data for the Project AoI:
• February 2020: The first survey Primary data were collected during a field survey undertaken from
21 to 28 February 2020 (macroinvertebrates -7 field survey days), and 21 February to 01 March
2020 (fish -11 field survey days). Field work was undertaken by two pairs of specialists: R Palmer
and C Ezekiel for macroinvertebrates and B Paxton and B Benno for fish, supported by the SLR
Biodiversity Lead (J Hughes) (see team of specialists in Section 1). They were supported by two
drivers and a boat skipper from the Lake Victoria Office in Bukoba. The itinerary for the field survey
is included in Annex 5-5. Data collected included field water quality, diatoms, aquatic
macroinvertebrates, and fish as described below.
• October 2020: A second primary data collection survey was undertaken from 16 to 25 October
2020 for fish only (8 field days) for the purposes of ascertaining seasonal trends in species
distribution in the affected river reaches. Field work was undertaken by Dr B Paxton supported by
two drivers and a boat skipper from the Lake Victoria Office in Bukoba. Two additional sites – at
Pump 9 (K+6) and on the floodplain downstream of Kyaka (K+94) were also sampled).
A third fish survey was undertaken from 27 February to 7 March 2022 to obtain additional fish data in the
wider Kagera Basin within Tanzania to confirm the presence of undescribed Enteromius barb species
outside the project AoI. Fieldwork was undertaken by Dr B Paxton and D Tweddle with the support of A
Shechonge from TAFIRI. Sampling sites were located in the Ngono and Mwisa tributaries as well as in the
Kagera River upstream of the Kakono HPP. Sampling during this survey was undertaken using
electrofishing. In addition, eDNA from various fish species were taken using filtered water sampling and fish
tissue which will be barcoded and reported on in a follow up report in due course, but which is not material
to the findings documented in this report.
C.1 Classification of Ecosystem Types
Aquatic ecosystem types and biotopes were classified according to the hierarchical system described by
Ollis et al. (2013). This system was developed for inland aquatic ecosystems in South Africa but can be
applied to aquatic ecosystems throughout the Afrotropical region. The system comprises a six-tiered
system that incorporates hydrogeomorphic attributes such as gradient, inflows and outflows, and
structural attributes such as substrate composition, depth and current speed. For this report biotope
categories were modified slightly based on field observations. This classification was used to identify
representative survey sites.
C.2 Survey Sites and Data Collection
Survey sites and data collected at each site in 2020 is summarised in Table 5.19. Sites are shown in
Figure 5-51 together with the additional sites surveyed for fish in 2022.

Table 5.19 - Summary of Data Collected at Each Aquatic Ecology Sampling Site in 2020
Site Photos Instream Habitats Riparian Habitats
Code Field WQ Diatoms Sweep Crab Benthic Fish Sweep Light
Netting Trap Grab Netting Trap
(aquatic) (aerial)
Kagera River
K-68 X - - - - - X - -
K-12* X X X X X - X X -
K0 X - - - - - - - -
K+3 X X - X - X X X -
K+6 X - - - - - X - -
K+18 X X - X X X X X X
K+40 X - - - - - X - -
K+43 X - - - - - - - -
K+54 X X - X - - X X -
K+57 X - - - - - - - -
K+92 X - - - - - X - -
Tributaries
S1* X X - X - - - - -
S2* X X - X - - - - -
S3 X X - X X - X X -
S4 X - - X - - - - -
S5 X X X X - - - X -
S6 X X X X X - X - X
S7 X X - X - - X - -
Drainage Canal
D01 - - - X - - - - -
16 10 3 12 4 2 9 6 2
*within the potential Area of Inundation
The following section details the methods used. Photographs were taken at the sites visited. Selected
photographs at each site (from upstream to downstream) are shown from Figure 5-52 to Figure 5-69
(Annex 5-6). Aerial footage at selected sites in the Project AoI is shown from Figure 5-70 to Figure 5-74.

Figure 5-51 - Map of Aquatic Sampling Sites for February and October 2020 and February/March 2022

Figure 5-52 - Aquatic Sampling Site K-68: Kikagati (S1.05768; E30.66203)
Figure 5-53 - Aquatic Sampling Site K-12: Pump Station 32 (S1.17417; E31.01806)

Figure 5-54 - Aquatic Sampling Site K0: Kakono HPP (S1.19284; E31.09284)
Figure 5-55 - Aquatic Sampling Site K+3: Pump Station 3 (S1.18944; E31.139167)

Figure 5-56 - Aquatic Sampling Site K+6: Station G (S1.188056; E31.22117)
Figure 5-57 - Aquatic Sampling Site K+18: Station G (S1.20391; E31.22117)

Figure 5-58 - Aquatic Sampling Site K+43: Camp 5 (S1.25106; E31.30360)
Figure 5-59 - Aquatic Sampling Site K+40: Prison (S1.25000; E31.32500)

Figure 5-60 - Aquatic Sampling Site K+56: Camp 2 (S1.24498; E31.37332)
Figure 5-61 - Aquatic Sampling Site K+59: Quarry at Mwisa River Confluence (S1.24695; E31.39246)

Figure 5-62 - Aquatic Sampling Site K+94: Mainstem Kagera Site on floodplain downstream Kyaka (S1.209444;
E31.392460)
Figure 5-63 - Aquatic Sampling Site S1 (S1.17088; E31.01668)

Figure 5-64 - Aquatic Sampling Site S2: Kakono Stream (S1.19272; E31.08868)
Figure 5-65 - Aquatic Sampling Site S3: Kibologo River near confluence with Kagera River (S1.18879; E31.18074)

Figure 5-66 - Aquatic Sampling Site S4: Kagera Sugar Estate (S1.21268; E31.27278)
Figure 5-67 - Aquatic Sampling Site S5: Mwisa River (S1.26474; E31.38162)

Figure 5-68 - Aquatic Sampling Site S6: Ngono River (S1.18667; E31.61917)
Figure 5-69 - Aquatic Sampling Site S7: Ngono River near confluence with Kagera River (S1.12523; E31.59430)

Figure 5-70 - Aerial Image at Site K-12: Pump 32
Figure 5-71 - Aerial Image at K0: Kakono HPP

Figure 5-72 - Aerial Image at K+18: Pump Station G
Figure 5-73 - Aerial Image at K+59: Mwisa River confluence with Kagera River

Figure 5-74 - Aerial Image at S7: Ngono River confluence with Kagera River
C.3 Field Water Quality
Field measurements were made of conductivity, pH and water temperature using an Extech EC400.
Turbidity was measured using an Extech TB400.
C.4 Water Level
Water level at the time of the field survey was based on stage plates installed at a rated cross-section of
the Kagera River at Pump Station G (K+18). Details of the rating are presented in Studio Pietrangeli (2019b).
C.5 Benthic Diatoms
Benthic diatoms were collected at one site in the Kagera River at K-12 and the two main tributaries: the
Mwisa River at S5 and the Ngono River at S6. Diatoms in the main channel of the Kagera River were expected
to be largely uniform, even with the Kagera Sugar Estate, because of the large volume of water, so sampling
here was made at one site only. Diatoms were collected by brushing gravel substrates and marginal
vegetation as described by Taylor et al. (2007a). Preparation of diatom slides followed the Hot HCl and
KMnO4 method as described by Taylor et al. (2007a).
A Nikon Eclipse E100 microscope with phase contrast optics (1000x) was used to identify diatom valves on
slides. The aim of the data analysis was to count 400 diatom valves to produce semi-quantitative data from
which ecological conclusions can be drawn (Taylor et al., 2007a). This range is supported by Prygiel et al.
(2002), Schoeman (1973) and Battarbee (1986) as satisfactory for the calculation of relative abundance of
diatom species. Nomenclature followed Krammer and Lange-Bertalot (1986-91).
Diatom index values were calculated in the database programme OMNIDIA (Lecointe et al., 1993). Various
indices housed within the OMNIDIA programme were used to characterise biological water quality. To assign
biological water quality Ecological Categories (ECs) and associated water quality classes, the average index
scores of two general pollution indices were used:
• Specific Pollution Sensitivity Index (SPI) (Coste in CEMAGREF, 1982): The SPI has the broadest
species base and highest taxonomic resolution of all the indices, and evaluates organic and
inorganic pollution based on the sensitivity of each taxon, while taking into account the response
of the whole diatom community (Almeida, 2001). This index is used to indicate general water
quality; and

• Biological Diatom Index (BDI) Lenoir and Coste (1996): The BDI index is primarily a practical index,
as it treats morphologically related taxa as one group and composes so-called associated taxa
eliminating species that are difficult to identify.
Present Ecological State (PES) Categories and associated water quality classes were based on the average
index scores of the SPI and BDI (Table 5.20).
Table 5.20 - Present Ecological State Classification
Other indices used in the interpretation of diatom results comprised:

• Trophic Diatom Index (TDI) (Kelly and Whitton, 1995). This index provides the percentage pollution
tolerant diatom valves (PTVs) in a sample and was developed for monitoring sewage outfall
(orthophosphate-phosphorus concentrations), and not general stream quality. The presence of
more than 20% PTVs shows significant organic impact and
• Valve Deformities. The presence of valve3 deformities is an indication of possible metal toxicity that
may be present within the aquatic system. The general threshold for valve deformities is
considered potentially hazardous if the valve deformities make up >2% of the total count (Taylor,
pers. comm.).
C.6 Aquatic Macroinvertebrates
Aquatic macroinvertebrates were collected using various methods appropriate to the instream habitats
(Figure 5-75 and Table 5.21). Macroinvertebrates in the Mwisa River were collected and analysed according
to the Tanzanian River Scoring System (TARISS) (Kaaya, 2014).
The TARISS method is a rapid method of assessing river health based in the composition of aquatic
macroinvertebrate taxa that are identified in the field mostly to family level. Each TARISS taxon has been
allocated a sensitivity score that ranges from 1 to 15 for tolerant and sensitive taxa respectively. The
sensitivity scores are added for all taxa recorded at a site to determine the Total TARISS Score. The Total
Score is then divided by the number of taxa to derive an Average Score per Taxon, or ASPT. The Total Score
and ASPT are used to interpret the data. The TARISS Score and ASPT for each spatially defined Ecoregion is
then classified into one of five Present Ecological States, ranging from Natural (Category A), to Seriously
Modified (Category E). The interpretation of TARISS results is currently limited to five ecoregions comprising
the Pangani, Rufuji and Wami-Ruvu River Basins. The results in this study were assumed to correspond
broadly to the Central Eastern African Uplands Ecoregion sensu Kaaya (2014), in which Category A is defined
as Total TARISS Score >157 and ASPT >6.7 (Kaaya, 2014). The method is applicable to wadeable streams
and rivers and was suitable for use in the Mwisa River at S5. The TARISS method is not applicable to the
Kagera River because this river is too deep and not wadeable, and it was also not applicable to other
tributaries surveyed for this study, either because of the seasonal to episodic nature of flow, or because
suitable instream habitats were not available. Aquatic macroinvertebrates were collected from instream
and riparian habitats using various methods detailed in Table 5.21.
In the absence of a formal method of quantifying the ecological state of the Kagera River, the
macroinvertebrate data obtained using various methods were pooled for the Lower Foothill portion of the
3
Siliceous part of the diatom cell wall, containing most of the morphological features used to describe diatoms.

Kagera River (i.e. Sites K-12 to K+18), and the TARISS method was applied on the pooled data to provide an
approximate TARISS Score and ASPT for this reach of the Kagera River. However, nonetheless there was
insufficient data to determine a meaningful approximate TARISS score.
The abundance of aquatic macroinvertebrates in instream habitats at each site was classified visually into
five categories as follows:
• 1=1
• A = 2 to 9 (present)
• B = 10 to 99 (common)
• C = 100 to 1,000 (abundant)
• D = >1,000 (very abundant)
The infection of planorbid snails with Schistosomiasis was assessed by collecting snails and placing each
specimen in a separate vial for 24hrs and then checking for cercaria using a 20x magnification hand lens.
Table 5.21 - Methods Used to Sample Aquatic Macroinvertebrates

Method Description
Instream Habitats
Sweep netting Sweep netting of marginal emergent and submerged vegetation using a standard 30x30 cm TARISS net
(aquatic) with a mesh size of 1 mm was undertaken at four sites along the Kagera River and seven tributaries. The
aim here was to determine the composition and relative abundance of aquatic macroinvertebrates.
Benthic Grab A metal grab was used to sample the margins of the main channel (2.5 m depth) and backwaters (1.5m
depth). The grab comprised a metal claw mounted on a bamboo pole that was 6m long, but sampling
was not possible in water deeper than 2.5 m because of high current speeds.
Crab Trap A funnel trap made from wire chicken mesh and baited with ox heart and biltong was left overnight at
two sites along the Kagera River and two tributaries. The aim of the trap was to sample the crabs and
shrimps, particularly Potamonautes kantysore, which is known from a single site in the Kagera River
approximately 25 km upstream of the Full Supply Level.
Riparian Habitats
Sweep Netting Aerial netting of riparian vegetation using a standard butterfly net was undertaken at four sites along
(aerial) the Kagera River at two tributaries. The aim here was to collect adult stages of aquatic insects to
supplement information obtained from instream habitats. This was important for the Kagera River
because the main channel was impossible to sample because of high current speeds and depth.
Collecting focussed on Odonata (dragonflies and damselflies) because adult stages can be identified to
species and because the conservation status of most species of Odonata has been assessed.
Light Trap Nocturnally active insects were sampled using a portable LED floodlight (WL03-COB-10W) placed over a
tray with soapy water and left overnight at one site along the Kagera River and one site along the Ngono
River. The aim here was to collect adult stages of aquatic insects to supplement information obtained
from instream habitats that could be missed from aerial sweep netting during the day.
Photo 1. Sorting and photographing specimens Photo 2. Baiting the crab funnel trap

Photo 3. Setting the crab funnel net in slack water at K+18 Photo 4. Examining the river substrate collected with claw hook
at Pump G (K+18)
Figure 5-75 - Photographs of Macroinvertebrate Survey Activities (February 2020)
C.7 Fish
Fishing techniques used during the survey comprised gillnetting, cast netting and electrofishing with
additional information provided through fisher interviews, as described in more detail below. No gillnetting
was carried out in February/March 2022; only electrofishing and eDNA sampling using filtered water
sampling and collection of fish samples for tissue extraction for barcoding.
Gillnetting
For both the February and October 2020 fish surveys, gillnets were set overnight at each site and cleared
in the morning (see Figure 5-76). During February, a 35m multi-panel 25, 40, 50, 65 and 75 mm stretched-
mesh multifilament sinking gillnet and a 100m multi-panel 40, 50, 70, 100 and 150 mm stretched-mesh
monofilament floating gillnet were used. Use of the 100m multi-panel gillnet was abandoned early in the
survey because the pressure of the current caused the gillnet to close despite adding extra weights to the
leadline. The 35 m multi-filament gillnet was used when sufficient slackwater was available, but if this was
not the case, two single-panel 50 mm stretched-mesh gillnets were used. In October 2020, four
monofilament floating gillnets, each with a panel length of 20 m and a stretched-mesh size of 40, 50, 70,
100 mm were consistently used at each site. Thus, there was a significant overlap in mesh sizes between
the two surveys, with all but the smallest (25mm) and largest (100 mm) being comparable in size.
Currents in the main stem Kagera River throughout the study reach are consistently high (~2m/s) with very
little marginal slackwater availability due to a steep cross-sectional profile of the river channel. This limited
the use of gillnets to deeper bays, inlets and side-channels where these were available. These conditions
also limited the length of gillnet which could be used since any part of the net trailing exposed to high
current speeds would draw the rest of the net into the current and immediately close it. A limited number
of shorter (5m and 35m) gillnets were therefore used where habitat and access allowed. Nets were set
using an inflatable boat fitted with an 18 hp outboard engine, steered by an experienced boatsman. During
October, when discharges were higher, there was significantly more slower flowing water available on the
floodplains which provided a lot more habitat available for the use of gillnets.
Cast Netting
Cast netting is an active traditional fishing technique widely used in Africa. It is particularly effective for
nearshore lake, river and floodplain environments and species. A cast net was used in habitats that were

too deep to electrofish, but too shallow to gillnet or which presented an opportunity (such as at Pump
Station G (Figure 5-76) and at a small backwater pool. The cast net had a 2.4 m diameter and was
constructed of a 25 mm stretched-mesh with a weighted perimeter. The net was deployed from the banks
of the river. When cast by a user, it spreads in a conical shape across the water surface. Once it strikes the
water, the weighted edges then draw the net through the water column and trap any fish beneath it. The
net is then pulled from the water and the catch can be retrieved. Cast netting was effectively used at
Murongo, Pump Stn. 32, Pump Stn. G and Pump Stn. 3. Cast nets were not used during the October 2020
survey since it was found that they targeted similar species to gillnetting and electrofishing.
Electrofishing
A SAMUS 725MP backpack electrofisher with a maximum output power of 650 Watts and an output voltage
of between 650 and 1000V was used to capture fish shallow side channels, bays and inlets to a depth of
approximately 1 m. Pulse frequency was set at 40-50 Hz. The pulse duration (L) was increased to achieve
an output power of 150 Watts. Electrofishing was conducted at each site along the margins of the active
channel and side channels. Electrofishing effort varied between 15 and 20 minutes and was limited by the
availability of suitable shallow-water habitat. The current was applied intermittently to avoid chasing fish
occurring in the flight zone.
Steep banks and deep water limited the use of electrofishing to shallow river margins, inlets and side
channels. Mobility in these areas was further constrained by deep mud. Where electrofishing was possible,
it proved an effective means of targeting fish communities associated with shallow water and emergent
vegetation in backwaters and slackwaters.
eDNA sampling
eDNA sampling was conducted during the February/March 2022 survey only with the initial aim of trying to
match filtered water samples collected from areas outside of the Project AoI to barcoded material from
Enteromius fish collected in 2022 in the event that no physical specimens of the same species were
collected. Specialised water filter samples were supplied by Naturemetrics and used to filter between 15
and 20 litres of water from representative sites to extract eDNA from species present. These filtered water
samples were exported from Tanzania to South Africa and have been sent to Naturemetrics in the UK for
barcoding and matching against metabarcoded fish samples. A selection of 20 fish samples have been
prioritised for barcoding with a focus on Enteromius species and several others.
Photo 1. Gillnetting upstream of Pump 3 (K+3) Photo 2. Pulling in the gillnet at Pump G (K+18)

Photo 3. Electrofishing at Pump Stn. 32 on the Kagera Photo 3. Setting gillnet in slack water at K-12
River
Photo 5. Cast netting at inlet of Pump G Photo 6. Fisher survey at Ngono (S7)
Figure 5-76 - Photographs of Fishing Survey Activities in 2020

Photo 1. eDNA water sampling Photo 2. Electrofishing

Figure 5-77 - Photographs of Fishing Survey Activities in February/March 2022
Fisher Interviews
Interviews with local fishers was done on an ad hoc basis where fishers were encountered onsite. These
interviews were aimed at establishing target fish species, peak fishing periods and locations and potential
fish migrations. Fishers were interviewed in February 2020 at a fishing village at the Ngono River confluence
(S7) (Photo 6 in Figure 5-76), Pump Station G (K+18) and Camp 5 (K+40). The Acting Fisheries Officer for
Missenyi District was interviewed in February 2020 and he facilitated introductions to fishers at landing sites
in the vicinity of Kyaka on the Kagera River.
Data Collection and Species Identification

At the end of each capture period, or on encountering fishers with catches, the following information was
recorded:
• Species identity;
• Standard Length (mm) (where this was necessary for morphometrics);
• Total Length (mm);
• Selected fish were dissected for reproductive stage; and
• Fish health and condition (i.e. the presence of any externally visible anomalies such as parasites
and lesions).
Fish species were identified in the field on the basis of external features, local expertise and by consulting
the taxonomic book, Eccles (1992). Fish which could not be identified in the field were preserved in a 10%
formalin solution and submitted to the Tanzania Fisheries Research Institute (TAFIRI). An export permit was
obtained from the Tanzania Ministry of Livestock, Agriculture and Fisheries and the specimens were sent to
the South African Institute for Aquatic Biodiversity (SAIAB) for identification.
D Habitat Status Assessment
The method for assessing habitat status is described in Section 5.3.5.2 and the approach to the aquatic
critical habitat assessment is described in Section 5.3.5.3.
E Assumptions and Limitations
The assumptions and limitations applicable to the field activities and findings of this report are detailed in
Table 5.22.

Table 5.22 - Assumptions and Limitations

Item Heading Description
1. General
1.1 Available Data The Kagera River within the potential Area of Influence is unique in terms of the volume of water,
current speeds, channel depth and variety of aquatic habitats, including extensive areas of emergent
vegetation and oxbow systems. There are no rivers of comparable magnitude in the area, and a review
of available ecological information found that little is known about the ecology of the Kagera River. An
implication is that the level of confidence associated with predictions of potential impacts on aquatic
ecosystems is likely to be low.
1.2 Temporal This report was based on a single survey conducted during the low-flow season. The lack of
Variability quantitative data for the Kagera River over high-flow season precludes the ability to quantify and
report on natural seasonal variation in aquatic ecosystems.
2. Physico-chemical Drivers
2.1 Field Water Water quality analysis was limited to in-field analysis of pH, electrical conductivity, turbidity and
Quality temperature. Detailed water quality analysis was undertaken as part of the initial EIA (Norplan, 2016a).
Measurable changes in water quality between 2016 and 2020 are unlikely, so the available water
quality data were considered sufficient for the purposes of this study.
2.2 Bed Substrate The composition of bed substrate was assessed visually from grab samples taken up to a depth of 5
m. Water deeper than 5m was not sampled because of high current speeds, so the bed composition in
the deeper river channel is unknown. However, information in the 2016 Kakono ESIA and Hydrology
Study (Studio Pietrangeli, 2019b) are referred to where relevant.
3. Flora & Fauna
3.1 Diatoms The ecology of diatoms in tropical African areas is poorly understood and literature is limited, so
accurate community composition analysis was limited.
3.2 Flora Riparian and marginal vegetation were excluded from the aquatic ecology report and will be described
in a separate specialist Flora and Fauna Report.
3.3 Mammals, Hippopotamus, crocodile and other vertebrates (excluding fish) are present in the project area of
Reptiles and influence but were excluded from this report and will be described in a separate specialist Flora and
Amphibians Fauna Report.
4. Aquatic Macroinvertebrates
4.1 Available Data Available information on aquatic macroinvertebrates in the Kagera River was mostly at family level or
focussed on specific groups and was of limited value for the purposes of this report.
4.2 Spatial Macroinvertebrate sampling was limited to the middle zone of the river near the proposed Kakono
Coverage HPP. No sampling was undertaken upstream of the proposed reservoir Full Supply Level. Furthermore,
apart from the Ngono River, no sampling was undertaken in the floodplain area downstream of the
proposed HPP because of the distances involved, the poor state of the roads and insufficient time.
These limitations are not considered critical for the purposes of assessing potential impacts of the
proposed HPP and could be addressed in an aquatic biomonitoring programme that should form part
of future Project monitoring.
4.3 Quantitative Quantitative sampling of aquatic macroinvertebrates was not possible because of the difficult and
Sampling risky sampling conditions, including depth of the river (>5 m), high current speeds, confirmed presence
of crocodile, dense marginal vegetation and limited time available for the field survey. Furthermore,
sampling methods and sampling effort varied among sites because of differences in habitats and
access. The data collected provided a qualitative understanding of the composition of aquatic
macroinvertebrates in the project Area of Influence, but do not provide quantitative data against which
future changes may be compared. This limitation can be addressed in an aquatic biomonitoring
programme that should form part of a future monitoring programme and which should commence
pre-construction.
5. Fish
5.1 Available Data This study was conducted using the best available information on presence and distribution of the fish
of the Lake Victoria Basin and supported by expert input for fish identifications. Additional input was
obtained informally through consultation with key IUCN freshwater experts to verify the application of
previous determinations of KBAs. There are some key uncertainties relating to fish population
distribution and abundance, migration requirements and species identification each of which are
highlighted below.
5.2 Sampling This study was based on one field survey plus available data but given the technical difficulties of
Frequency conducting robust surveys in the Kagera River it is not clear whether one or two additional fish surveys
would significantly improve the knowledge base. Freshwater fish movement can be inferred from
repeated seasonal surveys, from radio telemetry studies, or mark recapture experiments. However,

Item Heading Description
the latter option is impractical for species that are not heavily fished because of the large number of
fish that need to be tagged and the intensive fishing effort required for recapture.
5.3 Spatial The spatial datasets on species distributions used for the purposes of this study were obtained from
Datasets their Extent of Occurrence (EOO) published by the IUCN (2018). These EOOs are determined based on
known historical museum or published distributions and by consulting experts. In all but instances of
restricted range species, sampling for fishes is impossible throughout their distribution ranges. Thus,
many of the distributions are inferred based on expert knowledge and may therefore be inaccurate.
This is particularly problematic where a species range may have contracted due to anthropogenic
factors and may be misrepresented or excluded from the critical habitat assessment.
5.4 Population While the known and predicted spatial distribution of priority fish species is available on IUCN
Size and databases, there is no information on the population size in specific locations within each species’ EOO.
Extent of Therefore, a key assumption used in the critical habitat assessment (see Section 5.3.5) was that a
Occurrence species’ spatial distribution is a proxy for its population size which therefore assumes that a species
(Critical population is evenly distributed across its EOO. This is unlikely to be the case as certain fish species will
Habitat concentrate in different habitats on a seasonal basis depending on their feeding and
Assessment) breeding/spawning requirements. However, the approach of using a species EOO as a proxy for
population size was used by Sayer et al. 2018 to identify Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) in the Lake
Victoria Basin and therefore provides a precedent for this approach. Nonetheless it is important to
infer potential variation in population distribution where habitats are not preferential for a species or
where there is significant threat in certain areas of a species distribution.
5.5 Migration Knowledge of cyclically predictable migrations of African freshwater fishes is incomplete and evidence
is often anecdotal – relying largely on visual observations of large aggregations of juvenile or adult
fish. While there is strong anecdotal evidence to suggest that a large proportion of African tropical and
subtropical fish depend on migration, the distances and functions of such migrations (e.g. dispersal,
spawning, recolonization), is less clear. The limited studies of African freshwater fish movements and
migration by means of telemetry in the Zambezi and Orange-Vaal River systems have shown these
movements to be more complicated and less predictable than expected (Økland et al. 2005, Thorstad
et al. 2005, O'Brien et al. 2013, O'Brien et al. 2014, Burnett et al. 2020). In the absence of a clearer
understanding of the importance of the movement of priority fish species in the Kagera River including
Labeo victorianus, L. altianalis, L. acuticeps, and Brycinus jacksonii a precautionary approach will have to
be adopted to assess project impacts. Evidence, particularly for movement by L. victorianus has
therefore been obtained from the literature, from inferences regarding habitat requirements as well as
interviews with local fisherman that were undertaken for this and other studies.
5.6 Taxonomy Although the Kagera River is the largest tributary of Lake Victoria it remains under-sampled. This is
partly due to the depth of the river and velocity of the water flow which restricts representative fish
sampling, but also because research has focused on the fish of Lake Victoria. This is because Lake
Victoria is of highest importance for commercial fish catches and for the diversity of the many
haplochromine cichlids that occur there. Samples to date in the lower reaches of the Kagera River
therefore reflect a snapshot of the species and do not give an indication of their relative abundance or
habitat preferences in the system. Several species recorded in the Kagera Basin have not been
described or assessed and some have only been identified to genus level.
At least six species that could not be identified were found in the single February 2020 survey for this
study, including two species belonging to the genus Enteromius and three in the genus Haplochromis.
Of the three Haplochromine cichlids two were found upstream of the Kakono HPP and one
downstream while all three Enteromius species were found in the Kakono HPP zone (Zone 2). Sayer et
al., 2018 reported at least 14 haplochromine species in the Kagera Basin upstream of Nsongezi (Zone
3) which are likely endemic to this part of the catchment and these are currently undescribed. Further
research is required to confirm and possibly extend their known home range which may reduce the
importance of the Project EAAA zones for these species. While some species have not been recently
recorded in the Lower Kagera River in the Kakono Project Area, such as B. jacksonii, this is likely due to
under-sampling.
Terrestrial Survey Methodology
A Approach
To assess potential impacts of the proposed development on terrestrial ecosystems within the potential
Area of Influence, key ecological drivers and processes must be understood, and how these are predicted
to change from baseline conditions. These drivers and process include functional riparian migration
corridors, pollination and dispersal of seeds of key riparian plant species, fire, and presence of keystone
species such as African elephant. The approach was to provide a baseline description of the terrestrial
(including riparian) ecosystems, including their component flora, avifauna, and mammal species and the
processes that maintain them. The Ecological Importance of each terrestrial ecosystem was assessed and

classified, which provides the basis for an informed quantification and evaluation of project impacts on
terrestrial biodiversity.
The approach followed for this baseline study comprised a combination of desktop review of available data,
preliminary delineation of potential vegetation communities from imagery, and the production of lists of
potentially occurring flora and fauna species for verification during fieldwork. The field survey was
undertaken during the early part of the wet season (Oct – Nov 2020), involving transects in selected
locations across the study area.
The information obtained from fieldwork was used to classify and delineate terrestrial habitats and
vegetation communities as a basis for assessing sensitivity and habitat status in accordance with IFC (2018)
definitions and requirements. Specific focus in the baseline assessment was given to confirming the
presence of threatened and protected species and ecosystems, areas of high biodiversity, corridors for
faunal movement, and other relevant features to inform the impact assessment.
B Data Review
Key sources of available information on terrestrial ecology for the Kagera Region comprised the following:
• Initial ESIA for proposed Kakono HPP (Norplan, 2016a)
• Basic Design Report for proposed Kakono HPP (Studio Pietrangeli, 2019a)
• Hydrological Report for proposed Kakono HPP (Studio Pietrangeli, 2019b)
• Potential Natural Vegetation of East Africa project (https://vegetationmap4africa.org)
• IUCN Red list of threatened species (www.iucnredlist.org) and distribution maps
• Flora of Tropical East Africa (1948-2012)
• Field guide to the Mammals of Africa (Kingdon, 2015)
• Global Biodiversity Information Facility (www.gbif.org).
Two main sources of terrestrial flora and fauna information for the Kakono HPP and upstream Rusumo area
are outlined below.
B.1 Kakono HPP ESIA (Norplan 2014 and 2016)
Botanical surveys: Terrestrial field surveys conducted for the original ESIA included flora specialist surveys
that took place from 17 - 30 September 2013 (dry season) and from 24 November - 3 December 2013 (wet
season). Vegetation sampling was done through plot-based sampling (Modified Whitaker method) and
focused on the direct AOI of the project. A total of 105 (0.1 ha) plots were surveyed along 20 transects of
varying lengths mostly within and adjacent to the reservoir area, which was supplemented with data from
opportunistic sampling between plots. In addition, above-ground standing volume of trees was calculated
for all sample plots using measurement of height (h) and diameter at breast height (dbh). Four major
vegetation communities were identified, namely: Papyrus Swamp; Gallery Forest; Riverine Forest and Open
Woodland.
Botanical fieldwork resulted in a total of 327 plant species being recorded in the above vegetation
communities, although several duplications were detected in the raw data and the actual species total was
317 species. A vegetation map of the inundation area was produced in the specialist report. No information
was obtained or mapped for the river reaches downstream of the Kakono HPP.
Faunal surveys for the Norplan 2014 ESIA took place from 17 - 30 September 2013 (dry season) and from
24 November - 3 December 2013 (wet season). The fauna surveys comprised transects, discussions with
local communities and trapping (pitfalls, snap-traps). Seventeen large mammals and seven small
mammals were confirmed to occur, as well as 98 bird species, seven reptile species and eight amphibians.
The specialist report stated that the “terrestrial fauna in the direct impact zone of the Kakono project is not
particularly diverse”.
A later version of the ESIA in 2017, included a study on elephant movements in the project area which
attempted to describe and map possible corridors. This information is referenced in this report where
relevant.

B.2 Rusumo Falls HPP (2013)
The ESIA for the Rusumo Falls HPP (Artelia, 2013a (Vol 1 Main Report)) provided an overview of the
vegetation and fauna occurring in the vicinity of the falls and the downstream reaches. Although there is
some overlap in vegetation communities and faunal assemblages, Rusumo Falls are located a considerable
distance upstream of the Kakono study area and the information is not directly relevant. Therefore, the
species lists for the Rusumo ESIA have thus not been included nor discussed in this report.
C Field Survey
Primary data on vegetation, birds and mammals were collected during a field survey undertaken at the start
of the wet season (short rains) from 22 October to 7 November 2020. Fieldwork was undertaken by a
botanist (W McCleland, ECOREX); a bird and mammal specialist (D Mckenzie, ECOREX) and an in-country
ecologist (D Lori, MTL) (see team of specialists in Section 1). They were supported by a driver and a boat
skipper from the Lake Victoria Office in Bukoba. The itinerary for the field survey is included in Annex 5-5.
The survey sites and data collected are described below.
C.1 Sampling Sites
Sampling areas in the Kakono HPP AoI for the field survey were identified using Google Earth TM imagery and
with reference to the project layout and an initial delineation of structural habitat types evident from the
imagery was compiled as a basis for ground truthing. Sample sites were selected to represent the full range
of vegetation communities present in the study area, as well as the location of the various infrastructure
components. Four cross-sections of representative river reaches downstream of the dam were also
identified in agreement with other team members to inform the Environmental Flow Assessment (EFA),
referred to as EFA sites. Transects were conducted at all four EFA sites.
Sampling site/transect locations were refined in the field based on access, safety and sampling suitability
of the terrestrial habitats. Kmz tiles of Google EarthTM imagery were pre-loaded onto a Huawei P40 Pro
smartphone using LocusMap Pro software, as well as additional kmz layers of all project infrastructure and
proposed sample sites. This enabled navigation to each of the sample sites during fieldwork and ensured
that transects adequately covered project infrastructure. Avifaunal and mammal surveys were conducted
at the same sites or vicinity as the flora surveys, although transect routes differed from the transects
walked by the botanist.
A total of 35 transects was sampled, of which 13 were in the reservoir and dam wall area, 11 along the
downstream reaches of the Kagera River, four along the transmission line route, one at a forest near the
Kyaka – Kagera road, and six along the access road (Table 5.23; and Figure 5-76 and Figure 5-79).
Selected photographs of a few of the sample sites are shown from Figure 5-80.
Photographs and a summary of each vegetation sample site are provided in Annex 5-6.

Table 5.23 - Details of Terrestrial Survey Sites/Transects and Sampling Dates

Site No. Name Description Length Elevation Lat. Long. Survey Date
(m) (masl) dd.ddddd dd.ddddd
Kagera River and tributaries
KK-1 Kakono Stream Riparian forest on left bank of stream 1,245 1,191 -1.191265 31.087635 10/24/2020
KK-2 Kagera River Confluence of Kagera and Kakono 571 1,164 -1.191851 31.092439 10/24/2020
KK-3 Rubira Hill West and east slopes, and crest 1,589 1,235 -1.188087 31.090399 10/24/2020
KK-4 Missenyi Ranch Upper inundation area 2,254 1,227 -1.04971 30.930432 10/25/2020
KK-5 Missenyi Ranch Upper inundation area 2,140 1,213 -1.049447 30.927762 10/25/2020
KK-6 Missenyi Ranch Upper inundation area 578 1,190 -1.042773 30.925519 10/25/2020
KK-7 Pump 32 Middle inundation area 329 1,174 -1.174129 31.016151 10/25/2020
KK-8 EFA 4 Launch area downstream of EFA4 531 1,147 -1.209184 31.525119 10/26/2020
KK-9 Road to EFA 3 Woodland between main road and EFA 3 1,767 1,162 -1.258989 31.381208 10/26/2020
KK-10 EFA 3 Woodland just west of EFA transect 585 1,152 -1.248825 31.380352 10/26/2020
KK-11 EFA 1 North bank of the transect 366 1,161 -1.188503 31.110119 10/27/2020
KK-12 Kagera River North bank 580 1,163 -1.188016 31.131772 10/27/2020
KK-13 Kagera River North bank 1,444 1,181 -1.188697 31.164295 10/27/2020
KK-16 Kakono Dam South bank 454 1,166 -1.194523 31.093195 10/28/2020
KK-17 Hills south of dam wall North slopes and crest 2,210 1,281 -1.20024 31.09891 10/28/2020
KK-23 EFA 2 Woodland between track and EFA 901 1,182 -1.207921 31.21519 10/29/2020
KK-24 EFA 2 South bank 605 1,161 -1.203849 31.217201 10/29/2020
KK-28 Quarry Sites Hills near Rubira 1,955 1,220 -1.186238 31.086749 10/30/2020
KK-29 Kakono Stream Western tributary of Kakono Stream 324 1,189 -1.18929 31.087087 10/30/2020
KK-32 Unnamed Low hills west of KK-17 1,164 1,232 -1.212388 31.096739 11/1/2020
KK-33 Unnamed Thickets west of KK-17 2,498 1,200 -1.223452 31.097449 11/1/2020
KK-34 Unnamed Large tributary of Kagera 1,399 1,198 -1.222534 31.082866 11/1/2020
Transmission Line
KK-25 Unnamed Western section of line at new sugar plantations 970 1,175 -1.258744 31.257994 10/29/2020
KK-26 Unnamed Western section of line at new sugar plantations 883 1,174 -1.266349 31.276784 10/29/2020
KK-27 Unnamed Section from sugar plantations to main road 8,032 1,170 -1.271726 31.290296 10/29/2020
KK-30 Unnamed Western section of line at new sugar plantations 6,494 1,182 -1.244686 31.222497 10/31/2020
Access Roads
KK-18 Main access road East of road 1,127 1,198 -1.211866 31.115681 10/28/2020

Site No. Name Description Length Elevation Lat. Long. Survey Date
(m) (masl) dd.ddddd dd.ddddd
KK-21 Main access road West of road 907 1,291 -1.352065 31.190862 10/28/2020
KK-22 Main access road East of road 476 1,248 -1.369142 31.217788 10/28/2020
KK-31 Secondary access road Road connecting powerline road with main access 4,776 1,190 -1.247969 31.171776 10/31/2020
Other
KK-35 Unnamed Isolated forest patch 2,967 1,173 -1.347539 31.261354 11/2/2020

Figure 5-78 - Map showing Terrestrial Ecology Survey Transects in the Study Area

Figure 5-79 - Map showing Terrestrial Ecology Survey Sites in the Study Area
Note: EFA sites are representative sites selected for the Environmental Flow Study.

Figure 5-80 - Terrestrial Sampling Site KK1: Kakono Stream
Figure 5-81 - Terrestrial Sampling Site KK2: Kakono/Kagera Confluence

Figure 5-82 - Terrestrial Sampling Site KK3: Rubira Hill
Figure 5-83 - Terrestrial Sampling Site KK4: Missenyi Ranch

Figure 5-84 - Terrestrial Sampling Site KK5: Missenyi Ranch
C.2 Survey Methodology
The following section details the methods used. Photographs and GPS coordinates were taken at all sites
visited.
Vegetation and Flora
The Timed-Meander Search (TMS) method was used to survey flora at each sample site. This is a semi-
quantitative survey technique that uses species accumulation curves to determine when plant communities
have been adequately sampled and allows the observer to focus attention on micro-habitats that are likely
to have plant Species of Conservation Concern (SCC) (Goff et al., 1982). The TMS method has been shown
to be one of the most effective and time efficient methods for detecting rare species and documenting α-
diversity (Huebner, 2007). Inventories of all visible flowering plants were made in each of the TMS transects,
as well as estimating relative cover-abundance according to Braun-Blanquet cover scales (Kent & Coker,
1992). Plants that could not be identified immediately were photographed in situ and, if necessary,
allocated a collection number, and placed in a field plant press for identification at a later stage. The
following reference works and websites provided important assistance in the identification of specimens
and photographs:
• Flora of Tropical East Africa - a series of monographs of most families of East African plants;
• Global Biodiversity Information Facility (https://www.gbif.org) - digitised images of plant specimens
from all the world’s major online herbaria; and
• African Plants Photo Database (http://www.africanplants.senckenberg.de/) – a comprehensive
database of photos of plants from throughout Africa, with 9,454 species covered as of November
2020.
Birds
Two survey techniques were used for avifauna during fieldwork:
• Meandering transects were walked in faunal habitats at the same sites where botanical TMSs were
being conducted. Birds were searched for by walking slowly through vegetation and recording all

species seen or heard. Birds were viewed using Nikon Monarch 7 10x42 and Bushnell Legend
10x42 binoculars and vocalisations were recorded on a Samsung S7 smartphone. The amount of
time spent in each habitat was determined by species accumulation curves, with heterogenous
habitats requiring more time than more homogenous habitats. Birds were recorded using the
MacKinnon list method as recommended by O’Dea et al. (2004). This is a rapid assessment
technique in which species are recorded in chronological sequence on consecutive lists of equal
length. A species accumulation curve is then generated by plotting cumulative species totals
against number of lists. The 10-species list method was used, which Herzog et al. (2002)
considered to be the best compromise between stable richness estimation curves and robust
sample size; and
• Stationary counts were conducted at various viewpoints above cliffs along the Kagera River and at
sites along the transmission line route, with the primary aim of detecting raptors (birds of prey) and
locating nest sites. Where possible, survey sites were visited during the late morning, when raptors
(birds of prey) were most active and most visible, using thermals to achieve height for foraging
flights. A minimum duration of 30 minutes was spent at each site, using a Nikon spotting scope to
scan all visible cliff faces for raptor nests or perching raptors.
Mammals and other large fauna

Mammals were surveyed using three methods:
• Incidental observations of both direct evidence (sightings, vocalisations) and indirect evidence
(spoor, dung) while surveying avifauna;
• Four baited motion-triggered cameras (Bushnell Trophy Cam) were placed in forest and woodland
habitats in the vicinity of the dam wall and Kakono Stream. Criteria for the location of cameras
were that they needed to be in areas of likely mammal concentration (e.g. paths leading to water,
natural salt licks, etc), in areas that were relatively isolated and had low numbers of people moving
through for camera security, and needed to be close enough to access tracks that they could be
quickly extracted at the end of fieldwork; and
• Discussions with local cattle herders, farmers and a cattle ranch manager provided information
regarding presence and movements of large mammals such as elephant and hippo, and predators
such as hyaena.
Photo 1. Bird surveys across the river and floodplains Photo 2. A motion-triggered camera installed along
a game path

Photo 3. Boat based surveys of EFA transect sites
Figure 5-85 - Photographs of Terrestrial Ecology Survey Activities
D Ecological Importance and Terrestrial Critical Habitat Assessment
The method for assessing Ecological Importance is described in Section 5.3.3.5A. The approach to assessing
habitat status is described in Section 5.3.5.2 and the approach to the terrestrial critical habitat assessment
is described in Section 5.3.5.4.
E Assumptions and Limitations
The assumptions and limitations applicable to the field activities and findings of this report are detailed in
Table 5.24.
Table 5.24:- Assumptions and Limitations

1. General
Available Data Very few ecological studies have been conducted in northwestern Tanzania, including the Kagera River basin.
Even the formal conservation areas such as Burigi-Chato National Park and Ibanda Game Reserve lack basic
biodiversity baseline data.
The only survey known in the Kakono area is the flora survey conducted for the Kakono HPP ESIA (Norplan
2016). Floristic studies from similar habitats in adjacent countries were used to assist in compiling lists of
potentially occurring plants.
Seasonality This report was based on a single survey conducted at the start of the first wet season (short rains). It is
possible that plants that flower at other times of the year were overlooked and that certain migratory bird
species had not yet arrived. However, this is not considered to be a major limitation since a high proportion of
plants were in flower and a significant number of migrants had arrived, providing sufficient data to meet the
terms of reference for the study and indicating the timing of fieldwork was appropriate.
Access to the Access to the Inundation Zone was limited to only a few tracks to the river from the main B181 road. Only three
Reservoir sites could be accessed in the middle and lower reaches of the inundation zone. However, analysis of satellite
Area imagery did not indicate any upstream areas in the upper reservoir with different or unique habitats, so this is
not seen as a major limitation.
2. Flora and Fauna
Flora A proportion of the plants located during fieldwork did not have diagnostic features (i.e. lacking flowers or fruit)
and could only be identified to genus level. Each of these taxa has been screened against the list of potentially
occurring Species of Conservation Concern (SCC) to confirm that they do not represent any of these species, so
this is not considered to be a major limitation. No specimens were collected for herbarium identification, but
diagnostic features carefully photographed for identification purposes.
Mammals Despite numerous attempts to contact the relevant wildlife officer responsible for elephant conflict in Kagera
District, the team was unsuccessful in arranging an interview with him.
No trapping of small mammals took place as such sampling methods require traps to be checked on a daily
basis, which would have severely restricted the team’s daily movements and would have made it impossible to
complete fieldwork. This is unlikely to be a significant limitation as no threatened small mammals are likely to
be present.

Reptiles and No trapping of reptiles and amphibians using pitfall traps took place as such sampling methods require traps to
Amphibians be checked on a daily basis, which would have severely restricted the team’s daily movements and would have
made it impossible to complete fieldwork. As for mammals, this is unlikely to be a significant limitation as no
threatened herpetofauna are likely to be present. This was confirmed by a desktop assessment by a qualified
herpetologist prior to fieldwork.
Aquatic Ecology
Regional Context
A Lake Victoria Basin
The Lake Victoria Basin (LVB) is recognised for its high fish biodiversity, high levels of endemic fish and high
level of threat to many species. Fifty-three species are assessed as Critically Endangered (CR) and 46 are
assessed as CR, and flagged as Possibly Extinct, representing 87% of all CR species (Sayer et al., 2018). This
excludes the many undescribed species. Most of these are haplochromine cichlids and are considered
endemic to Lake Victoria. A minimum of 78 species (33% of all assessed freshwater fish native to LVB) are
assessed as Data Deficient, associated with the lake’s high species richness; difficult taxonomy and high
diversity of endemic haplochromine cichlids, and under surveyed parts of the lake (Sayer et al., 2018).
Anywhere between 78% and 90% of fish are endemic to the LVB (depending on whether the undescribed
cichlid species are included). There are 51 non-endemic species of which 46 are Least Concern given their
wider distribution ranges.
An indication of the relative richness of fish species in the Lake Victoria Basin is shown in Figure 5-86 from
Sayer et al. (2018). The Kagera River is located on the western side where the number of fish species is
estimated at 11 to 26. Note: the dark brown area on the west side of Lake Victoria is the Kagera Swamps
area downstream of Rusumo Fall and upstream of Kakono, Kikagati, Nsongezi HPPs which contains
undescribed haplochromine cichlids in the interconnected swamps which form a species flock distinct from
those in the main lake (Meier unpublished in Sayer et al., 2018). The upper Kagera lakes are considered of
high conservation importance although many species remain undescribed and not currently assessed for
the IUCN Red List.
The Sayer et al. (2018) study reassessed the status of many aquatic species (including the currently Critically
Endangered Labeo victorianus) and undertook an aquatic KBA prioritisation process to identify several
Aquatic KBAs in the Lake Victoria Basin. These provide a good point of reference to contextualise and draw
comparisons with the river reach of the Kakono HPP. These were selected using IUCN criteria and thresholds
and were based on the confirmed or likely presence of priority aquatic species combined with several other
factors. The process identified and selected planning units which optimise locations where KBAs were
suitable as management units, including factors such as proximity to existing protected areas.

Figure 5-86 - Richness4 of Freshwater Fish Species in Lake Victoria Basin

[Source: Sayer et al. (2018)].
B Freshwater Ecoregions
The proposed Project is located within the Lake Victoria Basin Freshwater Ecoregion (FEOW, 2020).
This ecoregion comprises the basins Lake Victoria, Edward, George, Kyoga and Kivu. This ecoregion is
characterised by extensive beds of Cyperus papyrus and rapid species radiations among its endemic
haplochromine cichlid fauna (FEOW, 2020). Lake Victoria is thought to have been dry for several thousand
years and refilled some 15,000 years ago (Talbot and Laerdal, 2000, in Oyugi and Chapman, 2008).
The biological distinctiveness of this ecoregion is classified as “Globally Outstanding”; the global
conservation status is classified as “Critical”; and conservation priority is classified as “Very High” (Table
5.25).
Table 5.25 - Conservation Classification of the Lake Victoria Basin Freshwater Ecoregion
Biological Distinctiveness Conservation Status Priority Class
Globally Outstanding Critical I – Very High
Continentally Outstanding Endangered II – High
Bioregionally Outstanding Vulnerable III – Moderate
Nationally Important Relatively Stable IV – Low
Relatively Intact V – Very Low
[Source: Oyugi and Chapman (2008)]
4
This map includes species considered Extinct (1 species), Critically Endangered (Possibly Extinct) (46 species) and undescribed
endemic haplochromine species (263 species), most of which occur in Lake Victoria, and about 15 in the upper Kagera River.

Aquatic Ecosystem Types
A Kagera River
The Kagera River within the Project Area of Influence comprises two hydrogeomorphic zones sensu Ollis et
al. (2013). The boundary between the two zones is Pump Station G (K+18). Details of the classification of
aquatic ecosystem types and associated biotopes are presented in Annex 5-7. The two zones are as follows:
• Lower Foothill. The Kagera River at and upstream of K+18, including the proposed HPP at K0, has a
gentle gradient of between 0.0018 and 0.0010 and is classified as a Lower Foothill (Figure 5-87-
A). The river comprises a single and mostly straight channel some 60m wide and fringed with
extensive emergent vegetation dominated by Cyperus papyrus in the deeper water (1-2m) and
hippo grass Vossia cuspidata in the shallower water (<1m). Beyond the emergent vegetation there
is an outer zone of seasonally inundated riparian Floodplain Forest/Thicket dominated by Vachellia
kirkii5. Subsistence cultivation was absent in 2020, but large areas of the left (north) bank were
under commercial cultivation of sugar; and
• Lowland Rivers. The Kagera River downstream of K+18, as well as the two main tributaries
investigated for this report (Mwisa and Ngono), have a flat gradient of between 0.0010 and 0.0001
and are classified as Lowland Rivers. These rivers comprised meandering channels and wide
permanent and seasonally inundated floodplains and oxbow features characterised by extensive
beds of emergent vegetation (Figure 5-87 - B). The permanently inundated floodplains were
largely natural, whereas seasonally inundated floodplains contained subsistence cultivation that
increased in intensity with distance downstream.
Figure 5-87 - Representative Aquatic Ecosystems in Lower Foothill Zone [A] and Lowland River Zone [B]
[A] is at Kakono HPP, [B] is near Kyaka downstream of Kakono HPP.
B Tributaries
The lower Mwisa and Ngono Rivers both classify as Lowland River, while the Kakono River at S2 is classified
as a Seasonal Transitional Stream (Table 5.23). Other tributaries surveyed for this report comprised various
hydrogeomorphic types ranging from an Upper Foothill Stream at S1 (in the reservoir area), to a Valley
Bottom Wetland at S4 (Table 5.23). The ecological classifications of tributaries are not discussed in further
detail for the purposes of this report.
5
Previously called Acacia kirkii, as indicated in the 2016 ESIA reports (Norplan, 2016)

Figure 5-88 - Kakono Stream Immediately Downstream of Kakono HPP dam wall (Feb. 2020)

Aquatic and Riparian Biotopes
Aquatic and riparian biotopes at and upstream of K+18 (i.e. the Lower Foothill portion of the Kagera River),
comprised the first six biotope categories listed in Table 5.26, and illustrated in Figure 5-89. Aquatic
biotopes downstream of K+18 (i.e. the Lowland River portion of the Kagera River), comprised seven biotope
categories as described in Table 5.26 and illustrated in Figure 5-89 and Figure 5-90 However, current
speeds are slower so channel substrate is likely to comprise mostly silt and sand, and the areas of emergent
vegetation were more extensive than upstream, particularly with oxbow systems.
Table 5.26 - Aquatic and Riparian Biotopes

Biotopes Description
1) Main Channel Main channel of Kagera River with sub-biotopes comprising river sections where current speeds
are moderate to high and form a continuous glide plus sections of faster flowing run. Further
upstream, such as K-68, there are short sections of cascade.
2) Papyrus Emergent vegetation dominated by Cyperus papyrus in areas of permanent inundation and
where water depth in February was 1-2 m, and current speeds are mostly low to zero. The bed
substrates comprise silt and decomposed organic material. The width of this zone is variable,
but typically ranges between 0 and 150m.
3) Hippo Grass Emergent vegetation dominated by Vossia cuspidata and other species, such as Echinochloa
pyramidalis, growing in areas of permanent inundation but shallow water (<1m), and where
current speeds are low to zero. The bed substrates comprise silt and decomposed organic
material. The width of this zone is variable, but typically ranges between 0 and 150m.
4) Backwaters Comprising small inlets, bays and side channels where current speeds were low to zero. Bed
substrates comprise silt.
5) Slackwaters Comprising channel margins and fringes of marginal vegetation along the main channel, often
with patches of floating water hyacinth Eichhornia crassipes. Current speeds in this biotope were
low to moderate and bed substrates comprise silt.
6) Floodplain Forest6 Comprising an outer fringe of seasonally inundated floodplain forest/thicket dominated by
Vachellia kirkii. The width of this habitat type typically ranges between 0 and 60m.
7) Riverine Woodland Riparian woody zone mostly along seasonal tributaries and not considered in details for the
purposes of this report.
8) Floodplain Comprising extensive areas of seasonally inundated tall Cyperus papyrus which is rooted in
submerged alluvium, and shorter Vossia cuspidata and Echinochloa stagnina grassland, with
large areas of cultivation that increased with distance downstream (Figure 5-90).
The distribution of these biotopes in the Kakono HPP Area of Influence and downstream to the Ngono River
are shown in Figure 5-89 to Figure 5-97.
6
The Floodplain Forest equates to the Vachellia kirkii Floodplain Woodland/Thicket classified by the botanist during the October
2020 survey.

Figure 5-89 - Aquatic Biotopes in Lower Foothills of the Kagera River

A) Aerial view at K-12; B); Main channel near K-12; C) Papyrus beds at K+18; D) Slackwater at K+40. Note: Floodplain Forest was classified as Vachellia kirkii Floodplain Woodland/Thicket by
botanist during October 2020 survey.

Figure 5-90 – Floodplains and Oxbow Features Associated with the Lowland River Portion of the Kagera River
A) Cultivation at K+57; B); Backwater at K+40; C) Oxbow at K+54; D) Floodplain near S7.

Figure 5-91 – Aquatic biotopes of the Kakono Project Area: Overall Map –K-42 to K+132

Figure 5-92 – Aquatic biotopes of the Kakono Project Area: Upstream Kakono HPP Reservoir (Lowland Foothill Reach)– K-42

Figure 5-93 – Aquatic biotopes of the Kakono Project Area: Kakono HPP Reservoir (Lowland Foothill Reach) – K-12

Figure 5-94 – Aquatic biotopes of the Kakono Project Area: Kakono HPP Reservoir (Lowland Foothill Reach) – K 0.0 (showing Kakono Stream on left bank)

Figure 5-95 – Aquatic biotopes of the Kakono Project Area: Downstream of Kakono HPP (Lowland River Reach) – K+18 (showing Kagera Sugar Estate on left bank)

(showing Mwsia River on right bank, cultivation and settlement)

(showing floodplain system at Ngono River confluence and extensive Minzoro swamp forest on left bank)

A Substrates
A.1 Main Channel
The composition of the bed substrates along the edges of the main channel comprised coarse gravels about
50mm in diameter (Figure 5-98a). The composition of bed substrate in deeper water is unknown but based
on the current speed is likely to comprise coarse gravels, cobbles and boulders.
A.2 Emergent Vegetation
The composition of bed substrates in areas with emergent vegetation comprised silt and decomposed
organic material (Figure 5-98B).
Figure 5-98 – River Substrates from Shallow Portions of the Main Channel of the Kagera River
[A. Left] Coarse Gravels Found in the Margins of the Main Channel of the Kagera River
[B. Right] Decomposed emergent vegetation, mostly Cyperus papyrus from river margins
B Cliffs
Cliffs are present on some of the outer river bends in both the Lower Foothill and Lowland River portions of
the Kagera River, suggesting tectonic upliftment. The composition of these cliffs was not investigated but
they are probably the same as the geology noted at the lower reaches of the Kibologo River at S3 (~13 km
downstream of Kakono HPP) and the cliff near Pump Station G (K+43), which comprised mudstone overlain
by conglomerate. The erosion risk of these cliffs is expected to be high. Some of these cliffs are not fringed
with extensive papyrus beds and may be exposed to water level fluctuations which will increase their
susceptibility to erosion (Figure 5-99).
Figure 5-99 - Cliffs Along the Kagera River at the Junction with the Kibologo River at S3

Water Level and Field Water Quality
A Water Level
Water level of the Kagera River at the rated cross section at Pump Station G (K+18) in February 2020 was
5.88 m, and this translates to a flow of 272 m3/s according to the revised rating presented in Studio
Pietrangeli (2019b). By comparison, median flow in February between 1950 and 2017 was 164 m3/s. Flow
during the field survey was therefore comparatively high for February, but within the range previously
measured. A subsequent water level reading taken at K+18 (Pump Station G) on 21 April 2020 indicated a
flow of 450 m3/s. This exceeds the maximum average month flow calculated for the proposed HPP for the
month of April of 377 m3/s.
B Field Water Quality
B.1 Field Results
Water quality sampling results from in-field data collection in February 2020 are summarised in Table 5.27.
Table 5.27 – Field Water Quality Results

Code Flow Colour Turbidity pH Conductivity
(NTU) (mS/m)
Kagera River
K-12 Moderate Red/Brown 44 7.3 25
K+3 Moderate Red/Brown 50 7.4 18
Tributaries
S1 Low Clear 20 7.4 28
S2 Very Low L. Brown - 7.3 22
S3 Moderate Clear 3 7.0 10
S5 Low D. Brown 6 6.7 8
S7 Moderate D. Brown 7 7.0 4
B.2 Kagera River
Water in the Kagera River in February 2020 was reddish/brown in colour and had moderate turbidity that
ranged between 44 and 50 Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTU) (Table 5.27). The pH was circumneutral and
ranged between 7.1 and 7.4 (Table 6.1). Conductivity was moderate and ranged between 18 and 31 mS/m
(Table 5.27).
Water from the main channel was examined using a field microscope and contained high abundance of
suspended quartz granules (Figure 5-100a), and high abundance of unidentified looped inorganic objects
not visible to the naked eye (Figure 5-100b).
B.3 Tributaries
Water in the tributaries surveyed in February 2020 was mostly clear, and turbidity ranged between 4 and
28 NTU (Table 5.27).
The Mwisa River was slightly acidic (pH 6.7), while the pH at other sites was circumneutral and ranged
between 7.0 and 7.4 (Table 5.27).
Conductivity in the Ngono River was notably low at 4 mS/m, while conductivity in other tributaries ranged
between 8 and 28 mS/m (Table 5.27).

Figure 5-100 - Suspended Particles in the Kagera River

A) Quartz granules; and B) Unidentified looped inorganic object.
Benthic Diatoms
A Results
Results of diatom analysis from samples taken in February 2020 are summarised in Table 5.28.
Table 5.28 - Summary of Diatom Results

Code No of SPI BDI Average PTV Deformities Class Category
Species Score Score Score (%) (%)
Kagera River
K+3 (Kagera Reseroir) 28 9.0 9.6 9.3 20.3 0 Poor D
Tributaries
S5 (Mwisa) - - - - - - - -
S6 (Ngono) 20 17.3 20 18.7 7.8 0 High A
SPI = Specific Pollution Index; BDI=Biological Diatom Index; PTV=Pollution Tolerant Valves
B Kagera River
Biological water quality of the Kagera River at K+3, within the proposed area of inundation, in February 2020
was Poor and the Present Ecological State (PES) category was Largely Modified (Category D) (Table 5.28).
Although this was a single sample, and no diatom sampling was conducted downstream of the Kakono HPP
or Kagera Sugar Estate, the results are expected to be much the same along the Kagera River at least as far
as Kyaka because of the high flow volumes.
The proportion of pollution tolerant values (PTV) of diatoms was moderate (20.3%), which indicates that
organic pollution was moderate (Table 5.28). The composition and relative abundance of diatoms indicated
elevated levels of nutrients, salinity and sediments. The most dominant species was Lemnicola hungarica,
which occurs in weakly alkaline waters with moderate to elevated electrolyte content and may also occur
in critically polluted waters. This species is found mostly as an epiphyte, commonly associated with Lemna
spp. (duckweed) (Taylor et al., 2007b). Fast-growing, pioneer species, that colonise bare substrates rapidly,
were also dominant and included Cocconeis placentula and Eolimna minima. These two species prefer
elevated nutrients and high organic loads respectively and indicate elevated levels of inorganic nutrients

(Teply and Bahls, 2006; Taylor et al., 2007b). The diatom results support the water quality results that show
high levels of nutrients.
Unsurprisingly, there were no key indicator species associated with industrial impact, and valve deformities
were absent, suggesting that metal toxicity was below detection limits. Elevated sediments from
deforestation and cultivation upstream in Rwanda may be the source of elevated nutrients and organic
loads in the Kagera River.
C Mwisa River
The diatom valve density in the Mwisa River in February 2020 was low and resulted in a non-viable count.
The river was degraded and stones-in-current were covered in what appeared to be senescent alga.
D Ngono River
Biological water quality of the Ngono River at S6 in February 2020 was High, and the Present Ecological
State category was Natural (Category A) (Table 5.28). The proportion of pollution tolerant values (PTV) was
low (7.8%), which indicates that organic pollution was low (Table 5.28). Salinity concentrations and nutrient
levels were also low. Further analysis of the various indices within OMNIDIA suggested that the site was
unpolluted at the time of sampling. The diatom community consisted mostly of species that are sensitive
to water quality deterioration. Most dominant species were from the genus Eunotia, which prefer acidic
waters with low electrolyte content. Encyonopsis species and Navicula feuerbornii f. africana were also
dominant and both prefer oligotrophic, electrolyte-poor waters (Taylor et al., 2007b; Taylor et al., 2016).
Valve deformities were absent, suggesting that metal toxicity was below detection limits.
Aquatic Macrophytes
A Kagera River
Submerged vegetation was not recorded or expected in the main channel of the Kagera River because of a
combination of high current speeds, channel depth (>5 m) and light limitation associated with elevated
turbidity. However, the floating water weed ‘water hyacinth’ Eichhornia crassipes was abundant in the main
channel and along the river margins (Figure 5-101). Other floating weeds recorded in tributaries adjacent
to the Kagera were Pistia stratiotes and Lemna aequinoctialis, both recorded in a tributary at the prison, near
K+45 on the right bank.
Emergent vegetation along the Kagera River was dominated by extensive stands of Cyperus papyrus mostly
in deeper water (Figure 5-101). Shallow waters contained a high diversity of grasses, herbs and other
aquatic species such as Abutilon mauritiana, Echinochloa pyramidalis, Floscopa glomerata, Leersia
hexandra, Ludwigia adscendens, Melanthera scandens, Persicaria sp., Phoenix reclinata, Pilogene scabra,
Pycnostachys sp., Triumfetta tomentosa, Vossia cuspidata (Figure 5-101; Figure 5-102). Bulrush Typha
domingensis was recorded adjacent to the Kagera River in a shallow dam at the prison near K+45.
B Ngono River
The Ngono River was clear and slow-flowing and supported extensive stands of submerged plants.
Backwaters in the Ngono River at S8 contained extensive stands of Ceratophyllum demersum, Utricularia
sp. and Batrachospermum sp., as well as a pink Waterlily Nymphaea nouchali var petersiana (Figure 5-103).
The floodplain of the Ngono River near S9 supported a high diversity of grasses, herbs and other plants,
including Antherotoma debilis, Azolla pinnata, Cynium tubulosum and Miscanthus violaceus (Figure 5-103).

Figure 5-101 - Aquatic Vegetation in the Kagera River

[A] Eichhornia crassipes (Pontederiaceae); [B] Cyperus papyrus (Cyperaceae); [C] Echinochloa pyramidalis
(Poaceae); and [D] Pycnostachys sp. (Lamiaceae).

Figure 5-102 - Selected Aquatic Plants – Kagera River

A) Eichhornia crassipes (Pontederiaceae); B) Cyperus papyrus (Cyperaceae); C) Vachellia kirkii (Fabaceae); D) Pycnostachys sp. (Lamiaceae); E) Brillantaisia cicatricosa
(Acanthaceae);F) Echinochloa pyramidalis (Poaceae); G) Floscopa glomerata (Commelinaceae); H) Melanthera scadens (Asteraceae); I) Abutilon mauritianum (Malvaceae); J) Ludwigia
adscendens diffisa (Onagraceae).

Figure 5-103 - Selected Aquatic Plants – Ngono River

A) Orthochilus sp.(Orchidaceae); B) Antherotoma debilis (Melanstomaceae); C) Batrachospermum sp. (Batrachospermaceae); D) Ceratophyllum demersum (Ceratophyllaceae); E) Miscanthus
violaceus (Poaceae); F) Utricularia sp. (Lentibulariaceae); G&H) Nymphaea nouchali var petersiana (Nymphaeaeceae); I) Cynium tubulosum (Orobanchacae); J) Persicaria senegalensis f.
senegalensis (Polygonaceae); K) Azolla pinnata (Salviniaceae).

Aquatic Macro Invertebrates
A Kagera River
Aquatic macroinvertebrates in the Kagera River were difficult to sample because of high current speeds, a
deep channel and dense stands of papyrus that were unnavigable, so sampling comprised a range of
methods, all of which are likely to have underestimated the diversity present.
The Tanzanian River Scoring System (TARISS) (Kaaya, 2014) was applied to the combined data collected
using various methods in the Lower Foothill Zone between K-12 and K+18 to derive an approximate TARISS
Score. A total of 29 TARISS taxa were recorded in this zone and these gave an approximate TARISS Total
Score of 145 and an approximate Average Score per Taxon (ASPT) of 5.0 (Annex 5-10).
The data suggest that the Present Ecological State of aquatic macroinvertebrates in the Kagera River in
February 2020 was Moderately Modified (Category C). The fauna was characterised by taxa that are typically
associated with emergent vegetation. Twenty-three taxa recorded (80%) prefer current speeds that range
between zero and slow. Similarly, 23 taxa recorded (80%) are tolerant of water quality deterioration. Six
taxa (20%) that are sensitive to water quality deterioration were recorded, namely: freshwater shrimp
(Atyidae), three mayfly families (Heptageniidae, Leptophlebiidae and Polymitarcyidae) and two damselfly
families (Calopterygidae and Lestidae). The proportion of air-breathing taxa was moderate (34%), and this
suggests that dissolved oxygen may have been partially limiting. The proportion of taxa that are sensitive
to elevated sediment was low (20%), and this indicates that the river was heavily sedimented. No alien
macroinvertebrate taxa were recorded.
Macroinvertebrate taxa expected or recorded during the field survey are listed in Annex 5-9, and
photographs of selected taxa recorded are included in Figure 5-105 to Figure 5-114. Macroinvertebrate
taxa associated with the various aquatic biotopes in the Kagera River are summarised in Table 5.29.
Table 5.29 - Aquatic Biotopes and Associated Macroinvertebrate Taxa

Biotope Macroinvertebrate Taxa
Main Channel The margins of the main channel (2.5m depth) comprised a riverbed with large gravels and cobbles which
were colonised by taxa typically found in stones-in-current habitat, including the freshwater sponge
Ephydatia fluviatalis and larvae of the midge Rheotanytarsus sp.. These are filter feeding species and their
presence highlights the importance of fine particulate material derived from upstream in the ecological
functioning of the river. The only other taxon recorded in this habitat was the mayfly Heptageniidae.
A few adult Aethaloptera sp. (Hydropsychidae – caddisflies) were recorded in the light trap, and the larvae
of these are likely to occur in fast-flowing cobble habitat.
Trailing Papyrus and Hippo grass in fast flow provided potentially suitable habitat for blackfly larvae
(Simuliidae), but none were recorded. Furthermore, blackflies were absent from the light traps and aerial
sweep netting. The absence of blackflies on trailing vegetation is attributed to the scouring effect of
suspended quartz granules (Figure 5-100).
Key Taxa
Freshwater sponge (Ephydatia fluvialis); Filter-Feeding Midges (Rheotanytarus sp.); Mayflies (Baetidae),
Caddisflies (Aethaloptera sp.), bivalves (Euperia ferruginea; Pisidium sp.).
Slackwater Aquatic macroinvertebrates associated with the floating water hyacinth Eichhornia crassipes in slackwaters
included freshwater shrimps (Caridina spp.), and the snail Lymnaea natalensis.
Key Taxa
Lumbriculidae (earthworms); Leptophlebiidae (mayflies); Lestinogomphus sp (dragonfly); Corixidae (bugs);
Dytiscidae; Gyrinidae (beetles); Bezzia sp. (biting midge); Lymnaea natalensis (snail)
Backwater Backwaters were limited to a few areas only in the Kagera River upstream of Kyaka and constituted a small
area of aquatic habitats. The substrates here comprised mostly fine mud colonised mainly by lumbriculid
earthworms and two species of filter-feeding bivalves, namely Eupera ferruginea and smaller Pisidium sp.
(Annex 5-9).
Key Taxa
Lumbriculidae (earthworms); Chironominae (midges)

Biotope Macroinvertebrate Taxa

Papyrus & hippo Emergent vegetation supported a high diversity and abundance of aquatic macroinvertebrates and these
grass areas are key to the ecological functioning of the river and they provide important feeding and nursery
areas for fish. No attempt was made to distinguish the macroinvertebrates taxa associated with the two
main types of emergent vegetation habitats because of difficulties of access, so these areas were treated
as one category for the purposes of this report.
Fifteen species of Odonata (dragonflies and damselflies) were confirmed in the Project Area out of
145 species that may be expected in the lower Kagera River Basin Annex 5-9).
A notable feature of the aerial sweep net samples of riparian vegetation was the high abundance of hover
flies (Syrphidae), including Eristalinus taeniops and Phytomia natalensis (Annex 5-12). The larvae of these
flies are aquatic and air-breathers and are restricted to shallow water that usually have limited saturated
oxygen.
No crabs were caught in the baited funnel trap, but three Potamonatues niloticus (Potamonautidae) were
caught while electrofishing at K+57.
Moderate numbers of adult mayfly Ephoron sp, (Polymitarcyidae) were recorded in the light trap, the larvae
of which feed on detritus and therefore are expected in the emergent vegetation.
Key Taxa
Lumbriculid earthworms; Baetidae (Cloeon sp), Caenidae; two species of freshwater shrimp (Caridina
nilotica and C. togoensis); Ephoron sp (Polymitarcyidae); Belostomatidae; Corixidae; Gerridae (Limnogonus
sp.); Nepidae (Ranatra sp.); Pleidae; Veliidae (Rhagovelia sp.); Leptoceridae; Dytiscidae; Hydrophilidae;
Ceratopogonidae (Bezzia sp.); Culicidae; Empididae; Syrphidae; Coenagrionidae; Libeluliidae; Gomphidae;
Crambiidae; and Lymnaeidae (Lymnaea natalensis).
Floodplain Dry during the field survey and therefore unknown but likely to be colonised by taxa that proliferate under
seasonal inundation, such as Dytiscidae (beetles), Hemiptera (bugs), Culicidae (mosquitoes), Chironomidae
(midges), Ceratopogonidae (biting midges) and Apple snails (Ampulariidae) such as Pila ovata.
B Mwisa River
The Present Ecological State of the Mwisa River at S5 in February 2020 was Critically Modified (Category F).
A total of four TARISS taxa was recorded and these gave a TARISS Total Score of 10 and an ASPT of
2.5 (Annex 5-10).
Instream habitats were moderately suitable for colonisation by macroinvertebrates, so the low score
cannot be attributed to the availability of suitable habitat. Stones-in-current were covered in a thick growth
of unidentified benthic algae and these were colonised by red midges Chironominae sp., typical of polluted
conditions. High numbers of adult mosquitoes of the genus Mansonia were recorded in aerial sweep netting
of the riparian vegetation. The larvae and pupae of this genus are associated with aquatic vegetation and
are typically associated with polluted water.
The reason for the poor ecological state of this river is unknown but the sampling location was close to an
extensive rural settlement that could be responsible for the poor state of the river. Furthermore, the area
had been disturbed by recent bridge construction, so that may have also contributed to the poor state of
the river.
C Kakono Stream
The Kakono Stream at S2 (on the left bank immediately downstream of the Kakono HPP location) is neither
ecologically important nor ecologically sensitive with respect to aquatic macroinvertebrates. Flow during
the field survey in February 2020 was very low and instream habitats comprised temporary shallow pools
with mud substrate and interspersed by riffle habitat with cobble substrate (Figure 5-64). The pool habitat
contained low abundance and diversity of macroinvertebrates, dominated by the Gerridae (Limnogonus sp.).
Two species of blackflies were recorded in riffle habitats, namely Simulium unicornutum and a member of
the S. alcocki group. No macroinvertebrates of ecological importance or sensitivity were recorded.
D Ngono River
Aquatic macroinvertebrates in the Ngono River at S6 and S7 were not sampled in sufficient detail to make
any conclusions as to the ecological state of the river, but there was no indication of significant deterioration.
E Kagera Sugar Estate
The tributary downstream of the Kagera Sugar Factory at S4 was visited in February 2020 but not sampled
because of the abundance of sewage “fungus” Sphaerotilus natans (also referred to as “seage fungus” and
associated safely concerns (see Figure 5-66). The stream was in a poor ecological state and did not warrant
further investigation.

A temporary agricultural drain within the Kagera Sugar Estate at D01 supported three species of snail as
follows:
• Biomphalaria pfeifferi, which is an intermediate host of human intestinal bilharzia;
• Bulinus africanus, which is an intermediate host of human urinary bilharzia; and
• Lymnaea natalensis, which is an intermediate host of the liver fluke Fasciola gigantica that affects
livestock.
The infection of snails with Schistosomiasis was assessed by collecting 50 B. pfeifferi and 20 B. africanus
from D01 and placing each specimen in a separate vial for 24 hrs. No cercaria were recorded indicating the
collected snails were not infected with Schistosomiasis. This evidence was consistent with reports from the
local health centres, including the Kagera Health Clinic, that indicated there were no confirmed cases of
bilharzia in the area.
Figure 5-104 - Macroinvertebrates: Porifera

[A&B] Ephydatia fluvialis (Spongillidae).
Figure 5-105 - Macroinvertebrates: Crustacea

[A] Potamonautes niloticus (Potamonautidae). Photo by Bruce Paxton; [B] Caridina togoensis (Atyidae); [C] Caridina
niloticus (Atyidae).

Figure 5-106 - Macroinvertebrates: Ephemeroptera.

[A] Caenidae; [B] Ephoron sp. (Polymitarcyidae); [C] Leptophlebiidae; [D] Afronurus sp (Heptageniidae).

Figure 5-107 - Macroinvertebrates: Zygoptera.

[A] Pseudagrion sjoestedti (Coenagrionidae); [B] Ceriagrion glabrum (Coenagrionidae); [C] Aciagrion gracile
(Coenagrionidae); [D] Phaon irridipennis (Calopterygidae); [E] Ceriagrion suave (Coenagrionidae); [F] Lestes sp.
(Lestidae); [G] Agriocnemis sp (Coenagrionidae).

Figure 5-108 - Macroinvertebrates: Anisoptera.

[A] Orthetrum brachiale (Libellilidae); [B] Nesciothemis farinosa (Libellulidae); [C] Palpopleura lucia (Libellulidae);
[D] Trithemis arteriosa (Libellulidae); [E] Trithemis hecate (Libellulidae); [F] Brachythemis lacustris (Libellilidae);
[G] Brachythemis lacustris (Libelullidae); [H] Trithemis stictica (Libellulidae).

Figure 5-109 - Macroinvertebrates: Hemiptera.

[A] Ranatra sp. (Nepidae); [B] Limnogonus sp. (Gerridae); [C] Laccocoris sp. (Naucoridae); [D] Rhagovelia sp
(Veliidae).

Figure 5-110 - Macroinvertebrates: Trichoptera and Lepidoptera.

[A] Athripsodes sp. (Leptoceridae); [B] Hydropsychidae; [C] Crambidae; [D] Aethaloptera sp. (Hydropsychidae).

Figure 5-111 - Macroinvertebrates: Coleoptera

[A] Cybister sp. (Dytiscidae); [B] Hydaticus sp. (Dytiscidae); [C] Hydrophilini (Hydrophilidae); [D] Helochares sp.
(Hydrophilidae); [E] Gyrinus sp. (Gyrinidae); [F] Laccophilus (Dytiscidae); [G] Bidessini (Dytiscidae).
Figure 5-112 - Macroinvertebrates: Nematocera

[A] Mansonia sp. (Culicidae); [B] Dicrotendipes sp. (Chironomidae); [C] Clogmia sp. (Psychodidae); [D] Chironominae
(Chironomidae).

Figure 5-113 - Macroinvertebrates: Brachycera

[A] Phytomia natalensis (Syrphidae); [B] Medetera sp. (Dolichopodidae); [C] Eristalinus taeniops (Syrphidae); [D]
Condostylus sp. (Dolichopodidae); [E) Eristalinae (Syrphidae); [F] Hercostomus sp. (Dolichopodidae); [G] Lispe sp.
(Muscidae).
Figure 5-114 - Macroinvertebrates: Mollusca

[A] Biomphalaria pfeifferi (Planorbidae); [B] Bulinus africanus (Planorbidae); [C] Lymnaea natalensis (Lymnaeidae);
[D] Pila ovata ovata (Ampullariidae); E] Pisidium sp. (Sphaeriidae); [F] Eupera ferruginea (Sphaeriidae).

Fish
A Fish of Lake Victoria Basin
Within the Lake Victoria Basin ecoregion, the lake itself supports the highest diversity and proportion of
threatened, endemic and Data Deficient (DD) species – mostly belonging to the highly diverse
haplochromine fish community (Sayer et al., 2018). There is an estimated 500+ species in this latter group
which experienced a dramatic decline in the 1980s following the introduction of Nile perch (Lates niloticus)
earlier in the 1950s and 60s which predated on the indigenous haplochromines (Pringle, 2005). Nile tilapia
(Oreochromis niloticus) was also introduced at around the same time, and outcompeted the indigenous
haplochromines (Kolding et al., 2014). In addition to the diverse haplochromine fauna, however, an
estimated 48 non-haplochromine fish species in 13 families are found in the basin (Table 5.30). Of these,
the Mormyridae, Mochokidae and Cyprinidae tend to be more diverse in river as opposed to lake
environments (Witte et al., 2009).
The rivers of the basin, including the Kagera, are considered important refuges for threatened Lake Victoria
fishes (Wakwabi et al., 2006). For example, a high level of genetic divergence in the cyprinid Labeo
victorianus suggested this species survived the dessication of the lake 15,000 years ago where it would
have found refuge in the surrounding rivers (Booth et al., 2004). Moreover, as well as provisioning the lake
with water, river mouths, with a higher concentration of migratory river species, comprise a slightly different
fish assemblage from the rest of the lake and are important centres of lake fisheries (Wakwabi et al., 2006).
Table 5.30 -Estimated Number of Non-haplochromine Fish Species in Each Family Within or Intersecting with the
Lake Victoria Basin Ecoregion (IUCN 2018).
Non-haplochromine Fish Species No. of species
Alestidae 5
Anguillidae 4
Bagridae 1
Cichlidae 7
Clariidae 3
Cyprinidae 10
Latidae 1
Mastacembelidae 1
Mochokidae 3
Mormyridae 9
Poeciliidae 2
Protopteridae 1
Schilbeidae 1
Grand Total 48
Victoria Basin fishes – including species that move between the lake and its influent rivers – have been
impacted by a number of human-induced changes since the turn of the twentieth century. Aside from the
introduction of the Nile perch, overfishing, eutrophication and invasion by water hyacinth have all
contributed to changes in community composition and structure (Ntiba et al., 2001).
Fishing pressure intensified in the 1950s and 60s and the introduction of new fishing methods such as nylon
gillnets had a significant impact on native fish communities (Cadwalladr, 1969). Catches were initially
dominated by Oreochromis esculentus and O. variabilis, Labeo victorianus, Bagrus docmak and Mormyrus
kannume but these species declined dramatically after the 1970s (Balirwa et al., 2003). The rise in
population numbers of Nile perch during the 1980s primarily impacted non-littoral haplochromine fishes
where up to 50% of species were lost. But their impact also extended to other groups including catfishes
(Bagrus docmak, Schilbe intermedius, Clarias gariepinus and Synodontis spp.) which depended on the
haplochromines for food. The juveniles of these species were also subjected to increased predation
pressure (Goudswaard and Witte, 1997).
In addition to fishing pressure, population growth, land use changes, climate variability and resource
extraction in the wider Victoria Basin has led to the shift in the lake from a mesotrophic to eutrophic system,
leading to reduced water clarity, and increased hypoxia in bottom waters with upwellings of anoxic water
(Hecky et al. 2010). A number of instream dams as well as the excessive growth of papyrus has blocked
migration routes into rivers for migratory catfishes, cyprinids and mormyrids (Balirwa et al., 2003).

Balirwa et al. (2003) consider the sustainable management of basin wetlands to be essential for restoring
and maintaining ecosystem function and recommend that a coherent conservation plan for Victoria Basin
fish be developed that includes tributary rivers, associated wetlands and satellite lakes. They emphasise
the need for implementation of measures to control nutrient influx and upstream activities, enforcement
of buffer zones around wetlands adjacent to densely populated areas, or areas with intensive agriculture
and adequate investment in sewage treatment plants in anticipation of future population trends.
B Fish Barriers
There are three potential natural barriers to fish migration in the Kagera River:
• Rusumo Falls. The Rusumo Falls are approximately 15 m in height and 40 m wide and comprise a
steep cascade that is a partial or complete to fish migration (Figure 5-115). The Rusumo HPP (run-
of-river) is under construction at the falls with a wall height of 15 m and with no fish passage
(Artelia, 2013); and
• Kikagati and Nsongezi Falls. Approximately 56km upstream of Kakono HPP the river flows over
two waterfalls (cascades); first the Kikagati Falls and then the Nsongezi Falls (both of around 10m
height) (Figure 5-115), and over some fast-flowing rapids downstream of Nsongezi. Two small
HPPs (both run-of-river) are proposed at each of the Kikagati and Nzongezi Falls, both with fish
passages. These two falls are considered as possible barriers to fish migration for most of the year,
possibly permitting fish passage during flood periods (Norplan, 2016a).

Figure 5-115 - A) Rusumo Falls [Source: Artelia, 2013) and B) Nsongezi Falls
[Source: B Paxton, 2020]

C Summary of Species Caught
C.1 February 2020 Fish Survey
A total of 288 fish representing 25 species in ten families were collected in surveys or recorded in fisher
catches from 10 sites on the main stem and tributaries of the Kagera River (between Kikagati and the
Kagera-Ngono Rivers confluence) during the February 2020 field survey conducted over 11 days (Table
5.31 and Annex 5-11).
The Nyanza barb (Enteromius nyanzae) (Figure 5-116 (F)) and Fischer’s Victoria squeaker (Synodontis
afrofischeri) (Figure 5-118 (C) were the most abundant and commonly caught fish. Both species were found
at five out of the ten sites surveyed. Also commonly caught were the silver butter catfish (Schilbe
intermedius) (Figure 5-118 (G)) and Graham’s stonebasher (Hippopotamyrus grahami) (Figure 5-117 (B)).
Of the fish caught, only the ningu (Labeo victorianus) (Figure 5-116 (C)) is listed as Critically Endangered (CR)
by the IUCN.
The small Enteromius barb community was found to be fairly diverse. These were mostly electrofished from
the banks or caught using the cast net in shallow marginal slackwaters of the main stem. Two individual
Bunjoka barbs (Enteromius cf. magdalenae) (Figure 5-116(E)) were caught at K+3. This species is common
in Lake Victoria but has not been recorded from the Kagera River before. The Nyanza barb (Enteromius
nyanzae) is a Lake Victoria Basin endemic which occurs in the littoral areas of the lake and has been recorded
in the Nzoia, Nyando and Kagera Rivers. The straightfin barb (Enteromius paludinosus) (Figure 5-116 (D)) is
widespread across southern and eastern Africa. Two of the barbs caught between the site just upstream of
the proposed Kakono HPP and the Ngono-Kagera confluence that could not be identified in the field, were
submitted to the South African Institute of Aquatic Biodiversity (SAIAB) for investigation where they were
confirmed as a possible new species (Tweddle, D. pers. comm). Also found associated with the barb
community in the marginal slackwaters was the East African spiny eel (Mastacembelus frenatus) (Figure
5-119 (A)).
Of the two larger hexaploid barbs, the Ripon barbel (Labeobarbus altianalis) (Figure 5-116 (A)) is widespread
in the systems surrounding the Lake Victoria Basin, whereas Matthes barb is endemic to the Kagera River
system, being more commonly found in the lakes and river upstream of the Rusumo Falls (FishBase team
RMCA and Geelhand, 2018b). The ningu was the only Labeo caught on this survey with – one at Kikagati (K-
68) and eight near Kyaka at Camp 2 (K+54) (see Figure 5-51). The ningu is also endemic to the lake and its
influent rivers and as noted above, is assessed by IUCN as critically endangered.
The Kagera River for much of its length in the region of the Kakono HPP is characterised by broad papyrus
and hippo grass beds. These habitats support support two species of catfish (Clarius gariepinus and C.
liocephalus) (Figure 5-118 (B)) and two lungfish (Protopterus aethiopicus and P. amphibius).
Five species of cichlid were caught during surveys. Four of these belonging to the Haplochromine genus
could not be identified to species and have been submitted to SAIAB for identification.
In addition to Graham’s stonebasher, three Mormyrid ‘elephantfish’ were caught in the Kagera – the
longnose stonebasher (Gnathonemus longibarbus) (Figure 5-117(A)) was caught at Kikagati (K-68)
upstream of Nsongezi Falls and at Camp 2 on the Kagera Sugar Estate (K+54) where the bottlenose
(Mormyrus kannume) (Figure 5-117(C)) was also caught.
The presence of at least two additional fish species – the semutundu (Bagrus docmak) (Figure 5-118 (A))
and the Nile perch (Lates niloticus) (Figure 5-119(C)) – was subsequently confirmed from photographs
supplied by Mr Vernon van Blerk, Projects Manager at Kagera Sugar Ltd. who caught these species at Pump
Station G – bringing the total number of fish confirmed for the study reach to 26.
Three of the species recorded from the river reach near the proposed Kakono HPP are alien to Lake Victoria
Basin, i.e. the bluespotted tilapia (Oreochromis leucostictus) (Figure 5-117 (H)), the Nile perch (Lates
niloticus) and guppy (Poecilia reticulata) (Figure 5-119 (B)).
C.2 October 2020 Fish Survey
A total of 662 fish representing 22 species in 12 families were collected in surveys from six sites on the
main stem of the Kagera River during a field survey conducted over eight days in October 2020 (Table 5.32).
Consistent with the February surveys, the Nyanza barb and Graham’s stonebasher were the most abundant
species – the former accounting for a much higher total catch in October. The numbers of Graham’s

stonebasher were also much higher in October (54) than they were in February (16). Sharptooth catfish
were caught in higher numbers on the floodplains. A representative lowland floodplain site (K+94), which
was not sampled in February, yielded large numbers of Graham’s stonebasher and, together with Site K+56
the highest catches of the alien bluespotted tilapia (Figure 5-117 (H)).
Additional species caught in October included Jackson’s barb (Enteromius jacksoni) (Figure 5-116 (G)) and
the redspot barb (Enteromius kerstenii) (76) (Figure 5-116 (H)) – the latter in relatively high abundances by
electrofishing along channel margins. The redspot barb is widely distributed from the Zambezi Basin to Lake
Victoria, whereas Jackson’s barb is less widespread, but nevertheless spans several catchments in
Tanzania, Uganda and Kenya including the Lake Victoria Basin. The Victoria stonebasher, also a widespread
species and known to occur in the Kagera River, was detected in the October survey.
Not present in the February catches but caught at K+3, K+6 and K+54 in October, were semuntundu (Figure
5-118 (A)) and the spotted sand catlet (Zaireichthys cf. rotundiceps) (Figure 5-118 (H)) – this last species
being caught at the upstream-most site (K-12) – is the first record of its occurrence in the Kagera River. It
is, however, considered widespread and has been recorded from the Zambezi Basin to Lake Victoria. It is
likely part of a species complex.
Present, but in much lower abundances, was Fischer’s Victoria squeaker, which suggests a seasonal
migration is undertaken by this species. Marginally higher numbers of ningu were caught in October (11) in
the reach downstream of the Kakono HPP (between K+3 and K+54), with the highest number of these (7)
these being caught on the floodplain at K+6.
The four fish species that were absent from October catches include the Bunjako barb, straightfin barb,
Matthes barb and Nile perch. These species were caught in nets, by means of electrofishing, or observed
being caught by fishers in low numbers during February. The numbers of these four species are therefore
considered low in the system, or their distributions localised.
In summary, the October catches were marked by the presence of six additional species: the semutundu,
Lake Victoria squeaker, redspot barb, two undescribed Enteromius barb species and an undescribed sand
catlet (Zairechthys sp.). Much higher numbers of Nyanza barb and Graham’s stonebasher were present in
October, whereas the numbers of Fischer’s Victoria squeaker were much lower. A total of five
Haplochromine cichlids were caught in relatively low numbers in both months, but they have yet to be
identified to species level. An undescribed species of Mormyrid (Figure 5-117(D) was caught at sites K+12,
K+54 and K+92.
Following higher than normal flows, much of the floodplain that was inaccessible during February 2020
became available to fish in October 2020 due to the die-back of papyrus and hippo grass. The higher
numbers of sharptooth catfish and Graham’s stonebasher caught in October catches could be attributed to
this change.

Table 5.31 – February 2020 Abundance of Fish Caught, or Recorded in Fisher Catches, in the Kagera River
Family Species Common name Status K-68 K-12 K+3 K+6 K+18 K+40 K+54 K+92 S3 S5 S6 S7
CYPRINIFORMES
Cyprinidae Enteromius apleurogramma East African redfinned barb LC
Enteromius kerstenii Redspot barb LC
Enteromius nyanzae Nyanza barb LC 27 15 25 5 3
Enteromius paludinosus Straightfin barb LC 2
Enteromius sp. - - 23 11 4
Enteromius sp. (cf. E. atkinsoni) Dash-dot barb -
Enteromius sp. (cf. jacksoni) Jackson's barb -
Enteromius sp. (cf. magdelanae) Bunjako barb LC 2
Labeo victorianus Ningu CR 1 8
Labeobarbus altianalis Ripon barbel LC 5 5 3 1
CYPRINODONTIFORMES
Poeciliidae Poecilia reticulata Guppy LC 1
LEPIDOSIRENIFORMES
Protopteridae Protopterus aethiopicus Marbled lungfish LC 1 2 4
OSTEOGLOSSIFORMES
Mormyridae Gnathonemus longibarbis Longnose stonebasher LC 1 1
Hippopotamyrus grahami Graham's stonebasher LC 1 5 1 2 7
Mormyrus kannume Bottlenose LC 4 1
PERCIFORMES
Cichlidae Astatotilapia nubilus - -
Haplochromis sp. 1 - - 1
Haplochromis sp. 4 - - 7 5
Haplochromis sp. 5 - -
Oreochromis leucostictus Bluespotted tilapia LC 1
Latidae Lates niloticus Nile perch LC 1 1
SILURIFORMES
Bagridae Bagrus docmak Semutundu LC 1
Clariidae Clarias gariepinus Sharptooth catfish LC 3 2 3
Clarias liocephalus Smoothhead catfish LC 10 4
Mochokidae Synodontis afrofischeri Fischer's Victoria squeaker LC 1 10 28 5 3
Synodontis cf ruandae Rwanda squeaker VU
Schilbeidae Schilbe intermedius Silver butter catfish LC 2 6 6 7
Amphiliidae Zaireichthys sp. nov. Sand catlet -
SYNBRANCHIFORMES
Mastacembelidae Mastacembelus frenatus East African spiny eel LC 1 5 1
Data covers Ten Sites between Kikagati and the Ngono River Confluence upstream and downstream of the Kakono HPP and in tributaries.
Note: Species indicated in red are alien fish species.

Table 5.32 – October 2020 Abundance of Fish Caught, or Recorded in Fisher Catches, in the Kagera River
Family Species Common name Status K-68 K-12 K+3 K+6 K+18 K+40 K+54 K+92 S3 S5 S6 S7
CYPRINIFORMES
Cyprinidae Enteromius apleurogramma East African redfinned barb LC 1
Enteromius kerstenii Redspot barb LC 40 20 2 14
Enteromius nyanzae Nyanza barb LC 95 94 72 68 11
Enteromius paludinosus Straightfin barb LC
Enteromius sp. - -
Enteromius sp. (cf. E. atkinsoni) Dash-dot barb - 14 22 5
Enteromius sp. (cf. jacksoni) Jackson's barb - 1 5 3
Enteromius sp. (cf. magdelanae) Bunjako barb LC
Labeo victorianus Ningu CR 1 7 2 1
Labeobarbus altianalis Ripon barbel LC 1
CYPRINODONTIFORMES
Poeciliidae Poecilia reticulata Guppy LC
LEPIDOSIRENIFORMES
Protopteridae Protopterus aethiopicus Marbled lungfish LC 1
OSTEOGLOSSIFORMES
Mormyridae Gnathonemus longibarbis Longnose stonebasher LC 2 2 5 5 1
Hippopotamyrus grahami Graham's stonebasher LC 2 22 30
Mormyrid sp. nov. - 9 1 1
Mormyrus kannume Bottlenose LC 2
PERCIFORMES
Cichlidae Astatotilapia nubilus - - 1
Haplochromis sp. 5 - - 8 5 5 4
Oreochromis leucostictus Bluespotted tilapia LC 1 6 6
Latidae Lates niloticus Nile perch LC
SILURIFORMES
Bagridae Bagrus docmak Semutundu LC 5 1 1
Clariidae Clarias gariepinus Sharptooth catfish LC 5 1 2 1 11
Clarias liocephalus Smoothhead catfish LC 1
Mochokidae Synodontis afrofischeri Fischer's Victoria squeaker LC 1 9
Synodontis cf ruandae Rwanda squeaker LC 1
Schilbeidae Schilbe intermedius Silver butter catfish LC 2 4 8 3 2 6
Amphiliidae Zaireichthys sp. nov. Sand catlet - 1
SYNBRANCHIFORMES
Mastacembelidae Mastacembelus frenatus East African spiny eel LC 1
Data covers Ten Sites between Kikagati and the Ngono River Confluence in October 2020 upstream and downstream of the Kakono HPP and in tributaries.
Note: Species indicated in red are alien fish species. Greyed-out columns indicate sites not sampled in October 2020.

Figure 5-116 - Cyprinidae [A] Labeobarbus altianalis; [B] Labeobarbus altianalis; [C] Labeo victorianus; [D]
Enteromius paludinosus; [E] Enteromius cf. magdalanae; [F] Enteromius nyanzae; [G] Enteromius jacksoni; [H]
Enteromius kerstenii.

Figure 5-117 – Mormyridae Species [A] Gnathonemus longibarbus; [B] Hippopotamyrus grahami; [C] Mormyrus
kannume, [D] Mormyrid sp. nov., Cichlidae: [E] Haplochromis sp 4; [F] Haplochromis sp. 2; [G] Haplochromis sp. 5
[H] Oreochromis leucostictus (alien)

Figure 5-118 – Bagridae [A] Bagrus dockmak; Clariidae [B] Clarias liocephalus; Mochokidae [C] Synodontis
afrofischeri [D] Synodontis afrofischeri (colour variant); [E] Synodontis afrofischeri (colour variant) [F] Synodontis
cf. ruandae; Schilbiidae [G] Schilbe intermedius; Amphiliidae [H] Zaireichthys sp. nov.

Figure 5-119 - Mastacembelidae [A] Mastacembelus frenatus; Clariidae [B] Poecilia reticulata (alien); Latidae [C]
Lates niloticus (alien)
D Potential new species
Species caught in February and October 2020 which could not be identified in the field were sent to SAIAB
(in South Africa) for further investigation. A description of those species with uncertain identities follows:
(a) Enteromius sp. nov ‘broken stripe’ was characterised by clear black markings on the caudal penduncle
and at the base of the anal fin with a clear black broken bar along the lateral line (Figure 5-120(a)).
This species has been recorded before in the Lake Victoria catchment to the north of the Kagera and in
streams in Kenya. A similar (possibly conspecific) species occurs in the Lake Malawi catchment and the
Rovuma catchment. This species was caught at Pump Station 3 (K+3) (i.e. 3 km downstream of the
Kakono HPP site).
(b) Enteromius sp. (cf. E. atkinsoni) This species was characterised by a black bar down the lateral line and
as well as black markings on the caudal penducle and base of the anal fin (Figure 5-120 (b)). An
undescribed species bearing some resemblance to Enteromius atkinsoni, but with higher scale counts
and a less distinct mid-body spot. The lateral line tubules are indistinct in mid-body but reappear on
the caudal peduncle, whereas in E. atkinsoni there are tubules only on the anterior 5 to 6 scales. This
species has not been seen in any of the other rivers flowing into Lake Victoria and was caught on the
floodplain at the Ngono confluence.
(c) Enteromius sp. The identity of this species is uncertain (Figure 5-120 (c)). Series of well-preserved
specimens of this species and E. magdalenae are needed to accurately assess the differences between
them. They both have a fine mid-lateral stripe and ventral pigmentation linking the anal and caudal
fins, but differ in body depth and shape and the intensity of the caudal peduncle spot.
(d) Enteromius sp. (cf. jacksonii). This species differs from E. jacksonii in having a flexible dorsal spine,
lower lateral line scale count (31 v. 35-39), a spot at the base of the anal fin, and lateral line scale
pigmentation (Figure 5-120 (d)). It needs to be compared with other three-spotted Enteromius species
in the region.
(e) Zaireichthys sp. nov. In the past, only one species of the Zaireichthys genus was recognised in East
Africa, under the name Leptoglanis rotundiceps. This species has been listed in the Lake Victoria
stream fauna. Research has shown that numerous species of Zaireichthys occur throughout southern,
eastern and central Africa, in many cases with up to five species occurring in a single river. The Lake
Victoria species does not resemble Z. rotundiceps, which was described from the Bubu River in central
Tanzania, and is an undescribed species (Figure 5-120 (e)). This species was caught at K-12 in the
Kakono HPP reservoir zone.

(a) (b)
(c) (d)
(e)
Figure 5-120 - (a) Enteromius sp. nov ‘broken stripe’, (b) Enteromius sp. (cf. atkinsoni), (c) Enteromius sp.
(d) Enteromius sp. (cf. cercops), (e) Zaireichthys sp. nov.
The potentially new species of Enteromius barbs were found predominantly along the margins and
slackwaters of the main channel out of the main current of the Kagera River in emergent vegetation in low
numbers. They were present in these environments throughout the study reach in Zones 1 and Zones 2 in
the February 2020 survey. Specimens were confirmed to be undescribed species by Denis Tweddle at SAIAB
who indicated that there is a possibility they may be restricted range to the Lower Kagera River. A further
survey was undertaken in Mar 2022 to verify their distribution (see Section D1 below).
The barbs formed part of the parapotamonic fish community (Table 5.35). These groups are expected to be
semi-migratory. Although migrations by African Enteromius species have been reported (Cambray, 1990;
Fouché and Heath, 2013), they may be relatively shorter because of their smaller body size and lower
swimming capacities compared with larger-bodied Labeo and Labeobarbus groups (Lucas and Baras, 2008).
They may migrate up flooding tributary systems (alongside which they were often caught) to breed
(Macuiane et al., 2009). These habitats and conditions are likely to persist upstream of the reservoir as well
as in tributaries of the Kagera River and therefore project impacts on these species are expected to be
minimal. Their apparent preference for shallower waters and emergent vegetation affords them some
protection from predatory invasive species such as Nile perch, although they will be vulnerable because of
their small size.
D.1 February - March 2022 Survey
A 12-day survey of the mainstem, tributaries and lakes of the Kagera River Basin in Tanzania was
undertaken in Feb/March 2022 with the primary purpose of confirming whether populations of the
undescribed species of Enteromius barbs found in the 2020 surveys are present in other parts of the Kagera
Basin outside the Project AoI and thereby to assess the risks the Project poses to them.
Potential survey sites were pre-selected based on the most likely occurrence of the Enteromius barbs and
included the mainstem and tributaries of the Kagera River in Tanzania. In all, 25 sites were sampled by
means of electrofishing, including: 11 sites on the Ngono River (N01, N01a, N01b, N01c, N03, N03a, N03b,
N05, N05, S7, S6), three sites on the Mwisa River (M01, M02, M02a), 2 sites on the mainstem of the Kagera
River in the Project AoI (K+3, K+23) and five sites 116 km upstream of the Project AoI at Murongo (K03, K04,
K04a, K03a, K03b), as well as two sites on the Kibengwe River north of Bukoba (KB01, KB02) and one site
each on two satellite lakes – Nkwenda and Rushwa (L01, L02). The results are summarised in Table 5.33 and
site locations are shown in Figure 5-51.
In total, 40 fish species in 15 families were caught by means of electrofishing during Feb/March 2022
survey. Over and above the 31 species caught in the February and October 2020, an additional 10 species
were identified from the Kagera Basin. These included: four Enteromius barbs, one Labeo, two Mormyrids
and three cichlids. This brings the total number of fish caught in the Kagera River Basin over the course of
three surveys to ~50. Another three or four Lacustricola/Micropanchax species have yet to be described.

Of key relevance to the project, the three undescribed Enteromius barbs found in the Project AoI in 2021 -
Enteromius “broken stripe”, Enteromius “3-spot” (cf. cercops) and Enteromius cf. atkinsoni - were found
again in February/March 2022 in areas outside the Project AoI (Figure 5-121). This was evidenced through
field and laboratory-based morphological inspection of the fish specimens, as demonstrated by comparison
of fish pictures taken in the 2020 and 2022 survey periods (Figure 5-121). Additional eDNA analysis is
expected to further validate the fish survey findings later in 2022. In particular, a fourth, Enteromius “3-
spot” (anal spot), was discriminated on the basis of morphological features that differed from cf. cercops.
This species was also found to be abundant at Murongo and therefore outside the Project AoI. A summary
of undescribed Enteromius species and their localities is as follows:
• Enteromius “3-spot” (anal spot) was confirmed to be abundant in catches at Murongo 116 km
upstream of the Project AoI (K03 and K03b) (Table 5.33 and Table 5.34)
• Enteromius “3-spot” (cf. cercops) was abundant throughout the mainstem of the Kagera River to
Murongo (K03,K03b) (Table 5.33 and Table 5.34)
• Enteromius ‘broken stripe’ was found in relatively high abundances in a fast-flowing tributary of
the Ngono River (itself a tributary of the Kagera River downstream of the Kakono HPP) at site
N03b, suggesting these smaller streams are optimal habitat for this species, rather than the
mainstem Kagera River.
• Similarly, populations of Enteromius cf. atkinsoni was found on the mainstem Ngono River at the
ferry crossing N01.
In addition to the species of interest, seven new species belonging to the genus Lacustricola/Micropanchax
were found in lakes and rivers outside the AoI. These have been accessioned at the SAIAB for further
taxonomic studies and description. An undescribed species of Labeo resembling Labeo cylindricus was also
caught at Murongo (K03b) and this too has been accessioned at the SAIAB for further taxonomic and genetic
studies.
The February/March 2022 survey successfully confirmed the wider distribution of what was previously
believed to be a very localised distribution of undescribed Enteromius barb species in the Project AoI. As
such, the Project is unlikely to significantly impact any potentially new and undescribed fish species in the
Kagera River Basin due to the fact that these species are widely distributed upstream and downstream of
the Project AoI as well as in the tributaries.

Table 5.33 – February/March 2022 Fish Caught in the Kagera River Basin
in the Ngono River, Mwisa River, mainstem Kagera River, Kibengwe River and two lakes L01 (Lake Nkwenda) and L02 (Lake Rushwa. Site N05 was sampled twice: on the 26 Feb 2022 (1) and again
on the 05 Mar 2022 (2). The Enteromius species of interest are marked with an asterisk (*). Additional species not caught in the 2020 surveys are marked by hash (#).
Kagera River Ngono River Mwisa Lakes
Order & Family Scientific Name K+23 K+3 K01 K03 K04 K04a K03a K03b KB01 KB02 N01 N01a N01b N01c N03 N03a N03b N05 (1)N05 (2) S6 S7 M01 M02 M02a L01 L02
ANABANTIFORMES
Anabantidae Ctenopoma muriei + + +
CHARACIFORMES
Alestidae Brycinus sadleri +
CYPRINIFORMES
Cyprinidae Labeobarbus altianalis +
# Enteromius apleurogramma + + + + + + + + + + +
Enteromius kerstenii + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Enteromius magdalenae
# Enteromius neumayeri + + +
Enteromius nyanzae + + + + +
Enteromius paludinosus +
# Enteromius radiatus + + +
# Enteromius yongei + + +
* Enteromius “3-spot” (cf. cercops) + + +
* Enteromius “3-spot” (anal spot) + + +
* Enteromius cf. atkinsoni + +
* Enteromius “broken stripe” + + +
Labeo victorianus + +
# Labeo cf. cylindricus +
CYPRINODONTIFORMES
Poeciliidae Poecilia reticulata + + +
Procatopodidae # Lacustricola/Micropanchax spp. + + + + + + + + +
LEPIDOSIRENIFORMES
Protopteridae Protopterus aethiopicus
OSTEOGLOSSIFORMES
Mormyridae Gnathonemus longibarbis +
Mormyrus kannume
Hippopotamyrus grahami
# Petrocephalus degeni + +
# Pollimyrus nigricans +
PERCIFORMES
Cichlidae Astatoreochromis alluaudi + +
Other Haplochromine cichlids + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
# Pseudocrenilabrus multicolor + + + + + +
Oreochromis leucostictus +
# Oreochromis variabilis + + + +
Oreochromis niloticus
SILURIFORMES
Bagridae Bagrus docmak
Clariidae Clarias gariepinus +
Clarias liocephalus + + + + +
Clarias spp. +

Kagera River Ngono River Mwisa Lakes
Order & Family Scientific Name K+23 K+3 K01 K03 K04 K04a K03a K03b KB01 KB02 N01 N01a N01b N01c N03 N03a N03b N05 (1)N05 (2) S6 S7 M01 M02 M02a L01 L02
Mochokidae Synodontis afrofischeri + + +
Schilbeidae Schilbe intermedius +
Amphiliidae Zaireichthys sp
SYNBRANCHIFORMES
Mastacembelidae Mastacembelus frenatus + + +

2022 Survey 2020 Survey
Photo 1. Enteromius ‘three spot’ (cf. cercops) Photo 2. Enteromius three spot (cf. cercops)
Photo 3. Enteromius cf.atkinsoni Photo 4. Enteromius cf. atkinsoni
Photo 5. Enteromius ‘broken stripe’ Photo 6. Enteromius ‘broken stripe’

Figure 5-121 – Comparison of Enteromius species between 2020 and 2022 Surveys

E Seasonal Changes in Fish Distributions
A comparison of fish spatial changes in fish relative abundance between February and October 2020
catches demonstrates the likelihood of seasonal migratory shifts between upper and lower reaches of the
river within the study reach and also changes in the abundance of species between seasons as noted in
Section C.2. Figure 5-122 represents the relative abundances of the most abundant fish species in the
Kagera River between sites K-12 and K+92 sampled by means of gill nets and electrofishing in February
and October 2020.
Most notable are the difference in relative abundances of the Nyanza barb, with numbers being much higher
in October 2020 (Figure 5-122 (a)). In both seasons, however, the bulk of the population is located in the
upper reaches – in the vicinity of sites K-12, K+3 and K+18 (highest abundances were caught in and
immediately downstream of the future proposed inundation zone). These sites are associated with much
faster flowing water along channel margins (particularly K-12), suggesting this species favours habitats
associated with higher current speeds. The greater numbers caught in October may be due to a shift in
habitat use – perhaps toward shallower water – making them more susceptible to being caught by means
of electrofishing.
No redspot barb were detected in February 2020, but this may be due to their similarity in appearance to
the Nyanza barb and therefore not being distinguished in samples. In October 2020, populations of redspot
barb were concentrated at the upstream sites in the inundation zone (Figure 5-122 (b)).
Ningu were only recorded from site K+54 in February 2020, whereas in October 2020 they were found in
higher abundances upstream (K+6) suggesting a distribution through the system at this time of year (Figure
5-122 (c)). No fish were caught upstream of K0 in the inundation zone. The fish caught at K+6 were all
located in the floodplain on the right bank of the river. It should be noted that this habitat type becomes
scarcer and current speeds in the main channel higher upstream of this point in the inundation zone.
Ripon barbel were caught in the upstream sites (K-12 to K+3) – i.e. those sites with larger bed particle sizes
and higher current speeds – consistent with the understanding that they are considered to be rheophilic
gravel-bed spawners (Figure 5-122 (d)).

Figure 5-122 -Seasonal Distribution of Key Fish Species in the Kagera River between February and October 2020.
The figure shows sample sites K-12 to K+92 together with relative abundances of selected species caught in (1)
February and (2) October 2020. Shaded areas represent the river reaches upstream of future inundation zone.
Significantly greater numbers of Graham’s stonebasher were caught in October than in February 2020, with
larger numbers being found in the lowland reaches at and downstream of K+54 (Figure 5-122 (e)). More
fish were located upstream of K+54 in February, including upstream of the inundation zone, which suggests,
either a feeding, or breeding migration into the lowland reaches by October.

No semutundu (Bagrus docmak) were caught in February (Figure 5-122 (f)). This may be due to the use of
a larger gill net panel mesh size which was used in October but may also be due to migrations from the lake
as far as K+3.
Sharptooth catfish were caught more frequently in October, the highest abundances being from the the
floodplain lowland reaches (Figure 5-122 (g)).
The much lower abundance of Fischer’s Victoria squeaker was the most notable feature of October catches
(Figure 5-122 (h)). This fish was one of the most abundant species in February with 47 being caught,
whereas only 10 were caught in October, nine of which were caught in the most downstream site (K+92).
The pattern is consistent with a possible upstream migration during February, possibly for reproduction in
the river. Largest numbers were recorded at K+18 downstream of the inundation zone.
Silver butter catfish were caught more frequently across a greater number of sites in October than they
were in February where they were only caught at the two most upstream sites K-12 and K+3 (Figure 5-122
(i)). A wide distribution through the system, as opposed to a shift in range suggests they may be more active
and catchable (e.g. on floodplains) during October.
F Comparison with Previous Studies
The number of fish species recorded during the February and October 2020 surveys was higher (32) than
the number reported for the September and November 2013 surveys for the 2014 ESIA (17) (Norplan,
2016). Although this number is likely to closely approximate the total number of species in the Kakono HPP
reach, it may not reflect the full complement.
The species inventory prepared for this study includes those prepared for the 2014 ESIA (Norplan, 2016),
as well as a summary of species inventories prepared for the Kikagati ESIA (Newplan, 2011), Nsongezi ESIA
(Longdare, 2012) (both included in the 2016 ESIA inventory) and for the Rusumo Falls ESIA (Artelia, 2013b).
A summary of this data suggests that a combined total of 67 fish species have been recorded in the Kagera
River between Lake Rweru (upstream of Rusumo Falls) and the river mouth at Lake Victoria (Table 5.34)
and that the highest number of species have been recorded from upstream of the Nsongezi Falls (Figure
5-51). For a full list of species recorded in the Kagera River broken down by study, refer to Annex 5-11.
Each of the three zones defined for this study are described below with relevance to fish. See Figure 5-51
for zone boundaries.
F.1 Zone 1. Mwisa River-Lake Victoria
This zone stretches between the confluence of the Mwisa River and the Kagera River to the lake and is
therefore the most downstream zone of the EAA delineated in this study.
The gradient of the Kagera River in this zone is relatively low and the river meanders extensively through
broad floodplains, and is classified as Lowlands River. The fish complement in this zone comprises 20
species, many of which are likely to be common to the lake, or to use the lake and the floodplain at different
times of the year for feeding and breeding (Table 5.34). Thus, species like L. victorianus have been recorded
here which are known to undertake migrations between the lake and floodplain (Rutaisire, 2003), as well
as catfish (Clarias sp.) and lungfish (Protopterus sp.) which are commonly found in the papyrus and hippo
grass habitats. Nile tilapia and Nile perch, both common in the lake, have also been recorded from here.
F.2 Zone 2. Nsongezi Falls -Mwisa River
Zone 2 encompasses the mains stem Kagera River between the latter’s confluence with the Mwisa
upstream to the Nsongezi Falls and includes the reach proposed for the construction of the Kakono HPP.
Unlike Zone 1, this reach comprises a single-channel river with high current speeds in the main channel
throughout the reach (in places bordering on ‘rapid’ habitat). Here, the Kagera River is classified as Lowlands
Foothills from Nsongezi to Kakono transitioning to Lowlands River downstream of Kakono HPP. In this zone
the river also has extensive papyrus and hippo grass beds along the margins, although of narrower width
upstream of the Kakono HPP location (as shown in Figure 5-128 and Figure 5-92) and this habitat provides
some cover for fish from the fast current. Backwater, slackwater and floodplain habitats are limited.
The fish community has strong similarities to the Zone 1 fish community, but with the additional
complement of small Enteromius barbs recorded during the February and October 2020 surveys. A total
complement of 32 species have been recorded from this zone. Although the EOO of L. victorianus in this

zone is indicated by the IUCN (FishBase RMCA and Geelhand, 2016) as ‘possibly extant’, the 2020 survey
caught eight individuals of this species in February 2020 at the most downstream site in this zone on the
border with Zone 1 (K+54) and 11 individuals in October 2020 between K+3 and K+54. Although the EOO
for the Lake Victoria Basin’s endemic Nyanza barb (Enteromius nyanzae) does not include this part of the
Kagera River, it was found to be common here during the 2020 survey.
F.3 Zone 3. Rusumo Falls-Nsongezi Falls
Zone 3 stretching between the Rusumo and Nsongezi Falls has the most diverse fish community of all three
zones, with a total of 51 species having been recorded here (Table 5.34). This is attributable to the low
gradient and diversity of habitats in these reaches that include the Kagera River main stem, as well as lakes,
wetlands and rapids. Many of the lakes in this area support diverse endemic haplochromine cichlid
communities with at least 14 undescribed species being recorded (Sayer et al., 2018). The Alestidae (robber)
family is well-represented in this zone with four species being recorded, including the Victoria robber
(Brycinus jacksonii) which is a Lake Victoria Basin endemic. Seven Enteromius barbs occur in this zone
including a significant proportion of the Nyanza barb’s EOO, four labeos, including L. victorianus and nine
mormyrids. The entire global population of Matthes barb (L. acuticeps) is also to be found here.
Catches reported for the Rusumo ESIA (Artelia, 2013b) show that the silver butter catfish (Schilbe
intermedius) was the most common species in catches by number (40%), followed by L. victorianus (14%),
while the straightfin barb (Enteromius paludinosus) was the third most abundant species (13%).
Table 5.34 -Combined Presence/Absence of Fish Species Caught in the 2020/2022 and Previous Fish Surveys for
HPPs in Kagera River. * = likely misidentifications.
Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3
Order and Family Species Common name IUCN Mwisa- Nsongezi- Rusumo-
Status Lake Mwisa Nsongezi
CHARACIFORMES
Alestidae Brycinus affinis Redfin robber LC +
Brycinus imberi Spot-tail robber LC +
Brycinus jacksonii Victoria robber LC +
Brycinus nurse Nurse tetra LC +
Brycinus sadleri Sadler's robber LC +
Brycinus sp. Robber LC +
CYPRINIFORMES
Cyprinidae Cyprinus carpio Common carp LC +
Enteromius apleurogramma East African redfinned barb LC + +
Enteromius cercops Neumayer's barb LC +
Enteromius eutaenia Orangefin barb LC +
Enteromius kerstenii Redspot barb LC + +
Enteromius nyanzae Nyanza barb LC + +
Enteromius paludinosus Straightfin barb LC + +
Enteromius perince Threespot barb LC +
Enteromius sp. - - + +
Enteromius sp. (cf. E. Dash-dot barb LC +
atkinsoni)
Enteromius sp. (cf. jacksoni) Jackson's barb LC + +
Enteromius sp. (cf. Bunjako barb LC +
magdelanae)
Labeo coubie* African carp LC +
Labeo niloticus* Nile carp LC +
Labeo senegalensis* - LC +
Labeo victorianus Ningu CR + + +
Labeobarbus acuticeps Matthes barb NT +
Labeobarbus altianalis Ripon barbel LC + + +
Labeobarbus somereni - LC +
Rastrineobola argentea Lake Victoria sardine LC +
CYPRINODONTIFORMES
Poeciliidae Lacustricola pumilus Tanganyika lampeye - +
Micropanchax hutereaui Meshcale topminnow LC +
Poecilia reticulata Guppy LC +
LEPIDOSIRENIFORMES
Protopteridae Protopterus aethiopicus Marbled lungfish LC + + +
OSTEOGLOSSIFORMES
Mormyridae Gnathonemus longibarbis Longnose stonebasher LC + + +
Hippopotamyrus grahami Graham's stonebasher LC + + +
Marcusenius cyprinoides Elephantfish LC +
Marcusenius victoriae Victoria stonebasher LC + + +
Mormyrus caschive Kasuruban LC +
Mormyrus hasselquistii Elephantsnout LC +
Mormyrus kannume Bottlenose LC + + +
Petrocephalus catostoma Churchill LC +
Pollimyrus nigricans Dark stonebasher LC +
PERCIFORMES

Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3

Order and Family Species Common name IUCN Mwisa- Nsongezi- Rusumo-
Status Lake Mwisa Nsongezi
Cichlidae Astatoreochromis alluaudi Alluaud's haplo LC +
Astatotilapia nubilus - VU +
Coptodon rendali Redbreast tilapia LC +
Haplochromis sp. 1 - - +
Oreochromis esculentus Singida tilapia CR +
Oreochromis leucostictus Bluespotted tilapia LC + + +
Oreochromis macrochir Longfin tilapia - +
Oreochromis niloticus Nile tilapia LC + + +
Oreochromis variabilis Victoria tilapia CR +
Thoracochromis wingatii - DD +
Latidae Lates niloticus Nile perch LC + +
SILURIFORMES
Amphiliidae Zaireichthys sp. nov. Sand catlet - +
Bagridae Bagrus docmak Semutundu LC + + +
Clariidae Clarias alluaudi Alluaud's catfish LC +
Clarias anguillaris Mudfish LC +
Clarias gariepinus Sharptooth catfish LC + + +
Clarias liocephalus Smoothhead catfish LC + + +
Mochokidae Synodontis afrofischeri Fischer's Victoria squeaker LC + + +
Synodontis ruandae Rwanda squeaker VU +
Synodontis victoriae Lake Victoria squeaker LC + +
Schilbeidae Schilbe intermedius Silver butter catfish LC + + +
Schilbe mystus African butter catfish LC +
SYNBRANCHIFORMES
Mastacembelidae Mastacembelus frenatus East African spiny eel LC + +
Total No. of species 20 32 51
[Source: Artelia, 2013, Norplan, 2016 and SLR February 2020 survey data) (see Annex 5-11 for breakdown by study)]. Red
highlighted text = alien species.
G Fish-habitat associations and ecological guilds
Ecological guilds group species according to similar morphological, physiological, behavioural and life
history adaptations rather than by taxonomic relatedness. This is based on the assumption that species
with similar adaptations will respond to environmental change and variability in similar ways. The guild
concept is therefore useful for evaluating the effects of change on diverse river fish communities (Leonard
and Orth, 1988, Aadland, 1993, Welcomme et al., 2006, Baumgartner et al., 2013).
Catches from gillnets, cast nets and electrofishing, together with information gleaned from local fishers and
experts suggest that there are around six fish guilds associated with specific habitat types in the Kagera
River reaches affected by the Kakono HPP (Table 5.35). These are broad habitat types and fish species listed
in each may not be restricted to any specific type but are likely to occur more frequently or for at least a
part of their lifecycles in that habitat.
Fish guilds can be broadly classed according to preferences for flowing-water (lotic), standing-water (lentic)
and those that are tolerant of a wide range of conditions (eurytopic). Many of those in the lentic and
eurytopic guilds will adapt to lake (or reservoir) environments. The lotic guild includes main channel
residents that select moderate to high water current speeds and rocky, or gravel substrates. Many of the
Labeobarbus species fall into this guild and often undertake medium distance migrations for reproductive
purposes (Table 5.35). Other flowing-water species include those that use floodplains to spawn (Schilbe
and Labeo species) such as the floodplains near Ngono confluence with the Kagera River (see Figure 5-123)
which shows a broad grassy plain which becomes inundated over the wet season. Fishers at the Ngono
fishing village in Zone 1 reported seeing Labeos (most likely L. victorianus) in these areas over the wet
season (March-May).

Figure 5-123 – Broad Grassy Floodplains in the Vicinity of the Ngono-Kagera Confluence downstream of Kyaka
where Local Fishers Indicated Spawning by Labeo Species During the Wet Season (March-May).
Semi-lotic (parapotamonic) species require intermediate conditions between flowing and standing water.
Many of the smaller Enteromius barbs which do not have strong swimming abilities will undertake shorter
distance migrations, often up tributaries, in order to spawn.
This guild is likely to use the slackwaters (i.e. the interface between high and slower current speeds along
the channel margin in proximity to marginal vegetation). Most of the Enteromius barbs collected during the
2020 survey were found in these types of habitats. However, during the 2022 survey, the Enteromius barbs
were also found in shallow fast flowing streams and none were found in lake habitats.
Fishes most often associated with lentic (standing) water, such as lungfish, undertake movements mostly
associated with foraging behaviour and can be considered non-migratory (Mlewa et al., 2005). Local
fisheries experts on the team suggested lungfish prefer the papyrus beds, whereas catfish (Clarias sp.)
prefer habitats dominated by hippo grass, both found in extensive beds along the margins of the river in
the Kakono HPP reach.
Generalist (eurytopic) species include the benthic community which is dominated by Mormyrids. These may
undertake short lateral migrations onto floodplains for breeding and feeding. Generalist species that use
riparian and emergent vegetation along channel margins include the tilapias (Oreochromis and
Astatoreochromis sp.).

Table 5.35 – Ecological Fish Guilds, Predominant Habitats and Associated Fish Species in the Kagera River in Zone 2
Ecological Guild Predominant Habitat Description Migration Species
Lotic Eupotamonic lithophilic Main channel Main channel residents. Moderate to high water Longitudinal medium distance Labeobarbus altianalis
(flowing water) current speeds. Rock and sand substratum seasonal migrations between Labeo cf. cylindricus
spawners downstream and upstream spawning
habitats
Eupotamonic phytophilic Floodplain Use floodplain for breeding and nursery Medium distance seasonal Labeo victorianus
habitats. River reaches adjoined by seasonally longitudinal and lateral migrations Schilbe intermedius
inundated floodplain onto floodplains for spawning
Parapotamonic (semi- Backwaters, slackwaters, Intermediate between flowing- and standing- Short distance longitudinal Enteromius cf. magdelanae
lotic) guild and fast flowing tributaries water guilds. Inlets, bays and side channels, with migrations in the main channel or up Enteromius nyanzae
shallow water and emergent vegetation tributaries and side-channels Enteromius paludinosus & other
Enteromius species
Lentic Plesiopotamonic Papyrus beds Tolerance for anoxia. Papyrus beds on the Movements mostly associated with Protopterus aethiopicus
(standing water) margins of the river channel. Moderate to low foraging Protopterus amphibius
water current speeds
Hippo grass Hippo grass along the margins of the river Short distance lateral migrations onto Clarias gariepinus
channel. Moderate to low water current speeds floodplains Clarias liocephalus
Eurytopic Eupotamonic benthic Main channel and Channel margins and fringes of the marginal Short distance lateral migrations onto Gnathonemus longibarbis
(generalist) slackwaters vegetation in the main channel. Moderate to low floodplains Hippopotamyrus grahami
water current speeds Mormyrus kannume
Synodontis afrofischeri
Eupotamonic vegetation Main channel vegetation Channel margins and fringes of the marginal Short lateral migrations Haplochromis, Oreochromis and
vegetation in the main channel. Moderate to low Astatoreochomis sp.
water current speeds
[Source: Welcomme et al., (2006)].
Terminology:
Lotic: affinity standing water Lithophilic: requiring gravels or cobbles in the main Eupotamonic: main channel
Lentic: affinity for flowing water channel Parapotamonic: backwaters and slackwaters
Eurytopic: generalist across a number of habitats Phytophilic: requiring vegetation in the main channel or floodplain habitat sometimes disconnected from the main channel, in this study also referring
foodplain to tributary inlets (perennial as well as seasonal)
Plesiopotamonic: connected lagoons, channels and floodplain lakes

H Distribution and biology of priority species
The fishes described below include those species that meet IFC GN6 thresholds for Critical Habitat (see
Section 5.3.5.4C.2).
H.1 Alestidae
Brycinus jacksonii and B. sadleri (LC)

The EOOs of five species of Brycinus (robbers) fall within the EAA of this study with only one (the Victoria
robber B. jacksonii) being recorded in Kagera River downstream of Nsongezi Falls in the floodplain zone
(Zone 2) (Table 5.34). This species occurs throughout the LVB and has been reported from the middle
Kagera, Lake Nabugabo, Lake Katwe and the Victoria Nile (FishBase team RMCA and Geelhand, 2016). The
presence of B. jacksonii in Zone 2 of the area of analysis has not been confirmed (the 2016 ESIA (Norplan
2016) simply lists the presence of Brycinus sp. in the Kakono HPP reach), but this zone is included in its
expected EOO.
Fish belonging to the Brycinus genus depend on migrations for breeding over the high flow season
(Whitehead, 1959, Bowmaker, 1969, Saliu and Fagade, 2003). They depend on floodplains and the annual
flood cycle which triggers reproduction and shallow, nearshore environments provide important nursery
areas for young fish (Reynolds et al., 1973, Booth and McKinlay, 2001). Ochumba and Ala (1992) reported
them in the Sondu-Miriu River, but no further than 9km from the river mouth. This suggests that the Kakono
HPP reach may not provide suitable habitat for species belonging to this genus; most of the previous studies
have reported them from Zone 3 where river floodplains are more common. The increase in lentic
conditions resulting from the storage of water behind the Kakono HPP may favour these species. However,
they are susceptible to predation by Nile perch (FishBase team RMCA and Geelhand 2016), which if this
predatory species become established in the Kakono HPP reservoir would impact Brycinus populations.
H.2 Cyprinidae
Labeo victorianus (CR)

The ningu is an endemic cyprinid of the Lake Victoria Basin. It grows to a maximum size of 41 cm (Van Oijen,
1995 (on www.iucnredlist.org)) and is a specialised feeder primarily on algae. It occurs in a wide range of
habitats from floodplains, lakes and fast flowing rivers (Rutaisire, 2003; Rutaisire and Booth, 2005). The
natural range of the ningu includes the nearshore waters of Lake Victoria and inflowing rivers of the Lake
Victoria Basin, most notably the Kagera and Sio Rivers, where populations have likely persisted since before
Lake Victoria dried out some 15,000 years ago (Booth et al., 2004). The Kagera River is considered an
important refuge for this species (Sayer et al., 2018). Nonetheless, all the rivers where it occurs are refugia
for this species whose population has been depleted in the lake. Other authors have referred to L.
victorianus (amongst others) as a ‘flagship’ species (Lake Victoria Basin Commission, 2011). Ningu is
endemic to the Lake Victoria Basin and has an EOO of 203,547 km2, which includes a large proportion of the
Kagera catchment. In this catchment, it has been confirmed to occur upstream of Kakono HPP at the
Kikagati and Nsongezi Falls, above and below the Rusumo Falls, in Lake Ruaha and in the Ruvubu River
which feeds Lake Ruaha (Artelia, 2013; Norfund, 2016). Its distribution in the Kagera catchment overlaps
with Rwanda and Burundi. It was also reported in the Victoria Nile and Lake Kyoga in Uganda (Greenwood,
1966). More widely, populations are still reported to occur in the Mara River, Tanzania (Oyoo-Okoth et al.,
2011) (which has been identified as an important refugia) (Shoko et al., 2010), and in Kenya: the Nzoia River
(Cadwalladr, 1969), the Sio River and to a lesser extent in the Nyando and Sondo Rivers (Kenya) (Kibaara,
1986). The Wildlife Conservation Society identified the Kagera, Katonga and Sio River mouths, Lake
Nabugabo Wetlands System and Lake Wamala as being important for conserving populations of this species
(Plumptre et al., 2017).
The ningu is a prized fishery species with local communities. It once supported an important basin fishery
comprising up to 32% of lake catches in 1957. Seasonal flooding of the inflowing rivers to the lake were
associated with large catches. By the 1960s catches were reported to have dropped by 64.3% (Cadwalladr
1965; 1969, Balirwa et al., 2005).

Figure 5-124 - Ningu, Labeo victorianus

[Source: B Paxton]
Its decline was attributed to the introduction of floating nylon gillnets to capture mature fish near river
mouths over the spawning months and the use of fish traps to capture juveniles on their spawning
migrations downstream (Cadwalladr, 1969; Oyoo-Okoth et al., 2011; FishBase RMCA and Geelhand, 2016;
Outa et al., 2019). The introduction of Nile perch into the lake during the 1950s is also believed to have
contributed (Pringle, 2005; Rutaisire and Booth, 2005). Controls on fishing equipment led to a ban on beach
seine nets and undersize gill nets in 1984 and long lines in 1989 (presumed in Kenya, but unsure if also
implemented in Tanzania) (LVBC, 2011).
The ninugu’s decline has prompted studies to investigate its viability in aquaculture (Rutaisire, 2003;
Kambenya et al., 2016). Rutaisire (2003) has researched the spawning requirements of this species in the
Sio and Kagera Rivers. Rutaisire (2003) and Rutaisire and Booth (2005) reported that reproduction in the
Kagera River is synchronised with bimodal water level maxima per year (Mar-Apr and Aug-Sep), with peak
gut fullness and mesenteric fat during June to August prior to upriver migration for spawning. Feeding and
replenishment with energy reserves coincides with lake mixing. Cadwalladr (1969) reports that the fry and
juveniles return to the lake three to four weeks after hatching. Many Labeo species are known to depend on
seasonally inundated floodplains for spawning (Gaigher, 1984; Tómasson et al., 1984). Balirwa and Bugenyi
(1988) confirm that the Lake Victoria Labeos use floodplains for spawning, Cadwalladr (1965) notes that L.
victorianus uses ‘lateral pools’ to spawn and Fryer and Whitehead (1959) describe the use of vegetated
flooded pools by this species. Whitehead (1959, cited in Rutaisire, 2003) suggested L. victorianus migration
is potadromous, i.e. migrations are restricted to freshwater, over medium-range distances (25km).
Unsubstantiated reference was made in Rutaisire (2003) that it spawned no more than one kilometre from
the lake.
Floodplain spawning habitat is most abundantly available i) in the lower reaches of the Kagera River
downstream of Kyaka on the Ruzinga and Ngono floodplains, ii) between the Nsongezi and Rusumo Falls in
the vicinity of the Akagera National Park and lakes system and iii) upstream of the Rusumo Falls to Lake
Rweru on the Rwandan-Burundi border (Artelia 2013a). The longitudinal distance between reported
populations in the Kagera River is approximately 400km with partial or complete breaks in connectivity at
the Nsongezi and Rusumo Falls. This suggests that subpopulations are restricted to each of the
abovementioned reaches with some degree of gene flow between populations arising from downstream
juvenile active or passive migration and adult dispersal migrations.
In summary, from the above we infer that the river reach occupied by the Kakono HPP and its reservoir are
unlikely to be important for spawning or migration of L. victorianus. However, this river reach is likely to be
important for connecting and facilitating gene flow between important upstream and downstream
populations of this critically endangered species. Genetic studies on L victorianus (Rutaisire et al., 2004)
suggest that the high genetic diversity and evolution of this Lake Victoria endemic species evolved before
the lake dried up in the Late Pleistocene 15,000 years ago. This suggests that the population in the lake
was replenished from the fish that moved down rivers such as the Kagera. Such studies highlight the
importance of rivers as connecting corridors for long term gene flow to maintain species populations. The
floodplain habitats in Zone 1, however, are considered important for spawning by L. victorianus and any

hydrological or geomorphological changes in this zone are likely to impact populations of this species and
others that seasonally migrate between Lake Victoria and the floodplains.
Given the fact that most fish effort and catches are focussed in Lake Victoria near the mouth of the Kagera
River, it would seem likely that L. victorianus spends at least part of its life in standing water, presumably
for feeding purposes. Provided these same habitat conditions were available in the reservoir, populations
would most likely persist, provided they had access to spawning areas – either upstream of the dam, or
floodplain-like environments that were predictably and seasonally inundated for part of the year in the
reservoir itself.
Labeobarbus altianalis (LC)

The ripon barbel L. altianalis, is widely distributed through the lake and inflowing rivers of the LVB. They are
reported in the Nzoia and Nyando Rivers in Kenya (Mugo and Tweddle, 1999) to Lake Kyoga in Uganda and
the Rusizi River flowing into Lake Tanganyika in the southern limit of their range (FishBase team RMCA and
Geelhand, 2018c). They were found to be common in the Nyando River across all habitats including lake
and river environments. Mugo and Tweddle (1999) suggest that there may be distinct river and lake-
dwelling populations, with those from lakes moving upriver to spawn.
L. altianalis are reported as rheophilic gravel-bed spawners like many other species in the African
Labeobarbus genus and migrate upstream to spawn during the wet season (Witte and De Winter, 1995 cited
in Sunda Kemunto, 2018). Whitehead (1959 cited in Welcomme, 2003) classed L. altianalis as long-distance
migrators (over 80km). The presence of rheophilic environments suitable in the reaches potentially
inundated by the Kakono HPP reaches (Zone 2) suggests that these reaches provide important habitat for
this species. However, they may adapt to the lake environment produced by the dam provided they can
access upstream rheophilic spawning areas.
As with L. victorianus, this species is believed to have been impacted by overfishing and the introduction of
more efficient gillnets in the 1980s and 1990s (Sunda Kemunto, 2018).
Labeobarbus acuticeps (NT)

This species of hexaploid barb was initially found in the Nyabarongo and Akanyaru Rivers, the Bugesera
depression in Burundi and the upper Kagera River upstream of the Rusumo falls where it may be more
common since the IUCN Red List does not report its occurrence downstream of Nsongezi Falls (De Vos and
Thys van den Audenaerde, 1990). It is, with Synodontis ruandae, one of only two fish species known to be
endemic to the Kagera River. It has a relatively narrow distribution (EOO = 3,256 km2 for known extant
populations) and is listed as Near Threatened (NT) as result of loss of wetlands due to agricultural activities
in its catchments of occurrence, sedimentation, erosion and eutrophication (FishBase team RMCA and
Geelhand, 2018b). Nothing is known of its breeding or migratory requirements, but many Labeobarbus in
the region, and throughout Africa, are considered migratory with a high proportion requiring upstream
migrations into rivers for spawning (Anteneh et al., 2012). It is assumed that L. acuticeps (together with
Labeobarbus altianalis) falls into the latter category and is likely a rheophilic gravel-bed spawner.
Enteromius nyanzae (LC)

The Nyanza barb are common in the Nzoia and Nyando Rivers flowing into Lake Victoria (Mugo and Tweddle,
1999), but also in the Kagera River between the Rusumo and Nsongezi Falls (FishBase team RMCA and
Geelhand, 2018a). The 2020 SLR survey recorded the first distribution in the Lower Kagera downstream of
Nsongezi Falls. This barb is slightly larger than the other Enteromius species caught in the Kagera River on
the 2020 survey, with an average size of 62 mm TL (Total Length), compared with an average of 32 mm TL
for the smaller species. It has been observed in tributaries during rains and is considered migratory (likely
into side-channels and tributaries as described above for the other Enteromius sp.). It is believed to breed
in grasses along river margins (Whitehead, 1960; FishBase team RMCA and Geelhand, 2018a). As with the
other Enteromius barbs, their preference for shallower waters and emergent vegetation affords them some
protection from predatory invasive species like Nile perch, but they will be vulnerable because of their small
size.
A number of additional undescribed Enteromius species were recorded from the Project AoI in the Kagera
River in 2020 and found in the wider study area during a follow up survey in February/March 2022. These
are discussed in Section D above.

H.3 Cichlidae
Oreochromis variabilis and O. esculentus (CR)

Both O. variabilis and O. esculentus (the only two indigenous tilapiine cichlids in the Lake Victoria Basin
(Goudswaard et al., 2002)) were important fisheries in Lake Victoria in the early 20 th Century, but their
numbers have declined almost to the point of disappearance from Lake Victoria following the introduction
of Nile perch. Populations of both species are now restricted to a few satellite lakes (Ogutu-Ohwayo, 1990;
Twongo et al., 2006a, b). Due to the preference of these two species for sheltered bays in lake environments
where they breed among emergent vegetation and papyrus swamps (Twongo et al. 2006a, b), the
importance of the Kakono HPP reach (Zone 2) for these species is not clear. Both species have been
recorded in Zone 3 during previous surveys (Table 5.34). They are non-migratory and therefore not
expected to be impacted by instream barriers.
I Fishing Activities
Fishing activities are more evident further downstream of Kyaka (Zone 1 between the Mwisa River
confluence and the lake). Although some fishing takes place in the river upstream in the reach affected by
the Kakono HPP (Zone 2), this is limited and mainly for household subsistence.
The Acting Fisheries Officer for Missenyi District Mr. Taulinus Benedicto was interviewed in Bunazi on the
27 February 2020. He indicated that there are approximatley 200 fishers in the Missenyi District, and that
these fishers are required to possess a permit and must pay taxes when they transport fish. He indicated
that river fishing for catfish (Clarias gariepinus and Clarias liocephalus) and lungfish (Protopterus sp.) in the
reaches upstream of Kyaka and in the vicinity and downstream of Kakono HPP were primarily for home
consumption. Fishing activity in the lower Kagera is highest on the Ruzinga floodplain (near the confluence
of the Ngono with Kagera River), where some of the catch is sold to villagers. Interviews of fish sellers in
Bunazi market confirmed that most of the fish sold there (primarily Nile tilapia and Nile perch) came from
Lake Victoria rather than the Kager River (Figure 5-126).
Fishers from the Ngono fishing village on the Ruzinga floodplain close to the confluence of the Ngono with
the Kagera River were interviewed by the survey team on the 23 February 2020. Fishers confirmed the most
fish caught over the flood season are Labeos (most likely L. victorianus), Schilbe intermedias, Synodontis sp.
and Mormyrids, whereas during the dry season, only Clarias and Protopterus are caught. They further
pointed out that Labeos are caught most often in the Mar-May when they move onto the floodplain (Figure
5-123). Early rains in January 2020 had resulted in earlier and higher catches of Labeos. Respondents
pointed out that Bagrus docmak is caught in the Kagera River, but not often and are small.
Fishers were also interviewed at landing site ‘Vanilla’ and Camp No. 6 Kagera Sugar, close to Kyaka on
29 February 2020 (Figure 5-125). The fishers here explained that fishing during the flood season is
conducted on the floodplains, but when the floodplains are dry, fishing is undertaken in the main channel.
Gill nets, traps and longlines are set overnight and the fish is collected in the morning. Protopterus (lungfish)
is a favoured species since it fetches high prices in local markets. They indicated that ningu (Labeo
victorianus) are often caught in large numbers in April and May – corroborating the reports from the Ngono
fishers (Table 5.36).
Table 5.36 – Wet (Mar-Aug) and Dry Season (Sep-Feb) Catches Indicated by Fishers Interviewed on the Kagera River
Near Kyaka.
Wet season catches Schilbe intermedius, Mormyrus kanume, Hippopotamyrus grahami, Synodontis spp, Clarias,
(Mar-Aug) tilapias, Enteromius spp., Mormyrids, Bagrus docmak
Dry season catches Lungfish Protopterus aethiopicus, Clarias spp, (Kambale/Mumi), Bagrus docmak, Enteromius
(Sep-Feb) spp., Mormyrids, and Lates niloticus (Sangara).
Interviews conducted by Norplan (2016) indicated that fishers believed that fish migrated, but they could
not estimate how far. Of the 11 respondents, 36% believed that fish move as far as Kyaka (upper end of
Zone 1), 45 % believed that they migrated as far as Nzongezi, while the rest said Kikagati. Of the species
caught, L. victorianus, B. docmak, L. altianalis and S. intermedius were believed to cover longer distances
than the other species. The fishers interviewed in the same study at Nsongezi and Kikigati did not know
whether the fish they caught here migrated from the lake. The confirmed that peak spawning occurs in
March-June, with a second peak in August-September. Most respondents concluded that Nsongezi Falls
presents a partial barrier to fish – enabling some species to pass under special hydrological conditions. The
authors of the 2014 ESIA conclude that the presence of migratory species upstream of Nsongezi Falls (i.e.
L. victorianus and S. intermedius) suggests that there are subpopulations within the Kagera River. These

subpopulations may therefore migrate between habitat patches (river and floodplain) within a reach to
complete their lifecycles.
Figure 5-125 – Fishers Interviewed at Landing Site ‘Vanilla’ and Camp No. 6 Kagera Sugar on 29th February 2020 by
Mr Charles Ezekiel of the Lake Victoria Basin Fisheries Organisation.
Figure 5-126 – Fishes Caught by Fishermen

(A) Fish Market in Bunazi Showing Nile Tilapia Transported from the Lake Victoria (B) Subsistence Fisher at Kikagati
Holding Matthes Barb (C) Subsistence Fisher at Camp 5 Holding Smoothhead Catfish.

Current Threats to Aquatic Ecosystems
A Water Hyacinth
Water hyacinth Eichhornia crassipes (more recently referred to as Pontederia crassipes), is a floating
macrophyte native to the Amazon basin and one of the fastest growing plants known, with mats capable
of doubling in size within one or two weeks. The plant was first observed in Lake Victoria in the 1980s and
spread throughout the region. In 1998 the plant covered an estimated 17,374 hectares of Lake Victoria
(Albright et al., 2004).
Proliferation of water hyacinth has several negative ecological and economic consequences, including
oxygen depletion, reduction in biodiversity, reduced water quality, a breeding ground for bilharzia snails,
blocking waterways and interfering with cultivation, fisheries, recreation and hydropower. In the 1990s the
plant clogged turbines at the Nalubaale and Kiira HPPs near Jinga, and caused power outages in Uganda,
Tanzania, Kenya, Rwanda and Burundi (Dr R Palmer, pers. obs.).
A biological control programme using the herbivorous weevil Neochetina sp. was implemented and this led
to a significant decrease in infestation in the early 2000s (Albright et al, 2004). However, the problem has
resurfaced and regular quantities of water hyacinth were observed in the Kagera River during the field
survey in February 2020 (Figure 5-101A). An estimated 5,361 tons of water hyacinth was estimated to pass
Rusumo Falls annually, and a management plan to control the plant was developed for the Rusumo Falls
HPP (Bizuri, 2017).
B Suspended Sediments
Available data on suspended sediments in the Kagera River is limited and contradictory. Based on
observations, the river (2020) carries elevated concentrations of suspended sediment. This is attributed
mainly to deforestation and cultivation in the catchment, particularly in Rwanda. In future the sediment load
entering the proposed HPP is likely to decline because regulatory structures planned and/or under
construction upstream of the proposed Kakono HPP, such as the Rusumo Falls HPP and the Kikagati HPP,
are likely to trap a significant portion of the suspended sediments carried from the upper catchment.
The average volume of sediment that entered Lake Victoria annually from the Kagera River was estimated
in 2004 at 1,177,366 tons per year (Tamatamah, 2004). This value is equivalent to an average
concentration of total suspended sediments (TSS) of 172 mg/l.
The average sediment load for the Kagera River Catchment was estimated at 21.4tons/km 2/yr (Studio
Pietrangeli, 2019b). The proposed HPP has a catchment area of 49,600km2, so assuming uniform
distribution and no regulatory structures, the annual volume of transported sediment at the proposed HPP
would be 994,458 tons. This value is equivalent to an average concentration of TSS of 148 mg/l.
A review of available information concerning the navigability of the Kagera River reported that the sediment
load in 16 water samples collected at Kyaka ranged between 924 and 1,866 tons per day (Zaake and
Aguma, 2009). These values are equivalent to TSS of between 72 and 76 mg/l. These values are lower than
the previous two estimates reported above.
The concentration of TSS was not measured during the February 2020 field survey, but the river was red-
brown in colour, which indicated elevated TSS, and the average turbidity recorded was 48 NTU (Table 5.27).
Turbidity is correlated to TSS and although this relation for the Kagera River is unknown, a study elsewhere
has shown that TSS (in mg/l) is equivalent to 1.5 x NTU (Rügner et al., 2014). The inferred TSS recorded
during the field survey in February 2000 was therefore 72 mg/l (48 x 1.5). This value is the same as that
measured at Kyaka when the flow was 141 m3/s (Zaake and Aguma, 2009).
The results reported above differ notably from the previous Kakono HPP ESIA (Norfund, 2016) which
indicated that sediment content at the proposed HPP was “very low” because of the trapping of sediments
within the Kagera Swamps (Norplan, 2016a). The concentration of TSS in six water samples collected at the
proposed HPP and Pump Station G (K+18) in 2013-2014 ranged between 0.011 and 0.115 mg/l (Norplan,
2016a). These results are three to four orders of magnitude lower than the four independent surveys
reported above.
C Alien Fish Species
Alien fish species include Nile perch (Lates niloticus) and several alien tilapia species (Oreochromis niloticus,
O. leucostictus, Coptodon zilli and C. rendalli) (Oyugi and Chapman, 2008). Nile perch is a predatory fish able

to grow to a large size and rapidly colonise new habitats due to its high fecundity (Ogutu-Ohwayo, 1988).
They were introduced into Lakes Victoria and Kyoga in the 1950s and have had a detrimental effect on the
endemic haplochromine cichlid communities, as well as on other non-cichlid species in Lake Victoria,
including L. victorianus (Ogutu-Ohwayo, 1990, Goudswaard and Witte, 1997).
Three alien species were confirmed during the February 2020 survey: bluespotted tilapia (Oreochromis
leucostictus), the Nile perch (Lates niloticus) and guppy (Poecilia reticulata). However, numbers of alien
species are few with only one guppy and one bluespotted tilapia caught during the 11-day survey. The Nile
perch was confirmed from a photo of one caught by staff at Kagera Sugar Estate and two were caught by
fishers at the Ngono confluence. Overall, the fish community in the lower Kagera River is still dominated by
indigenous species.
D Over-fishing
The extent of fishing is discussed under Section 5.3.2.8I and referred to in Section 5.4. Significant pressure
on fishing is exerted in the lower reaches of the Kagera River where fishing with gillnets has significantly
reduced populations of species such as Labeo victorianus which has contributed to its listing as Critically
Endangered. Fishing pressure on the reaches of the Kagera River between the Mwisa confluence upstream
to Nsongezi is believed to be relatively low due to risk of crocodiles and hippopotamus and fast flowing
water.
Terrestrial Ecology
Regional Context
A Terrestrial Ecoregions
The study area is situated within the Victoria Basin Forest-Savanna Mosaic, a global terrestrial ecoregion
that is part of the Tropical and Subtropical Grasslands, Savannas, Shrublands, and Woodlands Biome
(Burgess et al., 2004). The ecoregion is centred on Lake Victoria and includes most of southern Uganda,
eastern Rwanda, northwestern Tanzania and marginally into eastern DRC, Burundi and Kenya (Figure
5-126). The Victoria Basin Forest-Savanna Mosaic supports a high variety of forest and savannah types, as
well as vast marshes and wetlands along rivers and floodplains. Floristic diversity is high, with at least 2,700
vascular plants known to occur, although endemism is low. Victoria Basin Forest-Savanna Mosaic has some
of the highest avifaunal and mammal diversity in Africa, with 623 avifauna species and 219 mammals
known to occur. This is the fifth highest diversity for any ecoregion in Africa and is partly explained by the
high level of habitat heterogeneity in the region and the location of the ecoregion along a major migration
pathway.
It is also one of the most threatened of the high diversity ecoregions in Africa, with an estimated 83% having
been lost to agriculture and urbanisation. It has been assessed as Endangered and is considered to be
upgraded to Critically Endangered in the near future (Burgess et al., 2004). Burgess et al. (2004) prioritise
the ecoregions of African in terms of which are most in need of conservation action, dividing them into five
priority classes. Victoria Basin Forest-Savanna Mosaic is one of 32 ecoregions that has been classified as
Class 1 ecoregions, which are ecoregions with globally important biodiversity values that are highly
threatened representing the highest priority for conservation.
B Regional Vegetation Types
The Vegetation and Climate change in East Africa project (VECEA) has produced a map of the Potential
Natural Vegetation of East Africa, covering seven countries (Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi, Rwanda, Tanzania,
Uganda and Zambia) (Lillesø et al. 2011). Six vegetation types are classified for the general vicinity of the
study area (see Figure 5-128). Three of these occur within the study area and are described briefly below.
Lake Victoria Drier Peripheral Semi-evergreen Guineo-Congolian Rain Forest, Swamp Forest and Edaphic
Wooded Grassland are represented between Minziro Forest and the shore of Lake Victoria, to the north and
northeast of Bunazi, but not within the study area.

B.1 Evergreen and Semi-evergreen Bushland and Thicket
Evergreen and semi-evergreen bushland and thicket was one of the most widespread vegetation types in
northwestern Tanzania and is thought to represent the climax stage of most woody vegetation in the region
(White, 1983). However, much of the vegetation type has been lost through extensive agriculture and today
it comprises a mosaic of wooded Acacia grassland and patches of evergreen thicket, with scattered larger
fragments such as those in the southern part of the study area. Characteristic canopy trees and woody
shrubs include Acokanthera schimperi, Euclea divinorum, Gnidia subcordata, Olea europaea subsp. cuspidata,
Tarchonanthus camphoratus, Vepris simplicifolia and Carissa edulis. Euphorbia candelabrum is a diagnostic
emergent succulent tree. Characteristic lianes include Capparis fascicularis, Pterolobium stellatum and
Scutia myrtina (Kindt et al., 2011a).
B.2 Edaphic Grassland on Drainage-impeded or Seasonally Flooded Soils
Edaphic Grassland on Drainage-impeded or Seasonally Flooded Soils differs from Edaphic Wooded
Grassland mainly in the proportion of woody vegetation (trees and/or shrubs) present. Edaphic Wooded
Grassland is Edaphic Grassland with scattered woody species (10-40% canopy cover), whereas Edaphic
Grassland has no or less than 10% canopy cover of woody species (Kindt et al., 2011b). The most
widespread edaphic grasslands are those associated with seasonally or permanently waterlogged soils. In
Tanzania, these are most often heavy clays or calcimorphic hardpan soils that result in seasonally
waterlogged conditions which few woody species are able to tolerate. Typical grass species include
Acroceras macrum, Arundinella nipalensis, Echinochloa pyramidalis, Eragrostis atrovirens, Hyparrhenia
diplandra, H. filipendula, Leersia hexandra, Loudetia simplex, Oryza longistaminata, Setaria sphacelata and
Themeda triandra.
B.3 Freshwater Swamp
Permanent swamps usually occur in shallow depressions that are permanently inundated, whereas
seasonally inundated areas are usually characterised by edaphic grassland (Kindt et al., 2001c). The most
abundant freshwater swamp species is Cyperus papyrus, while other common species include Miscanthus
violaceus, Phragmites australis and P. mauritianus. A belt of floating grasses is often typical of the deeper
water fringe of the swamp, most often comprising Vossia cuspidata, Paspalidium germinatum and Panicum
repens. Water-tolerant shrubs and small trees are usually present on the landward margin of these
swamps, including species such as Aeschynomene elaphroxylon, A. pfundii, Ficus trichopoda, F. verruculosa,
Mimosa pigra, Sesbania sesban and Syzygium cordatum.

Figure 5-127 - Global Terrestrial Ecoregions within Kagera District in Northwestern Tanzania
[Source: Burgess et al., 2004]

Figure 5-128 - VECEA Vegetation Types Represented in the General Vicinity of the Study Area
[Source: Lillesø et al., 2011]

Vegetation and Flora of the Project Area
A Overview
Four hundred and twenty-five (425) plant species were recorded in the study area during fieldwork
(Annex 5-13), which reflects the high plant diversity in the region. Plant families that are well represented
are Fabaceae (53 species), Poaceae (43 species), Asteraceae (36 species) and Rubiaceae (19 species). A high
proportion of the plant diversity is found away from the Kagera River, with only 102 species (24%) being
recorded in vegetation communities along the river.
Seven distinct vegetation communities were identified during the desktop phase and ground-truthed during
fieldwork. These were classified on the basis of floristic composition (dominant and diagnostic species),
physical structure (canopy cover, presence of sub-canopy strata) and position in the landscape (e.g.
hillslopes, cliffs, floodplains). Each of these vegetation types is indicated on the maps of the study area (see
Figure 5-128). Detailed descriptions of each community are given below, accompanied by a selection of
representative photographs of vegetation structure and some of the typical plant species in each.
B Vegetation Communities
B.1 Riparian Forest/Thicket
Riparian Forest/Thicket is typically associated with the tributaries feeding into the Kagera River (e.g. Kakono
Stream) and is particularly well-developed southwest of the dam wall site (Figure 5-128) but is rare along
the Kagera River where it occurs mostly at the junctions with these tributaries (Figure 5-130). The
vegetation community covers 1150ha of the indirect AOI, of which 86ha are likely to be lost through dam
construction and inundation. Vegetation structure is Low to Tall Forest (sensu Edwards, 1983), with the
presence of a distinct mid-stratum of woody shrubs and small trees. Riparian Forest often is fringed by
Scarp Forest along the larger tributaries, particularly those southwest of the dam wall (Figure 5-131).

Figure 5-129 - Overview of Habitat Types of the Kakono Project Area

Figure 5-130 - Photos of Riparian Forest/Thicket and a Few Constituent Plant Species
The forest canopy is dominated by tall, evergreen trees such as Drypetes gerrardii, Cassipourea malosana,
Mimusops kummel and Blighia unijugata, with scattered tall emergents such as Euphorbia dawei, Cussonia
holstii and Albizia petersiana. Oxyanthus speciosa and Argomuellera macrophylla are dominant woody
shrubs in the diverse mid-stratum, which also includes species such as Craibia brownii and Teclea nobilis,
while Scutia myrtina and Blepharispermum pubescens are frequently dominant along the forest edge.
Lianes are a fairly prominent life form in these forests and include Strychnos lucens, Rhoicissus revoilii and
a Pristimera species. Grasses are sparse in the understory but do include a few shade-loving species such
as Setaria lindenbergiana and Oplismenus cf. undulatifolius. None of the tree and shrub species within the
community are flow-dependent or flood tolerant, which is why Riparian Forests are generally located along
non-perennial systems in the study area.
A number of species are diagnostic for this community, i.e. are not found in other assemblages in the study
area or only shared with one other vegetation community, e.g. Heywoodia lucens (shared with Dry
Evergreen Forest), Aloe volkensii (shared with Scarp Forest), Coffea eugenioides (Figure 5-130), Rhipsalis
baccifera, Warburgia ugandensis and Albizia zygia.
Sixty-nine (69) species were recorded in Riparian Forest/Thicket during fieldwork, representing 15% of the
study area species list (Annex 5-13). Floristic composition is most similar to Dry Evergreen Forest, with
which it shares 39 species, Scarp Forest, with which it shares 27 species, and Termitaria Thickets (25
species).

Figure 5-131 - Typical Cross-section of Riparian Forest and Associated Vegetation Communities
No threatened, near threatened or restricted-range species were confirmed to occur in Riparian

Forest/Thicket. Riparian Forest/Thicket has a High Ecological Importance as a result of being relatively
localised in the region; potentially supporting a range of SCC; having confirmed populations of African
elephant and appearing to be an important refuge habitat for this species (especially south of the Kagera
River), and because the forests have Very High Functional Integrity.
Most of the Riparian Forests in the study area are in a relatively healthy ecological state, with limited
evidence of clearance for agriculture (slopes are generally too steep) and low numbers of invasive alien
plants. The primary cause of disturbance is African elephant browsing activity, which has resulted in minor
habitat degradation, and fire damage to the edges of most of the forests that were surveyed.
B.2 Floodplain Woodland/Thicket
Floodplain Woodland/Thicket is a prominent vegetation community along floodplain of the Kagera River,
particularly downstream of the Kakono HPP (Figure 5-128). It is most typically associated with areas of
extensive alluvium deposition, often opposite cliffs or steep slopes and often adjacent to Papyrus – Vossia
Wetlands (Figure 5-133).

The vegetation community covers 823 ha of the indirect AOI, of which 161 ha are likely to be lost through
dam construction and inundation. Vegetation structure is Tall Closed Woodland (sensu Edwards, 1983), with
scattered low thickets of semi-evergreen woody shrubs and small trees.
Figure 5-132 - Photos of Floodplain Woodland/Thicket and a Few Constituent Plant Species
Floodplain Woodland/Thicket is entirely dominated by Vachellia kirkii (Figure 5-132), with Senegalia
polyacantha occasionally dominating on the drier landward edge of the community on less waterlogged
soils. Other tree species also occurring on drier soils are Vachellia seyal and Blighia unijugata, while Phoenix
reclinata is sometimes present on the riverbanks. The understorey is generally sparse on waterlogged soils,
apart from areas that have been invaded by the alien Eichhornia crassipes. Scattered dense thickets are
dominated by Allophylus rubifolius and Flueggea virosa, and occasionally Alchornea cordifolia. Lianes are
prominent, particularly Ipomoea rubens and Cissampelos mucronata. The herbaceous understorey on drier
soils is diverse and often has a high proportion of alien species, including Amaranthus hybridus, Bidens
pilosa, Tagetes minuta and Ricinis communis, which is typical of a riparian vegetation community. Other
indigenous species in the understorey are Abutilon angulatum and Triumfetta cordifolia.
Species richness is relatively high (91 species; Annex 5-13), but this is mostly because of the high diversity
of plants along the drier landward edge of the vegetation community. The regularly inundated, wetter part
of the community has much lower diversity. A number of species are diagnostic for this community,
including Acalypha bipartita, Ricinis communis*, Mimosa pigra, Gisekia pharnaceoides, Abutilon angulatum,
Cissampelos mucronata, Phoenix reclinata, Ficus lutea and Thunbergia alata.
No threatened, near threatened or restricted-range species were confirmed to occur in Floodplain
Woodland/Thicket.
Floodplain Woodland/Thicket has Medium Ecological Importance as a result of confirmed populations of VU
(hippopotamus) and NT (papyrus gonolek) fauna species, although there is evidence of ecological
degradation, particularly alien plant invasion.

Figure 5-133 - Cross-section of Typical Floodplain Woodland/Thicket along the Kagera River
Most of the Floodplain Woodlands in the study area are in a disturbed state as a result of frequent flooding,
which introduces invasive alien species, or small-scale deforestation for making charcoal (Figure 5-142). Of
the all the vegetation communities in the study area that represent Natural Habitat, this community has the
highest proportion of invasive alien species. Daily movement of hippos through Floodplain Woodland also
causes minor vegetation damage, although the animals tend to follow well-defined paths.
B.3 Scarp Forest
Scarp Forest is a form of Dry Evergreen Forest that is confined to steep slopes and cliffs at river bends
(Figure 5-133; Figure 5-134) or adjacent to Riparian Forest along some of the major tributaries in the study
area (Figure 5-130). It is a narrow and often fragmented vegetation community that only covers 1,089 ha
of the indirect AOI (Figure 5-128). It is unlikely that more than 35 ha of Scarp Forest will be lost through
inundation. Vegetation structure is Low Forest (sensu Edwards, 1983), with the presence of a distinct mid-
stratum of woody shrubs and small trees. Scarp Forest is often associated with Riparian Forest/Thicket
along the larger tributaries, particularly those southwest of the dam wall.
The forest canopy is dominated by relatively short, evergreen trees such as Euclea racemosa, Olea europaea
subsp. africana, Psydrax schimperiana, Haplocoelum foliolosum subsp. strongylocarpum and Pappea
capensis. As with Riparian Forest, Scarp Forest also has scattered taller emergent trees such as Euphorbia
dawei and Albizia petersiana. The forest edge is dominated by spiny species such Scutia myrtina, Flacourtia
indica, Carissa edulis and Gymnosporia species, as well as non-spiny shrubs such as Searsia natalensis,

Grewia trichocarpa and the tall succulent Aloe volkensii. Scrambling shrubs and lianes are a common life-
form in Scarp Forest, including species such as Senegalia brevispica, Cissus petiolata, Capparis erythrocarpos,
Asparagus falcatus and Microglossa pyrifolia. Grasses are sparse in the understory but include a few shade-
loving species such as Setaria lindenbergiana and Oplismenus cf. undulatifolius.
None of the tree and shrub species within Scarp Forest are flow-dependent or flood tolerant, even though
the community occurs along the Kagera River at the base of steep slopes or cliffs.
A number of species are diagnostic for this community, i.e. are not found in other assemblages in the study
area or only shared with one other vegetation community, e.g. Secamone parvifolia, Euphorbia tirucallii,
Pyrostria cf. bibracteata, Synadenium species, Milicia excelsa, Olea capensis, Ancylobotrys amoenus,
Secamone punctulata and Maytenus undata.
Sixty-eight species were recorded in Scarp Forest during fieldwork, representing 16% of the study area
species list (Annex 5-13). The vegetation communities with which Scarp Forest shares the most species are
Termitaria Thickets (33 species), Riparian Forest/Thicket (27 species) and Dry Evergreen Forest (20 species).
Only one SCC was recorded during fieldwork, namely Milicia excelsa, which is classified by the IUCN as NT.
The only site at which it was found was a steep slope above the Kagera River in the upper inundation zone,
and only one tall tree was located.
Scarp Forest has a High Ecological Importance as a result of being relatively localised in the region,
potentially supporting a range of SCC, having confirmed populations of African elephant and appearing to
be an important refuge habitat for this species (especially south of the Kagera River), and because the
forests have Very High Functional Integrity.
Most of the Scarp Forests in the study area are in a relatively healthy ecological state, with limited evidence
of clearance for agriculture (slopes are generally too steep) and low numbers of invasive alien plants. The
primary cause of disturbance appears to be fire, with most of the forests that were surveyed showing some
evidence of fire damage on the edges; some minor damage has also occurred in places south of the Kagera
River due to African elephant browsing activity.

Figure 5-134 - Photos of Scarp Forest and a Few Constituent Plant Species
B.4 Dry Evergreen Forest
Dry Evergreen Forest is only present in several large fragments in the southern part of the study area (Figure
5-128; Figure 5-135), although an area of highly fragmented dense, tall, evergreen thickets to the
southwest of the dam wall is possibly representative of this community. This is most likely the climax stage
for woodland vegetation west of Lake Victoria and is most representative of the Evergreen and Semi-
evergreen Bushland and Thicket vegetation type that once dominated the Kagera region (Kindt et al.,
2011a). The three fragments of this forest type in the indirect AOI cover 291 ha and are unlikely to be directly
impacted by the project.
Vegetation structure is Low Forest (sensu Edwards, 1983), with scattered taller emergent trees and a
distinct mid-stratum of woody shrubs and small trees. Dry Evergreen Forest appears to be associated with
areas that are poorly drained and is thus usually surrounded by edaphic grassland on drainage-impeded
soils (Figure 5-135).

Figure 5-135 - Photos of Dry Evergreen Forest and a Few Constituent Plant Species
Only one of the forest fragments was surveyed during fieldwork (Figure 5-136) and the following
description is based on that data. The forest canopy is dominated by a single species, namely Euclea
racemosa, which occurs throughout the forest in high numbers. Other canopy trees include Baikiaea insignis
subsp. minor, Craibia brownii and Euphorbia candelabrum. The mid-stratum is diverse and comprises a
range of woody shrubs and small trees such as Teclea nobilis, Argomuellera macrophylla, Clausena anisata,
Flacourtia indica, Grewia similis, Oxyanthus speciosa, Heywoodia lucens, Coptosperma graveolens, Psydrax
schimperiana, Erythrococca bongensis and Suregada procera. Scrambling shrubs are prominent, especially
along the forest margin and include Blepharispermum pubescens, Asparagus falcatus, Senegalia brevispica,
Pristimera species and Keetia sansibarica. Although numerous species are shared with Riparian Forest (39
species) and Termitarium Thickets (21 species), several species are diagnostic for Dry Evergreen Forest,
including Suregada procera, Turraea holstii, Bersama abyssinica, Panicum atrosanguineum, P. hirtum and
Euphorbia candelabrum.
Forty-nine (49) species were recorded in Dry Evergreen Forest during fieldwork (Annex 5-13), although it is
likely that surveys in some of the other larger forest fragments in the study area would increase this total.
No threatened, near threatened or restricted-range species were confirmed to occur in Dry Evergreen
Forest.
Dry Evergreen Forest has a High Ecological Importance as a result of being relatively localised in the region,
potentially supporting a range of SCC, having confirmed populations of African elephant and appearing to
be an important refuge habitat for this species, and because the forests have Very High Functional Integrity.
The single Dry Evergreen Forest that was surveyed during fieldwork is in a relatively healthy ecological
state, although fire damage is evident along most of the forest margin and the forest interior has been
disturbed by much activity of African elephants. The forest has numerous elephant tracks and it appears to
be an important refuge for them, possibly during the dry season.

Figure 5-136 - Typical Cross-section of Dry Evergreen Forest and Associated Vegetation Communities
B.5 Vachellia Woodland/Bushclump Mosaic
This is the most widespread vegetation community in the study area, covering 45,815 ha, most of which is
south of the Kagera River (Figure 5-128). However, at the time of writing, the Kagera Sugar Estate was in
the process of converting several thousand hectares of this community to sugar cane plantations, which
will significantly reduce the extent of Vachellia Woodland/Bushclump Mosaic. Vegetation is Open to Closed
Woodland (sensu Edwards, 1983) with numerous Tall Thickets on termitaria embedded in the woodland,
particularly in areas where soils are poorly drained (Figure 5-138). An estimated 1,452 ha may be directly
impacted by dam, road and transmission line construction.

Figure 5-137 - Photos of Acacia Woodland/Bushclump Mosaic and a Few Constituent Plant Species
The Woodland is dominated by Vachellia sieberiana and V. gerrardii downstream of the HPP, with Senegalia
polyacantha locally dominated on poorly drained black clay soils, whereas Woodland in the middle and
upper inundation zone is dominated by Senegalia senegal var. kerensis. Other common tree species include
Combretum collinum, C. molle, C. adenogonium, Grewia trichocarpa, Ozoroa insignis and Dalbergia nitidula.
The herbaceous understory is particularly diverse and includes a wide variety of forbs such as Asystasia
gangetica, Emilia caespitosa, Craterostigma cf. plantagineum, Dyschoriste cf. multicaulis and Bidens
schimperi, several geophytes such as Chlorophytum blepharophyllum and Hypoxis angustifolia, and grasses
such as Panicum maximum, Eragrostis racemosa, Setaria cf. kagerensis, Sporobolus africanus and
Hyperthelia dissoluta.

The tall, evergreen thickets on termitaria support a very different floristic assemblage. Dominant trees are
Haplocoelum foliolosum subsp. strongylocarpum, Albizia petersiana, Searsia natalensis, Grewia trichocarpa,
Lannea fulva, Euclea racemosa and Olea europaea subsp. africana. A high diversity of other woody shrubs
includes Carissa edulis, Flacourtia indica, Grewia similis, Psydrax schimperiana, Pappea capensis,
Afrocanthium lactescens and Allophylus ferrugineus. Succulent and woody climbers are a prominent life
form in the thickets, including Asparagus falcatus, Cissus petiolata, Capparis erythrocarpos, Sarcostemma
viminale and Cissus quadrangularis.
The Vachellia Woodland has a high proportion of diagnostic species such as Dyschoriste cf. multicaulis,
Ruellia species, Bidens schimperi, Combretum adenogonium, Rhynchosia resinosa, Cyphostemma
mildbraedii, Chlorophytum blepharophyllum, Bulbine abyssinica and Commelina reptans, whereas the
termitaria thickets share a significant number of species with Scarp Forest (33 species), Riparian Forest (25
species) and Dry Evergreen Forest (21 species).
This is the vegetation community with the highest species richness, with 295 species recorded during
fieldwork, of which 203 species (69%) were in Vachellia Woodland and 92 species (31%) in the termitaria
thickets (Annex 5-13). However, no threatened, near threatened or restricted-range species were
confirmed to occur in Vachellia Woodland/Bushclump Mosaic.
Vachellia Woodland/Bushclump Mosaic has Medium Ecological Importance, even though it has High
Conservation Importance as a result of confirmed populations of EN bird species (grey-crowned crane,
lappet-faced vulture, bateleur eagle). However, it is moderately resilient to disturbance and thus has an EI
of Medium.
A moderate amount of this vegetation community has already been lost to sugar plantations to the north
of the Kagera River and new plantations are being cleared south of the river. This habitat loss is the greatest
risk facing Vachellia Woodland/Bushclump Mosaic in the study area. Habitat that has not yet been cleared
is generally in a good ecological state, although overgrazed by livestock in some areas. Approximately 87ha
of this habitat are likely to be directly impacted when the powerline and access roads are constructed.

Figure 5-138 - Typical Cross-section of Vachellia Woodland/Bushclump Mosaic
B.6 Rocky Grassland
Rocky Grassland is quite a localised community that is confined to the line of low hills that are located north
(Rubira Hills) and south (Rwekubo Hills) of the dam wall area, particularly where the proposed quarries are
located (Figure 5-128). This vegetation community covers 4,480 ha of the indirect AOI, of which 201 ha are
likely to be lost through development of quarries and construction of the dam wall and associated
infrastructure. Vegetation structure varies from Low Closed Grassland on hill crests and upper lopes, to Low
Closed Woodland on some of the footslopes, and Low Thicket on larger rocky outcrops (sensu Edwards,
1983) (Figure 5-139). A typical profile of this mosaic of structural types is shown in Figure 5-140.

Figure 5-139 - Photos of Rocky Grassland and a Few Constituent Plant Species (Rubira Hill)
Grassland is the dominant structural type and comprises grass species such as Eragrostis racemosa,
Ctenium concinnum, Diheteropogon amplectens and Microchloa kunthii, sedges such as Cyperus proteus and
C. tenax, and a variety of forbs such as Craterostigma cf. plantagineum, Lippia cf. kituiensis, Gutenbergia
cordifolia, Ocimum obovatum, Hibiscus micranthus and Cyanotis foecunda. The groves of Low Closed
Woodland are dominated by Parinari curatellifolia, with other trees or woody shrubs including Combretum
collinum, Annona senegalensis, Ozoroa insignis, Psorospermum febrifugum and Securidaca
longepedunculata. Evergreen thickets on the larger rocky outcrops have vegetation that is similar in
composition to other evergreen thicket/forest in the study area, with tree and shrub species such as Lannea
fulva, Searsia natalensis, Pappea capensis, Euclea racemosa and Haplocoelum
foliolosum subsp. strongylocarpum. However, Rocky Outcrop Thickets also have a number of species not
located elsewhere in the study area, such as Ficus glumosa, a Psychotria species, Zanthoxylum chalybeum,
a Tricalysia species, Elaeodendron buchananii and Albizia adianthifolia. Ferns such as Pellaea calomelanos
and Actiniopteris semiflabellata are also a prominent feature.
Ninety-eight (98) species were recorded in this vegetation mosaic, of which 67 species (68%) were in
grassland and woodland, and 31 species (32%) in outcrop thickets (Annex 5-13).
No threatened, near threatened or restricted-range species were confirmed to occur in the Rocky Grassland
vegetation community.
Rocky Grassland/Outcrop Thicket Mosaic has Medium Conservation Importance as a result of confirmed
populations of VU fauna species (African elephant) and High Functional Importance because of the lack of
visible ecological degradation, which results in an Ecological Importance of Medium.
Rocky Grassland in the study area appears to be in a good ecological state, with no evidence of clearance
for agriculture (slopes are generally too steep and rocky) and low numbers of invasive alien plants. The only
sign of disturbance is moderate overgrazing by livestock in some areas.

Figure 5-140 - Typical Cross-section of Rocky Grassland and Rocky Outcrop Thickets on Rubira Hill
B.7 Floodplain Wetland
The Floodplain Wetland community refers to the frequently flooded wetlands along the floodplain of the
Kagera River (Figure 5-128). These wetlands cover approximately 4,384 ha of the indirect AOI and are
particularly widespread in the lower reaches of the Kagera River, 50k m downstream of the proposed dam
site. An estimated 161ha may be impacted by construction and inundation of the reservoir. Vegetation
structure is Low to Tall Closed Grassland (sensu Edwards, 1983). Two distinct sub-communities are present
and are both shown in Figure 5-141, namely areas dominated by tall Cyperus papyrus which is rooted in
submerged alluvium, and shorter Vossia cuspidata and Echinochloa stagnina grassland that is either rooted
in alluvium or floating. Species richness is low (11 species) and comprises mostly highly specialised species
that are adapted to prolonged inundation and waterlogged soils, such as Aeschynomene elaphroxylon,
Ipomoea rubens and Melanthera scandens, or floating hydrophytes like the invasive exotic water hyacinth,
Eichhornia crassipes. Another type of wetland on the floodplain was briefly sampled 92 km downstream of
the Kakono HPP site (at EFA4). This comprised fairly tall grassland that was rich in geophytes that tolerate
temporarily waterlogged soil, such as the orchids Eulophia calanthe, E. cucullata and Orthochilus

eustachyus. This grassland type was not located elsewhere along the Kagera River but appears widespread
in edaphic grassland around Minziro Forest (pers. obs.).
Figure 5-141 - Photos of Floodplain Wetlands and a Few Constituent Plant Species
No threatened, near threatened or restricted-range species were confirmed to occur in the Floodplain
Wetland community.
Floodplain Wetlands have High Conservation Importance as a result of confirmed populations of EN bird
species (grey-crowned crane), but only Medium Functional Importance because of evidence of some
ecological degradation; the wetlands have Medium resilience and are thus classified as Medium Ecological
Importance.
The Floodplain Wetland community is a dynamic one that is likely to change in spatial extent depending on
severity of floods or droughts. Large areas of dead papyrus were evident during fieldwork, although
adjacent beds of Vossia and Echinochloa showed no signs of die-off. Discussions with local fishermen
revealed that it is believed that excessive flooding such as that in 2020 resulted in the papyrus die-off. It is
possible that the flooding partially uprooted the papyrus but had no similar impact on the adjacent grasses
that are mostly floating and thus rise and fall with the flood. Large areas of the floodplain downstream of
Kyaka have been cultivated and it is possible that some of this habitat has been lost to small-scale
agriculture, although it is unlikely that the more deeply inundated areas of wetland have been impacted as
much by agriculture.

C Flora of Conservation Concern
One Critically Endangered (CR), 12 Endangered (EN), six Vulnerable (VU) species and six Near Threatened
(NT) plant species are known to occur in northwestern Tanzania. An overview of these species is given in
Table 5.37, which includes an explanation of the likelihood of occurrence of each species. One EN species,
three VU species and two NT species have a moderate likelihood of occurring as a result of apparently
suitable habitat being present and/or known records from a 50 km radius of the study area, although these
species could not be located during fieldwork. The rest have a low likelihood of occurrence, either because
habitat in the study area is unsuitable, or the study area elevation is unsuitable, or there are no known
records from within a 50 km radius of the study area.
One NT species was tentatively confirmed during fieldwork, namely Milicia excelsa. A single tall tree was
seen growing above the canopy of an inaccessible portion of Scarp Forest on a cliff in the middle inundation
zone. Leaves were viewed using 10x42 binoculars and distinct leaf venation as well as the tree growth form
look very much like this species, but no conclusive evidence could be collected.

Table 5.37 - Potentially Occurring Plant Species of Conservation Concerns and Likelihood of Occurrence
Species Growth Form Distribution Habitat Likelihood Rationale
A. Critically Endangered Species
Mellera insignis Soft shrub Known only from the Kibondo area of northwest Wet riverine forest Low Very rare species; no nearby records; habitat not
Tanzania. ideal
B. Endangered Species
Aeollanthus stuhlmannii Succulent shrub Endemic to northern Tanzania. Rocks or shallow soil on rocks at 1,100-1,220 m Low Suitable habitat present on several hills, but
altitude only known from south and south-east of Lake
Victoria
Barleria penelopeana Dwarf shrub Restricted to northwest Tanzania Grassland and Acacia woodland, including heavily Low Suitable habitat present in vicinity of
grazed areas and secondary grassland following transmission line and access roads, but only
clearance of woodland known from several localities in the vicinity of
Mwanza
Blotiella trichosora Fern Occurs in Burundi, Tanzania and Uganda Usually near streams in undergrowth of Low Limited suitable habitat present (forest not wet
semideciduous moist forest, occasionally at edge of or groundwater-fed)
swamp forest, rarely in gallery forest; at 800-
1,750 m elevation
Bothriocline quercifolia Forb Known from central Burundi, southeastern Rwanda Grows in savannah and Eucalyptus plantations; Low Apparently suitable habitat present in vicinity of
and extreme northwestern Tanzania. between 1,250 and 1,900 m altitude transmission line and access roads; however,
the Tanzania records are from above
1,800 masl
Cyphostemma vanderbenii Climber Known from central, eastern and northeastern Occurs in woodland, gallery forest, grassland with Low Occurs at higher altitude than that represented
Burundi, and nearby Tanzania. bracken and some scattered shrubs, and fallow in the project area
land, at 1,450-1,800 m altitude
Dissotis alata Forb Known only from eastern Burundi and western Found in valley grassland, at 1,350 m altitude Low Occurs at higher altitude than that represented
Tanzania. in the project area
Emilia cryptantha Forb Endemic to S Uganda and NW Tanzania. Growing in swamp grassland at 1,000-1,250m Medium Suitable habitat present downstream of dam;
known localities in the lower Kagera near the
lake
Emilia longifolia Forb Known from two sites in Uganda and one in NW Growing in swamps at 1,050-1,650 m Low Potential suitable habitat present but no known
Tanzania. records within 50 km of study area
Faroa acuminata Forb Found throughout Burundi and in Grasslands on rocky summits or laterite hardpans, Low Occurs at higher altitude than that represented
northwestern Tanzania between 1,300 and 2,000 m altitude in the project area
Oxyanthus ugandensis Small tree Present in Uganda and Tanzania. Undershrub in moist lowland forest Low Limited suitable habitat present (forest not wet
or groundwater-fed)
Vernonia agrianthoides Forb Northeastern, eastern and southeastern Burundi as Grows in grassy savanna and rocky areas, at 1,050– Low Limited suitable habitat present on several hills;
well as in western Tanzania. 1,550 m altitude not located on transects in this habitat
Vernonia tinctosetosa Forb Endemic to northwest Tanzania and southwest Grows in wetland areas on sandy lake shores at Low Suitable habitat present close to lake shore but
Uganda. 1,100-1,200 m not within the study area
C. Vulnerable Species
Cincinnobotrys speciosa Forb Known from western Burundi, Rwanda, eastern Moist lowland and gallery forest; humid places in Low Unsuitable habitat and altitude
DRC and northwestern Tanzania. valleys, on rocks, riverbanks; sometimes epiphytic;
between ±1,200 and ±2,350 m altitude
Englerina schubotziana Epiphyte Occurs in Uganda, eastern DRC, Rwanda and north- Forest edges and along rivers at 1,130-3,000 m Medium Suitable habitat present throughout project
western Tanzania. altitude area; confirmed record from Minziro Forest
Khaya anthotheca Tree Widespread throughout tropical Africa Variety of forest types Medium Suitable habitat present along larger tributaries
of the Kagera; confirmed record from Minziro
Forest

Species Growth Form Distribution Habitat Likelihood Rationale

Polystachya stauroglossa Epiphyte Burundi, DRC, Uganda and Tanzania. Occurs in forest, at 900–1,400 m altitude Low Known from wetter forests than those in the
study area; confirmed record from Minziro
Forest
Rotheca bukobensis Soft shrub Known from nine collections in eastern DRC, Woodland and secondary forest at 1,140-1,200 m Medium Suitable habitat present throughout project area
Rwanda and Tanzania altitude
Vernonia parapetersii Forb Restricted to southern Uganda, north-western Grassland, wooded grassland, and old cultivations Low Occurs at higher altitude than that represented
Tanzania and southern Rwanda. at 1,200-1,900 m in the project area
D. Near Threatened Species
Afrocarpus dawei Tree Northwestern Tanzania (Kagera Province), Uganda Seasonal swamp forest on or near floodplains of Low Limited suitable habitat present (forest not wet
and eastern DRC slow running rivers west and south of Lake Victoria or groundwater-fed); known records from
Minziro Forest
Brachystephanus coeruleus Soft shrub Albertine Rift region and Lake Victoria Basin, incl. Undergrowth of forest, particularly along rivers and Low Suitable habitat present in the project area, but
DRC, Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania streams no known records from within 100 km
Dalbergia melanoxylon Tree Widespread in sub-Saharan Africa Variety of woodland or savannah habitats Medium Suitable habitat present in vicinity of
transmission line and access roads
Lasianthus seseensis Small tree Occurs in Uganda, Tanzania, Rwanda and eastern Grows in moist forest Low Limited suitable habitat present (forest not wet
DRC or groundwater-fed)
Milicia excelsa Tree Widely distributed throughout tropical Africa Variety of forest types Confirmed A single tall tree found growing in Scarp Forest
on a cliff along the Kagera River in the
inundation zone
Rytigynia beniensis Shrub Known from eastern DRC, Rwanda, Burundi, Forest edges, thicket, woodland, grassland, rocky Medium Suitable habitat present throughout project
Uganda and Tanzania areas, or eroded land at 910-2,750 m altitude area; several collections from Minziro Forest

D Threats to Vegetation and Flora
D.1 Habitat Loss
The greatest threat to vegetation in the study area is habitat loss, particularly the conversion of natural
habitat to sugarcane plantations. This has resulted in the most extensive loss of vegetation than any other
activity in the study area, and the expansion of the sugar cane plantation south of the Kagera River is likely
to result in further habitat loss. Downstream of Kyaka, habitat loss is also significant, but this is a result of
high-density small-scale farming on the floodplain. Natural Habitat has also been lost through the
expansion of towns close to the river, particularly Kyaka. Limited evidence of riparian trees being felled for
charcoal manufacture was found near the dam wall, although this seems to take place on a small scale in
the study area. Cattle paths along steep slopes leading to the Kagera River have caused severe soil erosion
in places, especially on sodic soils, although on a small scale. Photographs of some of these threats to
vegetation are shown in Figure 5-142.
Figure 5-142 - Photos of Some of the Threats Facing Vegetation in the Study Area
D.2 Alien Invasive Plants
A low proportion of invasive alien species is present in the study area, with only 4.5% of the species list
represented by these species. However, Eichhornia crassipes (water hyacinth) is a widespread and
aggressive invader in the study area, particularly in open water habitat, but also in Floodplain Wetlands and
Floodplain Woodland/Thicket (where it has even invaded terrestrial habitat). While floating masses of water
hyacinth are mainly carried from the upstream Kagera catchment, hyacinth has become established in the
slackwaters along the river, where its’ growth may be facilitated by possible nutrient inputs from the
adjacent sugar cane plantations. Another potentially aggressive invader, Lantana camara, was observed at
a few sites, both in the sugar estate and on cattle ranches, usually in disturbed ground, but also at a few
forest edges where it could become a serious problem in the future if not controlled. Floodplain
Woodland/Thicket is the vegetation community with the highest proportion of alien species, which is typical
of riparian vegetation types. Photos of some of the invasive alien species are shown in Figure 5-143.

Figure 5-143 - Photos of Some Invasive Alien Plant Species in the Study Area
D.3 High and Extended Flood Events
Another apparent threat to vegetation in the study area is unusually large flood events, which mostly
impacts Cyperus papyrus. Large areas of dead papyrus were evident during fieldwork, although adjacent
beds of Vossia and Echinochloa showed no signs of die-off. Discussions with local fishermen revealed that
it is believed that excessive flooding such as that in 2020 resulted in the papyrus die-off. It is possible that
the flooding partially uprooted the papyrus but had no similar impact on the adjacent grasses that are
mostly floating and thus rise and fall with the flood.
Birds
A Bird Diversity and Habitat Types
The study area is situated in the Victoria Basin Forest-Savanna Mosaic terrestrial ecoregion, in which an
estimated 623 avifauna species are known to occur, the third highest avifaunal diversity of any ecoregion
in Africa (Bugess et al., 2004). This high diversity was confirmed in the AOI, in which 285 species were
recorded during October/November fieldwork (Annex 5-14), which is significantly higher than the total from
the previous ESIA (98 species) (Norplan, 2016). Bird families/groups that were particularly well represented
were diurnal raptors (27 species), weavers/widowbirds (18 species), cisticolas and allies (14 species),
swallows (12 species) and waxbills (11 species). A species accumulation curve from the 10-species lists
generated during the current study indicates that the habitats within the AOI have been sufficiently sampled
(Figure 5-144).

Figure 5-144 - Species Accumulation Curve using 10-Species List Avifaunal Data
Seven distinct avifaunal assemblages are present in the study area, corresponding to specific vegetation
communities or habitats. Each of these assemblages is described below and photographs of selected
species are included in Figure 5-145 to Figure 5-150.
A.1 Forest/Thicket Assemblage
This avifaunal assemblage is associated with the forested tributaries of the Kagera River (e.g. Kakono
Stream), the Scarp Forest along cliffs or steep riverbanks, thickets on termitaria and the large patches of
Dry Evergreen Forest scattered through the southern part of the study area. Sixty-nine species were
recorded in the assemblage, representing 24% of the study area species list (Annex 5-14). This is the third
highest total for the study area assemblages, and represents relatively high diversity considering the small
area covered by forest or thicket habitat in the study area. The assemblage is dominated by small,
insectivorous species, with only one granivore and one frugivore represented in the dominant species listed
in Table 5.38. The Forest/Thicket assemblage has many similarities to the Floodplain Woodland/Thicket
assemblage, sharing 49 species (71%) with that assemblage, mostly as a result of the presence of dense
thickets in the understorey of the Floodplain Woodland.
Eight species were only recorded in the Forest/Thicket assemblage, five of which are strict forest specialists
that are unlikely to occur in any other assemblage and can be considered diagnostic for this assemblage,
namely grey-winged robin-chat, olive sunbird, narina trogon, buff-spotted flufftail and blue-mantled
crested flycatcher. Photos of a selection of typical forest species are shown in Figure 5-145.
Table 5.38 - Dominant Bird Species in the Forest/Thicket Assemblage

Species Frequency (n=318) Reporting Rate (%)
Grey-backed camaroptera 34 10.692
Tropical boubou 21 6.604
Dark-capped bulbul 14 4.403
White-browed robin-chat 14 4.403
African paradise flycatcher 13 4.088
Red-chested cuckoo 12 3.774
Purple-banded sunbird 11 3.459
Yellow-breasted apalis 11 3.459
Red-eyed dove 10 3.145
Purple-crested turaco 10 3.145
Brown-throated wattle-eye 10 3.145

Figure 5-145 - Photos of Typical Bird Species of the Forest/Thicket Assemblage
A.2 Floodplain Woodland/Thicket Assemblage
This assemblage is closely associated with the tall Vachellia kirkii woodlands that are present in some of
the broader alluvium deposits along the river and floodplain. Ninety species were recorded in the
assemblage during fieldwork, which is the second highest total for any assemblage in the study area
(Annex 5-14). The species composition includes both woodland and thicket species, reflecting the structural
variation in the vegetation of this habitat. Typical woodland species that are dominant in this assemblage
include dark-capped bulbul, woodland kingfisher, red-eyed dove and Meyer's parrot, whereas dominant
thicket or forest species are grey-backed camaroptera, purple-crested turaco, red-chested cuckoo, yellow-
rumped tinkerbird and tropical boubou (Table 5.39).
Table 5.39 - Dominant Bird Species in the Floodplain Woodland/Thicket Assemblage

Grey-backed camaroptera 24 6.015
Woodland kingfisher 17 4.261
Purple-crested turaco 13 3.258
Red-chested cuckoo 11 2.757
Yellow-rumped tinkerbird 11 2.757


Broad-billed roller 11 2.757
Tropical boubou 10 2.506
Meyer's parrot 10 2.506
Grey-capped warbler 10 2.506
White-chinned prinia 10 2.506
While a high proportion of species (54%) are shared with the Forest/Thicket assemblage, a few species are
confined or mostly confined to the Floodplain Woodland/Thicket assemblage, such as broad-billed roller,
grey-capped warbler, red-chested sunbird, yellow-throated leaflove, black-necked weaver, slender-billed
weaver and white-collared oliveback. Photos of a selection of typical species are shown in Figure 5-146.
Figure 5-146 - Photos of Typical Species of the Floodplain Woodland/Thicket Assemblage

A.3 Woodland Assemblage
This is by far the most widespread avifaunal assemblage in the study area and is associated with the
Woodland/bushclump mosaic vegetation community. Species diversity is high, with 187 species having
been recorded during fieldwork (Annex 5-14). Some of the most frequently recorded (dominant) species
are widespread habitat generalists such as dark-capped bulbul, emerald-spotted wood dove, ring-necked
dove and black-crowned tchagra, while some are woodland specialists such as spot-flanked barbet and
trilling cisticola, and others are associated with the numerous bush clumps scattered throughout the
vegetation community, such as black-lored babbler and orange-breasted bushshrike (Table 5.40). The
Woodland assemblage is fairly unique in the study area, only having moderate affinity to the Floodplain
Woodland/Thicket and Artificial (Agriculture) assemblages, with which it shares 30% of its species
(56 species each). Granivores (seed-eating species) are more prominent in this assemblage than other
terrestrial assemblages and areas with grasses in seed attracted mixed flocks of species such as fan-tailed
widow, cardinal quelea, common waxbill, zebra waxbill and bronze mannikin. Photos of a selection of typical
species are shown in Figure 5-147.
Table 5.40 - Dominant Bird Species in the Woodland Assemblage

Trilling cisticola 52 4.177

Emerald-spotted wood dove 33 2.651
Ring-necked dove 30 2.410
Rüppell's starling 27 2.169
Black-lored babbler 27 2.169
Barn swallow 25 2.008
Yellow-fronted tinkerbird 24 1.928
Orange-breasted bushshrike 23 1.847
Black-crowned tchagra 21 1.687
Spot-flanked barbet 21 1.687
White-browed coucal 20 1.606

Figure 5-147 - Photos of Typical Bird Species of the Woodland Assemblage

A.4 Wetland Assemblage
The Wetland assemblage is a distinct selection of species that are associated with the papyrus and floating
grass swamps along the floodplain. Forty-four species were recorded in this habitat during fieldwork
(Annex 5-14), of which 13 species (30%) were not found in other habitats.
The majority of these are small insectivores that forage in wetland vegetation, such as greater swamp
warbler, white-winged swamp warbler, winding cisticola, African reed warbler, African yellow warbler and
swamp flycatcher, while a fair number of granivores are also represented, including thick-billed weaver,
red-headed quelea, papyrus canary and northern brown-throated weaver. Several species are shared with
the Open Water assemblage, especially species that hunt from perches in wetland vegetation, such as
malachite kingfisher, or aerial insectivores such as barn swallow and brown-throated martin. Several
species are also shared with the Floodplain Woodland/Thicket assemblage, such as papyrus gonolek and
blue-headed coucal. Photos of a selection of typical species are shown in Figure 5-148.
Table 5.41 - Dominant Bird Species in the Wetland Assemblage

Red-faced cisticola 17 12.230

Greater swamp warbler 14 10.072
Blue-headed coucal 9 6.475
White-winged swamp warbler 8 5.755
Winding cisticola 7 5.036
Holub's golden weaver 6 4.317
Moustached grass warbler 5 3.597
Common waxbill 5 3.597
Pin-tailed whydah 5 3.597
White-chinned prinia 4 2.878

Figure 5-148 - Photos of Typical Bird Species of the Wetland Assemblage

A.5 Open Water Assemblage
This assemblage is closely associated with areas of open water such as the Kagera River, oxbow lakes on
the floodplain and man-made impoundments. The assemblage is dominated by waterbirds from a variety
of feeding guilds, such as wading birds that feed on fish or frogs (e.g. hamerkop, striated heron, woolly-
necked stork, black crake, African jacana), swimming feeders (e.g. reed cormorant, white-faced whistling
duck), birds of prey (African fish eagle, osprey) and small wading birds that forage for invertebrates along
muddy shorelines (e.g. wood sandpiper, black crake, African pied wagtail). Thirty-seven species were
confirmed to occur during fieldwork (Annex 5-14), although this is likely to be an underestimate of the
species diversity of this assemblage. Certain waterbird species that have been recorded from the Kyaka
District during the Tanzania Bird Atlas were not recorded during fieldwork and are likely to be present,
although probably with nomadic movements, such as little grebe, red-billed teal and knob-billed duck.
Photos of a selection of typical water-associated bird species are shown in Figure 5-149. Birds in the Open
Water assemblage are summarised in Table 5.42.
Table 5.42 - Dominant Bird Species in the Open Water Assemblage

Hamerkop 23 10.952
Black crake 15 7.143
Pied kingfisher 15 7.143
Hadada ibis 14 6.667
Reed cormorant 13 6.190
African fish eagle 11 5.238
Striated heron 11 5.238
African pied wagtail 10 4.762
Malachite kingfisher 10 4.762
African jacana 8 3.810
Woolly-necked stork 7 3.333
Little egret 7 3.333
White-faced whistling duck 7 3.333
Wood sandpiper 7 3.333

Figure 5-149 - Photos of Typical Bird Species of the Open Water Assemblage
A.6 Agricultural Areas
Agricultural fields in the study area have a dynamic avifaunal assemblage that varies in species composition
depending on whether fields are recently ploughed or have been planted with crops. Sixty-six species were
recorded in this assemblage during fieldwork, mostly in the sugar cane plantations (Annex 5-14). Dominant
species include widespread habitat generalists such as red-eyed dove, laughing dove and bronze mannikin,
woodland species such as grey-backed fiscal and Rüppell's starling, grassland species such as black-headed
heron and fan-tailed widowbird, and waterbirds such as African wattled lapwing (Table 5.43). The avifaunal
assemblage in agricultural areas are considered Modified Habitat. Photos of a selection of typical species
are shown in Figure 5-150.

Table 5.43 - Dominant Bird Species in the Artificial Assemblage (Agriculture)

Black-headed heron 15 6.438
Grey-backed fiscal 12 5.150
Fan-tailed widowbird 10 4.292
Bronze mannikin 8 3.433
Laughing dove 8 3.433
African wattled lapwing 7 3.004
Lesser striped swallow 7 3.004
Ring-necked dove 6 2.575
Figure 5-150 - Photos of Typical Bird Species of the Artificial Assemblage (Agriculture)
A.7 Settlements (Towns and Villages)
Forty-five species were recorded during fieldwork in settlement areas (Annex 5-14), some of which were
only seen in urban areas or most often in these areas, such as pied crow, northern grey-headed sparrow
and speckled pigeon. Most of the other dominant species listed in Table 5.44 are widespread habitat
generalists such as dark-capped bulbul or red-eyed dove, or woodland species that have adapted to
foraging in settlements, such as grey-backed fiscal, Rüppell's starling and eastern plantain-eater. The bird
assemblage in settlements represents Modified Habitat.
Table 5.44 - Dominant Bird Species in Settlements


Village weaver 10 9.091
Northern grey-headed sparrow 7 6.364
African thrush 5 4.545
Pied crow 5 4.545
Grey-backed fiscal 4 3.636
Eastern plantain-eater 4 3.636
Speckled pigeon 4 3.636
B Priority Bird Species
Priority bird species identified in the study area are those that have been classified by the IUCN as threatened
(CR, EN or VU) or those restricted to biomes such as the Lake Victoria Basin (LVB) biome (Baker & Baker,
2001). A description of priority birds is summarised in the sections below.
Photographs of a selection of priority birds confirmed during fieldwork are shown in Figure 5-151.
Figure 5-151 - A Selection of Priority Bird Species Recorded During Fieldwork

B.1 Hooded Vulture (Necrosyrtes monachus)
Hooded vulture is widespread throughout sub-Saharan Africa apart from heavily forested areas in the
Congo Basin (Ogada & Buij, 2011). It is mostly sedentary, with some dispersal by immature birds. Extremely
rapid declines in populations in West Africa have been documented, mostly as a result of direct impacts
such as indiscriminate poisoning, hunting for trade in traditional medicine, persecution and electrocution,
as well as indirect impacts such as habitat loss and degradation (BirdLife International, 2017). Even though
Hooded Vulture has an extremely large Extent of Occurrence (EOO) of 22,500,000 km2, the magnitude of
its decline (estimated as 83% over three generations) has resulted in an IUCN status of Critically Endangered
(CR).
The species occurs in a variety of savannah and grassland types, and is often associated with human
settlements in West Africa. Breeding takes place from September to March in northwestern Tanzania
(Brown & Britton, 1980) and nests are usually located in large trees. Few studies on movements and home
ranges of this species have been done, but a recent study in Botswana indicated the mean home range size
is 23,000km2 (Reading et al., 2019). The global population is estimated to be a maximum of 197,000 birds.
While no population numbers are known for northwestern Tanzania, it is likely that viable populations are
present in the large conservation areas in the region, such as Burigi-Chato National Park (Tanzania), Akagera
National Park (Rwanda) and Lake Mburo National Park (Uganda).
A flock of three birds were seen circling over Bunazi town in late October 2020, possibly associating with
the town refuse facility. No hooded vulture birds or nests were located in Natural Habitat in the project area
during fieldwork and it is highly unlikely that the birds breed in close proximity to Bunazi. However, there is
sufficient breeding and foraging habitat within the project area south of the Kagera and within the
inundation area, although breeding populations are more likely in the abovementioned conservation areas.
Given the large EOO of hooded vulture and only a single sighting of three birds in the study area with no
evidence of breeding, its presence only represents 0.002% of the global population of this species and does
not fulfil the thresholds for qualifying the project area as CH. However, the construction of the transmission
line from Kakono HPP to Kyaka could potentially impact birds moving through the study area through risk
of electrocution when perching on pylons or collisions with transmission lines.
B.2 Lappet-faced Vulture (Torgos tracheliotos)
Lappet-faced Vulture is widespread throughout much of sub-Saharan Africa and part of the Arabian
Peninsula, and previously occurred in North Africa (BirdLife International, 2019a). It is an uncommon species
away from large protected areas in Tanzania, with the stronghold for the species being in the large national
parks in northern Tanzania (http://tanzaniabirdatlas.net/maphtm/0089_nmap.htm). Similar to hooded
vulture, it is possible that small populations are present in the large conservation areas in northwestern
Tanzania, such as Burigi-Chato National Park (Tanzania), Akagera National Park (Rwanda) and Lake Mburo
National Park (Uganda). Populations in West and East Africa have been declining extremely rapidly, mainly
because of indiscriminate poisoning, persecution and habitat loss, while southern African populations are
declining at a slower rate. As a result of the rapid declines, the species has been classified as Endangered
(EN), even though it has an EOO of 34,200,000 km2, and is likely to be upgraded to CR in the near future
(BirdLife International, 2019a).
Lappet-faced Vultures prefer arid savanna, grassy plains, deserts and sparsely vegetated mountain slopes,
usually in large conservation areas with healthy large mammal populations. Breeding takes place
throughout the year, with most egg-laying occurring between January and August
(http://tanzaniabirdatlas.net/maphtm/0089_nmap.htm), typically in large trees. There are no recent
breeding records from northwestern Tanzania and only one old breeding record from June (Brown & Britton,
1980). Data from Mundy et al. (1992) suggested that the African population comprised 8,000 birds, but this
is likely to be much lower now.
Two birds were seen circling over hilly terrain in the vicinity of the proposed dam wall during November
2020. There is sufficient breeding and foraging habitat within the project area south of the Kagera River and
within the inundation area, but it is more likely that this species breeds in nearby large conservation areas
and forages in the study area. Given the large EOO of lappet-faced vulture and only a single sighting of two
birds in the study area with no evidence of breeding its presence, a single sighting of two birds only
represents 0.02% of the global population of this species and does not fulfil the thresholds for qualifying
the project area as CH. The construction of the transmission line from Kakono HPP to Kyaka could
potentially impact birds moving through the study area through risk of electrocution when perching on
pylons or collisions with transmission lines.

B.3 Steppe Eagle (Aquila nipalensis)
Steppe Eagle is a long-distance Palearctic migrant that breeds on the steppes between western Russia and
Mongolia; birds breeding in western Russia and Kazakhstan either spend the boreal winter in the Middle
East or migrate to East and Southern Africa (BirdLife International, 2019b). A study of migrating Steppe
Eagles using satellite telemetry found that most birds overwintered in Saudi Arabia and East Africa, with far
fewer overwintering in Southern Africa; large concentrations of birds were recorded in Tanzania in
December and January and this is probably an important staging area for the species on migration (Meyburg
et al., 2012). The same study also found that the size of home ranges on wintering grounds in East Africa
differed widely among individuals, from as low as 5 km2 to as high as 18,000 km2 (Meyburg et al., 2012).
Most adults return to the breeding grounds in late March and early April, whereas immatures depart later
and some 1st-year birds overwinter Africa.
Even though Steppe Eagle has a large EOO (10,800,000 km2), it has undergone extremely rapid population
declines throughout its breeding range and has been classified as EN. The latest global estimate is that only
37,000 breeding pairs remain (BirdLife International, 2019b). The rapid global decline of this species has
been due to a number of impacts, particularly loss of breeding habitat, direct persecution, and collisions and
electrocutions associated with transmission lines. Levin and Kurkin (2013) recently found Steppe Eagle to
be the most frequently electrocuted raptor on transmission lines in western Kazakhstan.
A single adult was observed circling over woodland/bushclump mosaic habitat in the extreme southern part
of the project area. Small numbers possibly overwinter in the study area (October to March), but it is highly
unlikely that globally significant numbers are present. With only a single sighting of one bird, which
represents only 0.001% of the global population of this species, its presence in the study area does not
fulfil the thresholds for qualifying the project area as CH. However, the construction of the transmission line
from Kakono HPP to Kyaka could potentially impact birds moving through the study area through risk of
electrocution when perching on pylons or collisions with transmission lines. This is particularly relevant to
Steppe Eagles, given their vulnerability to these impacts (Levin & Kurkin, 2013).
B.4 Grey-Crowned Crane (Balearica regulorum)
The Grey-crowned crane occurs in two discrete populations in Africa: the nominate subspecies occurs in
southern Africa while subspecies B.r. gibbericeps occurs in East Africa, eastern DRC and Zambia (BirdLife
International, 2016a). The East African strongholds for this species are Kenya (10,000-12,500 birds) and
Uganda (5,000-8,000 birds), with 600 to 1000 birds estimated to occur in Tanzania (Morrison, 2019). Three
areas in Tanzania are known to support significant populations of Grey-crowned cranes, namely the
Ngorongoro Conservation Area, the Usangu Flats in the southwest, and the western Lake Victoria Basin (in
which the Kakono HPP is situated).
Grey-crowned cranes are found in mixed wetland – grassland/open savannah habitats, often in the vicinity
of wetlands. Foraging often takes place in agricultural land, especially if it is close to their preferred habitat.
They are dependent on wetlands for breeding, and usually nest within or on the edges of permanent or
temporary wetlands (Morrison, 2019). However, studies in Uganda have shown that these cranes have
adapted to habitat transformation, with 82% of nests located in partly or severely disturbed wetlands
(Olupot et al., 2009). In Tanzania, the cranes nest predominantly from December to May (Frame, 1982),
whereas in Uganda the cranes can be found breeding throughout the year, although they usually have two
distinct egg laying peaks: December and June. These two peaks coincide with drier periods when risks of
nests being flooded are lower and also coincides with the abundance of seeds and insects following the
rainy seasons (Morrison, 2019). Cranes are highly territorial during the breeding season, but form flocks in
the non-breeding season. Studies in Kenya have shown that home range size depends on food availability,
and that breeding pairs have smaller home ranges than non-breeding flocks (Gichuki, 2000). The same
studies also recorded shorter daily movements by breeding birds (average 3.14 km from nest sites) than
non-breeding flocks (average 6.72 km from daily roosts). Cranes roost mainly in tall trees adjacent to
wetlands but have also been recorded roosting on high voltage pylons making them vulnerable to
electrocution (Morrison, 2019). They eat a wide range of food types, from plants (e.g. seed heads of sedges,
young crop plants, insects and frogs (BirdLife International, 2016a). The occasional foraging in newly
planted agricultural fields is known to cause conflict between this species and landowners.
Grey-crowned crane has been classified as EN as a result of very rapid population declines over the past
three generations (45 years) throughout its range, mostly due to habitat loss and the illegal removal of
birds and eggs from the wild (BirdLife International, 2016a).

Approximately 25 birds were observed at four different locations during fieldwork (i.e. the upper inundation
area, EFA 1, EFA 3, and EFA 4), with the largest concentration being 15 birds along the Kagera River just
upstream of EFA 3. Habitats in which birds were seen included floodplain wetlands, riverbanks, recently
harvested sugar cane fields and marshy woodland adjacent to a settlement. These were all most likely non-
breeding birds that had not yet dispersed for the breeding season (November to June). More extensive areas
of Papyrus - Vossia wetland in the study area downstream of the Kakono HPP may represent suitable
breeding habitat for this species, although the relatively high human population along the lower Kagera
River make it likely that disturbance levels will be high. More extensive floodplain wetlands downstream of
EFA 4 as well as in the upper reaches of the Kagera (Kagera Swamps) are more likely to hold significant
concentrations of breeding birds. Data from the Tanzania Bird Atlas show a high concentration of crane
records in the lower Kagera River downstream of the study area, including a confirmed breeding record in
June in the Bukoba grid 3101B (http://tanzaniabirdatlas.net/maphtm/0194_nmap.htm). However, studies
in Uganda have shown that birds regularly nest in disturbed wetlands, so it is possible that nesting sites are
located in the study area, although this was not confirmed during fieldwork.
Given the large EOO of grey-crowned crane, the number of birds recorded during fieldwork (25) represents
a small proportion of their estimated global population (~0.14%) and does not fulfil the threshold for
qualifying the project area as CH. Roosting on high voltage pylons making them vulnerable to electrocution
(Morrison, 2019). The construction of the transmission line from Kakono HPP to Kyaka could potentially
impact roosting cranes, which are known to occasionally perch on pylons, making them vulnerable to
electrocution (Morrison, 2019). Expanding agriculture (e.g. the Kagera Sugar expansion) could result in
increased persecution when cranes forage in recently planted fields.
B.5 Southern Ground Hornbill (Bucorvus leadbeateri)
The Southern ground hornbill is a fairly widespread resident in Southern and East Africa, occurring from
southern Kenya, eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Tanzania, through Zambia and
Mozambique to Botswana and eastern South Africa (BirdLife International, 2016b). In East Africa, it is a
widespread resident, occurring through much of Tanzania although there are few records from the
northwestern part of the country, apart from several recent records in Burigi-Chato National Park
(http://tanzaniabirdatlas.net/maphtm/0528_nmap.htm). Preferred habitat is woodland or savannah,
although it does occasionally occur in high altitude grassland; and usually does well in protected areas with
large game or rural areas with livestock (BirdLife International, 2016b). Ground hornbills live in groups of 2
to 9 birds, and are co-operative breeders, with most breeding recorded from November to May in Tanzania
(http://tanzaniabirdatlas.net/maphtm/0528_nmap.htm). Home ranges vary in size from 50 to 100 km2,
depending on the availability of suitable nest sites and food availability during the dry season. The EOO is
7,140,000 km2 and, although the global population has not been quantified, a decline of 30 to 49% is
projected over 94 years (three generations) resulting in a global conservation status of Vulnerable (VU).
Southern ground hornbill is probably a resident in low numbers in the study area. It was only recorded on
one occasion during fieldwork, when several birds were heard calling from the extensive woodlands on the
south bank of the Kagera River close to EFA1. The project is unlikely to pose any additional risks to this
species, particularly since it is a low-flying bird that rarely collides with transmission lines and is not known
to perch on high structures such as pylons.
B.6 Papyrus Gonolek (Laniarius mufumbiri)
Papyrus gonolek is a locally common endemic of the Lake Victoria Basin in East Africa, occurring in
northeastern DRC, Uganda, eastern Rwanda, Burundi, northwestern Tanzania and western Kenya (BirdLife
International, 2016d). In northwestern Tanzania it occurs in the middle Kagera basin and along the Ruvubu
River and in the Malagarazi basin on the Burundi border (Fry, 2020). Estimated density of 6–10 birds/ha at
site in Kenya; in Uganda, 13 birds/ha were recorded in the centre of an undisturbed swamp but less than
1 bird/ha in polluted and degraded swamps; abundance seems to be related to height and density of
papyrus, with numbers higher in taller and denser stands (Fry, 2020). The species is confined to Cyperus
papyrus swamps, in meandering river valleys and along lakeshores; inhabits pure stands of papyrus, as well
as papyrus mixed with woody shrubs, and mosaics of papyrus and floating grass (Fry, 2020). Breeding
season not well understood, egg-laying has been recorded in Jun, Sept–Dec (mainly Sept) and Feb in Kenya.
Even though it is a biome-restricted endemic, papyrus gonolek has an EOO of 272,000 km2, which is
significantly higher than the 50,000 km2 threshold for classification as a Restricted-range species. This
species is estimated to have decreased by 21% over three generations as inferred from the overall loss of
papyrus swamp habitat, and it has been classified as Near Threatened (NT) (BirdLife International, 2016d).

Birds were confirmed to occur at a number of localities downstream of the proposed dam wall, including as
far downstream as EFA 4, although it was not located in the dam inundation area. Although limited
floodplain habitat for this bird is likely to be lost in the inundation area, any loss of papyrus swamps
downstream of the HPP as a result of the project could have a negative impact on populations of this
species.
B.7 Bateleur (Terathopius ecaudatus)
Bateleur is relatively common resident throughout sub-Saharan Africa and the Arabian Peninsula, only
avoiding the heavily forested Congo Basin. It is a widespread species in East Africa, most common in open
savannah, arid or semi-arid bushland, woodland and grassland (Britton, 1980). Bateleur occurs over most
of Tanzania, having been reported from 322 degree grids in the Tanzania Bird Atlas, representing 92% of
the grids covering Tanzania, including numerous records from the study area
(http://tanzaniabirdatlas.net/maphtm/0101_nmap.htm). Breeding in Tanzania has been recorded
throughout the year, although most records are from the dry season (April to August)
(http://tanzaniabirdatlas.net/maphtm/0101_nmap.htm). Its global population is estimated to be in the tens
of thousands (Ferguson-Lees and Christie, 2001) and it has an EOO of 23,500,000 km2. However, the
species is suspected to have undergone significant population declines across much of its range during the
past three generations (46 years) as a result of habitat loss and incidental poisoning and has recently been
uplisted from NT to Endangered (BirdLife International, 20217).
Several adult and immature birds were seen on a few occasions foraging over the woodlands south of the
Kagera River and this species is likely to be resident in the area. The construction of the transmission line
from Kakono HPP to Kyaka could potentially impact birds moving through the study area through risk of
electrocution when perching on pylons or collisions with transmission lines.
C Biome-Restricted Bird Endemics
Eleven bird species that are considered to be endemic to the Lake Victoria Basin (LVB) biome occur in
Tanzania (Baker & Baker, 2001), of which seven were confirmed to occur in the study area during fieldwork.
None of these species has an EOO of less than 50,000 km2, and thus none qualify as restricted-range
species as defined by the IFC (2012). Each of these species is briefly described in Table 5.45 and photos of
some of the species are displayed in Figure 5-152.
7 http://datazone.birdlife.org/species/factsheet/bateleur-terathopius-ecaudatus/details

Figure 5-152 - Photos of Several Lake Victoria Basin Endemic Bird Species Recorded During Fieldwork

Table 5.45 - Lake Victoria Basin Endemic Bird Species Confirmed to Occur in the Study Area
Common Name Scientific Distribution Habitat Occurrence in study area
Name
Papyrus Laniarius Uganda (mainly west and south), Rwanda, Burundi, extreme Confined to Cyperus papyrus swamps, in meandering Birds were confirmed to occur at a number of localities
gonolek1 mufumbiri easteern DRC (Vichumbi, Rutshuru), northwest Tanzania, and river valleys and along lakeshores; inhabits pure stands downstream of the proposed dam wall, including as far
southwest Kenya (shores of Lake Victoria south east to Kisumu, of papyrus, as well as papyrus mixed with woody downstream as EFA 4, although it was not located in the
Yala Swamp and Kendu Bay). shrubs, and mosaics of papyrus and floating grass dam inundation area. Most likely a breeding resident.
Black-lored Turdoides Extreme eastern DRC, Rwanda, Burundi, Uganda (except the north), Forest-edge thickets and scrub, wooded plains and A common species in the study area, recorded 32 times
babbler2 sharpei southwest Kenya and northwest and west Tanzania. Acacia savanna, dense bushland, riverine woodland, during fieldwork, mostly in the Woodland/ bushclump
elephant grass, gardens; where sympatric with T. Mosaic as well as a few times at the edge of agriculture.
plebejus. Appears to prefer more open areas. Most likely a breeding resident.
White-winged Bradypterus Locally in northeast and eastern DRC (northeast (Uele) and east Interior of dense papyrus (Cyperus) swamps; in Rwanda, Uncommon in the study area; recorded eight times in
swamp warbler3 carpalis (Ituri, Kivu)); southweast and southeast Uganda (Toro, west Ankole, also mixed papyrus-Miscanthidium stands. Floodplain Wetlands, usually in papyrus. Most likely a
Kigezi, and Sizibwa Swamp); north, central and eastern Rwanda; breeding resident in low numbers.
and central and eastern Burundi; also southwest Kenya (Lake
Victoria, from Yala Swamp S to Kisumu and Kendu Bay) and
northern Zambia (R Luapula).
Red-chested Cinnyris South Sudan, eastern DRC, Rwanda, Burundi, Uganda, western Edges of rivers and wetlands in savanna areas; also Uncommon in the study area; recorded nine times in
sunbird4 erythrocerca Kenya and northwest & extreme western Tanzania, with isolated near water in forest, cultivations and gardens. Floodplain Woodland/Thicket, always close to water. Most
records in central & eastern Tanzania. likely a breeding resident.
Papyrus canary5 Crithagra Central and southwestern Uganda, southwestern Kenya, eastern Almost entirely restricted to papyrus (Cyperus papyrus) Rare in the study area; only recorded once in papyrus at the
koliensis DRC, Rwanda, Burundi and northwestern Tanzania. at 900–1600 m. Visits adjacent areas of cultivation, launch site for EFA 4. Possibly a breeding resident in low
principally bananas, sorghum and maize, returning to numbers.
roost in papyrus.
Northern Ploceus Northeastern DRC, Rwanda, northern Burundi, Uganda (except Waterside vegetation along lakes and rivers, Rare in the study area; only recorded once in papyrus at the
brown-throated castanops east), western Kenya and northwestern Tanzania. particularly Cyperus papyrus and Aeschynomene launch site for EFA 4. Possibly a breeding resident in low
weaver6 elaphroxylon. Visits forest and woodland in non- numbers.
breeding season.
White-collared Nesocharis Albertine Rift region of E DRCongo, Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi and Marshy forest edge, streams bordered by bushes and Rare in the study area; only recorded once in Floodplain
Oliveback7 ansorgei extreme NW Tanzania trees, lakeshore thickets, and papyrus (Cyperus papyrus) Woodland/Thicket in the upper inundation zone. Possibly a
swamps. breeding resident in low numbers.
1
Fry, H. (2020). Papyrus Gonolek (Laniarius mufumbiri), version 1.0. In Birds of the World (J. del Hoyo, A. Elliott, J. Sargatal, D. A. Christie, and E. de Juana, Editors). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA
2
Collar, N. and C. Robson (2020). Black-lored Babbler (Turdoides sharpei), version 1.0. In Birds of the World (J. del Hoyo, A. Elliott, J. Sargatal, D. A. Christie, and E. de Juana, Editors). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA.
3
Pearson, D. (2020). White-winged Swamp Warbler (Bradypterus carpalis), version 1.0. In Birds of the World (J. del Hoyo, A. Elliott, J. Sargatal, D. A. Christie, and E. de Juana, Editors). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA.
4
Cheke, R. and C. Mann (2020). Red-chested Sunbird (Cinnyris erythrocercus), version 1.0. In Birds of the World (J. del Hoyo, A. Elliott, J. Sargatal, D. A. Christie, and E. de Juana, Editors). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY,
USA.
5
Clement, P. (2020). Papyrus Canary (Crithagra koliensis), version 1.0. In Birds of the World (J. del Hoyo, A. Elliott, J. Sargatal, D. A. Christie, and E. de Juana, Editors). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA.
6
Craig, A. (2020). Northern Brown-throated Weaver (Ploceus castanops), version 1.0. In Birds of the World (J. del Hoyo, A. Elliott, J. Sargatal, D. A. Christie, and E. de Juana, Editors). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA.
7
Payne, R. B. (2020). White-collared Oliveback (Nesocharis ansorgei), version 1.0. In Birds of the World (J. del Hoyo, A. Elliott, J. Sargatal, D. A. Christie, and E. de Juana, Editors). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA.

D Threats to Birds and Bird Habitats
The primary threat facing birds in the study area is loss of habitat, particularly the large areas of habitat that
are currently being cleared for new sugar cane plantations. It is possible that birds are hunted on a limited
scale by local residents, but the large numbers of gamebirds such as red-necked spurfowl are an indication
that hunting is probably very limited. Grey-crowned cranes are occasionally viewed as a pest by farmers
when they forage in recently planted crops, and it is possible that these birds are persecuted for this reason
in the study area, although no evidence of this was seen. The construction of transmission lines, including
for the proposed Kakono HPP, is likely to introduce a significant threat to large birds in the study area,
especially birds of prey that are prone to electrocution when perching on pylons, or large flying birds that
could collide with powerlines, such as storks, herons or cranes.
Mammals and Other Large Fauna
A Mammal Diversity and Habitat Types
A total of 22 mammal species were recorded in the Project AOI during the field surveys and are listed in
Table 5.46.
Photographs of selected mammals recorded are included in Figure 5-153 and Figure 5-154. The species
recorded are not a true reflection of the mammal diversity of the area since rodents and bats, which usually
make up a large portion of the mammal assemblages, were not sampled. No trapping of small mammals
was performed due to the need to cover as much ground as possible. However, four baited motion-
detecting cameras were placed in the vicinity of the dam wall and successfully captured images of several
species that were not located along walked transects. The 22 species recorded is a reasonable indication of
the typical larger mammals currently occurring in the AOI. The lower Kagera River valley is not formally
conserved and has a high level of human activity in the vicinity of the river. This has reduced available habitat
and increased human disturbance for large mammals, resulting in many species no longer occurring in the
area (such as large ungulates and predators). The previous survey for the Kakono HPP ESIA in 2013
recorded nine larger mammal species during fieldwork, in addition to seven smaller mammals caught in
traps which were identified to genus level.
Four broad-based assemblages were identified, with nine species recorded in Forest/Thicket, 17 species in
Woodland, three in Wetland and four in Degraded/Transformed areas (Table 5.46). The most frequently
recorded mammal (sight records and indirect evidence such as dung or tracks) was vervet monkey, followed
by African savanna elephant, olive baboon and common duiker. The highest density of larger mammals
appears to be in the ranching area south of the proposed dam wall, along the proposed transmission line
and access roads. These areas also support the fewest people and have had the least habitat degradation.
Primate sightings were most frequent along the Kagera River adjacent to the sugar estates, and several
field sightings of olive baboon were of animals consuming sugarcane.
Two threatened species were confirmed during fieldwork, namely African savanna elephant (recently
uplisted by the IUCN to Endangered) and hippopotamus (vulnerable). More details regarding both species
are provided in Section B.

Table 5.46 -Species Composition of the Mammal Assemblages in the Study Area
Common Name Scientific Name No. of IUCN Red Assemblages
Recorded Data
Forest/ Thicket
Transformed
Occasions
Degraded/
Woodland
Wetland
ORDER: CHIROPTERA
Family Pteropodidae
Epauletted fruit bat Epomophorus sp. 3 NA X X
ORDER: PRIMATES
Family Cercopithecidae
Vervet monkey Chlorocebus pygerythrus 22 LC X X X
Blue monkey Cercopithecus mitis 6 LC X
Olive baboon Papio anubis 14 LC X X X
ORDER: LAGOMORPHA
Family Leporidae
African savanna hare Lepus victoriae 2 LC X
ORDER: RODENTIA
Family Sciuridae
Boehm's bush squirrel Paraxerus boehmi 1 LC X
Ground squirrel Xerus sp. 2 NA X
ORDER: CARNIVORA
Family Canidae
Side-striped jackal Canis adustus 2 LC X
Family Mustelidae
Honey badger Mellivora capensis 1 LC X
Family Herpestidae
Marsh mongoose Atilax paludinosus 8 LC X X
Common dwarf mongoose Helogale parvula 1 LC X
Common slender mongoose Herpestes sanguineus 2 LC X
Banded mongoose Mungos mungo 2 LC X
Family Viverridae
Large-spotted genet Genetta maculata 1 LC X
Family Hyaenidae
Spotted hyaena # Crocuta crocuta LC ?
ORDER: TUBULIDENTATA
Family Orycteropodidae
Aardvark Orycteropus afer 7 LC X
ORDER: PROBOSCIDEA
Family Elephantidae
African savanna elephant Loxodonta africana 20 EN X X X
ORDER: CETARTIODACTYLA
Family Hippopotamidae
Hippopotamus Hippopotamus amphibius 6 VU X X
Family Suidae
Bushpig Potamochoerus larvatus 1 LC X
Family Bovidae
Bohor reedbuck Redunca redunca 1 LC X
Common duiker Sylvicapra grimmia 12 LC X X
Bushbuck Tragelaphus scriptus 9 LC X X
21 22 9 17 3 4
# - Reported as occurring within the general area by local pastoralists

LC = Least Concern NT - Near Threatened
NA = Not assessed VU - Vulnerable

Figure 5-153 - Photos of Mammals Recorded During Fieldwork on Camera Traps

Figure 5-154 -Photos of Mammals Recorded on Walked Transects

B Priority Mammal Species and Other Large Animals
B.1 African Elephant (Loxodonta africana)
African savanna elephant (Loxodonta Africana) has recently been uplisted from Vulnerable to Endangered
(IUCN 20218) due to rapid population decline as a result of ivory poaching and habitat conversion. They occur
across sub-Saharan Africa although its range is becoming increasingly fragmented (Blanc, 2007). East Africa
had the highest density of elephants in the 1970s but has also experienced the most intensive poaching,
resulting in drastic declines in elephant numbers although these populations seem to have stabilised in
some areas. Elephants are still widely distributed throughout much of Tanzania, more so than in other East
African countries, with highest densities being in formally protected areas.
A study was undertaken by the Tanzania Wildlife Research Institute (TAWIRI) in August 2017 to determine
the presence, distribution and abundance of elephants in the study area; to determine movement
patterns/routes of elephants in the study area; to assess the impact of elephants on humans, and to
propose mitigation measures in order to avoid or reduce possible negative impacts of the project on
elephants. Even though the study did not result in any sightings of elephants, it did confirm the presence of
elephants in the study area through indirect evidence (elephant dungs, feeding signs, spoor). Most elephant
evidence was located south of the Kagera River on land belonging to Kagera Sugar Estates and Kitengule
Prison, particularly the part of the transmission line route between towers 34 and 69. This portion of the
powerline was carefully surveyed during October 2020 fieldwork and no evidence of elephant was found.
An extensive area of natural habitat was surveyed along the proposed transmission line alignment, but very
little evidence of elephant activity was located until the vicinity of the access road, where there was plentiful
evidence, such as fresh dung and broken branches.
Interviews with local villagers and with Karagwe District game officers during the previous ESIA (Norplan,
2017) confirmed that elephants move through Karagwe and Kyerwa districts, including Businde Ward
(adjacent to the study area), especially during crop harvest time (December and January). These animals
are believed to come from Burigi-Chato National Park, to the south, although there is also evidence that
some elephants have become resident in the Kitengule Ranch area south of the Kagera River. However,
there is no evidence that the elephants cross the Kagera River to Missenyi District in the north.
During stakeholder engagement in the previous ESIA in 2013 a wildlife officer raised concerns over potential
project-related impacts on an elephant movement route through the middle of Kitengule Ranch. The
location of this route was confirmed during October 2020 fieldwork and roughly follows the proposed
access road to the HPP site as well as the base of the low ridge to the west of the road.
Apart from the evidence of elephant activity along the access road in October 2020, visual evidence of
elephant herds was obtained in the extensive dense thickets and riparian forests to the southwest of the
dam wall as well, where up to 30 animals were seen in one herd and at least two herds were present.
Extensive evidence (dung, spoor) was also found in a fragment of dry evergreen forest close to the Kyaka –
Kagera main road, although none of the evidence was recent. It is possible that these fragments of dry
evergreen forest are important refuges for this species at certain times of the year. The map in Figure 5-155
indicates where elephant evidence was located during October 2020 fieldwork and during an earlier
transect walked by the SLR social team (C Repussard) in July 2020.
The size of the elephant population in the study area is uncertain. Discussions undertaken by TAWIRI with
local villagers and cattle ranchers in 2017 indicated that numbers are between 50 and 200 (Norplan 2017),
but this is likely to vary from year to year. The TAWIRI study showed that human - elephant conflicts do
occur, especially crop raiding, and some people have been killed or injured by elephants. Respondents
stated that elephants are mainly a problem during crop harvest time in December and January. However,
discussions with cattle ranchers in October 2020 indicated that there are few conflicts with elephants during
the year, apart from fences being destroyed. Thus, it appears that the human-elephant conflicts are more
of a problem for farmers than cattle ranchers. Discussions between the SLR Social Team and local
communities along the lower Kagera River revealed that local people have more conflicts with
hippopotamus destroying their crops than with elephant (L. Gray pers. comm.).
8 Gobush, K.S., Edwards, C.T.T, Balfour, D., Wittemyer, G., Maisels, F. & Taylor, R.D. 2021. Loxodonta africana. The IUCN Red List of
Threatened Species 2021: e.T181008073A181022663. Downloaded on 26 March 2021

ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (ESIA) FOR THE PROPOSED 87.8 MW KAKONO HYDRO POWER PLANT AND ASSOCIATED 220 KV TRANSMISSION LINE
FROM KAKONO HYDROPOWER TO THE EXISTING KYAKA SUBSTATION (38.5 KM)
Figure 5-155 - Location of Evidence of African Elephant Occurrence in the Study Area

B.2 Hippopotamus (Hippopotamus amphibius)
Hippopotamus occurs along rivers throughout the savanna zone of Africa, and in the main rivers of the
forest zone in Central Africa (Lewison & Pluháček, 2017). The largest African populations of hippopotamus
have always been in East Africa and Tanzania has the highest numbers in this region. The estimated total
population in East Africa is about 50,000 animals, of which approximately 20,000 occur in Tanzania, where
they are concentrated in Selous Game Reserve, the Katavi-Rukwa complex and along the Serengeti and
Mara Rivers (Lewison & Pluháček, 2017). Global populations of hippopotamus experienced considerable
declines in the mid-1990s and early 2000s, resulting in the species being classified as Vulnerable. It appears
that populations have largely remained stable since then, although the species is still classified as VU.
Figure 5-156 - Photos of Hippopotamus (top left) and Elephant (top right and bottom) Observed in the Study Area
Hippos generally spend the day in water and emerge at night to feed, which is when they regularly damage
crops planted along rivers. Hippos typically do not eat aquatic vegetation, but forage on grass or crops close
to the river, lake or wetland that they are resting in. Hippos require permanent water, particularly during the
dry season, when they are likely to be concentrated along the Kagera River. No information on the
population numbers in the lower Kagera system was found. An aerial census of large mammals in Akagera
National Park counted 885 hippos in the park, mostly concentrated on the Kagera River (Macpherson, 2013),
although another count in 2015 recorded 1565 hippo9. However, it is likely that numbers in the lower
Kagera River, which is outside of a protected area and in areas of human settlement, are much lower.
Animals were seen and heard during October 2020 fieldwork at six different localities between the middle
inundation zone and EFA 4, although it is likely that there are more sites in this area at which they occur.
Mating behaviour was observed at one site and hippo are likely to be breeding residents in the study area.
9www.africanparks.org/sites/default/files/uploads/newsroom_file_upload/2017-05/Akagera_Aerial_Census_Report_Summary_-
_August_2015_%281%29.pdf

As mentioned above, discussions between the SLR Social Field Team and local communities along the lower
Kagera River revealed that local people have regular conflicts with hippopotamus destroying their crops at
night (L. Gray (SLR) pers. comm.).
B.3 Nile Crocodile (Crocodylus niloticus)
The Nile crocodile has a highly fragmented distribution, occurring in a wide diversity of water bodies in
eastern, central and southern Africa (Isberg et al., 2019). Despite some evidence of localised population
declines, Nile crocodile is still a widespread species and the population declines have not been significant
enough to change its assessment of Least Concern (LC). It is known to occur on the Kagera River system,
and a recent aerial wildlife census of the Akagera National Park counted 198 animals10, but the population
density in the lower Kagera River is unknown. Most of the fishermen that were questioned during fieldwork
acknowledged the presence of crocodile and a large animal was seen on the riverbank at EFA 3 in October
2020. Fieldwork during the previous ESIA resulted in numerous sightings of crocodile along the river
(Norplan, 2017).
Nile crocodiles are found in a wide variety of habitat types, including large lakes, rivers, and freshwater
swamps. They rely on the presence of sandbanks for breeding and thus usually nest during the dry season
when these banks are most exposed (Isberg et al., 2019). Females excavate holes in which to lay eggs in
sandy banks a few metres from the water’s edge and thus are vulnerable to unseasonal flooding, which
would result in breeding failure. Breeding females have a much smaller home range (0.85 ha) than non-
breeding females (108 ha). There appears to be relatively limited breeding habitat for Nile crocodile in the
study area and the number of breeding animals is probably low, although this could not be confirmed.
C Threats to Mammals and Mammal Habitats
No evidence of hunting was seen during fieldwork, although this is likely to take place on a small scale. Very
few dogs were observed, and no traps or snares were encountered. However, widespread cattle ranching
and presence of herders in the woodlands of the study area pose a disturbance risk to natural wildlife.
The expansion of the sugar cane plantations south of the Kagera River is likely to cause an increase in
conflict with elephants, particularly because they are losing natural foraging habitat which is being replaced
by a crop they are known to forage on, potentially resulting in large-scale crop damage. Development of
the sugar cane plantations on the right bank of the Kagera can be expected to increase elephant conflicts
and restrict their natural foraging habitat and movement routes to the Kagera River. In addition, the
expanded sugar plantations are likely to attract hippos at night possibly also causing further conflict with
the Kagera Sugar Estate and community outgrowers. It is unknown what management measures are
planned to counter these risks.
The impoundment of the Kagera River may reduce the barrier effect to elephant movement by reducing
river velocity, potentially allowing elephants to swim across especially in the narrow upstream parts of the
impoundment. This may allow elephants to access sugar plantations on the north and increase the conflict
with the landowners.
10www.africanparks.org/sites/default/files/uploads/newsroom_file_upload/2017-
05/Akagera_Aerial_Census_Report_Summary_-_August_2015_%281%29.pdf

Terrestrial Ecological Importance
A Methodology for Determination of Ecological Importance
The method used for assessing site-specific Ecological Importance (EI) for ESIAs in South Africa (SANBI,
2019) has been used in this study. Since this method is not restricted to specific terrestrial ecosystems, it
can be used in any environment. EI is one of the most important outcomes of a specialist ecological study
and provides a basis for assessing the significance of impacts that a project may have on the receiving
environment.
EI is considered to be a function of the Biodiversity Importance (BI) of a particular receptor (e.g. species of
conservation concern, vegetation/fauna community or habitat type) and its resilience to impacts (Receptor
Resilience) as follows:
• EI = BI + RR
BI is a function of Conservation Importance (CI) and the Functional Integrity (FI) of the receptor as follows:
• BI = CI + FI
CI is defined as “the importance of a site for supporting biodiversity features of conservation concern
present e.g. populations of IUCN Threatened and Near-Threatened species (CR, EN, VU & NT), Restricted-
range species, globally significant populations of congregatory species, and areas of threatened ecosystem
types, through predominantly natural processes” (SANBI, 2019). The fulfilling criteria for CI are presented in
Table 5.47.
Table 5.47 - Criteria for Determining Conservation Importance of a Receptor

Conservation Importance Fulfilling Criteria
Very High Confirmed or highly likely occurrence of CR, EN, VU or Extremely Rare or Critically Rare species that
have a global Extent of Occurrence of <10 km2, or
Any area of natural habitat of a CR ecosystem type or large area (>0.1% of the total ecosystem type
extent) of natural habitat of EN ecosystem type, or
Globally significant populations of congregatory species (>10% of global population)
High Confirmed or highly likely occurrence of CR, EN, VU species that have a global EOO of > 10km2. IUCN
threatened species (CR, EN, VU) must be listed under any criterion other than A. If listed as
threatened only under Criterion A, include if there are < 10 locations or < 10,000 mature individuals
remaining; or
Small area (> 0.01% but < 0.1 % of the total ecosystem type extent) of natural habitat of EN
ecosystem type or large area (> 0.1 %) of natural habitat of VU ecosystem type; or
Presence of Rare species; or
Globally significant populations of congregatory species (> 1% but < 10% of global population)
Medium Confirmed or highly likely occurrence of populations of NT species, threatened species (CR, EN, VU)
listed under A criterion only and which have > 10 locations or > 10, 000 mature individuals; or
Any area of natural habitat of threatened ecosystem type with status of VU; or
Presence of restricted range species; or
> 50% natural habitat with potential to support SCC
Low No confirmed or highly likely populations of Species of Conservation Concern; or
No confirmed or highly likely populations of restricted range species; or
< 50% of natural habitat with limited potential to support SCC
Very Low No confirmed and highly unlikely populations of SCC; or
No confirmed and highly unlikely populations of restricted range species; or
No natural habitat remaining.
FI of the receptor (e.g. the vegetation/faunal community or habitat type) is defined here as “a measure of
the ecological condition of the impact receptor as determined by its remaining intact and functional area,
its connectivity to other natural areas and the degree of current persistent ecological impacts”. Fulfilling
criteria for determining FI are given in Table 5.48.

Table 5.48 - Criteria for Determining Functional Integrity of a Receptor

Functional Fulfilling Criteria
Integrity
Very High Very large (>100 ha) intact area for any conservation status of regional vegetation type or > 5 ha for CR regional
vegetation types; or
High habitat connectivity serving as functional ecological corridors, limited road network between intact habitat
patches; or
No or minimal current ecological impacts with no signs of major past disturbance (e.g. ploughing)
High Large (> 20 ha but < 100 ha) intact area for any conservation status of regional vegetation type or > 10 ha for
EN regional vegetation types; or
Good habitat connectivity with potentially functional ecological corridors and a regularly used road network
between intact habitat patches; or
Only minor current ecological impacts (e.g. few livestock utilising area) with no signs of major past disturbance
(e.g. ploughing) and good rehabilitation potential
Medium Medium (> 5 ha but < 20 ha) semi-intact area for any conservation status of regional vegetation type or > 20 ha
for VU regional vegetation types; or
Only narrow corridors of good habitat connectivity or larger areas of poor habitat connectivity and a busy used
road network between intact habitat patches; or
Mostly minor current ecological impacts with some major impacts (e.g. established population of alien and
invasive flora) and a few signs of minor past disturbance; moderate rehabilitation potential
Low Small (> 1 ha but < 5 ha) area
Almost no habitat connectivity but migrations still possible across some transformed or degraded natural
habitat; a very busy used road network surrounds the area. Low rehabilitation potential
Several minor and major current ecological impacts
Very Low Very small (< 1 ha) area
No habitat connectivity except for flying species or flora with wind-dispersed seeds.
Several major current ecological impacts
BI can be derived from a simple matrix of CI and FI as indicated in Table 5.49.
Table 5.49 - Biodiversity Importance Two-way Matrix

Conservation Importance
Biodiversity Importance
Very High High Medium Low Very Low
Very High Very High Very High High Medium Low

Functional Integrity
High Very High High Medium Medium Low
Medium High Medium Medium Low Very Low
Low Medium Medium Low Low Very Low
Very Low Medium Low Very Low Very Low Very Low
Receptor Resilience (RR) is defined as “the intrinsic capacity of the receptor to resist major damage from
disturbance and/or to recover to its original state with limited or no human intervention”. The fulfilling
criteria for RR are presented in Table 5.50.
Table 5.50 - Criteria for Determining Receptor Resilience

Receptor Resilience Fulfilling Criteria
Habitat that can recover rapidly (~ less than 5 years) to restore > 70 % of the original species
composition and functionality of the receptor functionality, or species that have a very high
Very High
likelihood of remaining at a site even when a disturbance or impact is occurring, or species that have
a very high likelihood of returning to a site once the disturbance or impact has been removed
Habitat that can recover relatively quickly (~ 5-10 years) to restore > 70 % of the original species
composition and functionality of the receptor functionality, or species that have a high likelihood of
High
remaining at a site even when a disturbance or impact is occurring, or species that have a high
likelihood of returning to a site once the disturbance or impact has been removed
Will recover slowly (~more than 10 years) to restore > 70 % of the original species composition and
functionality of the receptor functionality, or species that have a moderate likelihood of remaining at
Medium
a site even when a disturbance or impact is occurring, or species that have a moderate likelihood of
returning to a site once the disturbance or impact has been removed

Receptor Resilience Fulfilling Criteria

Habitat that is unlikely to be able to recover fully after a relatively long period: > 15 years required to
restore ~less than 50 % of the original species composition and functionality of the receptor
Low functionality, or species that have a low likelihood of remaining at a site even when a disturbance or
impact is occurring, or species that have a low likelihood of returning to a site once the disturbance
or impact has been removed
Habitat that is unable to recover from major impacts, or species that are unlikely to remain at a site
Very Low even when a disturbance or impact is occurring, or species that are unlikely to return to a site once
the disturbance or impact has been removed
Once BI and RR have been calculated through the use of the above two matrices, EI can be determined using
the matrix in Table 5.51.
Table 5.51 - Ecological Importance Two-way Matrix

Biodiversity Importance (BI)
Ecological Importance (EI)
Very High High Medium Low Very Low
Very Low Very High Very High High Medium Low
Low Very High High Medium Low Low

Receptor Resilience
Medium High Medium Medium Low Very Low
High Medium Low Low Low Very Low
Very High Low Low Very Low Very Low Very Low
Guidelines for how to interpret EI of a project in terms of impact mitigation are given in Table 5.52.
Table 5.52 - Guidelines for Interpreting Ecological Importance of Receptors

Ecological Interpretation in Relation to Proposed Development Activities
Importance
Very High Avoidance mitigation - No destructive development activities should be considered. Offset mitigation not
acceptable/not possible (i.e. last remaining populations of species, last remaining good condition patches of
ecosystems/unique species assemblages. Destructive impacts for species/ecosystems where <persistence
target remains.
High Avoidance mitigation wherever possible. Minimization mitigation – Changes to project infrastructure design to
limit the amount of habitat impacted; limited development activities of low impact acceptable. Offset
mitigation may be required for high impact activities.
Medium Minimization & restoration mitigation - Development activities of medium impact acceptable followed by
appropriate restoration activities.
Low Minimization & restoration mitigation - Development activities of medium to high impact acceptable followed
by appropriate restoration activities.
Very Low Minimization mitigation - Development activities of medium to high impact acceptable and restoration
activities may not be required.

B Assessment of Ecological Importance
The integrated assessment of EI is presented in Table 5.53 and the results are shown in Figure 5-157. This
assessment integrated the results of separate EI assessments of the seven vegetation communities
(excluding agricultural areas) and seven faunal assemblages, which represented ten distinct habitats as
indicated in Table 5.53 and Table 5.54. A quantification of the areal extent of each vegetation community
or habitat type in the direct and indirect AOI is summarised in Table 5.55.
Overall:
• Three of the vegetation communities in the study area have been assessed as having a High
Integrated EI, namely Riparian Forest/Thicket, Scarp Forest and Dry Evergreen Forest. These three
communities are relatively localised in the study area, potentially support a range of SCC, have
confirmed populations of African elephant and appear to be important refuges for this species
(especially south of the Kagera River), and have Very High Functional Integrity.
• Five vegetation communities/faunal habitats have been classified as having a Medium Integrated
EI: Floodplain Woodland/Thicket; Vachellia Woodland/Bushclump Mosaic, Rocky Grassland
/Outcrop Thicket Mosaic, Floodplain Wetlands and Open Water. Vachellia Woodland/Bushclump
Mosaic and Floodplain Wetlands have High CI as a result of confirmed populations of EN bird
species (grey-crowned crane, lappet-faced vulture). Vachellia Woodland/Bushclump Mosaic also
has high FI and thus is classified as having high BI, whereas Floodplain Wetlands have medium FI
(due to fragmentation, especially in lower reaches)) and are assessed as medium BI. However, both
communities have medium resilience and are thus classified as Medium Integrated EI. Floodplain
Woodland/Thicket, Rocky Grassland/Outcrop Thicket Mosaic and Open Water each have medium CI
as a result of confirmed populations of VU (African elephant, hippopotamus) or NT (papyrus
gonolek) faunal species. Rocky Grassland/Outcrop Thicket Mosaic is the only one of these three
habitat types to have high FI because of the lack of visible ecological degradation, whereas both
Floodplain Woodland/Thicket and Open Water habitat have been impacted to some extent by alien
plant invasion.
• The Integrated EI of Settlements and Agricultural Areas have been classified as Low for Agricultural
Areas or Very Low for Settlements as a result of a lack of or degree of degradation of Natural
Habitat and natural ecological processes, as well as a high proportion of alien species present.

Table 5.53 - Summary of the Integration of Ecological Importance of Vegetation Communities and Faunal Habitats
VEGETATION Riparian Forest Scarp Dry Evergreen Floodplain Vachellia Woodland/ Rocky Grassland/ Floodplain Agricultural
COMMUNITY /Thicket Forest Forest Woodland/ Thicket Bushclump Mosaic Outcrop Thicket Mosaic Wetlands Areas
H H H M M M M L
Forest/Thicket Floodplain Woodland Wetland Agricultural Open Water Settlement
FAUNAL Woodland/ Thicket Areas
ASSEMBLAGE
H M H H L M VL
INTEGRATED
ECOLOGICAL H H H M M M M L M VL
IMPORTANCE (EI)
Table 5.54 - Assessment of Ecological Importance by Habitat Type/Vegetation Community

Vegetation Biodiversity Receptor Ecological
Conservation Importance Functional Importance
Community/Habitat Importance Resilience Importance
Riparian Forest/Thicket Natural Habitat with potential to support SCC High habitat connectivity serving as functional ecological corridors
M VH H L H
Confirmed occurrence of African Elephant (VU) Minimal current ecological impacts with no signs of major past disturbance
Scarp Forest Natural Habitat with potential to support SCC High habitat connectivity serving as functional ecological corridors
M VH H L H
Confirmed occurrence of African Elephant (VU) Minimal current ecological impacts with no signs of major past disturbance
Dry Evergreen Forest Natural Habitat with potential to support SCC
M VH Minimal current ecological impacts with no signs of major past disturbance H L H
Confirmed occurrence of African Elephant (VU)
Floodplain Confirmed occurrence of an VU species Moderate habitat connectivity with potentially functional ecological corridors
Woodland/Thicket M (hippopotamus) and NT species (papyrus M M M M
gonolek) Visible ecological impacts (e.g. established populations of alien invasive flora)
Vachellia Woodland/ Confirmed occurrence of EN species (lappet- Good habitat connectivity with potentially functional ecological corridors
Bushclump Mosaic H faced vulture, bateleur), and VU species H H M M
(southern ground hornbill; African elephant) Only minor current ecological impacts with no signs of major past disturbance
Rocky Grassland/ Natural Habitat with potential to support SCC Good habitat connectivity with potentially functional ecological corridors
Outcrop Thicket Mosaic M H M L M
Confirmed occurrence of African elephant (VU) Only minor current ecological impacts with no signs of major past disturbance
Floodplain Wetlands Moderate to poor habitat connectivity with potentially functional ecological corridors
Confirmed occurrence of an EN species (grey-
H M Visible ecological impacts (e.g. established populations of alien invasive flora) and M M M
crowned crane) and VU species (hippopotamus)
signs of minor past disturbance; moderate rehabilitation potential
Agricultural Areas Confirmed occurrence of an EN species (grey-
H VL No remaining Natural Habitat L N/A L
crowned crane)
Open Water Natural Habitat with potential to support SCC Visible ecological impacts (e.g. established populations of alien invasive flora) and
M M M N/A M
Confirmed occurrence of hippopotamus (VU) regular disturbance of fauna communities by human activity
Modified Habitat -
L No Natural Habitat; unlikely to support SCC VL No remaining Natural Habitat VL N/A VL
Towns

Table 5.55 - Quantification of Areas of Extent of Habitat Types and their Ecological Importance Categories in Project Footprint and Area of Influence
Habitat Type Ecological Habitat Spatial Extent (ha) & %
Importance Status Overall AoI Full dam area Reservoir & Powerline Corridor Access Road Corridor
Downstream
(reservoir, dam Dam wall
River: flood
facilities)
Direct Indirect Direct Direct Direct Indirect Direct Indirect Direct
FSL + dam 35 m wayleave 100 m corridor 10 m road 100 m
footprint corridor
Ha % Ha % ha % Ha Size: Ha % Ha % Ha % Ha % Ha %:
Riparian
High Natural 89.5 1.3 1150.6 1.1 85.9 3.6 71.7 4.2
Forest/Thicket
Scarp Forest High Natural 79.4 1.2 1089.8 1.1 35.6 1.5 32.2 1.9
Dry Evergreen
High Natural 0.0 0.0 291.3 0.3 0.0
Forest
Floodplain
Woodland/ Medium Natural 630.2 9.2 823.4 0.8 161.5 6.8 135.0 7.9 468.5 10.8
Thicket
Vachellia
Woodland/
Medium Natural 1616.9 23.6 45,815.4 44.2 1452 60.7 1069.9 62.3 58.1 44.1 159.7 43.0 17.9 67 178.3 66.6 88.9 2.1
Bushclump
Mosaic
Rocky
Grassland
Medium Natural 210.6 3.1 4479.7 4.3 201.8 8.4 6.5 0.4 8.8 33 89.6 33.4
/Outcrop
Thicket Mosaic
Floodplain
Medium Natural 3397.4 49.4 4384.9 4.2 187.1 7.8 153.7 8.9 0.3 0.2 0.9 0.2 3210 74.1
Wetlands
Open Water Medium Natural 638.6 9.3 655.8 0.6 252.0 10.5 235.3 13.7 386.6 8.9
Edaphic
Medium Natural 2.5 0.0 2220.3 2.1 2.5 1.9 7.1 1.9
Grassland
Riparian
Woodland Medium Natural 339.0 0.3
(Unsurveyed)
Agricultural
Low Modified 65.7 1.0 19522.7 18.8 11.8 0.5 10.3 0.6 32.7 16.6 95.0 25.6
Areas
Settlements Very Low Modified 112.7 1.6 22155.4 21.4 3.4 0.1 3.4 0.2 38.2 29.5 108.7 29.3
Degraded
Secondary
Low Modified 39.5 0.6 649.4 0.6 0.3 0.0
Woodland/
Grassland*
Total 6883.1 100 103,775.1 100 2391.5 100 1718.0 100 131.8 100 371.4 100 26.8 100 268 100 4154 100
* This is a degraded subset of the Floodplain Woodland/Thicket vegetation community that has formed through regeneration of old agricultural fields.

Table 5.56 - Summary Quantification of Areas of Extent different Ecological Importance Categories
Ecological Importance Direct AoI Indirect AoI
Hectares % Hectares %
High 169.0 2.45 2,531.7 2.44
Medium 6,507.0 94.54 61,196.0 58.97
Low 93.0 1.35 17,691.9 17.05
Very Low 114.2 1.66 22,355.4 21.54
Total 6,883.1 100.00 103,775.1 100.00
The summary quantification of habitat status is provided in Table 5.71 in Section 5.3.5.

Figure 5-157 - Ecological Importance of Habitats in the Kakono HPP Area of Influence (Inundation Zone)

Protected and Listed Areas
The formally Protected Areas in the lower Kagera Basin are the Akagera National Park in Rwanda, Lake
Mburo National Park in Uganda, Ibanda-Kyerwa National Park; Rumanyika Karagwe National Park and
Minziro Nature Forest Reserve in Tanzania (Figure 5-158). Akagera National Park, Lake Mburo National Park
and Minziro Nature Forest Reserve are described in more detail in Table 5.57. The other two recently
declared parks are poorly known and do not appear to have any baseline data and both are approximately
200 km2 in size.
Four Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) for terrestrial biodiversity have been identified within a 50 km radius of
the study area (http://www.keybiodiversityareas.org/) and are described in Table 5.57. Two of these KBAs
are shared with adjacent countries, namely Minziro Forest KBA (shared with Uganda) and Kagera Swamp
KBA (shared with Rwanda), while the third is located entirely within Rwanda (Akagera National Park) and the
fourth entirely in Uganda (Lake Mburo National Park KBA). Each of these was originally described as an
Important Bird Area (IBA) but they are now more appropriately classified as KBAs.
The lower Kagera Basin also supports the Sango Bay – Minziro Wetland Landscape, a transboundary
wetland that is partly classified as a Ramsar site (Sango Bay Musambwa Island – Kagera Wetland System)
within Uganda. Within Uganda, the wetland landscape covers Kyotera and Kakuuto Counties in Kyotera
District, while in Tanzania it is situated mostly within Missenyi District, with smaller portions in Bukoba Rural
and Bukoba Urban Districts. The southwestern boundary of the Wetland Landscape includes Minziro Forest
Reserve.
Table 5.57 - Priority Biodiversity Areas in the Lower Kagera Basin

Priority Areas Description
Kagera Swamps KBA The existing Kagera Swamps KBA has been adopted for freshwater fish trigger species (L. victorianus
(1,116 km2) (Critically Endangered (CR)) (0.5% population), Oreochromis variabilis (CR) (>0.5% inferred), and
Enteromius nyanzae (10% population inferred). There are more than 15 satellite lakes in the upper
Kagera basin. The swamps and lakes are characterized by extensive stands of papyrus Cyperus
papyrus. Within the Kagera Swamps KBA, Lakes Nyalwambahili and Rwakajunju-Mujunju are focal
areas for the trigger species. Lake Rwakajunju-Mujunju is an oligotrophic, narrow and deep lake
located in a lowland area along River Kagera. Lakes Nyalwambahili is to the south of the existing
KBA. While this is primarily an aquatic KBA, the swamps support most of the Lake Victoria Basin
(LVB) biome endemic bird species, eight of which have been recorded in the Kakono study area:
papyrus gonolek (Laniarius mufumbiri), black-lored babbler (Turdoides sharpei), white-winged
swamp warbler (Bradypterus carpalis), red-chested sunbird (Cinnyris erythrocercus), papyrus canary
(Crithagra koliensis), northern brown-throated weaver (Ploceus castanops) and white-collared
oliveback (Nesocharis ansorgei).
Akagera National Park The Akagera National Park is the only formally protected area in the Lower Kagera River. The park is
and KBA declared a KBA on account of four freshwater trigger species - three fishes (Enteromius acuticeps
(1,000 km2) (NT) (31% of population EOO), Enteromius nyanzae (CR)(0.5% inferred) and Labeo victorianus (CR)
(0.5%) and the damselfly Agriocnemis palaeforma (0.8%). The Akagera National Park is in the
northeast of Rwanda on the border with Tanzania. The park contains an extensive lake and swamp
system. It supports a number of Lake Victoria Basin endemic bird species, such as papyrus gonolek,
Carruther’s cisticola (Cisticola carruthersii), white-winged swamp warbler and red-chested sunbird.
The extensive wetland system also holds small numbers of two Endangered (EN) bird species,
namely grey-crowned crane (Balearica regulorum) and Madagascar pond heron (Ardeola idae) and a
Vulnerable (VU) species (shoebill; Balaeniceps rex). Surrounding woodlands also support populations
of LVB endemics such as red-faced barbet (Lybius rubrifacies).
All the lakes are separated from the Akagera River, as well as from each other, by Papyrus swamps
or low-lying land. As the lakes are within the Akagera National Park boundary and the landscape
surrounding them is mostly flat and low, the impact of threats on the lakes is currently low.
However, there are several threats to note. Illegal fishing occurs within the national park and this is a
threat to all the fish trigger species. Fires move into the Papyrus swamps in the dry season and this
threatens the damselfly Agriocnemis palaeforma as it is a specialist in this habitat. Finally, the
Rusumo Falls HPP dam is under construction at the falls on the Akagera River which is outside of the
KBA, but the hydrological effects will be felt within the KBA.
Rumanyika-Karagwe This park was established in 2019 and was previously the Rumanyika-Orungundu game reserve. It
National Park (247 km2) comprises a deep valley with a sow winding river at its base feeding lakes and swamps. The lower
slopes of the valleys are heavily vegetated by forest and thick bush, while the higher slopes are
open Acacia woodland and grassland. Wildlife includes giraffe, buffalo, impala, waterbuck, leopard,
zebra, and bushbuck as well as diverse birdlife
Burigi Chato National This was recently gazetted as a NP and combines 3 former Game Reserves to become the fourth
Park (4,707 km2) largest National Park in Tanzania. It encompasses the Burigi freshwater lake (a long lake with islands
inlets and bays with swampy habitat for the rare Sitatunga antelope and shoebilled stork. Its terrain
and habitats comprise long hills, rocky crags along escarpments, deeply set valleys lined with forest,


open plains, swamps, rivers, flood plains and hundreds of square kilometres of medium and tall
grass wooded savanna - mostly Combretum and Terminalia known as Miombo.
Ibanda Kyerwa National This park comprises rolling hills, valleys and Acacia savannah plains dissected by seasonal rivers
Park (2,00 km2) filling scattered lakes and swamps. Wildlife includes buffalo, hippos, leopard, and various antelope
such as reedbuck, eland, impala, waterbuck, topi and roan antelope, and diverse birdlife. This park is
separated from the Akagera National Park in Rwanda by the Kagera River.
South Akagera KBA A new KBA South Akagera is delineated for freshwater fish trigger species. The KBA is found to the
(531 km2) south of the Akagera National Park on the border between Rwanda and Tanzania in southeast
Rwanda and western Tanzania. On the Tazanian side, there is a small overlap with the existing
Kagera Swamps KBA in the north of the new South Akagera KBA. The area is dominated by savannah
and marshy areas. The Kagera River runs through the KBA and to the south is the Rusumo Falls. A
hydroelectric power dam is planned here and construction of this will affect the hydrology within the
KBA. The area is also highly impacted by agricultural activities. Integrated catchment management
planning is recommended for the fish trigger species as they are found across the catchment.
Minziro Forest KBA Minziro is a large groundwater forest that is shared by northwestern Tanzania and southeastern
(311 km2) Uganda and is the only outlier of Guinea–Congo lowland forests in Tanzania and thus unique. KBA
status is triggered by 62 bird species that are either endemic to the Guinea-Congolian or Lake
Victoria Basin biomes. Most of the Guinea-Congolian species are confined to Minziro Forest and do
not occur in the Kakono study area, but most of the LVB endemics do occur, namely papyrus
gonolek, black-lored babbler, white-winged swamp warbler, red-chested sunbird, papyrus canary,
northern brown-throated weaver and white-collared oliveback.
Kikuru Forest Reserve Kikuru is located on the right bank of the lower Kagera River opposite Minzoro Forest and comprises
(73 km2) a mosaic of swamp forest and floodplain wetlands.
Lake Mburo National This is diverse national park in southeastern Uganda comprising a wide variety of habitats, including
Park KBA (372 km2) a connected chain of lakes in the south. KBA status is triggered by eight Lake Victoria Basin endemics
(five of which occur in the project area and are listed above) and one VU species, namely shoebill
(Balaeniceps rex).
Lake Ngoma-Bisogu Lake Ngoma-Bisogu has been delineated as a new freshwater KBA for freshwater fish trigger
proposed KBA (479 km2) species. The lake is located south of Akagera National Park along the Kagera River valley on the
Tanzania side. The lake is oligotrophic and connected to the Kagera River on one side. The KBA
overlaps the Kagera Swamps KBA to the north and the Burigi-Biharamulo Game Reserve KBA to the
east. It is surrounded by pristine savannah forest, with high biodiversity in the catchment. The KBA
trigger species are threatened by small-scale illegal fishing practices. There are undescribed fish
species is present in the KBA and the lake and its catchment act as an ecological refugia for these
species. Some of these undescribed species are threatened in the lake because of introduced Nile
Perch and eutrophication. This should be a focus of conservation action. Integrated catchment
management is recommended.
Kagera River Mouth The mouth of the Kagera River in Rakia District, Uganda has been identified by the Uganda
(proposed KBA) Department of Fisheries as an important fish breeding ground and also as an important site where
(Zone 1) - 0.75 km2 fish aggregate to run the river for spawning (unpublished draft report). At this point the Kagera River
flows into Lake Victoria at Sango Bay close to the border between Uganda and Tanzania. Sango Bay,
which includes wetland, grassland and forest habitats, is already recognised as an Important Bird
Area (IBA). The wetlands are extensive, stretching along the shores of Lake Victoria from
Kyabasimba in the south to Malembo in the north. The Kagera River catchment extends into Burundi,
Rwanda, Tanzania and Uganda with an area of 59,000 km2 providing an estimated 34% of the
annual inflow to Lake Victoria. At the mouth of the Kagera River the shore is relatively exposed, with
mainly sandy shores merging into papyrus swamp. The deposition of silt carried by the Kagera has
led to the creation of a wide shallow belt with a sandbar at the river mouth. Several fish species
undertake twice yearly breeding and spawning migrations up the river during the peak of the rainy
seasons (April to June and Mid-October to November). Fishermen are aware of these fish
aggregations which are heavily targeted so threatening the long-term sustainability of these
species. The species of interest known to congregate at the river mouth prior to migrating upstream
to spawn include Labeobarbus altianalis, Labeo victorianus, Clarias gariepinus, Marcusenius victoriae
and Schlibe intermedius. For the Critically Endangered L. victorianus, a species endemic to the Lake
Victoria drainage, this river is one of its last remaining refuges in Uganda. Catches of L. victorianus
have declined dramatically because of intensive and unregulated gill-net fishing across river mouths,
including the Kagera. In addition, large numbers of fry are reported to be taken on return to the lake.
By the early 1960s L. victorianus had virtually disappeared from the lake although it remained
relatively common in catches in the Upper and Middle Kagera Lakes. The KBA site boundary includes
an area extending 1km from the shore into the lake and to a distance of 0.5 km either side of the
middle of the river mouth allowing fish to congregate and move upstream to spawn.
Important Bird Areas
Sango Bay-Musamwa The SAMUKA IBA is located in the lower Kagera River in Uganda and comprises five Forest Reserves:
Island-Kagera Wetland Kaiso, Tero East and West, Namalala and Malabigambo, all of which are classified as swamp forest.
System (SAMUKA) The area contains a mosaic of wetland types, including permanent and seasonal swamp forests,
(55,100 ha) papyrus Cyperus papyrus swamps, herbaceous swamps interspersed with palms, and seasonally
flooded grasslands. The Sango Bay wetland system is extensive, stretching along the shores of Lake
Victoria from Kyabasimba in the south to Malembo in the north and with a sand spit formed by the
sediments deposited from the Kagera River. Notable wetland birds recorded in the area include large
numbers of white-winged tern (Chlidonias leucopterus); common squacco heron (Ardeola ralloides);


great white pelican (Pelecanus onocrotalus); pink-backed pelican (Pelecanus rufescens); and blue
swallow (Hirundo atrocaerulea).

Figure 5-158: Protected Areas/IBAs in the Kagera River Basin

[Source WDPA/Birdlife]. Note: Rumanyika Orungundu Game Reserve is now gazetted as a National Park and the boundaries may be different to the area shown.

Habitat Status Assessment
Applicable Safeguards for Biodiversity
World Bank ESS6 for Biodiversity
AFD and AfDB-financed projects are expected to be designed and operated in compliance with good industry
practices (GIP). To help the bank’s clients and its funded projects achieve this, the AFD have adopted the
World Bank Environmental and Social Standards (ESS), including ESS6 on Biodiversity, while the AfDB has
its own operational safeguard (OS1) for biodiversity. Both guidance tools are closely aligned to the
International Finance Corporation (IFC) Performance Standards for Biodiversity. Minor differences between
the standards are highlighted in this report where relevant.
The main reference documents for applying ESS6 are as follows:
• ESS6: Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Management of Living Natural Resources.
Guidance Note for Borrowers. World Bank.
• Environmental and Social Framework. World Bank, Washington DC.
• IFC, 2019 Guidance Note (providing updated thresholds for critical habitat assessments).
Essentially the objectives of ESS6 are to:

• To protect and conserve biodiversity and habitats.
• To apply the mitigation hierarchy and the precautionary approach in the design and
implementation of projects that could have an impact on biodiversity.
• To promote the sustainable management of living natural resources.
• To support livelihoods of local communities, including Indigenous Peoples, and inclusive economic
development, through the adoption of practices that integrate conservation needs and
development priorities.
ESS6 recognises that protecting and conserving biodiversity and sustainably managing living natural
resources are fundamental to sustainable development. Biodiversity is defined as the variability among
living organisms from all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and
the ecological complexes of which they are a part; this includes diversity within species, between species,
and of ecosystems. Biodiversity often underpins ecosystem services valued by humans. Impacts on
biodiversity can therefore often adversely affect the delivery of ecosystem services.
ESS6 further recognises that project decisions may need to be made where there is scientific uncertainty
either due to insufficient baseline data on species population and trends and/or because ecosystems are
complex, and it is difficult to predict multiple and long-term impacts. Where there is not full scientific
certainty about adverse impacts on biodiversity, the World Bank requires a ‘precautionary approach’ to be
adopted and to apply cost-effective mitigation and adaptive management. It acknowledges that this does
not require full and conclusive information or absolute certainty on the project impacts before acting but
indicates that sufficient evidence should be completed prior to taking irreversible actions or decisions.
The World Bank’s ESS6 defers to the IFC GN6 for applying the thresholds for Criteria 1-4 which are discussed
in Section 5.3.5.3.
A Definitions of Habitat Status
ESS6 requires a differentiated risk management approach to habitats based on their sensitivity and values.
ESS6 addresses all habitats, categorized as ‘modified habitat’, ‘natural habitat’, and ’critical habitat’, along
with ’legally protected and internationally and regionally recognized areas of biodiversity value’ which may
encompass habitat in any or all these categories.
Categorising habitats as natural or modified based on their condition needs to recognise that in practice,
natural and modified habitats exist on a continuum ranging from largely untouched, pristine natural
habitats to intensively managed modified habitats. It is important to note that land which has been or is
used for shifting agriculture, hunting, grazing or selective timber harvesting may still be classified as natural
habitat depending on the degree of transformation or degradation. Critical habitats can be represented by
modified or natural habitats depending on whether either category meets the thresholds for critical habitat.

This categorisation of habitats provides a basis for determining the level of mitigation required to
compensate for impacts on habitats of different conservation value e.g. loss or fragmentation.
ESS6 (and IFC PS6) requires no net loss of biodiversity for natural habitat and net gain for critical habitat.
Specific requirements and differences of the AFD and ADB for projects in critical habitat are discussed in
Section 5.3.5.1B below.
A description and rationale for assigning habitat status to terrestrial and aquatic habitats in the project area
of influence are discussed in Section 5.3.5.2.
A.1 Natural Habitat
Natural habitats are areas composed of viable assemblages of plant and/or animal species of largely native
origin, and/or where human activity has not essentially modified an area’s primary ecological functions and
species composition. ESS6 indicates that habitats affected by human activities are still considered natural
habitats if they: “(a) have limited impact on the species composition or ecological function of the habitat; (b)
form part of a long-term pattern of traditional use, to which native species assemblages have adapted; (c)
are no longer prevalent, and the habitat supports a mature and diverse community of predominantly native
species; or (d) have not profoundly affected the habitats ability to recover its former ecological
characteristics”. It recognises that expert inputs may be required to determine whether the character and
functions of the habitat remain essentially natural.
Under ESS6, if natural habitats are identified as part of the assessment, the Project will seek to avoid
adverse, in accordance with the mitigation hierarchy. Where natural habitats have the potential to be
adversely affected by the project, the Project will not implement any project related activities unless:
(a) There are no technically and financially feasible alternatives; and
(b) Appropriate mitigation measures are put in place, in accordance with the mitigation hierarchy, to
achieve no net loss and, where feasible, preferably a net gain of biodiversity over the long term.
When residual impacts remain despite best efforts to avoid, minimize and mitigate impacts, and
where appropriate and supported by relevant stakeholders, mitigation measures may include
biodiversity offsets adhering to the principle of “like-for-like or better.”
A.2 Modified Habitat
Modified habitats are areas that may contain a large proportion of plant and/or animal species of non-native
origin, and/or where human activity has substantially modified an area’s primary ecological functions and
species composition11. Modified habitats may include areas managed for agriculture, forest plantations,
reclaimed12 coastal zones, and reclaimed wetlands.
ESS6 applies to those areas of modified habitat that include significant biodiversity value, as determined by
the risks and impacts identification process required in ESS1. The Project should minimize impacts on such
biodiversity and implement mitigation measures as appropriate.
A.3 Critical Habitat
Critical habitats are areas with high biodiversity importance or value, and include the following categories:
(a) Habitat of significant importance to Critically Endangered and/or Endangered 13 species;
(b) Habitat of significant importance to endemic and/or restricted-range species;
(c) Habitat supporting globally significant concentrations of migratory species and/or congregatory
species;
(d) Highly threatened and/or unique ecosystems; and/or
11
This excludes habitat that has been converted in anticipation of the project.
12
Reclamation as used in this context is the process of creating new land from sea or other aquatic areas for productive use.
13
As listed on the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species. The determination of
critical habitat based on other listings is as follows: (i) If the species is listed nationally/regionally as critically endangered or
endangered, in countries that have adhered to IUCN guidance, the critical habitat determination will be made on a project by project
basis in consultation with competent professionals; and (ii) in instances where nationally or regionally listed species’ categorizations
do not correspond well to those of the IUCN (e.g., some countries more generally list species as “protected” or “restricted”), an
assessment will be conducted to determine the rationale and purpose of the listing. In this case, the critical habitat determination will
be based on such an assessment.

(e) Ecological functions or characteristics that are needed to maintain the viability of the biodiversity
values described above in (a) to (d).
Critical habitats are assessed using the thresholds specified in the IFC Guidance Note 6 which underpins the
IFC PS6 (IFC, 2019). There is one key difference between the ESS6 and PS6 safeguards criteria for
determining critical habitat: the fifth criterion of IFC PS6 refers to Evolutionary Processes and is focused on
features and processes that maintain genetic diversity, while ESS6 (point (e) above) refers to Ecological
Functions maintaining species or ecosystems that trigger critical habitat under (a) to (d). This means that
for ESS6 the fifth criterion (Ecological Functions) cannot be invoked without having identified biodiversity
values that trigger (a) to (d). In IFC PS6 the Evolutionary Processes criterion could theoretically be invoked
as a standalone trigger of critical habitat but there are few if any cases where this would be used without
having species that trigger one or more of the other criteria. To some extent there is overlap in the type of
landscape features and processes that can be inferred under both criteria (Ecological Functions and
Evolutionary Processes) such as connectivity to facilitate movement of animals and maintenance of gene
flow.
ESS6 (in summary) states that projects can only be undertaken in critical habitat if a number of criteria are
satisfied e.g. there are no other viable alternatives for the project; there is no measurable adverse impacts
on the critical habitat qualifying features; there would be no net loss in population for Endangered or
Critically Endangered species over a reasonable period of time; that a net gain of those biodiversity values
for which the critical habitat was designated can be achieved; and that a robust appropriately designed long
term biodiversity monitoring and evaluation program is integrated in to the client’s management program.
B Interpretation and Implications of Critical Habitat by the Project Lenders
B.1 French Development Agency (AFD)
The AFD has produced ‘an exclusion list for AFD Group in foreign countries’ which provides a list of
outcomes, which if likely to occur because of an AFD-funded project, the AFD would exclude from funding
it.
In this AFD exclusion list, critical habitat is defined slightly differently to the World Bank ESS6. As with other
bank safeguards the term critical habitat encompasses natural and modified habitats that are assessed to
be of a higher conservation value. While similar to the IFC and ESS definitions, the AFD categorisation of
critical habitat specifically includes:
• ‘Spaces with high biodiversity value as defined in the IUCN's classification criteria, including, in
particular, habitats required for the survival of endangered species as defined by the IUCN's red list
of threatened species or by any national legislation;
• Spaces with a particular importance for endemic species or whose geographical range is limited;
• Critical sites for the survival of migratory species;
• Spaces supporting a significant number of individuals from congregatory species;
• Spaces presenting unique assemblages of species or containing species which are associated
according to key evolution processes or which fulfil key ecosystem services; and
• Territories with socially, economically or culturally significant biodiversity for local communities.
Primary forests or high conservation value forests must also be considered as critical habitats’.
For biodiversity, the AFD exclusion list excludes funding of:
• ‘Any operation leading to or requiring the destruction of a critical habitat, or any forestry project
which does not implement a plan for improvement and sustainable management.’
The term ‘destruction’ here is defined by the AFD as the ‘elimination or severe reduction in the integrity of a
habitat caused by a major and long-term change in land use or water resources, or the modification of a
habitat such that this habitat’s ability to fulfil its role is lost’.
Essentially the AFD does not allow for the destruction of critical habitat, even if mitigation in the form of
compensation or off-setting is viable. The World Bank ESS6 policy has is a strong policy of avoidance,
although it does provide a mechanism for compensation through off-setting if no other viable alternative
to the project is available. It is therefore essential that a thorough and defensible analysis is made of the
extent to which a project may lead to significant loss of the biodiversity values that trigger critical habitat
and whether these can be adequately managed through feasible mitigation measures (e.g. fish pass for
dam construction).

B.2 African Development Bank (AfDB)
The AfDB adopted an Integrated Safeguards System in 2013 with supporting guidance materials produced
in 2015. Operational Safeguard 3 (OS3) - Biodiversity, Renewable Resources and Ecosystem Services
adopts similar language to that of IFC PS6. Specific objectives of OS3 are to “endeavour to reinstate or
restore biodiversity, including, where some impacts are unavoidable, through implementing biodiversity
offsets to achieve ‘not net loss but net gain’ of biodiversity” (ADB 2013). In addition OS3 states that ‘for
projects that are being developed in natural habitats, modified habitats with significant conservation value,
critical habitats or legally protected areas, the borrower or client incorporates the best available science and
engages internationally recognised biodiversity experts in conducting the impact assessment and in
developing and implementing mitigation and management strategies’ (AfDB 2013).
The AfDB requirements of projects in critical habitat (ADB 2015) are aligned with IFC requirements and also
require a net gain of biodiversity for projects impacting biodiversity values that contribute to critical habitat.
The AfDB safeguard for biodiversity specifically states the following:
‘Projects may be permitted within natural or critical habitats, with implementation of appropriate biodiversity
offsets, if the borrower or client can demonstrate that:
• All other elements of the mitigation hierarchy have been implemented to the extent feasible
before an offset program was developed.
• The project-related activities will not have adverse effects on the criteria for which the critical
habitat was designated.
• The borrower or client can demonstrate that the project will not have negative effects on Critically
Endangered or Endangered species.
• A biodiversity monitoring program has been established, with results feeding into adaptive
management of biodiversity impacts, and into the offsets program.
Under circumstances where development of biodiversity offsets is permitted by the Bank, this should be done
in accordance with the principles of the Business and Biodiversity Offsets Program (BBOP) and with reference
to offset design guidance which should be used by borrowers or clients to inform the design of biodiversity
offsets’ (ADB, 2015).
The AfDB recognises that projects impacting on critical habitat may require an extended process of
identifying an offset and developing and implementing an offset programme. It specifies that such process
requires engagement of partners, donors and implementers.
Assessment/Categorisation of Natural and Modified Habitats
A Introduction
ESS6 requires a differentiated risk management approach to habitats based on their sensitivity and values.
ESS6 addresses all habitats, categorized as ‘modified habitat’, ‘natural habitat’, and ’critical habitat’, along
with ’legally protected and internationally and regionally recognized areas of biodiversity value’ which may
encompass habitat in any or all these categories. Natural or Modified habitat can also be Critical Habitat if it
contains biodiversity values that meet one or more thresholds for Critical Habitat.
Categorising habitats as natural or modified based on their condition needs to recognise that in practice,
natural and modified habitats exist on a continuum ranging from largely untouched, pristine natural
habitats to intensively managed modified habitats. It is important to note that land which has been or is
used for shifting agriculture, hunting, grazing or selective timber harvesting may still be classified as natural
habitat depending on the degree of transformation or degradation. Critical habitats can be represented by
modified or natural habitats depending on whether either category meets the thresholds for critical habitat.
This categorisation of habitats provides a basis for determining the level of mitigation required to
compensate for impacts on habitats of different conservation value e.g. loss or fragmentation.
ESS6 requires no net loss of biodiversity for natural habitat and net gain for critical habitat. Note, however,
that AFD does not fund projects with adverse impacts on critical habitat.
B Categorisation of Habitat Status
The habitat status of the vegetation communities and terrestrial and aquatic habitats was assessed
according to the definitions described in Section 5.3.5.1A above.

The results of the assessment of the habitat status for each vegetation community is presented in Table
5.58. Ten of these are classified as Natural Habitat, covering the majority of the AOI. Only agricultural areas,
settlements and a degraded secondary woodland/grassland (i.e. a subclass of Floodplain
Woodland/Thicket vegetation community that has formed through regeneration of old agricultural fields)
were classed as Modified Habitat.

Table 5.58 – Natural and Modified Habitats Represented in the Study Area
Vegetation Natural / Modified
Rationale
Community/Habitat Habitat Status
Riparian Forest/Thicket Natural The plant species composition of this community comprises almost entirely indigenous species; all the typical ecological processes and functions are intact and
there is little evidence of human impacts; the forests are mostly unfragmented, functioning as migration corridors for fauna.
Riparian Woodland Natural This vegetation community was not assessed during fieldwork as a result of being far from project infrastructure and mostly poorly accessible; however it has
been mapped separately as a result of a distinct spectral signature in the satellite imagery; analysis of the imagery indicates that the habitat has not been
modified through agriculture (possibly because soils are waterlogged) and the vegetation pattern appears entirely natural.
Scarp Forest Natural The plant species composition of this community comprises almost entirely indigenous species; all the typical ecological processes and functions are intact; while
there is evidence of fire damage in places, the forests are mostly intact.
Dry Evergreen Forest Natural The plant species composition of this community comprises almost entirely indigenous species; all the typical ecological processes and functions are intact; it is
likely that these forests were more widespread in the past and have decreased as a result of human impacts, but the remaining fragments are entirely natural
and function as important refuges for fauna such as African elephant.
Floodplain Natural This is a relatively fragmented community along the Kagera floodplain; however, the fragments comprise viable assemblages of predominantly indigenous
Woodland/Thicket species, even though this is the vegetation community with the highest proportion of alien species in the study area; primary ecological functions and processes
are intact, even though there is some evidence of human impact such as charcoal manufacture.
Vachellia Natural This community comprises mostly indigenous plant species, particularly the termitaria thickets; typical ecological processes and functions associated with
Woodland/Bushclump woodland and thicket habitats are intact; some areas show evidence of overgrazing, but not severe enough to have significantly altered the floristic composition.
Mosaic Faunal assemblages are typical of what would be expected in natural habitat, apart from the low numbers of large mammals.
Rocky Grassland/Outcrop Natural Terrestrial flora and fauna: This plant species composition of this community is entirely natural, as are the associated faunal assemblages; there is sufficient
Thicket Mosaic connectivity between grassland fragments to allow for natural processes such as pollination and seed dispersal; there is limited evidence of human impact apart
of limited overgrazing in a few areas.
Floodplain Wetlands Natural Terrestrial flora and fauna: Floodplain wetlands comprise the mosaic of papyrus and hippo grass along the Kagera River floodplain; and comprise viable
assemblages of indigenous species, even though some areas have been invaded by water hyacinth; and where the primary ecological functions and processes
remain largely intact. These habitats are important for a variety of wetland birds, including the Endangered grey-crowned crane. In areas downstream near Kyaka;
where there is evidence of extensive floodplain agriculture, these areas have been classified as Modified Habitat (Agriculture Areas).
Aquatic ecosystem: The papyrus and hippo grass habitats of the floodplain wetlands supported a high diversity and abundance of macroinvertebrates (mayflies,
dragonflies and of particular interest hover flies (Syrphidae) whose larvae are airbreathing). These habitats and their associated macroinvertebrates are
considered key to the ecological functioning of the river and provide important feeding and nursery areas for fish. These habitats are important refugia for fish
during flood periods especially for juveniles and small barbs such as Enteromius species. Floodplain habitats predominantly occur in the lower Kagera River and
are of primary importance for breeding of species such as L. victorianus. The ecological structure of these habitats are largely intact, and no alien
macroinvertebrates were recorded. Three species of alien fish were recorded in the area, but their abundances were low.
Edaphic Grassland Natural This vegetation community was not assessed during fieldwork as a result of being far from project infrastructure and mostly poorly accessible; however, it has
been mapped as a result of a distinct spectral signature in the satellite imagery; analysis of the imagery indicates that the habitat has not been modified through
agriculture (possibly because soils are waterlogged) and the vegetation pattern appears entirely natural.
Open Water Natural Terrestrial flora and fauna: The Open Water habitat has been classified as natural habitat on the basis of the faunal assemblage, which is entirely natural and
(Instream Habitats) viable and which includes hippopotamus and crocodiles. However, many areas of open water have been invaded by water hyacinth along the river margins,
although the extent will vary from season to season depending on flooding which will dislodge the weed downstream.
Aquatic ecosystem: The water body of the Kagera River comprises a deep channel of 9-12m depth with width of 30-50m within the proposed reservoir and 50-
70m downstream of the Kakono HPP with slackwaters and backwaters along the river margins with calmer water and emergent vegetation. The river carries a
high volume of suspended sediment attributed to upstream cultivation and this is likely to have modified the abundance and composition of aquatic
macroinvertebrates. Furthermore, the abundance of floating water hyacinth is likely to have provided unnatural habitat for macroinvertebrates, such as the snail
Lymnaea natalensis. There is no significant industrial development in the area and the main sources of pollution appears to be associated with subsistence
cultivation and livestock, and possibly from upstream washing and sanitation inputs. The fish community is relatively natural and dominated by indigenous
species with only a few exotic Nile perch caught downstream of the Kakono HPP, one alien guppy species (Poecilia reticulata), and one species of alien tilapia
(Oreochromis leucostictus). Although macroinvertebrate communities were assessed as moderately modified in terms of Present Ecological State, the species
diversity comprised indigenous species dominated by sediment tolerant species and no alien macroinvertebrate species were recorded. Fishing pressure in the

Vegetation Natural / Modified

Rationale
Community/Habitat Habitat Status
Project AOI is low in the river reaches between Kyaka upstream to Kikagati (primarily due to the adjacent land being in private / Government ownership; and
strong current) although high fishing pressure in the lower Kagera River is likely to have reduced fish abundance through impacts on migratory fish.
Degraded Secondary Modified This is a degraded subset of the Floodplain Woodland/Thicket vegetation community that has formed through regeneration of old agricultural fields. Plant
Woodland/Grassland species composition includes numerous pioneer species not typical of the original vegetation community and vegetation structure is now low open
woodland/shrubland. It typically occurs along the margins of the Kagera Sugar Estate.
Agriculture) Areas Modified The main extent of modified habitat in the project area comprises extensive sugarcane irrigation on the northern side of the proposed reservoir, and on the north
and south side of the river downstream of Kakono HPP. Sugarcane fields occupies approximately 16,000ha of the north bank and several thousand hectares are
under construction on the south bank. The floodplain downstream of the Mwisa confluence and Kyaka is quite extensively modified in places through small-scale
crop farming; the species composition of these farmlands is mostly not representative of the natural floodplain vegetation and comprises a high proportion of
alien species and should thus be classified as modified.
Settlements (Towns & Modified Parts of the study area which comprise towns and villages, especially in the vicinity of Kyaka, are entirely modified habitat with very little evidence of the original
Villages) plant species composition of the area; typical ecological process and functions are disrupted or dysfunctional and human impact is evident throughout this
habitat.
[Note: These are assessed further in terms of critical habitat criteria in Sections 5.3.5.3 and 5.3.5.4 below].

Figure 5-159 - Habitat Status Map showing Distribution of Modified and Natural Habitats in the Kakono Project AOI

Aquatic Ecology Critical Habitat Assessment
A Introduction
The project is located in Natural Habitat for aquatic features as described in Table 5.58 above. This section
provides a critical habitat assessment (CHA) to determine if the Kakono HPP Project is in Critical Habitat for
aquatic species. It has been compiled in accordance with the International Finance Corporation’s 2018
thresholds as set out in Guidance Note 6 (GN6) for Biodiversity and Conservation of Living Natural Resources
(IFC, 2018). This CHA is focussed on fish that potentially trigger critical habitat in the Lower Kagera River. It
is based on best available information and the interpretation of the species distribution, ecological including
migration requirements. A critical habitat assessment for terrestrial biodiversity is contained in Section
5.3.5.4 below.
It must be stressed that available data for fish population and abundance for the Kagera River and the wider
Lake Victoria Basin is limited and assumptions on population abundance have had to be inferred from
spatial distribution extents from datasets such as IUCN Red List and related data. Other limitations relevant
to the CHA are set out in Table 5.24.
A.1 Objectives
The aim of this section is to assess the aquatic habitat status of the Kakono HPP project and specifically to
determine if it lies within Critical Habitat.
This will be achieved by undertaking the following:
• To review the existing Project documentation and conduct a wider search on information pertaining
to aquatic species and habitats that may trigger critical habitat;
• To assess the distribution of fish within the Kagera River system and in the context of their wider
distribution in the Lake Victoria Basin;
• To determine an appropriate spatial scope for the CHA;
• To determine if aquatic species other than fish, should be targeted for further assessment;
• To screen selected species against the criteria and thresholds for determining Critical Habitat
based on the International Finance Corporation GN6 (IFC, 2018); and
• To determine the implications for the Kakono HPP Project being developed in Critical Habitat.
A.2 Approach
The CHA was based on IFC GN6 (2018; GN59). The analysis requires an ecologically appropriate area of
analysis (EAA) to be determined for each species with regular occurrence in the project’s area of influence
(or groups of species with overlapping distribution and ecosystem requirements) or at an ecosystem level.
These are defined considering the distribution of species or ecosystems and ecological patterns, processes,
features or functions necessary to maintain them. For wide-ranging (or migratory/congregatory) species,
these need to include consideration of areas of aggregation and recruitment (e.g. for feeding or spawning).
Where appropriate and to maintain connectivity, these boundaries may extent to a catchment level of
analysis. Typically, the EAA may be larger than the area of influence of the project.
The IFC GN6 stresses that delineating the EAA for a critical habitat assessment (CHA) should be informed by
the area of influence of the Project but that the definition of critical habitat is done irrespective of the impact
of a project. In other words, when defining the spatial boundary for the critical habitat assessment it is
necessary to understand the potential zone of project influence before identifying the biodiversity values
(e.g. priority species or habitats) that occur within this zone and the spatial extent of their ecological
requirements needed to sustain these identified values. Typically, while the EAA may be different for the
assessment of terrestrial and aquatic critical habitats, the boundary used is often based on the species or
habitats with the largest spatial extent. In cases of uncertainty about a species’ distribution or ecological
requirements to complete its life-cycle, delineations should ensure the EAA is sufficient to encompass the
possible or likely habitat or connectivity needs of a species. The size of the critical habitat can be amended
after closer examination and collection of additional information.
However, the larger the spatial extent of the EAA the more likely that critical habitat will be determined,
irrespective of whether the project may impact on the biodiversity values that trigger Critical Habitat. For
instance, the length of river reach or catchment extent that sustains a migratory species or a species with a
large home range is likely to provide the basis for the CHA. Once a Critical Habitat has been defined, it is

important to link the potential impacts of the Project on the biodiversity triggers as a basis for informed
decision-making. When using a large EAA, it is useful to link species requirements to specific zones or river
reaches as a basis for determining potential project impacts. This may help to avoid raising a ‘red flag’
without contextualising the project impacts and to determine whether mitigation can effectively minimise
the project risks on Critical Habitat qualifying features.
The CHA uses three zones as the basis to determine whether each zone has biodiversity values that qualify
as Critical Habitat using the IFC PS6 criteria and thresholds.
Calculating Species Spatial Extent in the EAA Zones

Where population data is limited, which is largely the case for freshwater biota, the spatial extent of a
species distribution (i.e. Extent of Occurrence (EOO)) based on IUCN data have been used as a surrogate for
population size (Sayer et al., 2018). Sayer et al.’s (2018) approach was followed for the aquatic CHA which
used ‘extant’ (i.e. known) distributions to determine the extent to which a species global EOO intersected or
overlapped with the three Kagera River hydrographic zones described above. The proportion of a species'
extant EOO in a zone was used to calculate the threshold percentage and determine if it met the threshold
percentage for each IFC criterion.
The global EOO for each species in this CHA that triggered one or more of the critical habitat criteria was
obtained from the IUCN spatial datasets (IUCN, 2018). These datasets consist of polygons delineating the
‘extant’ (resident) and ‘possibly extant’ distributions. The EOO is determined based on known historical
museum or published distributions and by consulting experts. Areas that are likely to support a species, but
for which there are no known records are considered ‘possibly extant’.
A summary of the application of the ESS criteria and thresholds for the aquatic CHA is described in Table
5.59.

Table 5.59- Application of the ESS6 Criteria to the Kakono Aquatic CHA
ESS6 Criteria & Thresholds (IFC GN6) Threshold applied for Kakono HPP CHA
Criterion 1: Critically Endangered and Endangered Species14
Areas that support globally important concentrations of an IUCN Red-listed Insufficient data is available to determine the global population size or reproductive units of EN or CR fish in the EAA.
EN or CR species (≥ 0.5% of the global population AND ≥ 5 reproductive In this assessment therefore the proportion of catchment area within the confirmed Extent of Occurrence (EOO) is used as a proxy for
units15 of a CR or EN species). percentage of population within the EAA zones following Sayer et al., 201816. This assumes species are equally abundant across all
planning units although this is likely an incorrect assumption as some habitats will be favoured by certain species over others. This
approach is necessitated as population abundance data are lacking for most freshwater species (not just in Lake Victoria Basin). The
IUCN Red List spatial data used in Sayer et al. 2018 only indicates presence of species in a planning unit.
Areas that support globally important concentrations of an IUCN Red-listed As above.

Vulnerable (VU) species, the loss of which would result in the change of the Note: one VU species of fish is restricted to the upstream area.
IUCN Red List status to EN or CR and meet the thresholds in GN72(a).
As appropriate, areas containing important concentrations of a nationally or No national or regional Red List of aquatic species exists for the Tanzania or the Nile Basin. Only IUCN globally red-listed species are
regionally listed EN or CR species. used for Criterion 1.
Criterion 2: Endemic or Restricted Range Species17
Areas that regularly hold ≥10% of the global population size AND ≥10 Insufficient data is available to determine the global population size or reproductive units of endemic or restricted range fish in the EAA.
reproductive units of a species As for Criterion 1a, the proportion of catchment area within the confirmed EOO is used as a proxy for percentage of a fish population
within the EAA zones following Sayer et al. 201818.
Presence of data deficient (DD) and undescribed species that are confirmed to occur in the Kagera River and considered to have a
localised distribution in the catchment are included.
Criterion 3: Migratory or Congregatory Species19
14 Where subspecies and sub-populations have been separately assessed for inclusion in the IUCN Red List, they may be considered under Criteria 1, as appropriate (GN68)
15 The IUCN Biodiversity Areas standard uses the following definition for reproductive unit: “the minimum number and combination of mature individuals necessary to trigger a successful reproductive
event at a site Examples of five reproductive units include five pairs, five reproducing females in one harem, and five reproductive individuals of a plant species.” Eisenberg, 1977. The Evolution of the
Reproductive Unit in the Class Mammalia (footnote GN16 under GN72)
16 Sayer, C.A., Máiz-Tomé, L. and Darwall, W.R.T. (2018). Freshwater biodiversity in the Lake Victoria Basin: Guidance for species conservation, site protection, climate resilience and sustainable
livelihoods. Cambridge, UK and Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. xiv +226pp.
17 Restricted range species are those with limited Extent of Occurrence (EOO) (GN74): (i) For terrestrial vertebrates and plants, a restricted-range species is defined as those species that have an EOO
less than 50,000 square kilometers (km2). (ii) For marine systems, restricted-range species are provisionally being considered those with an EOO of less than 100,000km2. (iii) For coastal, riverine, and
other aquatic species in habitats that do not exceed 200km width at any point (for example, rivers), restricted range is defined as having a global range of less than or equal to 500km linear geographic
span (i.e., the distance between occupied locations furthest apart).
18 Sayer, C.A., Máiz-Tomé, L. and Darwall, W.R.T. (2018). Freshwater biodiversity in the Lake Victoria Basin: Guidance for species conservation, site protection, climate resilience and sustainable

19 Migratory species are defined as any species of which a significant proportion of its members cyclically and
predictably move from one geographical area to another (including within the same
ecosystem) (GN76). Congregatory species are defined as species whose individuals gather in large groups on a cyclical or otherwise regular and/or predictable basis (GN77).

ESS6 Criteria & Thresholds (IFC GN6) Threshold applied for Kakono HPP CHA
Areas known to sustain, on a cyclical or otherwise regular basis, ≥ 1 percent Insufficient data is available to determine whether certain parts of the Kagera catchment may sustain the global population of
of the global population of a migratory or congregatory species at any point migratory or congregatory species. This criterion has been applied to migratory fish confirmed to occur in the Kagera River based on
of the species’ lifecycle. the proportion of a migratory species’ EOO that falls within each EAA zone.
Areas that predictably support ≥10% of the global population of a species There is insufficient data to apply this criterion. One could only assume that the larger rivers draining into the lake such as the Kagera
during periods of environmental stress. River would be of greater importance in times of environmental stress.
Criterion 4: Highly threatened or unique ecosystems
Areas representing ≥5% of the global extent of an ecosystem type meeting No formal Red List process has been done for ecosystems in the Project Area and therefore this threshold has not been applied in this
the criteria for IUCN status of CR or EN. Kakono HPP CHA.
Note: This requires use of the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems where formal
IUCN assessments have been performed or “assessments using systematic
methods at the national/regional level, carried out by governmental bodies,
recognized academic institutions and/or other relevant qualified
organizations (including internationally-recognized NGOs)”.
Other areas, not yet assessed by IUCN, but determined to be of high priority A freshwater KBA study has been done for the Lake Victoria Basin (Sayer et al., 2018) which reassessed the status of many freshwater
for conservation by regional or national systematic conservation planning. species and provides the most comprehensive basis for identification of KBAs in the region. The analysis used equivalent thresholds as
Criteria 1-3 above to determine appropriate KBAs for management. The study also used the percentage of the global range area of the
species that occurred within each KBA as a proxy for the percentage of the global population due to lack of population data for most
freshwater species. In the absence of any other robust ecosystem assessment, the findings of this KBA analysis is inferred here to
represent “highly threatened or unique ecosystems” for the Kakono CHA.
All the identified KBAs in the Kagera Basin are considered critical habitat under IFC thresholds all of which included the presence of the
Critically Endangered Labeo victorianus as a trigger. However, it is stressed that any gaps between the location of identified KBAs in the
Kagera Basin should not be assumed to be void of critical habitat (Darwall, IUCN pers. comm.) and require further independent
assessment.
It should be noted that the Sayer et al., 2018 assessment may not have had access to the data obtained during the various fish studies
done for the HPPs in the lower Kagera to confirm the presence of L. victorianus in these river reaches as the IUCN spatial data indicate
this area to have Possible Extant populations in this area. However, its presence in the Kyaka to Kakono area has been confirmed in the
2020 SLR Consulting survey and this area should be included in its Current Extant distribution.
Criterion 5: Ecological Processes or characteristics that are needed to maintain the viability of the biodiversity values described above in (a) to (d)
No thresholds are defined. Considerations are given to aspects such as landscape connectivity to support and maintain migratory species and facilitate gene flow.

B Ecological Area of Analysis
The Ecological Area of Analysis (EAA) used as the basis for the critical habitat assessment takes into account
the project area of influence (AOI) and the ecological processes necessary to maintain the key biodiversity
features that occur.
The EAA was based on best available knowledge of the distribution of aquatic biodiversity, mainly fish,
considering their migration and breeding requirements, connectivity of ecosystems and presence of natural
and artificial migration barriers. Based on the importance of the Kagera River as the main tributary of Lake
Victoria and the presence of migratory species a precautionary approach was taken to define the EAA.
The selected EAA for the aquatic critical habitat assessment is the full 520km of river from Rusumo Falls in
Rwanda to the Kagera estuary at Lake Victoria in Uganda. Within this area, the hydrogeographic zones
identified by Studio Pietrangeli (2019b) in their hydrological report for the Kakono HPP was used as the
basis for defining three zones of the EAA. For the purposes of delineating the EAA, the boundaries of Studio
Pietrangeli’s zones were redefined where they coincided with Linke et al.’s (2019) Level 09 HydroBASINs.
These ecological and hydrographic zones were then further sub-divided into zones upstream and
downstream of natural barriers (Rusumo and Nsongezi Falls). The EAA for this CHA comprised three zones
of the Kagera River Catchment (Figure 5-160) from upstream to downstream as follows:
• Zone 3: Rusumo Falls to Nsongezi Falls (7,010 km2 with river length of 260 km). This zone extends
from Rusumo Falls in Rwanda to Nsongezi Falls on the border between Uganda and Tanzania.
Rusumo Falls is some 326 km upstream of the proposed Kakono HPP and is a significant barrier to
fish migration. The Rusumo Falls HPP is a new dam of 10 m height that is under construction at
these falls, and this makes no provision for a fish pass (Artelia, 2013a).
• Zone 2: Nsongezi Falls to Mwisa River Confluence (5,136k m2 with river length of 113 km). The
proposed Kakono HPP falls within this zone and is the primary area of interest of this report.
Upstream of Kakono HPP there are two significant rapids/falls located 80 and 92 km upstream –
Nsongezi and Kikagati, respectively. These may present a barrier to many migratory fish although
it is possible that some fish may be able to cross them during flood conditions when side channels
are flowing. Small HPPs are being developed on these falls, and these include fish passes. The
proposed HPP is located 190 km upstream of the Kagera River estuary at Lake Victoria. There are
no natural or artificial barriers between the Nsongezi Falls and Lake Victoria.
• Zone 1: Mwisa River Confluence to Lake Victoria (9,273 km2 with river length of 138 km). The
Kagera River estuary lies within Uganda and is an important zone for fish and fishing with many
species that feed in the lake and several which migrate up the river to spawn in the floodplains of
the lower Kagera River. Other migratory species may migrate further up the river to spawn in rapid
habitats. The estuary is within Uganda’s Sango Bay Important Bird Area (IBA) which was declared
for permanent and seasonal swamp-forests, papyrus swamps, and seasonally flooded grasslands
and for its rich birdlife including many great white pelicans. A Key Biodiversity Area assessment for
the aquatic ecosystem of Lake Victoria Basin has proposed a KBA should be proclaimed at the
estuary mouth and extending 1 km into the lake and 500 m either side of the river at its outlet
(Sayer et al., 2016).
In summary, Zone 2 is the core zone of project influence and the primary Area of Interest. Zones 1 and 3
allow for determination of critical habitat in adjacent subcatchments that could be influenced by HPP
development in the Zone 2 subcatchment primarily through influences on fish migration. Hence, the aquatic
EAA is larger than the EAA used for the terrestrial critical habitat assessment.

Figure 5-160 - Ecological Area of Analysis

[Source: Studio Pietrangeli’s hydrographic zones (2019) and Linke et al. (2019) Level 09 HydroBASINs]

C Screening of Potential Aquatic Critical Habitat-Qualifying Species in Kakono HPP Project EAA
C.1 Priority Fish Species of the Lower Kagera River EAA Zones
Fish species reported in the 2014 ESIA (Norplan, 2016) and 2013 ESIA for Rusumo Falls (Artelia, 2013a)
confirm the presence of an estimated 95 species in the Kagera River between Rusumo Falls to the Kagera
River mouth in Lake Victoria. Although not exhaustive, these lists are likely to be representative of the most
common species. Of these, 29 species have been recorded downstream of the Nsongezi Falls to the Kagera
River Mouth (Zone 1 & 2) and 51 upstream of Nzongezi to Rusumo Falls (Zone 3), with 19 of these common
to both sub-catchments. Of the total recorded in the Kagera, 21 species have been selected here as being:
i) threatened, ii) restricted range (i.e. endemic to the Lake Victoria Basin (LVB) or to the Kagera River itself),
or iii) migratory (Table 5.60). This list provides an initial assessment and justification for excluding some
species from the CHA.
Table 5.60 - Priority Fish Species Confirmed in the Project Area

Family Species Status Migration Endemic Endemic to EAA: EAA: EAA:
to LVB Kagera Zone Zone Zone
River 1 2 3
Alestidae Brycinus jacksonii LC Medium Yes No X X
Brycinus sadleri LC Medium No No X X X
Amphiliidae Zaireichthys sp. nov NE No Possibly Possibly X
Bagridae Bagrus docmak LC Medium No No X X X
Cichlidae Oreochromis esculentus CR No Yes No X
Oreochromis variabilis CR No Yes No X
Haplochromis sp. 1 NE No Yes No X
Cyprinidae Labeobarbus altianalis LC Medium Yes No X X X
Labeobarbus acuticeps NT Medium Yes Yes X
Labeo victorianus CR Medium Yes No X X X
Enteromius ‘3-spot’ (cf.cercops) NE No Possibly Possibly X X
Enteromius ‘3-spot’ (anal spot) NE No Possibly Possibly X X
Enteromius cf. atkinsoni NE No Possibly Possibly X X
Enteromius ’broken stripe’ NE No Possibly Possibly X X
Enteromius magdalenae LC No Yes No X
Mochokidae Synodontis afrofischeri LE Short No No X X X
Synodontis victoriae LC Short Yes No X
Synodontis ruandae VU Short Yes Yes X
Mormyridae Hippopotamyrus grahami LC Short Yes No X X X
Gnathonemus longibarbis LC Short Yes No X X X
Mormyrus kannume LC Short No No X X
Marcusenius victoriae LC Short Yes No X X
Schilbeidae Schilbe intermedius LC Short No No X X X
Shortlist of 25 Threatened, Range-Restricted or Migratory Fish Species confirmed in the Lower Kagera River
in Three Zones of the Ecological Areas of Analysis (EAA). These are based on a collation of fish records from
various surveys done for hydropower projects including the Rusumo Falls HPP, Kikagati HPP, Nsongezi HPP
and Kakono HPP (NE = Not Evaluated, LC = Least Concern, NT = Near Threatened, VU = Vulnerable, CR =
Critically Endangered). Note: the zones are described in Section B of this section above, and mapped in
Figure 5-158.
This list includes the migratory Brycinus jacksonii (Least Concern (LC)), as its distribution range includes the
Lower Kagera River and it is endemic to the LVB. However, it has not been confirmed in any ESIA reports for
hydropower projects in the Kagera as all Brycinus species caught were only identified to Genus level.
Bagrus docmak is widely distributed throughout West and East Africa, including the lower Nile Basin and is
migratory (likely over medium to long distances, estimated up to 30km or more), moving from deep water
in lakes to shallow sandy areas in rivers to spawn (Basiita et al. 2017). However, since its occurrence in Zone
1 does not exceed 0.1% of its EOO, it does not trigger the criteria required for migratory species.

The larger migratory cyprinids include Labeobarbus altianalis (LC, LVB endemic) and Labeo victorianus (CR,
LVB endemic). Among the latter group, Labeobarbus acuticeps (NT) is one of only two species in the wider
fish community which is endemic to the Kagera River system itself where it has been recorded from Zone 3
in previous studies.
The two Critically Endangered haplochromine cichlids (Oreochromis esculentus and O. variabilis) have only
been recorded from Zone 3 (i.e. upstream of Kakono reservoir) and are unlikely to be migratory.
Five unidentified Haplochromine species were collected from Zone 1 and Zone 3 during the February and
October 2020 fish survey for the Kakono HPP studies. There are an estimated 500 species of haplochromine
species endemic to the LVB and these are likely among them. Many of these species will have localised
distributions within the Lake Victoria Basin, but identifications and distribution are inadequately understood.
Five small barbs in the genus Enteromius were collected during the February and November 2020 and
March 2022 surveys and have not been described and are believed to be new species20. It is possible that
these species are endemic to the Kagera River system but were confirmed to occur in river reaches
upstream and/or in tributaries such as the Ngono River. Although E. magdalenae is endemic to the LVB, its
EOO exceeds that 500km range that qualifies it as restricted range and therefore it does not qualify for
inclusion in the CHA.
The Mochokid catfish Synodontis ruandae is the only other fish endemic to the Kagera River aside from
L. acuticeps, but its distribution – supported by records in the other ESIA reports – is restricted to the reaches
upstream of Nsongenzi Falls. The remainder of the Mochokidae, Mormyridae and Schilbeidae, although not
threatened, have all been listed here as migratory, albeit over short distances than the larger cyprinids.
Several are endemic to the LVB.
C.2 Other Aquatic Biodiversity (Crustacea, Odonata and Molluscs)
Screening of aquatic macroinvertebrates that could trigger critical habitat was done using available datasets
and reports with data relevant to the Lower Kagera River. The assessment was restricted to taxa whose
conservation status has been assessed, namely Crustacea, Odonata (dragonflies) and aquatic snails.
Species shown in were screened to confirm whether they should be included in the critical habitat
assessment. A summary of these is provided below.
Crustacea
Two species of Caridina shrimp are expected in the Project Area and both were confirmed within the Project
Area during the field survey in February 2020. The conservation status of both is classified as Least Concern
and both have wide distributions and so they were excluded from this CHA.
Four species of Macrobrachium shrimp are expected in the Project Area but none were recorded during the
field survey in February 2020 (or found during the October 2020 fish survey). The conservation status of all
four is classified as Least Concern and all have wide distributions and so they were excluded from this CHA.
Three species of crab are expected in the Lower Kagera River as follows:
• Potamonautes nilotica, which is widespread and common in the Nile River Catchment and classified
as Least Concern and confirmed in the Project Area during the field survey in February 2020.
• Potamonautes kantsyore, which was described from specimens collected in the Kagera River at
Kantsyore Island in Uganda in 2017 (Cumberlidge and Clarke, 2017). The conservation status of
this species has not been assessed and is considered here provisionally as Data Deficient, following
Cumberlidge and Clarke 2017. The type locality of this species (Lat: -1.042160; Long. 30.670560).
This restricted-range species is a possible Critical Habitat-qualifying species under criterion 2 for
Zone 2. However, given that crabs are under-surveyed in the Kagera River and its type locality is
30 km upstream of the full supply level it has been excluded from the critical habitat assessment.
• Potamonautes emini, which is classified as Least Concern and has a patchy distribution that
includes Tanzania (Bukobo), Rwanda, Ethiopia and the Congo (www.gbif.org). The species has not
been recorded in the Kagera catchment but is expected to occur in the lower reaches of the Kagera
River at and downstream of the proposed HPP (Figure 5-161). Less than 10% of its known range is
20
Specimens were sent to a barb specialist, Denis Tweddle at the Southern African Institute for Aquatic Biodiversity (SAIAB) for
identification who confirmed that they appear to be undescribed species and possibly endemic to the Lower Kagera River.

within the EAA of analysis so it was excluded from the CHA.
Figure 5-161 - Distribution of Potamonates emini

[Source: NatureServe and IUCN 2016].
Odonata
Of the 219 dragonfly and damselfly species recorded from the Lake Victoria Basin (Kipping et al., 2019), two
species of conservation concern could be expected within the Project Area as follows:
• Onychogomphus nigrotibialis, which is classified as Data Deficient but has a distribution range from
eastern Angola to Ethiopia so it would not be considered endemic to the Lake Victoria or Kagera
region and so was excluded from this CHA; and
• Agriocnemis palaeforma, which is classified as Vulnerable and endemic to western part of Lake
Victoria, mainly in Uganda. This species has been recorded in the Lower Kagera River in Uganda,
where it is associated with papyrus habitats. The extent of is distribution is estimated at
127,552 km2 (Sayer et al., 2018). This species has also been confirmed in the Akagera National
Park and Kagera Swamps KBA in Zone 3, which Sayer et al. (2018) calculated to represent 0.8% of
its distribution. If it does occur throughout Zones 1, 2 and 3 which totals 13,330 km2 then it could
trigger the 10% threshold for the presence of a restricted range species. However, the distribution
map presented by the IUCN shows that its distribution marginally overlaps with the Kakono Project
area in Zone 2, and the species appears to be absent at the proposed Kakono HPP and for some
55 km downstream (Figure 5-162). The core distribution of this species along the Kagera River is

upstream of Kakono HPP.
Figure 5-162. Distribution of Agriocnemis palaeforme

[Source: NatureServe and IUCN 2016].
Aquatic Snails
Fourteen species of aquatic snail are expected in the Project Area, of which six 21 were confirmed during the
baseline survey in February 2020. All fourteen are classified as Least Concern and none have restricted
distributions, so they were excluded from this CHA.
21
Snail species confirmed in the Project Area in February 2020 were: Pila ovata ovata, Lymnaea natalensis, Biomphalaria pfeifferi,
Bulinus africanus, Eupera ferruginea and Pisidiums sp.

D Critical Habitat Qualifying Aquatic Species and Habitats
Aquatic species confirmed in the Lower Kagera River and the basis for triggering critical habitat are indicated
in Table 5.61. The methodology used to determine the spatial extent in each zone is described in Section
5.3.5.3A above and a summary of the distribution and biology of the fish species is provided in Section
5.3.2.8H.
A total of 13 species trigger Critical Habitats in the EAA, three are threatened (CR) and trigger Criterion 1,
five trigger Criterion 2 and five trigger Criterion 3. Where a question mark (?) is indicated, a species’ EOO
(IUCN, 2018) suggests it does occur here but it has not been recorded in surveys, or the species has been
recorded in surveys but the EOO does not intercept the zone.
Of the species listed, L. acuticeps has the smallest distribution range (3,257 km2) and is entirely restricted
to the Kagera River system, followed by the E. nyanzae (13,827km2). Both the unidentified Enteromius
barbs collected in the SLR survey in February 2020 are assumed for the purposes of this assessment to be
restricted to the Kagera River system in Zones 1 & 2.
Table 5.61 - Aquatic Species and Potential Critical Habitat Triggers in Different Zones of the EAA
Species Taxa IUCN status Extent of Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3
Occurrence
(km2)
Criterion 1: (a) CR/EN Species and (b) VU species
1a) Areas that support globally important concentrations of an IUCN Red-listed EN or CR species (≥ 0.5% of the global population AND
≥ 5 reproductive units22 of a CR or EN species)
1b) Areas that support globally important concentrations of an IUCN Red-listed Vulnerable (VU) species, the loss of which would result
in the change of the IUCN Red List status to EN or CR and meet the thresholds in GN72(a)
Labeo victorianus Cyprinidae (fish) CR 206,062 1a 1a 1a
Oreochromis variabilis Cichlidae (fish) CR 261,828 1a 1a 1a
Oreochromis esculentus Cichlidae (fish) CR 208,622 1a
Criterion 2: Endemic & Restricted Range Species
Areas that regularly hold ≥10% of the global population size AND ≥10 reproductive units of a species
Enteromius “3-spot” (cf. Cyprinidae (fish - NE unknown
cercops) undescribed) 2a 2a
Enteromius “3-spot” (anal Cyprinidae (fish - NE unknown
spot) undescribed) 2a 2a
Enteromius cf. atkinsoni Cyprinidae (fish - NE unknown 2a 2a
undescribed)
Enteromius “broken Cyprinidae (fish - NE unknown 2a 2a
stripe” undescribed)
Enteromius nyanzae Cyprinidae (fish) LC 13,827 2a 2a
Zaireichthys sp. nov Amphiliidae (fish) NE 2a (?)
Labeobarbus acuticeps Cyprinidae (fish) NT 3,257 (?) 2a
Criterion 3: Migratory Species
Areas known to sustain, on a cyclical or otherwise regular basis, ≥ 1 percent of the global population of a migratory or congregatory
species at any point of the species’ lifecycle
Brycinus jacksonii Alestidae (fish) LC 230,691 3a 3a(?) 3a(?)
Brycinus sadleri Alestidae (fish) LC 3a(?) 3a(?) 3a
Labeobarbus altianalis Cyprinidae (fish) LC 244,889 3a(?) 3a 3a
Labeobarbus acuticeps Cyprinidae (fish) NT 3,257 3a(?) 3a
Labeo victorianus Cyprinidae (fish) CR 206,062 3a 3a (?) 3a
The Extent of Occurrence (EOO) refers to the globally extant population (IUCN 2018).
(NE = Not Evaluated, LC = Least Concern, NT = Near Threatened, VU = Vulnerable, CR = Critically Endangered).
(?) = EOO (IUCN 2018) suggests it does occur here but has not been recorded in surveys or has been recorded in surveys but not in
the EOO.
D.1 Criterion 1: Critically Endangered and Endangered Species
Three fish species qualify for Criterion 1 (a). This includes one cyprinid Labeo victorianus (commonly known
as Ningu) and two cichlids (Oreochromis variabilis and O. esculentus). All three species trigger critical habitat
22 The IUCN Biodiversity Areas standard uses the following definition for reproductive unit: “the minimum number and combination
of mature individuals necessary to trigger a successful reproductive event at a site Examples of five reproductive units include five
pairs, five reproducing females in one harem, and five reproductive individuals of a plant species.” Eisenberg, 1977. The Evolution of
the Reproductive Unit in the Class Mammalia (footnote GN16 under GN72)

under criterion 1a as indicated in Table 5.62. Labeo victorianus was confirmed to occur in Zone 2
downstream of the Kakono HPP during the February 2020 survey for this study.
Table 5.62 – Criterion 1 Qualifying Fish Species Showing the Percentage of the Global EOO Within Each Zone
Criterion 1: CR/EN Species Species Taxa IUCN Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3
rating
1a) Areas that support Labeo victorianus Cyprinidae CR (1a) 2.41% 2.49% 1.90%
globally important
concentrations of an IUCN
Red-listed EN or CR species Oreochromis Cichlidae CR 2.68% 1.00% 1.47%
(≥ 0.5% of the global variabilis
population AND ≥ 5
reproductive units 23 of a CR
or EN species). Oreochromis Cichlidae CR 3.36% 0%* 0%*
esculentus
CR = Critically Endangered.
* O. esculentus has been recorded in Zone 3 during studies for Rusumo Falls HPP and may occur in Zone 2 but the IUCN distribution
used of the analyses does not reflect their confirmed distribution in these zones, so it has been excluded.
Labeo victorianus was uplisted from Least Concern in 2006 to Critically Endangered in 2016 based on IUCN
criteria A2 acde, as follows: Population reduction observed, estimated, inferred or suspected in the past
where the causes of reduction may not have ceased OR may not be understood OR may not be reversible
based on a) direct observation; c) a decline in area of occupancy (AOO), extent of occurrence (EOO) and / or
habitat quality; d) actual or potential levels of exploitation and e) effects of introduced taxa, hybridization,
pathogens, pollutants, competitors or parasites.
The data on which this species was uplisted to Critically Endangered and the importance of the various
variables (a, c, d and e) above) is not available but warrants further consideration given the species’ wide
distribution and number of confirmed locations in the Lake Victoria Basin, and specifically in the Kagera
Basin. Nonetheless, this CHA is limited to using the best available information and therefore the current
IUCN Red-List rating is used in the absence of additional information.
Using spatial extent as a proxy for the population of L. victorianus which has an EOO of 203,547 km2, over
0.5% is represented in each of the three zones in the Kagera River catchment making up the ecological area
of analysis of this CHA. Based on the size of the three zones (varying between 5,136 and 9,273 km2), the
full EAA (all 3 zones combined) would have an estimated 5.59% of the global population. Of this, the Kakono
HPP zone (Zone 2) of 5,136 km2 would have just over 1%. Of note, an EAA of >1,168 km2 is the spatial
extent of its EOO needed to meet the threshold of 0.5%, so even if the Kakono HPP river reach was reduced
to half the size it would still trigger critical habitat. It must be remembered that the reason for selecting the
river zones making up the EAA was to take account of the needs for migratory species of which L. victorianus
is one migratory species that migrates onto floodplains for spawning.
23 The IUCN Biodiversity Areas standard uses the following definition for reproductive unit: “the minimum number and combination
of mature individuals necessary to trigger a successful reproductive event at a site Examples of five reproductive units include five
pairs, five reproducing females in one harem, and five reproductive individuals of a plant species.” Eisenberg, 1977. The Evolution of
the Reproductive Unit in the Class Mammalia (footnote GN16 under GN72)

D.2 Criterion 2: Endemic and Range Restricted Species
As per the IFC (2018), endemic species are considered as restricted range species and have a limited extent
of occurrence. In aquatic systems restricted range species are those that do not exceed 200 km width at
any point (for example, rivers) or species having a global range of less than or equal to 500 km linear
geographic span (i.e., the distance between occupied locations furthest apart).
The Lake Victoria Basin extends over 68,000 km2 and exceeds 500 km across its spatial extent, and
therefore species which are endemic to the greater LVB are not considered restricted range species for the
Kakono HPP CHA. Only species which have been confirmed in at least one of the three zones delineated for
the Lower Kagera River are considered as potential critical habitat qualifying species and assessed under
Criterion 2.
Seven fish species identified under Criterion 2 may trigger critical habitat are shown in Table 5.63.
• Four of these species are small barbs belonging to the genus Enteromius and are believed to be
new species that were found in the Kagera River reach in and downstream of the reservoir (Zone 2)
in the Ngono and its tributaries, as well as upstream of the Nsongezi falls (Tweddle D, SAIAB, pers.
comm.) in fish surveys in 2022. These species have thus not been evaluated by the IUCN and
should be considered Data Deficient.
• A fifth species E. nyanzae has 39% of its EOO within Zone 3 (upstream of Nsongezi Falls), however,
populations of this species were also found during the February 2020 survey in Zone 2. If this Zone
is included in the estimation, then 28% of the population fall within Zone 3 and 27% in Zone 2 (i.e.
55%, while the remaining 44% remains outside of either zone).
• An undescribed species of Zaireichthys, a small catlet, was recorded in Zone 2 during the November
2020 survey and is likely to be a range-resricted species.
• The seventh species Labeobarbus acuticeps is endemic to the Kagera River system and has been
assessed as Near Threatened. The EOO for this species shows that this species is restricted to the
Kagera River upstream of Nsongezi and Rusumo Falls, but a single specimen was identified as L.
acuticeps in Zone 2 during survey in 2020.
Table 5.63 - Criterion 2 Qualifying Fish Species Showing the Percentage of the Global EOO Within Each Zone
Criterion 2: Endemic & Species Taxa IUCN Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3
Restricted Range rating
Species
Areas that regularly Enteromius “3-spot” (cf. Cyprinidae NE (DD?) 50%* 50%
hold ≥10% of the cercops)
global population size
AND ≥10 reproductive Enteromius “3-spot” (anal Cyprinidae NE (DD?) 50%* 50%
units of a species spot)
Enteromius cf. atkinsoni Cyprinidae NE (DD?) 50% 50%
Enteromius “broken stripe” Cyprinidae NE (DD?) 50% 50%
Enteromius nyanzae Cyprinidae LC 27%1 28%
Zaireichthys sp. nov Amphiliidae NE (DD?) 100%
Labeobarbus acuticeps Cyprinidae NT (?) 22.62%

(?) = EOO (IUCN 2018) suggests it does occur here but has not been recorded in surveys, or has been recorded in surveys but not in
the EOO
* the assumption is that the two potentially new species are restricted to Zone 2 of the Kagera River
1
Range extension based on findings of this study
D.3 Criterion 3: Migratory and Congregatory Species
To trigger critical habitat an area must be known to: a) sustain, on a cyclical or otherwise regular basis, ≥ 1
percent of the global population of a migratory or congregatory species at any point of the species’ lifecycle
or b) predictably support ≥10 percent of the global population of a species during periods of environmental
stress.
Five species known occur in the Kagera River system qualify for this criterion, i.e. likely undertake cyclical
migrations over medium distances. Medium distance is defined here to mean approximately 30 km as
opposed to longer migrations covering 100 km or more. Sources of evidence for migratory fish species is

provided in Section 5.3.2.8H. Based on current understanding of the migratory requirements of these
species there is a strong possibility that they migrate within zones. Evidence to support migrations across
Zones 1, 2 and 3 is less certain.
Table 5.64 summarises migratory fish that trigger critical habitat for each EAA zone.
Table 5.64 - Criterion 3 Qualifying Fish Species Showing the Percentage of the Global EOO that Falls Within Each
Zone
Criterion 3: Migratory Species Taxa IUCN rating Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3
Species
Areas known to sustain, on Brycinus jacksonii Alestidae LC 2.06% 2.2% 4.02%

a cyclical or otherwise
regular basis, ≥ 1 percent Brycinus sadleri Alestidae LC 4.07% 3.03% 6.11%
of the global population of
a migratory or
Labeobarbus altianalis Cyprinidae LC 1.94% 1.07% 1.47%
congregatory species at
any point of the species’
lifecycle. Labeobarbus acuticeps Cyprinidae NT (?) 22.62%
Labeo victorianus Cyprinidae CR 2.41% 2.49% 1.9%
(NA = Not Assessed, LC = Least Concern, NT = Near Threatened, VU = Vulnerable, CR = Critically Endangered).
(?) = EOO (IUCN 2018) suggests it does occur here but has not been recorded in surveys or has been recorded in surveys but not in
the EOO.
D.4 Criterion 4: Highly Threatened or Unique Ecosystems
No formal Red List assessment of Ecosystems in the Nile Basin has been conducted. Therefore, we have
inferred that Key Biodiversity Areas (KBA) identified by Sayer et al., 2018 represent potential highly
threatened or unique ecosystems based on the assumption that presence of threatened species is a proxy
for degree of threat to the ecosystem in which these species reside.
KBAs and Protected Areas identified in the Kagera Basin are shown in Figure 5-158. A summary of aquatic
KBAs in the Lower Kagera Basin is summarised in Table 5.65.
Table 5.65 - Criterion 4 Qualifying Ecosystems Based on Identified KBAs (Sayer et al., 2018)
Criterion 4: Highly KBA and relevant Country Size Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3
Threatened or Unique ecosystem (km2)
Ecosystems
Areas representing ≥5% of Kagera Swamps Tanzania 1,116 4b
the global extent of an (Tanzania)
ecosystem type meeting
the criteria for IUCN status Akagera National Rwanda 1,000 4b
of CR or EN. Park (Rwanda)
Other areas, not yet
assessed by IUCN, but South Akagera Rwanda 531 4b
determined to be of high
priority for conservation by Lake Ngoma- Tanzania 479 4b
regional or national Bisongu
systematic conservation
planning. Kagera River Mouth Uganda 0.75 4b
Five KBAs were identified in the Lower Kagera by Sayer et al. (2018), the largest area of which is in Zone 3,
upstream of Kakono HPP in Rwanda, and adjacent to the Akagera National Park (Figure 5-158 in Section
5.3.4). These were mainly designated for the presence of threatened fish species predominantly in the
permanent and seasonal rivers and wetlands, including permanent freshwater lakes. Threats to these
systems comprise burning and clearing of wetlands for cultivation and overfishing.
One KBA was identified in the lower Kagera River:
• Kagera River Mouth which extends 1km into the lake at the river mouth and is identified as ‘an
important fish breeding ground and also as an important site where fish aggregate to run the river
for spawning’ (Sayer et al., 2018).
It should be noted that the Sango Bay IBA extends from the Uganda border to the Kagera River Mouth and
is designated for its rich wetland bird life and swamp forests (www.birdlife.org) (see Section 5.3.4).

No KBAs were identified in the lower reaches of the Kagera River in Tanzania and in the entire Zone 2 from
Mwisa River confluence up to the Nsongezi Falls. While this zone does contain critical habitat trigger species
for Criterion 1 to 3 this section of river is not considered a ‘highly threatened or unique ecosystem’.
D.5 Criterion 5: Ecological Processes
This criterion relates to the “Ecological Processes or characteristics that are needed to maintain the viability
of the biodiversity values described above in (a) to (d)” and is the fifth criterion of the World Bank ESS6, for
which there are no defined thresholds. Table 5.66 summarises the key ecological processes required to
support the critical habitat qualifying species identified under Criteria 1, 2 and 3.
Table 5.66 - Criterion 5 Qualifying Ecological Processes

Critical Habitat trigger species Ecological Processes
Criterion 1 (CR/EN) triggers
Labeo victorianus (CR) • Unimpeded movement between lakes, floodplains and rivers to undertake
upstream movements for spawning and for fingerlings to return to lakes for
feeding
• Maintenance of floodplain habitats and riverine habitats for spawning (with
protection from fishing during these times)
• Maintenance of water quality
• Natural seasonal variability of river flow (with seasonal flood peaks) for breeding
and spawning cues
• Adequate inundation of floodplain areas for sufficient periods of time at the right
time of year to a depth of ~0.5m for spawning.
Oreochromis variabilis and • Protection from potential invasion by predatory fish species (i.e. Nile perch)
Oreochromis esculentus (CR)

Criterion 2 (Endemic / Range Restricted) triggers
Enteromius sp. and • Availability of shallow flowing water habitats (slackwater and backwater and
Zairechthys sp. tributaries) together with emergent vegetation for growth, reproduction and
predation avoidance
• Water quality of an acceptable standard
• Absence of invasive predatory fish
Labeo acuticeps (NT) • Availability of adequate spawning habitat or reproduction – access to flowing
water with clean gravel-cobble substrate for spawning
• River flow rates or flood pulses as cues for migration and reproduction
• Unimpeded movement between lakes and rivers to undertake upstream
movements for spawning and for fingerlings to return to lakes for feeding
(discussed further in Section 5.3.2.8H)
• Maintenance of water quality of an acceptable standard.
Criterion 3 (Migratory/Congregatory triggers)
Labeo victorianus (CR) • River connectivity - absence of barriers or presence of fish passages to maintain
Brycinus jacksonii (LC) migratory species movements for breeding and gene flow. River flow rates or
Brycinus sadleri (LC) flood pulses as cues as well as habitats for migration and reproduction
Labeobarbus altianalis (LC) • As for L. victorianus under Criterion 1
Labeobarbus acuticeps (NT) • As for L. acuticeps under Criterion 2
E Summary of Aquatic Critical Habitat Assessment
The Kakono HPP is confirmed to be located in Critical Habitat for:

• Criterion 1 Critically Endangered Species. The presence of three Critically Endangered fish species
with over 0.5% of their Extent of Occurrence (EOO) in the Kakono HPP Zone 2. This applies to:
− Labeo victorianus that has been caught in all reaches of the lower Kagera River, including during
the February 2020 surveys both upstream and downstream of the Kakono HPP, and
− The possible presence of the Critically Endangered Oreochromis esculentus and Oreochromis
variabilis both of which may occur in the reach where Kakono HPP is located. However, neither
of the two Oreochromis species were caught during surveys for this study or previous surveys
in the lower reaches. However, O. esculentus was recorded in upstream surveys for the Rusumo
Falls.
• Criterion 2 - Range Restricted Species: The presence of five restricted range species with over 1%
of their EOO in the Kakono HPP Zone 2. This applies to:

− Four species of barb in the Enteromius genus (Enteromius “3-spot” (anal spot), Enteromius “3-
spot (cf. cercops), Enteromius “broken stripe” and Enteromius cf. atkinsoni) all of which are
undescribed and have not been evaluated by the IUCN and may be restricted to the Kagera
River and its tributaries (Tweddle D, SAIAB, pers. comm.), where they were caught in Zones 1, 2
and 3. All were confirmed outside the Project AoI;
− A third barb, E. nyanzae is a Critical Habitat qualifying species for Zone 3 based on the IUCN
mapped distribution. However, since it was also recorded in Zone 2 during the February survey
it is considered that it qualifies as a Critical Habitat trigger for the Kakono HPP zone;
− Zaireichthys sp. nov is a small sand catlet which is believed to be an undescribed species for
which only one specimen was found in the Kakono reservoir zone
− Labeobarbus acuticeps, a Near Threatened species that predominantly occurs in the upstream
Zone 3.
• Criterion 3 - Migratory Species: The presence of five migratory species of fish (L. victorianus,
Brycinus jacksonii, B. sadleri, Labeobarbus altianalis and L. acuticeps) all of which have >1% of their
known population (i.e. IUCN spatial distribution) in each of Zone 1, 2, and 3 (except L. acuticeps
which triggers critical habitat in Zone 3 only). However, there are insufficient verified catches of B.
jacksonii and B. sadleri in all zones of the lower Kagera River as several previous surveys only
identified Brycinus to genus level and neither of the two Brycinus species were caught in the
February 2020 survey.
• Criterion 5 - Ecological Processes: The river reach occupied by the Kakono HPP in Zone 2 can be
considered as Critical Habitat for its role in maintaining connectivity for migration of fish and gene
flow between populations, and regulating seasonal flooding of floodplains for fish spawning.
The location of the Kakono HPP in Zone 2 does not qualify as Critical Habitat under Criterion 4 – ‘Unique or
Threatened Ecosystems’, as it does not contain unique or threatened habitats and no KBAs have been
identified in or in close proximity to the Kakono HPP site. Important KBAs that could qualify as Critical Habitat
are located in Zone 3 upstream of Kakono HPP, and in Zone 1 at least 120 km downstream of the proposed
dam, and which are unlikely to be directly affected by the Project.
Terrestrial Ecology Critical Habitat Assessment
A Introduction
The project is located primarily in Natural Habitat as described in Section 5.3.5.2 above. Natural or Modified
habitat can also be Critical Habitat if it contains biodiversity values that meet the threshold for Critical
Habitat. This section provides a Critical Habitat Assessment (CHA) to determine if the Kakono HPP Project is
in Critical Habitat for terrestrial biodiversity.
It has been compiled in accordance with the World Bank ESS6 and International Finance Corporation’s 2018
thresholds as set out in Guidance Note 6 (GN6) for Biodiversity and Conservation of Living Natural Resources
(IFC, 2018). This section of the CHA is focussed on flora, avifauna and mammals that potentially trigger
critical habitat in the Lower Kagera River. It is based on best available information for the Project Area at the
time of writing and the interpretation of the species distribution, habitat preferences and other ecological
requirements, including migration. Distributions of many of the plants in northwestern Tanzania are poorly
known as this is a poorly studied part of the country. Thus, it was not possible to determine whether any
non-threatened species in the region are Restricted-range species or not. Where there are known records
of EN or CR species from within 50km of the study area, and suitable habitat is present, then likelihood of
occurrence has been assessed as Medium. Species with a low likelihood of occurring were screened out as
described in Section B.
Other limitations relevant to the CHA are set out in Table 5.24 in Section 5.3.1.4E.
A.1 Objectives
The aim of this section is to assess the status of terrestrial ecological features of the Kakono HPP Project
area and specifically to determine if it lies within Critical Habitat and, if so, what the implications may be for
the Project.

This will be achieved by undertaking the following:

• To review the existing Project documentation and conduct a wider search on information pertaining
to terrestrial species and habitats that may trigger critical habitat;
• To determine an appropriate spatial scope for the CHA;
• To screen selected species against the criteria and thresholds for determining Critical Habitat (CH)
based on the International Finance Corporation GN6 (IFC, 2018); and
• To determine the implications for the proposed Kakono HPP being developed in CH, if CH is
determined to be present.
A.2 Approach
The CHA was based on IFC GN6 (2018; GN59). The analysis requires an ecologically appropriate area of
analysis (EAA) to be determined for each species with regular occurrence in the project’s AOI (or groups of
species with overlapping distribution and ecosystem requirements) or at an ecosystem level. These are
defined considering the distribution of species or ecosystems and ecological patterns, processes, features
or functions necessary to maintain them. For wide-ranging (or migratory/congregatory) species (e.g.
vultures), these need to include consideration of areas of aggregation and recruitment (e.g. for feeding or
breeding). Where appropriate and to maintain connectivity, these boundaries may extent to a catchment
level of analysis. Typically, the EAA may be larger than the AOI of the project but for this CHA the EAA was
the same as the AOI as described and mapped in Section 5.3.1.1.
The IFC GN6 stresses that delineating the EAA for a CHA should be informed by the AOI of the Project but
that the definition of critical habitat is done irrespective of the impact of a project. In other words, when
defining the spatial boundary for the critical habitat assessment it is necessary to understand the potential
zone of project influence before identifying the biodiversity values (e.g. priority species or habitats) that
occur within this zone and the spatial extent of their ecological requirements needed to sustain these
identified values. Typically, while the ecologically area of analysis may be different for the assessment of
terrestrial and aquatic critical habitats, the boundary used is often based on the species or habitats with the
largest spatial extent. In cases of uncertainty about a species’ distribution or ecological requirements to
complete its lifecycle, delineations should ensure the EAA is sufficient to encompass the possible or likely
habitat or connectivity needs of a species. The size of the critical habitat can be amended after closer
examination and collection of additional information.
However, the larger the spatial extent of the EAA the more likely that critical habitat will be determined,
irrespective of whether the Project may impact on the biodiversity values that trigger Critical Habitat. For
instance, the area required to sustain a migratory species or animal that moves over large distances may
provide the basis for the CHA. Once a CH has been defined, it is important to link the potential impacts of
the Project on the biodiversity triggers as a basis for informed decision-making. When using a large EAA, it
is useful to link species requirements to specific habitats or river reaches as a basis for determining potential
project impacts. This may help to avoid raising a ‘red flag’ without contextualising the project impacts and
to determine whether mitigation can effectively minimise the project risks on Critical Habitat qualifying
features.
Calculating Species Spatial Extent in the EAA

Where population data is limited (as is the case for potential critical habitat qualifying bird species in the
Kagera Basin), the spatial extent of populations (species ranges or Extents of Occurrence (EOO)) is often
used as a proxy for population size (Sayer et al., 2018). This approach was also used for the Bujagali HPP
CHA (Tatum-Hume et al., 2018).
The global EOO for potential CH-qualifying bird species was obtained from the IUCN spatial datasets (IUCN,
2018), and their distribution maps extracted from Birdlife website (www.birdlife.org).
Given the lack of data on bird population sizes in the study area, Sayer et al.’s (2018) approach of using the
size of the population distribution data (EOO) was followed. The proportion of the EAA (occupying
1,038 km2) falling into each bird species’ EOO was used as a basis for calculating the percentage of the bird
species population size in the study area. This was then compared with the threshold percentage of >0.5%
required to trigger Critical Habitat under Criterion 1 of IFC PS6.
This approach assumes that the population of each bird is evenly spread across its Extent of Occurrence
which is unlikely as the bird species will frequent preferred habitats within their Extent of Occurrence.

However, it is not possible to calculate the likely percentage of the bird species occupying the EAA any other
way in the absence of regional habitat mapping for their entire Extent of Occurrence, which is not available.
The threshold percentage that triggered an IFC criterion for a species EOO in a zone was then calculated as
the proportion of that species' occurrence in a zone against its EOO extant distribution. The threshold
percentage for a species' EOO in the whole EAA is also reported.
For comparison with the above approach, the proportion of birds quantified during the October/November
2020 survey were compared with the global population numbers from the latest IUCN assessments and
compared against the IFC thresholds for CH status.
Results from both approaches are quantified in Section C.2 below.
B Ecological Area of Analysis for Kakono HPP
The Ecological Area of Analysis (EAA) used as the basis for the CHA was defined by taking into account the
project AoI (described in Section 5.3.1.1) and the ecological processes necessary to maintain the priority
species that could potentially trigger Critical Habitat that occur in the project area.
The EAA was based on best available knowledge of the distribution of potential Critical Habitat qualifying
(CH-q) species, taking into account their migration and breeding requirements, connectivity of ecosystems,
and presence of natural and artificial migration barriers. Five potential CH-q biodiversity features identified
in the Project area are the following species:
• Hooded vulture (EOO 23,000 km2)
• Lappet-faced vulture (EOO 250,000 km2)
• Bateleur eagle (EOO 55,200 km2)
• Grey-crowned crane (EOO 23,500,000 km2)
• African savanna elephant (EOO 2,551,206 km2)24
The home ranges of the vultures are far more extensive than a reasonable EAA given that the impacts on
vultures may potentially arise only as a result of the transmission line. Hydrological modelling indicated that
the downstream effects of water level fluctuations within the floodplain arising from the HPP operation will
be minor beyond 56 km downstream of the HPP. However, the precautionary principle was applied and the
entire downstream reach to EFA 4 (96 km from the dam wall site) was included in the EAA for the
determination of Critical Habitat.
The movements of African savanna elephant were also taken into account when determining the EAA,
particularly regarding the known movement corridors along the access road and across the transmission
line route. Given that the large extent of occurrence of vultures encompass the EAA for African elephant, a
single integrated EAA was used that covers the same area delineated for the project’s Indirect Area of
Influence as indicated in Figure 5-163.
The CHA uses the EAA as the basis to determine whether it has biodiversity values that qualify as Critical
Habitat using the IFC PS6 criteria and thresholds as described in the following sections.
24
Includes African forest elephant which has relatively small distribution compared to African savanna elephant; no recent figures for
EOO available.

Figure 5-163- Ecological Area of Analysis for the Terrestrial Critical Habitat Assessment

C Screening of Potential Terrestrial Critical Habitat-Qualifying Species in Kakono HPP Project EAA
C.1 Potential Critical Habitat-Qualifying Flora, Birds and Mammals
A full list of potential CH-qualifying species of flora, avifauna and mammals known to occur in northwestern
Tanzania are listed in Table 5.67. Each of these species was carefully screened according to known
distribution records and habitat preferences. Species with a low likelihood of occurring were excluded from
the CHA.
C.2 Distribution and Population of Potential Critical Habitat Qualifying Species
Potential terrestrial CH-qualifying species confirmed to occur in the study area (i.e. those written in bold in
Table 5.67) and their Extent of Occurrence (EOO) and known global population size are indicated in Table
5.68 with distribution maps shown in Table 5.69.

Table 5.67 - Screening of Potentially Occurring Terrestrial Flora and Fauna CH-qualifying Species in the Project Area. Species Confirmed in the Project Area during fieldwork are highlighted in
grey
Species Status Habitat Likelihood Rationale
FLORA
Mellera insignis CR Wet riverine forest Low Very rare species; no nearby records; habitat not ideal; known only from the Kibondo area of
northwest Tanzania
Aeollanthus stuhlmannii EN Rocks or shallow soil on rocks at 1,100-1,220 masl Low Suitable habitat present on several hills, but only known from south and southeast of Lake
Victoria
Barleria penelopeana EN Grassland and Acacia woodland, including heavily grazed Low Suitable habitat present in vicinity of transmission line and access roads, but only known from
areas and secondary grassland following clearance several localities in the vicinity of Mwanza
of woodland
Blotiella trichosora EN Usually near streams in undergrowth of semi-deciduous Low Limited suitable habitat present (forest not wet or groundwater-fed)
moist forest, occasionally at edge of swamp forest, rarely in
gallery forest; at 800-1,750 m elevation
Bothriocline quercifolia EN Grows in savannah and Eucalyptus plantations; between Low Apparently suitable habitat present in vicinity of transmission line and access roads; however,
1,250 and 1,900 m altitude the Tanzania records are from above 1800 masl
Cyphostemma vanderbenii EN Occurs in woodland, gallery forest, grassland with bracken Low Occurs at higher altitude than that represented in the project area
and some scattered shrubs, and fallow land, at 1,450 -
1,800 m altitude
Dissotis alata EN Found in valley grassland, at 1,350 m altitude Low Occurs at higher altitude than that represented in the project area
Emilia cryptantha EN Growing in swamp grassland at 1,000-1,250 m Medium Suitable habitat present downstream of dam; known localities in the lower Kagera near the
lake
Emilia longifolia EN Growing in swamps at 1,050-1,650 m Medium Potential suitable habitat present but no known records within 50 km of study area
Faroa acuminata EN Grasslands on rocky summits or laterite hardpans, between Low Occurs at higher altitude than that represented in the project area
1,300 and 2,000 m altitude
Oxyanthus ugandensis EN Undershrub in moist lowland forest Low Limited suitable habitat present (forest not wet or groundwater-fed)
Vernonia agrianthoides EN Grows in grassy savanna and rocky areas, at 1,050–1,550 m Low Limited suitable habitat present on several hills; not located on transects in this habitat
altitude
Vernonia tinctosetosa EN Grows in wetland areas on sandy lake shores at 1,100- Low Suitable habitat present close to lake shore but not within the study area
1,200 m
AVIFAUNA
White-backed vulture CR Savanna, nests in trees Low Limited prey available, may occasionally forage over less disturbed areas; one July record from
(Gyps africanus) Karagwe 3101A
Rüppell's vulture CR Savanna, nests on cliffs Low Limited prey available, may occasionally forage over less disturbed areas; no records from
(Gyps rueppelli) Karagwe 3101A
Hooded vulture CR Savanna, built-up areas, nests in trees Confirmed A flock of three birds were seen circling over Bunazi town in late October 2020, possibly
(Necrosyrtes monachus) associating with the town refuse facility. No birds were located in Natural Habitat in the project
area during fieldwork and it is highly unlikely that the birds breed in close proximity to Bunazi
White-headed vulture CR Savanna, nests in trees Low Limited prey available, may occasionally forage over less disturbed areas; April and July in
(Trigonoceps occipitalis) Karagwe 3101A (2 records)
Egyptian vulture (Neophron EN Wide variety of habitats, but favours dry areas Low Limited prey available, may occasionally forage over less disturbed areas; one July record from
percnopterus) Karagwe 3101A
Lappet-faced vulture EN Savanna, nests in trees Confirmed Two birds were seen circling over hilly terrain in the vicinity of the proposed dam wall during
(Torgos tracheliotos) November 2020. There is sufficient breeding and foraging habitat within the project area south

Species Status Habitat Likelihood Rationale

of the Kagera River and within the inundation area, but it is more likely that this species breeds
in nearby large conservation areas and forages in the study area.
Madagascar pond heron EN Pans, marshes Low Limited suitable habitat present; no records from Karagwe 3101A
(Ardeola idae)
Grey-crowned crane EN Reedbeds, marshes, moist grassland/savanna Confirmed Approximately 25 birds were observed at 4 different locations during fieldwork (upper
(Balearica regulorum) inundation area, and sites downstream of the dam (i.e. 3 km (EFA 1), 52 km (EFA 3), and 92 km
(EFA 4)). The largest concentration was 15 birds along the Kagera River around 52 km
downstream of the dam. These were all most likely non-breeding birds that had not yet
dispersed for the breeding season (Nov-June). More extensive areas of Papyrus - Vossia
wetland in the study area downstream of the Kakono HPP may represent suitable breeding
habitat for this species, although the relatively high human population along the Kagera River
make it likely that disturbance levels will be high.
Grey parrot EN Primary lowland forest Low No suitable habitat present, very rare in Tanzania; one Dec record from Minziro Forest in
(Psittacus erithacus) Karagwe 3101A
Steppe eagle EN Savanna Confirmed A single adult was observed circling over woodland/bushclump mosaic habitat in the extreme
(Aquila nipalensis) southern part of the project area. Small numbers possibly overwinter in the studyarea, but it is
highly unlikely that globally significant numbers are present.
Bateleur eagle EN Savanna Confirmed Several adult and immature birds were seen on a few occasions foraging over the woodlands
(Terathopius ecaudatus) south of the Kagera River and this species is likely to be resident in the area.
MAMMALS
African savanna elephant EN Variety of savanna, woodland and forest types Confirmed Extensive open woodland habitat present and evidence of elephants were sighted along the
(Loxodonta africana) access road and dam reservoir area including a small herd.
Ashy red colobus EN Variety of forest types Low Limited habitat present, small and fragmented population; only likely in Minziro Forest
(Piliocolobus tephrosceles)
White-bellied pangolin EN Moist tropical lowland forest, dense woodlands Low Widespread overexploitation, limited habitat present
(Phataginus tricuspis)
Giant ground pangolin EN Moist tropical lowland forest, dense woodlands Low Widespread overexploitation, limited habitat present; only likely in Minziro Forest
(Smutsia gigantea)

Table 5.68 - Extent of Occurrence and Population Size of Potential Critical Habitat Triggers in the defined EAA
Species Taxa IUCN Extent of Global population EAA Proportion (%) of Critical Habitat qualifying
status Occurrence (number of global population feature
(km2) individuals) Inundation Downstream Transmission observed in
Zone Riparian Line and Access Indirect AoI / EAA
Zone Road
Criterion 1: (a) CR/EN Species and (b) VU species
1a) Areas that support globally important concentrations of an IUCN Red-listed EN or CR species (≥ 0.5% of the global population AND ≥ 5 reproductive units1 of a CR or EN species)
Hooded vulture Necrosyrtes monachus CR 22,500,000 197,000 Likely Unlikely Likely 0.005 No
Lappet-faced vulture Torgos tracheliotos EN 34,200,000 8,500 Confirmed Unlikely Likely 0.003 No
Steppe eagle Aquila nipalensis EN 10,800,000 74,000 Likely Possible Confirmed 0.010 No
Bateleur eagle Terathopius ecaudatus EN 23,500,000 10,000-100,000 Confirmed Confirmed Confirmed 0.004-0.00004% No
Grey-crowned crane Balearica regulorum EN 6,070,000 33,500 Confirmed Confirmed Possible 0.002 No
African savanna elephant Loxodonta africana EN 2,551,206 415,42825 Confirmed Confirmed Confirmed 0.041 No
Criterion 2: Endemic & Restricted Range Species
Areas that regularly hold ≥10% of the global population size AND ≥10 reproductive units of a species
No relevant species
Criterion 3: Migratory Species
Areas known to sustain, on a cyclical or otherwise regular basis, ≥ 1 percent of the global population of a migratory or congregatory species at any point of the species’ lifecycle.
No relevant species
26
[1] The IUCN Biodiversity Areas standard uses the following definition for reproductive unit: “the minimum number and combination of mature individuals necessary to trigger a successful reproductive event at a site
Examples of five reproductive units include five pairs, five reproducing females in one harem, and five reproductive individuals of a plant species.” Eisenberg, 1977. The Evolution of the Reproductive Unit in the Class
Mammalia (footnote GN16 under GN72)
EAA = 1037,75km2 (Area of Indirect Impact (AoI)).
(CR = Critically Endangered; EN = Endangered).
25
Elephant population number based on 2016 estimate

Hooded vulture (Critically Endangered) Lappet-faced vulture (Endangered)
Steppe eagle (Endangered)
Grey-crowned crane (Endangered)
African Savanna Elephant

Table 5.69 - Distribution Maps of Potential Terrestrial Critical Habitat-Qualifying Species

D Assessment of Critical Habitat for Terrestrial Biodiversity
The thresholds for each criterion and their application in this terrestrial CHA for the lower Kagera River are
indicated in Table 5.70. Note: IFC GN6 (2018) includes thresholds for criteria 1-4 only. Criteria 5 is a World
Bank ESS6 criterion and does not have specific thresholds.
In conclusion, no terrestrial or riparian biodiversity features were identified that classify as Critical Habitat H
according to criteria 1 to 5.

Table 5.70 - Application of Critical Habitat Criteria to Terrestrial Biodiversity of the Kakono HPP EAA
ESS6 Criteria & Thresholds (IFC GN6) Threshold applied for Kakono HPP Terrestrial CHA Summary Statement
Criterion 1: Critically Endangered and Endangered Species [1]
Areas that support globally important One CR and four EN bird species have been confirmed to occur in the Project Area and are each dealt with in more detail below: No terrestrial or riparian
concentrations of an IUCN Red-listed EN Hooded vulture (Necrosyrtes monachus) (CR): A flock of three birds seen circling over Bunazi town, possibly associating with the town refuse flora or fauna species
or CR species (≥ 0.5% of the global facility. No birds were located in Natural Habitat in the project area during fieldwork and it is highly unlikely that the birds breed in close trigger CH under
[2]
population AND ≥ 5 reproductive units proximity to Bunazi. However, there is sufficient breeding and foraging habitat within the project area south of the Kagera and within the Criterion 1
of a CR or EN species). inundation area, but this is the case for much of northwest Tanzania. An estimated 0.005% of its global population could overlap with the
indirect AoI (terrestrial EAA) and therefore it does not fulfil the thresholds for qualifying the project area as CH.
Lappet-faced vulture (Torgos tracheliotos) (EN): Two birds were seen circling over hilly terrain in the vicinity of the proposed dam wall during
fieldwork. There is sufficient breeding and foraging habitat within the project area south of the Kagera and within the inundation area, but this
is the case for much of northwest Tanzania. An estimated 0.003% of its global population could overlap with the indirect AoI (terrestrial EAA)
and therefore it does not fulfil the thresholds for qualifying the project area as CH.
Steppe eagle (Aquila nipalensis) (EN): A single adult was observed circling over woodland/bushclump mosaic habitat in the extreme southern
part of the project area; this species is a non-breeding visitor to East Africa and is most numerous when on passage through the region (Oct
and Mar/Apr); small numbers also possibly spent the boreal winter in the area, but it is highly unlikely that globally significant numbers are
present. An estimated 0.010% of its global population could overlap with the indirect AoI (terrestrial EAA) and therefore it does not fulfil the
thresholds for qualifying the project area as CH.
Bateleur eagle (Terathopius ecaudatus) (EN): Several adult and immature birds were seen on a few occasions foraging over the woodlands
south of the Kagera River and this species is likely to be resident in the area. This species is a widespreadh species across southern and eastern
Africa sub-Saharan Africa and the Arabian Peninsula, only avoiding the heavily forested Congo Basin and is more commonly seen in open
savannah, arid or semi-arid bushland, woodland and grassland. An estimated 0.004% of its global population (based on 10,000 birds) could
overlap with the indirect AoI (terrestrial EAA) and therefore it does not fulfil the thresholds for qualifying the project area as CH.
Grey-crowned crane (Balearica regulorum) (EN): Approximately 25 birds were observed at four different locations during fieldwork (upper
inundation area, and between 3 km and 92 km downstream), with the largest concentration being 15 birds along the Kagera River about
54 km downstream. These were all most likely non-breeding birds that had not yet dispersed for the breeding season (Nov-June). While the
more extensive areas of Papyrus - Vossia wetland in the project area may represent suitable breeding habitat for this species, the relatively
high level of disturbance caused by human communities along the Kagera River make it unlikely that this is a regularly breeding species in the
project area. More extensive floodplain wetlands downstream (beyond 92km) and in the upper reaches of the Kagera (Kagera Swamp) are
more likely to hold significant concentrations of breeding birds. An estimated 0.002% of its global population could overlap with the indirect
AoI (terrestrial EAA) and therefore it does not fulfil the thresholds for qualifying the project area as CH.
African savanna elephant (Loxodonta Africana) (EN): Evidence of elephant were observed in the transmission line corridor, access road corridor
and along the right bank of the Kagera River in the vicinity of the Kakono HPP, including a small herd. These animals regularly move through
the area, possibly between Burigi-Chato National Park and some may be resident within the Indirect AoI, possibly taking refuge in dense
woodland patches. An estimated 0.041% of its global population could overlap with the indirect AoI (terrestrial EAA) and therefore it does not
fulfil the thresholds for qualifying the project area as CH.
Areas that support globally important Two VU species have been confirmed to occur in the Project Area: Southern ground hornbill Bucorvus leadbeateri) and the VU hippopotamus
concentrations of an IUCN Red-listed (Hippopotamus amphibius). However, no globally important concentrations were observed, nor are any likely to be present, and any project-
Vulnerable (VU) species, the loss of which related losses in these species will not result in a change of status to EN or CR.
would result in the change of the IUCN
Red List status to EN or CR and meet the
thresholds in GN72(a).
As appropriate, areas containing No national or regional Red List of terrestrial species exists for Tanzania or the Nile Basin. Only IUCN globally red-listed species are used for
important concentrations of a nationally Criterion 1.
or regionally listed EN or CR species.
Criterion 2: Endemic or Restricted Range Species[3]

Areas that regularly hold ≥10% of the Despite the high floral and bird diversity and presence of large mammals, no flora or fauna species have been confirmed to occur within the No terrestrial or riparian
global population size AND project area have EOOs of less than 50,000 km2. Several bird species occurring in the project area are classified as biome-restricted species, i.e. flora or fauna species
≥10 reproductive units of a species endemic to specific biomes, although these biomes represent much larger surface areas than the 50,000 km2 threshold for restricted-range trigger CH under
species; examples of biome-restricted species in the project area include papyrus gonolek (Laniarius mufumbiri), papyrus canary (Crithagra Criterion 2
koliensis) and white-winged swamp warbler (Bradypterus carpalis).
Criterion 3: Migratory or Congregatory Species[4]
Areas known to sustain, on a cyclical or There are numerous migratory and a few congregatory species known to occur in the project area (e.g. common greenshank Tringa nebularia, No populations of
otherwise regular basis, ≥ 1 percent of the common sandpiper Actitis hypoleucos, red-chested cuckoo Cuculus solitarius, barn swallow Hirundo rusticus and white-faced duck migratory or
global population of a migratory or Dendrocygna viduata) and the ridges in the western part of the project area are possibly a migration route used by raptors (highest raptor congregatory species in
congregatory species at any point of the density was observed in this area). However, there is no evidence that globally significant concentrations of these species are present. Several the project area trigger
species’ lifecycle. hundred Abdim's stork (Ciconia abdimii) were seen on a regular basis along the Kyaka - Kagera Road, although the threshold for globally CH under Criterion 3
significant concentrations (>1% of global population) for this species is 4,500 birds.
Areas that predictably support ≥10% of There is insufficient data to apply this criterion.
the global population of a species during
periods of environmental stress.
Criterion 4: Highly threatened or unique ecosystems
Areas representing ≥5% of the global No formal Red List process has been done for ecosystems in the Project Area and therefore this threshold has not been formally applied in this The habitats of the
extent of an ecosystem type meeting the Kakono HPP CHA. project area are well
criteria for IUCN status of CR or EN. represented along the
Note: This requires use of the IUCN Red entire Kagera River and it
List of Ecosystems where formal IUCN is highly unlikely that this
assessments have been performed or criterion would apply
“assessments using systematic methods
at the national/regional level, carried out
by governmental bodies, recognized
academic institutions and/or other
relevant qualified organizations (including
internationally-recognized NGOs)”.
Other areas, not yet assessed by IUCN, but The Kakono HPP project area is not located within any Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) and thus does not trigger CH status within this criterion. Even though there are a
determined to be of high priority for However, four terrestrial KBAs and one additional Important Bird Area (IBA) are present within a 50km radius of the project area and are number of KBAs and an
conservation by regional or national partially represented by biodiversity features in the project area. These KBAs are: IBA within a 50 km radius
systematic conservation planning. • Minzoro Forest of the project area, the
• Akagera National Park
Kakono HPP area of
influence does not
• Kagera Swamps
overlap within any of
• Lake Mburo National Park and these and thus does not
• Sango Bay-Musamwa Island-Kagera Wetland System (SAMUKA) trigger CH under this
These are shown in Figure 5-155 and described in Section 5.3.4. criterion
Criterion 5: Ecological Processes or characteristics that are needed to maintain the viability of the biodiversity values described above in (a) to (d)
No thresholds are defined. The large proportion of Natural Habitat in the western part of the project area indicates that relevant processes maintaining the viability of No terrestrial biodiversity
biodiversity features in these areas are intact. Further downstream, in the vicinity of the Kagera Sugar Estate and downstream of Kyaka town features are identified
between EFA 3 and EFA 4, the proportion of terrestrial Natural Habitat is far less, although floodplain Papyrus - Vossia habitat is relatively that classify as CH
intact. Important ecological processes in the project area include: according to criteria 1 -
• Habitat and landscape connectivity 4; thus, the ecological
• Natural flow regimes in the Kagera River
processes that maintain
the terrestrial
• Fire
biodiversity of the

• Pollination project area do not
• Seed dispersal trigger CH under this
• Migration corridors
criterion
[1] Where subspecies and sub-populations have been separately assessed for inclusion in the IUCN Red List, they may be considered under Criteria 1, as appropriate (GN68)
[2] The IUCN Biodiversity Areas standard uses the following definition for reproductive unit: “the minimum number and combination of mature individuals necessary to trigger a successful reproductive event at a
site Examples of five reproductive units include five pairs, five reproducing females in one harem, and five reproductive individuals of a plant species.” Eisenberg, 1977. The Evolution of the Reproductive Unit in the
Class Mammalia (footnote GN16 under GN72)
[3] Restricted range species are those with limited Extent of Occurrence (EOO) (GN74): (i) For terrestrial vertebrates and plants, a restricted-range species is defined as those species that have an EOO less than
50,000 km2. (ii) For marine systems, restricted-range species are provisionally being considered those with an EOO of less than 100,000 km2. (iii) For coastal, riverine, and other aquatic species in habitats that do
not exceed 200km width at any point (for example, rivers), restricted range is defined as having a global range of less than or equal to 500 km linear geographic span (i.e., the distance between occupied locations
furthest apart).
[4] Migratory species are defined as any species of which a significant proportion of its members cyclically and predictably move from one geographical area to another (including within the same ecosystem) (GN76).
Congregatory species are defined as species whose individuals gather in large groups on a cyclical or otherwise regular and/or predictable basis (GN77).

Implications of Aquatic and Terrestrial Habitat Status for the Kakono HPP Project
The aquatic and terrestrial CHA described in sections 5.3.5.3 and 5.3.5.4, respectively, confirm that the
Kakono HPP EAA is critical habitat for fish species only.
Although some potential terrestrial critical-habitat triggers are present in the project area (bird species
only), none are present in sufficient numbers or breeding that they would trigger critical habitat against the
critical habitat thresholds.
Quantification of habitat status derived by summing the areal extents of different habitat types in Table
5.55 are summarised in Table 5.71 below. Natural Habitat covers 6,655 ha or almost 97% of the direct AoI.
Only agricultural areas, settlements and some degraded woodland/grassland along the margins of the
Kagera Sugar Estate were classed as Modified Habitat, covering 202 ha or 3% of the direct AoI. In the wider
indirect AoI, natural habitat comprises 61,247ha or 59% and modified habitat 42,327 ha or 41%.
Table 5.71 - Habitat Status of Vegetation Communities/Fauna Habitats Represented in the Study Area
Habitat Status Direct AoI Indirect AoI
Hectares % Hectares %
Critical 0 0
Natural 6,665.2 96.83 61,247.5 59.13
Modified 217.9 3.17 42,327.5 40.87
Total 6,883.1 100 103,575.1 100
Therefore, given the potential for direct impacts on 6,665 ha of natural habitat, there will be a requirement
for the project to minimise habitat losses, identify management measures to restore or improve terrestrial
habitats, and investigate other habitat and species protection measures.
Achieving no net loss of biodiversity for the residual impacts may require consideration of protection
measures for the remaining habitats around the reservoir (possibly under a catchment management plan)
which will have additional benefits for minimising sedimentation. Further consideration to these aspects is
given in Chapter 7.

5.4 Socio-economic Conditions
This section provides the social baseline data at an appropriate level of detail, sufficient to inform
characterization and identification of social risks; upstream and downstream impacts and mitigation
measures.
Study Area and Methodology
Study Area
The potential direct impacts considered to define the study area for the SBS are those relating to the loss
of land, or access to land or natural resources, because of the footprint of the Project facilities. Impacts and
associated study areas are listed in Table 5.72.
Table 5.72 - Potential Direct Impacts and Associated Study areas

Potential impacts considered for the definition of direct Spatial area associated with potential direct impacts
impact area
• Dislocation or involuntary resettlement of people and risk of • Direct footprint of:
loss of livelihood, health or social cohesion; • Inundated area (reservoir);
• Encroachment of the project facilities on historical/cultural • Permanent facilities, e.g. dam, access road, substation;
monument/areas; and • Temporary facilities, e.g. construction camps, quarry
• Impairment of navigation. areas; and
• Right-of-way of the Transmission Line.
The potential indirect impacts considered to define the study area for the SBS are those relating to
downstream impacts, ecosystem services and community health during the construction, operation and
decommissioning periods. Impacts and associated study areas are listed in Table 5.73.
Table 5.73 - Potential Indirect Impacts and Associated Study Areas

Potential impacts considered for the definition of indirect Spatial area associated with potential indirect impacts
impact area
• Partial flooding of agricultural plots of land located in the • Communities adjacent to the reservoir area
floodplain. • Communities along the Kagera River downstream of the
• Project-induced in-migration and adverse effects on dam down to km93.
community health during construction. • Communities along the Transmission Line wayleave from
• Conflicts on water supply rights during operation: irrigation powerhouse to connection to the grid.
from sugar cane plantations, intakes for water supply.
• Impairment of existing socio-economic activities such as
fisheries, agro-industrial activities, livestock farming during
construction (competition for workforce) and operation
(reservoir filling, sediment flushing, obstacle to livestock
movements).
• Community health around the reservoir (e.g. water-borne
diseases) or along the Transmission Line (electromagnetic
fields).
The study area encompasses both the direct and indirect impacts listed above. It includes the territories of
two categories of socioeconomic areas (‘village lands’ and ‘institutional lands’) riverine to or crossed by the
Project components (reservoir, dam and construction camps, access road, Transmission Line and extension
of the Kyaka substation) and the Kakono river downstream of the dam down to 30km after Kyaka village.
The study area is illustrated on Map 5-1. It extends:
• From west to east, from Businde ward (upper part of the reservoir) to Kassambaya wards, down to
km93 downstream of the proposed Kakono dam; and
• From north to south, from the northern boundary of Missenyi ranch to the southern boundary of
Kitengule ranch, i.e. ~50 km.

The eastern limit of the study area was decided according to the result of the hydraulic modelling report
whish highlighted that the hydraulic area of influence would extend up to 93 km downstream of the
proposed Kakono dam.
The Project is located in the north western Kagera region. Table 5.74 below lists the Districts, Wards and
Villages included in the study area. Map 5-2 illustrates their location.
Table 5.74 - Villages Included in the Study Area

District Ward Total area Territory encroached by Hectare of Villages
(ha) the following Project ward area
component: encroached by
Project
footprints (%)
Missenyi District Kyaka ward 9,216.91 Transmission Line and 24,8 Kyaka village
Downstream impacts (0,27%) Bulifani village
Kakunyu ward 77,848.24 Downstream impacts 986,1 -

(1,27%)
Nsunga ward 36,116,22 Downstream impacts - -
Kassambaya ward 17,592.50 Downstream impacts - Omundongo village
Nyhabianga village
Kassambya village
Gabulanga village
Mushasha ward 8,368.41 Downstream impacts - Mushasha village
Karagwe District Kihanga Ward 60,007.74 Reservoir 353,39 Mushabaiguru village
(0,59%)
Kyerwa District Businde Ward 29,596.85 Reservoir 189,38 Businde village
(0,63%)
Reservoir 200,47 Bugara village
(0,67%)
Reservoir 134,48 Mugaba village
(0,004%)
In addition, the study area includes institutional stakeholders (see Table 5.75) who privately own the land
they use as explained in Section 5.4.2.2.
Table 5.75 - Institutions whose Land Could be Affected by a Project Component

District Institution Territory encroached by the following Project component:
Missenyi District Missenyi ranch Reservoir
Kagera Sugar Company Reservoir
Karagwe District Kagera Sugar Company Transmission Line, construction site, access road
Kitengule Prison Transmission Line
Kitengule ranch Access road, construction site.
Downstream of the proposed reservoir, between the dam, Omundongo and Kyaka villages, there is no
village, but there are Kagera Sugar Company (KSC) workers’ camps. In November 2020, nine KSC camps
were in Missenyi District, amongst which eight were on the left bank of the Kagera River, and one camp was
located on the right bank.

Map 5-1 – Social Baseline Study Area

Map 5-2 – Administrative Boundaries

Methodology
The methodology followed to prepare the Social Baseline was informed by:
• A review of the existing Environmental and Social documentation including the 2014 and 2017
Social and Environmental Impact Assessments and the 2017 Resettlement Action Plan (RAP).
• A social reconnaissance site visit undertaken in December 2019. It helped to define the study area
according to the potential impacts and their sensitive social receptors identified, as well as the data
collection protocols.
Based on the information available and the findings of the reconnaissance visit, it was found that
appropriate quantitative information was available from previous studies (Norplan, 2016a; TANESCO,
2017b; TANESCO, 2017a) and available public statistical database (National Bureau of Statistics) to describe
the socioeconomic baseline at the District and Ward level.
Therefore, it was chosen (i) to focus the social fieldwork on the villages and sub-villages affected by the
Project located both upstream and downstream of the dam and (ii) to understand the social organisation of
these communities and their access to resources (land and water) that could be affected by the Project. It
was decided not to conduct a quantitative household survey for three main reasons:
• The number of people living in the Project footprint is relatively limited (See Section 5.4.2.2). Only a
few houses may be affected (between 5 to 10). With the exception of when the Transmission Line
connects to the substation in Kyaka, there is no settlement in the Project footprints.
• Two detailed socio-economic households’ surveys have been conducted as part of the
Resettlement Action Plan (RAP). These household surveys have only targeted the People directly
Affected by the Project land acquisition and restriction of access or use of natural resources.
• There are two main types of socio-economic areas in the Project area: (i) ’institutional lands’
occupied by large industries such as the Kagera Sugar Company (KSC); and (ii) ’village lands’
occupied by local communities mostly engaged in farming activities (see below and Section
5.4.2.2). The differences between these two types of socio-economic areas are structuring the
distribution of land and water uses, as well as the landscapes. These two categories of ‘territories’
have their own socio-economic characteristics and organisation.
• Except for the people directly affected by the Project’s footprints, most of the Project’s impacts are
likely to be caused by changes in the nature of natural resources (mostly the river and the land)
and in the uses of these resources by the communities. To understand the potential Project’s
impacts, it is essential to understand how the local communities use and depend on the local
‘territories’ or how their needs and experiences are shaping the local social territories. It is
necessary to identify and map the land and water uses. The distribution of right of uses and
practices amongst the different social groups in the affected communities is in each category of
‘territory’ (‘institutional lands’ and ‘villages lands’). A qualitative approach is more appropriate than
quantitative households’ surveys to understand these two categories of territories and develop a
‘territorial’ approach.
For these reasons a qualitative approach was favoured for the social field investigations. However, the two
detailed socio-economic households’ surveys that have been conducted as part of the Resettlement Action
Plan (RAP) have contributed to the Social Baseline. Both qualitative and quantitative approaches are
described in Section 5.4.1.2A.
One social field survey was undertaken in February-March 2020 to collect qualitative data. It included direct
observations during walkovers along accessible areas, semi-structured interviews with local residents
(Individual interviews and focus group), and interviews with District and village authorities, as well as
community mapping. Two social field surveys were undertaken in July-August and October-November
2020 to collect both quantitative and qualitative data for the 2020 RAP. It included direct observations
during walkovers along accessible areas, semi-structured interviews, close ended questionnaires with
impacted households (Individual interviews) and interviews with villages and KSC camps authorities. Lastly,
one fishery survey was also performed in October-November 2020 to collect both quantitative and
qualitative data.

A Social Surveys
A first social survey was undertaken from the 24 February to 06 March 2020 to collect socio-economic
qualitative data.
The qualitative approach aimed to incorporate the knowledge and opinions of the locals living within the
Project area about:
• Socio-political system: Social organisation at the village level, the local decision-making
mechanisms and the resolution of conflicts;
• In-migration: Migration dynamics (number and origin of the migrants, date of arrival, reasons of
migration, profession and economic motivation of the migrants, etc.). Description of the village
internal politics towards migrants (social rights, access to natural resources, etc.);
• Religion and ethnicity;
• Vulnerabilities: local description of the vulnerable people at the village level;
• Ecosystem services: Types of natural resources collected by locals (including woods, wild meat and
non-timber forest products); access and management of the natural resources (harvest schedule
of the natural resources and main issues facing when harvesting);
• Main livelihood activities: Main sources of revenue and issues/challenges;
• Land tenure system. Different types of land rights, rules of access and management of the village
land, reserved land and General land according to ethnic groups, gender and social status.
Understanding of the management of the land conflict at the village level;
• Housing and health and safety. Resident habitat and their access to drinking water, types of
sanitation, medical services available. Visit of local health centres to understand the possible
impacts on vector-borne diseases and the current community health trends; and
• Tangible and non-tangible Cultural Heritage elements. Identification, localisation and description of
tangible and non-tangible cultural heritage element likely to be affected by the Project.
Characterisation of its importance for and/or use by the local population; understanding of the
religious dynamics.
It has included semi-structured interviews, focus groups, as well as community land and water resources
mapping.
Interviews and site observations were undertaken within the territories directly affected by the project
facilities footprint. Site observations were undertaken wherever possible within a 500 m buffer area from
these project facilities, including the Kagera Riverbanks down to Omundongo and Kyaka villages (See Map
5-3 next page).
Participatory community land and water resource mapping was undertaken together with the local
communities with the guidance of SLR’s social experts to localise water and land resources used by the
villagers. This participatory mapping exercise was undertaken by preparing maps with the interviewees
during interviews/focus groups. These maps aimed at identifying the areas (e.g. land and water resources)
used for both human and animal activities/consumption, but also the tangible and intangible cultural
heritage elements. This activity resulted in an inventory of the following elements:
• Land patterns based on landscape characteristics;
• Location of the villages and their approximative boundaries;
• Land uses such as agricultural uses, livestock uses, residential uses, use of natural resources,
sacred uses and recreation uses; and
• Water uses such as watering points for cattle, fishing areas and or irrigation.
The semi-structured interviews aimed at collecting socio-economic data on the ‘institutions’ directly
affected, on the KSC workers’ as well as on the villages located along the Kagera River, upstream and
downstream of the dam. The interviews focused on formal and informal land tenure practices, migrants,
land uses and their seasonality, water uses, ecosystem services, social organisation and means of
livelihoods (e.g. agricultural and livestock farming activities), housing and health and safety, women’s
position and access to land ownership, vulnerable groups and cultural heritages of local value (tangible and
intangible cultural heritage).
The detailed list of the interviews is presented in Annex 5-16. These interviews did not aim at achieving
statistical representativeness, but rather to identify the diversity of socioeconomic situations in the Project

study area. Two types of interviews were conducted: individual interview and focus group. Focus group is a
small set of people, who usually share common characteristics such age, gender, age or professional
background, interviewed as a group. Fifteen focus groups were conducted - among which eight were
targeting women (see Figure 5-165 and Figure 5-166) – and 95 people were individually interviewed. In
total, 191 people were met during the social fieldwork, whether individually or collectively interviewed
among which 53 were women (27.7%).
To ensure the interviews were inclusive and culturally appropriate, the investigation relied on oral
communication tools and visual communication such as maps. All topics studied with villagers or sugar cane
workers were considered from a gender point of view. Special meetings (focus groups) were especially held
with women to help them to express themselves more freely. Interviews have targeted as much as possible
all the strategic groups identified during the social reconnaissance field survey to ensure the data collected
was triangulated. The key strategic groups interviewed were:
• Local leaders (see Figure 5-164);
• Health centres workers;
• Traditional authorities;
• Women (See Figure 5-165 and Figure 5-166);
• Informal and formal land users;
• Migrants;
• Herders and Farmers (see Figure 5-167);
• Fishermen;
• Representatives of affected institutional stakeholders of Kagera Sugar Company, National
Ranching Company and Kitengule Prison; and
• Workers of Kagera Sugar Company and National Ranching Company (see Figure 5-168).
Second and third social surveys were performed from 21 July to 05 August, and from 18 October to
05 November 2020 to collect both qualitative and quantitative data as part of the RAP and the
Environmental Flow Assessment. Therefore, it mainly focused on the households affected by the Project’s
land requirements upstream and downstream of the dam, but also by downstream impacts from the dam
down to 30km down of Kyaka village. The key strategic groups interviewed were:
• The households and individuals located in the wayleave of the Transmission Line and the proposed
reservoir (see Figure 5-169);
• The households and individuals cultivating in the floodplain and located upstream and downstream
of the proposed dam (see Figure 5-170);
• The local leaders of all the villages located downstream and upstream of the dam;
• The chairmen of workers camps for all KSC camps located alongside the Kagera River.
Both surveys have included site observations, semi-structured questionnaires and closed ended
questionnaires within the territories directly and indirectly affected by the Project facilities footprint.
The qualitative approach aimed to incorporate the knowledge and opinions of the locals living within the
Project area about:
• Agricultural practices and crop calendar both in dry land and floodplain;
• Market prices on land, mud and brick structures;
• Ecosystem services in the floodplain: type of natural resources collected by locals (including
woods, medicinal plants and grass) and access and management of the natural resources (harvest
schedule of the natural resources and main issues facing when harvesting);
• Housing, health and safety in the floodplain. Resident habitat and their access to drinking water,
types of sanitation, medical services available; and
• Risk management with the wild animals leaving in the floodplain.
In total, 169 persons were interviewed (i.e. 40 persons during the second social survey and 129 during the
third one).
Alongside this, the quantitative approach used for the RAP and the E-Flow Assessment has been used to
cross-check and complete the Social Baseline. Closed ended socio-economic questionnaires were filed

using of Survey CTO, an application that helps to collect data on tablets. The first objective of the
quantitative approach was to collect socioeconomic information on the affected households located both
upstream and downstream of the dam about:
• Social features such as demography, customs, language, education, ethnicity and religion;
• Livelihoods, incomes and banking systems;
• Access to natural resources including land use in the floodplain and reliance on the Kagera River;
and
• Frequency and nature of interactions between wild animals and humans.
82 households out of the 85 affected by the construction of the Transmission Line in Kyaka village were
interviewed. The 3 households not interviewed had left the Project area, and it was not possible to reach
them. Regarding the potentially impacted riverine communities located downstream of the dam, a sample
of 86 households was interviewed. All the interviewees were living in Omundongo, Kyaka or Nyabihanga
villages27. These three villages were selected as they were the closest settlements downstream of the dam,
after KSC territory, where the potential social impacts are likely to be the more significant.
The second objective was to survey the lands potentially impacted by the Transmission Line, the proposed
reservoir and the flow variations downstream of the Kakono dam down to 30 km after Kyaka village. Land
plots were systematically demarcated when possible. In total, 168 ended questionnaires were addressed
as shown by Table 5.76.
As shown by Table 5.76, a total of 530 interviews were performed but only 423 individuals were interviewed
as some of the interviewees have both answered the qualitative and quantitative questionnaire. Shows the
location of all the interviews performed during the social field surveys.
27
One exception concerns a worker of KSC farming in an island located near KSC workers’ camps n°5.

Table 5.76 – Interviews Conducted During the Three Social Field Surveys
Social survey Date Qualitative Quantitative Total of Women Men Total of
interviews interviews interviews interviewed interviewed persons
interviewed
1 (Social 24 of Feb. 191 // 191 (100%) 53 (27,7%) 138 (72,3%) 191 (100%)
Baseline) to the 6 of
March
2020
2 (RAP) 21 July to 40* 82 122 (100%) 19 (18,8%) 82 (81,2%) 101 (100%)
05 Aug.
2020
3 (RAP and 18 Oct. to 129** 86 215 (100%) 38 (29,4%) 91 (70,6%) 129 (100%)
EFlow 05 Nov.
Assessment) 2020
TOTAL 360 168 528 (100%) 110 (26,1%) 311 (73,9%) 421 (100%)
*The 129 individuals include the 86 persons interviewed with the quantitative approach.
**21 interviews out of the 40 were addressed to individuals interviewed with the quantitative approach. Therefore only 19
individuals were interviewed only one time.
Figure 5-164 – Interviews with members of the village Council in Businde village (05/03/2020)

Figure 5-165 – Focus group with women in Mushabaiguru village (28/02/2020)
Figure 5-166 – Focus group with women in Mugaba village (04/032020)

Figure 5-167 – Focus group with farmers and livestock keepers in Mushabaiguru village (28/02/2020)
Figure 5-168 –Interview with KSC workers at Kifaru Camp in KSC (03/03/2010)

Figure 5-169 – Interviews with Households Impacted by the Transmission Line in Kyaka village (28/07/2020)
Figure 5-170 - Interviews with farmers cultivating in the floodplain in Omundungo village (28/07/2020)
B Fishery Survey
A fishery survey was also performed from the 19 October to the 03 November 2020. The study area
extended from the villages located upstream of the proposed reservoir up to the village of Bugorora, 45 km
downstream of Kyaka village. The survey sampled two Districts (Missenyi & Kyerwa) and six Wards namely
Nsunga, Kyaka, Kassambya, Mushasha, Bugorora and Businde. Eight villages were selected based on the
availability of both fishers and riparian communities.
The survey used both quantitative and qualitative approaches for data collection. Three structured
questionnaires were administered electronically with the Survey CTO application, while an open-ended
questionnaire was used for key informants’ interviews. Questionnaires for fishers’ communities and
households aimed at collecting information on socio-economic characteristics, assets ownership and
involvement in fisheries activities, fisheries management, and fish consumption behaviour. Also, key-
informants were interviewed on the status of Kagera River fishery, village participation on the fishery
management and the socio-economic potential of Kagera River fishery to the riparian communities.
Additionally, data for catch estimation was obtained through interviews by use of a closed ended
questionnaire.
The respondents interviewed were located with the assistance of the Fisheries officers and village leaders.
Hence, it resulted in a sample size of 82 respondents comprising 31 fishers and 51 household heads.

Among the fishers, 13 were fishing within the KSC territory. The 28 fishers remaining were mainly from
Kyaka, Gabulanga and Mushasha villages. The 51 households were mostly from Kyaka, Bulifani, Mushasha,
Bugorora, Businde and Bugara villages.
C Limitations
The following limitations should be noted regarding the social surveys undertaken in 2020:
• The boundaries of the villages are not always well defined. Some villages have been created
recently and their limits are not always known by the informants met. Therefore, the delineation of
the village territories relies on partial information, informants’ knowledge, and not on GIS data. The
limits of villages shown on the Maps presented in this report should therefore be considered as
indicative and may not reflect the exact contours of each village.
• Local residents had warned the social team about elephants living in the ranch areas south of the
Kagera River, including the Kitengule ranch, but also in the communal grazing land of
Mushabaiguru, Mugaba, Bugara and Businde villages. The presence of elephants has limited
investigations in the mentioned areas, especially in Businde village.
• Regarding interviews with the workers in Kagera Sugar Company (KSC):
− Semi-structured interviews undertaken at the KSC camps were restricted to questions related
to water and land uses;
− Due to the illegality of cultivating, it was difficult to gather information on this topic but also
difficult to interview workers;
− Lastly, the permanent presence of security guards during the interviews conducted at the
KSC workers’ camps may have intimidated some of the interviewees, preventing them
from freely expressing their opinions.

Map 5-3 – Location of the Interviews Undertaken during the 2020 Social Surveys


Settlement History, Demography and Land Tenure
Administrative Organisation and Settlement Patterns
A Administrative Divisions
Tanzania is divided into five administrative categories: regions, districts, divisions, wards and mtaa/villages.
There are 31 regions (mkoa in Kiswahili) subdivided into Districts (wilaya in Kiswahili). According to the 2012
Tanzania National Census, Tanzania is divided into 169 Districts. There is one type of rural District: a District
Council; and there are three types of urban Districts: Town Council, Municipal Council and City Council.
Districts are sub-divided into local wards (kata in Kiswahili). Wards are further subdivided for management
purposes: for urban wards into towns and for rural wards into villages (kijiji in Kiswahili). Therefore, wards
are composed of several villages. The term village is however mostly used in rural areas while Mtaa refers
to urban settlement. The villages may be further subdivided into sub-villages or hamlets. The organization
and administration of the villages in Tanzania find their roots in Julius Nyerere's social and economic
development policies: Ujamaa, a Kiswahili word for extended family. Developed between 1964 and 1985,
this policy was based on the idea of collective farming and the "villagization" of the countryside. The main
objective of the ‘villagization’ was to build socialism based on traditional family values of mutual respect,
sharing basic goods and services held in common. Therefore, the villages were to be rural and social
communities where people live but also work together for the common good of the villages.
Today, the most immediate legacy of ‘villagization’ lies in the institutions which replicate at the village level
the structure of the local government system within which they operate. Indeed, at each level of the
government, there is one political and one administrative structure. At the village level, there is however
one distinctive feature: the institutions are based on direct democracy. There are two main planning
organisations: The Village Council and the Village Assembly. The Village Council is the organisation in which
is vested all executive power in respect of all the affairs and business of a village. The Village Council is
neither in charge of ensuring that the central government’s directives are observed nor managing the village
budget. A village executive officer nominated by the central government is in charge of these two tasks.
According to interviews conducted in several villages, the Village Council is composed of 25 permanents
members28 divided in 4 groups: the village chairman, the sub-villages chairman’s, the men representatives
and the women representatives. All members are elected though village political elections. The village
Council is in charge of planning and coordinating all the activities of a village. Decisions are made at the
Village Council and then voted at the Village Assembly level. Composed of all the adult village residents, the
Village Assembly offers to residents a public space to discuss and vote every three months the decisions of
the Village Committee. Votes are cast by show of hands. Usually, the majority prevails. However, if a decision
is strongly contested without a majority being reached, the proposed measure will be re-discussed or
withdrawn.
The wards may also contain lands that are not administrated by villages, but by institutions or private
companies. This is the case in the Project area, were the Kagera Sugar Company and several ranches are
present.
The Project facilities are crossing or are riverine to three Districts, six Wards and 12 villages. The
administrative divisions in the Project study area are presented in Table 5.74 and shown on Map 5-2.
Four institutional stakeholders owning land are also located within the study area, as shown in Table 5.75:
Kitengule prison, two ranches (Missenyi and Kitengule) and Kagera Sugar Company (KSC) 29. KSC is one of
the main sugar cane companies currently operating in Tanzania whose core business is sugar cane growing,
processing and marketing of sugar. Since 2002, the company is regularly expanding its territory and has
acquired new plots of land located on the right and left side of the river and going up to the proposed dam.
KSC has established eight workers’ camps along the Kagera River. At the workers’ camps, there is no political
administration, but the company nominates three people to act as chairmen and security guards. They
28
The village Council can also invite special guests to debate specific issues as, for instance, the headmaster of the primary school,
the person in charge of the dispensary or the secretary of the ruling party.
29
The company has started its operation in the 60s under the ownership of the Government but had to stop its business because of
the Tanzania-Uganda war in 1978. It only reopened and expanded after the war ended, around 1982, and was privatised via a
competitive bidding process in December 2001.

should first make sure workers are going to work every day, second, they are in charge of waste
management and third they ensure that residents of the camps follow the company’s rules and regulations.
B Settlements Patterns
The Project components are mostly located away from settlements, except where the Transmission Line
connects to the Kyaka substation (See Map 5-4). The study area can be divided in three main settlement
patterns:
• The area upstream of the future dam with: Businde, Bugara, Mugaba and Mushabaiguru villages
and the Kitengule ranch on the right bank of the future reservoir, and the Missenyi ranch and the
Kagera Sugar Company on the right bank of the future reservoir;
• The area between the dam and the eastern reach of KSC (left and right bank) and the Kitengule
prison (right bank), where the access road and most of the Transmission Line will be located; and
• The area at the downstream extent of KSC and Kitengule prison land up to 30km downstream of
Kyaka village.
B.1 Upstream Part of the Study area: Reservoir and Dam
On the right bank of the future reservoir, there are four villages: Mushabaiguru, Mugaba, Bugara and
Businde villages. The landscape in this area is structured by the Chabadaki hill, stretched parallel of the
Kagera River, from north-west to south-east. The Chabadaki hill rises to El. 1,550 m while valley bottoms
near the river are around El. 1,200 m (see Map 5-4). The settlements of Mugaba30, Bugara and Businde are
located on top of this Chabadaki hill as shown on Map 5-4. Their territories extend further east down to the
river through flat bushy areas. In this flat area, there are only a few houses scattered in bushy areas.
Further south, the main settlement Mushabaiguru31 village is located on a flat land while Mugaba, Bugara
and Businde are settled on top of Chabadaki hill (see Map 5-4). Mushabaiguru village settlements are
located far from the Kagera River (around 5km) and are mainly concentrated on the western side of the
village border.
Still on the right bank, close to the future dam, starts Kitengule ranch owned by the National Ranching
Company Limited (NARCO), a parastatal organization created in 1975 with the responsibility of producing
beef cattle for Domestic and Export markets. NARCO has replaced the Tanzania Livestock and Development
Authority (LIDA) created in 1974 to oversee livestock development in the country. Kitengule ranches is part
of the five ranches NARCO owns in Kagera region. As illustrated on Map 5-4, Kitengule ranch is mainly
located downstream, west of the proposed access road. Kitengule ranch extends up to the foot of Rwekubo
hills. The Kitengule ranch lands do not include permanent settlements. However, block n°288/9 subleased
to Chaburwa Ranch includes permanent structures used as offices for the private companies. Kitengule
ranch is located mostly on flat lands, with plains of bushy areas used as grazing areas, down to the Rwekubo
hill where the dam embankment will be leaning against.
On the left bank of the reservoir, the lands of Missenyi ranch and Kagera Sugar Company are occupying all
the lowlands in the valley near the Kagera River. There are no settlements or villages in this area. Missenyi
ranch is divided into several blocks up to the end of the reservoir. The inhabited settlements are located on
the northern side of the road B181 going to Uganda. Only one workers’ camp from the Kagera Sugar
company is located in this area, close to the river, but outside of the future reservoir footprint as shown on
Map 5-4.
30
Mugaba village was created in 2014 out of Bugara village.
31
Mushabaiguru village was created in 2015 out of Kyerwa village.

Figure 5-171 - View of Kagera River and the Sugar Plantations from the Top of Chabadaki Hill in Bugara Village
(02/03/2020)
B.2 Downstream of the Dam: Institutional Lands
From the Rubira and Rwekubo hills and down to about 40km downstream of the dam, the landscape in the
study area is made of lowlands, with sugarcane plantations prevailing on the left bank of the river, and flat
bushy area used as grazing areas on the right bank. There is no village in this part of the study area.
On the left bank, the settlements mostly consist of the eight KSC workers camps, located along the river,
and the KSC headquarters. Between camps n°9 and camp n°6, a strip of land located in KSC territory is
subject to an agreement between KSC and the village of Bubale located in Kakunyu Ward (Missenyi District).
This agreement allows Bubale village residents to retain access to their main cattle water point. Bubale first
settlements are located outside the study area, north of the Kagera Sugar Cane plantations, and about
2.5 km from the river and 8 km from workers camp n°9.
On the right bank, where the Transmission Line will be located, the landscape is made of flat lands, with
meadows, bushy areas or sparsely forested lands, from the bank of the river, down to the road B182. Most
of the land is owned by KSC (See Figure 5-172). Only a portion of the KSC land on this side of the river is
currently used for sugar cane plantation, but KSC intends to develop a larger area. There is one workers’
camp located near the riverbank and one temporary camp for the construction of a new bridge above the
Kagera River.
The KSC lands on the right bank are bordered on their eastern part by the Kitengule prison lands. The prison
main building is located on the right side of the river, 150 m from the bank of the Kagera River. The prison
camp is the only settlement in this part of the study area. It also includes few cultivated areas, which are
crossed by the proposed Transmission Line.
Figure 5-172 – Landscape in the KSC Land Crossed by the Transmission Line
B.3 Downstream of the Institutional Lands
Downstream of the institutional lands, on the right side of the bank, the proposed Transmission Line passes
through Kyaka village, to connect to the Kyaka substation. Located on a flat land, Kyaka is the only village
crossed by the Transmission Line (see Figure 5-173). Kyaka main settlements are located on the North-
East of the village while agricultural lands are more dominant on the South-West. After Kyaka village,

Bulifani and Mushasha villages extend up to 30 km downstream. Both villages have a direct access to the
floodplain.
On the left bank, Omundongo, Nyabihanga, Kassambya and Gabulanga villages are the main localities
bordering the floodplain after the institutional lands of KSC.
Figure 5-173 – View of Kyaka Village Along the B182 Road

Map 5-4 – Settlement Patterns and Institutional lands in the Study Area

Demography
A Population
According to the 2012 census ( 2012 Population and Housing Census, 2013), Kagera region has a total of
2,458,023 inhabitants of which 1,205,683 are males and 1,252,340 are females. The regional population
density is 97 people per km2, with an average annual growth estimated at 3.2. The Kakono Project area is
rural and sparsely populated. However, the average population density of 86 people per sq. km for the three
Districts potentially impacted is higher than the 2012 national population density of 51 people per km2.
As shown in Table 5.77, the population is growing rapidly with a growth percentage of about 47% between
2002 and 2012 for the three Districts of the study area. The average household size is 4.5 persons for the
three Districts (see Table 5.78). It is slightly below the 2019 average household size of Tanzania of
4.8 persons (Africa GeoPortal, 2019).
Table 5.77 – District Population Census

District Population Population Increase from 2002 to 2012 Population density
per km2
2002 2012 Number Percentage
Missenyi District 152,786 202,632 49,846 33% 80
Karagwe District 201,446 332,020 130,574 65% 74
Kyerwa District 222,841 321,026 98,185 44% 104
Table 5.78 – District Population per sex in 2012

District 2012 Gender Average household
size
Male Female
Karagwe District 332,020 163,864 168,156 4,6
Missenyi District 202,632 100,085 102,547 4,2
Kyerwa District 321,026 157,198 163,828 4,8
The distribution of the population at the village level is difficult to establish with certainty. It was not possible
to find the population figures of 2014 from the archives of the village Council. Therefore, data from the
2017 EIA have been used to estimate the population growth in the study area. The evolution of the
population in the villages located in the study area is not regularly distributed, as shown in Table 5.79. The
population decrease of Mugaba village (-9%) contrasts with the important growth of Businde village
population which is more than 150% (+4,618 persons) since the 2012 census. The Businde authorities could
not explain this growth and suspect that the number provided in the 2017 EIA (Norplan, 2016a) could be
incorrect.
KSC workers’ camps are sometimes densely populated (see Table 5.80), taking into account that workers’
accommodations are not sparsely spread out like at the village level, but rather concentrated in one area.
The figures obtained from the heads of villages during the 2020 social surveys (Table 5.79) may partly
encompass the population living in the KSC workers camps(Table 5.80), as part of the populating living in
the camps originates the villages of the study area.
In 2020, the total population living in the villages along the proposed reservoir, and along the Kagera River
from the dam up to 30 km downstream of Kyaka, as well as in the villages crossed by the Transmission Line
wayleave, can be estimated at 50,000 to 55,000 persons.

Table 5.79 - Village Population

District Ward Village 2012 Population* 2020 Population** Population Increase
from 2012 to 2020
Missenyi District Kyaka Kyaka village N/A*** 2,984 N/A***
ward
Bulifani village N/A*** 8,700 N/A***
Kassambya Omundongo village N/A*** 3,000 N/A***

ward
Nyabihanga village N/A*** 3,800 N/A***
Kassambya village N/A*** 814 N/A***
Gabulanga village N/A*** 4,626 N/A***
Mushasha Mushasha village N/A*** 2,026 N/A***

ward
Kakunyu Bubale village 7, 963 8,446 +6%
ward
Karagwe District Kihanga Mushabaiguru village N/A*** 1,857 N/A***
Ward
Kyerwa District Businde Businde village 2,956 7,574 +156%
Ward
Bugara village 2,644 3,411 +29%
Mugaba village 2,723 2,494 -9%
Total population in villages located along the Kagera River from reservoir to
Mushasha village, and along the Transmission Line: About 50,000
* Source: (Norplan, 2016a) citing the 2012 official census and villages records 2013.
** Source: Information provided by village chairmen during the social surveys undertaken in February, March, October and
November 2020.
***N/A Information not available in (Norplan, 2014a) or (Norplan, 2016a).
Table 5.80 – Camps Population

District Riverbank Camp number 2020 Population*
Missenyi District Left bank Camp n°2 330

Kifaru Camp 800
Camp n°10 512
Camp n°5 2,000
Camp n°4 280
Camp n°6 1154
Camp n°9 450
Camp n°3 295
Right bank Camp n°6 300
Total population in workers camps located along 6,121
the Kagera River from reservoir to Kyaka :
* Source: Information provided by the camps leaders during the social surveys undertaken in February, March, October and
November 2020.
B Customary Leaders
In Tanzania, the government has abolished the institution of chieftaincy by removing all their executive
powers in 1963 under Julius Nyerere’s leadership. Chiefs could previously undertake revenue collection or
act as judges. The chiefs were only left with cultural powers.
The interviews conducted for this SBS indeed confirmed that there is no customary leader in any of the
villages or camps visited during the social field study. It has however been mentioned that cultural leaders
might exist in some villages where they perform traditional events such as weddings.
C Age structure
C.1 Age structure in the project Area
The following information is drawn from the 2012 Population Distribution by Age and Sex Vol. II
(Distribution, Population by Age and Sex, 2013). As shown by Table 5.81, Kagera region follows the national

trends as far as the age population structure is concerned, with a significant portion of its population under
the age of 17 years. The young profile of the population is confirmed in the three Districts of the study area
with a population between 10 and 19 years constituting the largest share (See Table 5.82).
Table 5.81 – Age Population at the National and Region Level

Locality Population Population 0-4 Population 0- Population 0- Population 17- Population 65
(2012) years (% of 14 years 17 years 64 years + years
total) (% of total) (% of total) (% of total) (% of total)
Tanzania 44,928,923 16.2 43.9 50.1 52.2 3.9
Kagera region 2,458,023 18,3 47.7 54 48.8 3.5

Table 5.82 – Age Population at the District Level

District Population 0-4 5-9 years 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 +
(2012) years years years years years years years
Missenyi 202,632 32,631 29,973 49,001 29,172 28,810 15,380 9,363 13,302
District (100%) (16.10%) (14.8%) (24.18%) (14,4%) (14.2%) (7.5%) (4.6%) (6.5%)
Karagwe 332,020 60,445 49,571 79,954 49,881 37,711 24,070 13,809 16,579
District (100%) (18.2%) (15%) (24%) (15%) (11.3%) (7.2%) (4.1%) (5%)
Kyerwa 321,026 61,476 52,146 77,954 46,833 35, 307 22,023 12,022 13,265
District (100%) (19.1%) (16.2%) (24.2%) (14,6%) (11%) (6.8%) (3.7%) (4.1%)
C.2 Age structure of the Affected Households Population
The population of affected households is predominantly young, as illustrated in Table 5.83 and Figure
5-174. More than one third of the affected population (52%) is less than 18 years old. The population of
working age (between 19 and 60 years old) represents 44% of the population.
Table 5.83 – Age Groups of the Affected Households Population

Age Groups Men Women Total
Children up to 6 years old 17.3% 17% 17%
Between 7 and 18 years old 37.1% 33.4% 35.2%
Between 19 and 60 years old 41.4% 46.4% 44%
More than 60 years old 4.2% 3.3% 3.7%
Total 100% 100% 100%
85+
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Women Men
Figure 5-174 – Age Pyramid of the Affected Households Population

D Education
D.1 Education in the Project Area
Education is a basic right of every Tanzanian child of school going age (7-13). To render this possible the
Government of Tanzania put in place the policy of Universal Primary Education (UPE) in 1974, making such
education compulsory and setting out to make it available to every child. Furthermore, Tanzania has seen
a remarkable increase in primary enrolments since the inception of the Primary Education Development
Program (PEDP) in 2001, which led to the abolishment of school fees in early 2002. Pre-primary school has
also become a priority of the Tanzanian government. The condition set by the Ministry of Education and
Vocational Training that all children who start standard one must have undergone pre-primary education,
accelerated the establishment of pre-primary schools all over the country. Pre-schools are meant for
children aged five and six years. The motive behind introducing pre-primary school classes in government
primary schools all over the country was to increase enrolment of children aged five and six years enabled
them to be able to read, write and count numbers before joining primary schools.
However, the results of the Demographic and Health Survey of 2010 have confirmed that there is a gap in
educational attainment between males and females. Although the majority of the household population
age six and older had some education, 27% of females have never attended school; this compares with
18% of males. Furthermore, the median number of years of schooling for females is 3.6 years, which is one
year less than that for males (4.6 years) (Demographic and Health Survey of 2010, 2011).
In 2015, the Human Development Index (HDI)32 that considers education as part of its measures to calculate
human development was 0.44 for the Kagera region, the lowest in the country; compared to the 0,61 at the
national level. According to the social survey undertaken by NORPLAN in 2014 for the Social Impact
assessment of Kakono HPP Project, 24% of the male population and 43% female population attained no
formal education at all in the Project area, and among those who tried, 19% males and 14% females did
not manage to complete primary education.
D.2 Education of the Affected Households
According to the socio-economic qualitative survey performed in 2020, all the affected households have
access to school although the level of education of the affected household’s population is relatively low as
21% never attended school and only 14% have completed secondary school as shown by Table 5.84.
However, more than half (57%) have completed primary school and Table 5.84 reveals that there is no
significant gap between men and women in terms of access to education.
Table 5.84 – Education Level of the Affected Households Population

Education Men Women Total
Pre-school 3.2% 2.7% 3%
Primary school 55.8% 58.2% 57.1%
Secondary school 13.9% 14.7% 14.3%
Advanced level 1.2% 0.4% 0.8%
College 2.6% 1.5% 2%
University 1% 1.1% 1%
Other 0.2% 1.3% 0.8%
None 22.1% 20.2% 21.1%
Total 100% 100% 100%
32
HDI value measures the level of Human Development in a country ranging from 0 for low Human Development to 1 for high
Human Development. Education measures consider skills development, including years of schooling and adult literacy.

E Languages, Religion and Ethnicity
E.1 Languages, Religion and Ethnicity in the Project Area
The interviews undertaken confirmed that Christianity and Islam are the two predominant religions in the
study area with, however, a majority of Christians. Some animist practices may subsist in the population,
but are less and less observed.
Like in Tanzania, the majority of the population in Kagera region and in the three Districts of the study area
is primarily of African Bantu origin. The most common ethnic groups are the Wahaya and Wanyambo 33. Both
groups have their own tribal language - Wahaya ethnic group speak Kihaya and Wanyambo people speak
Kinyambo - with Kiswahili as the unifying and official language. Interviews have also revealed that other
ethnic groups such as the Wasukuma, the Angaza, the Subi and the Chaga can be found in the study area.
However, they represent a minority. Lastly, there are few legal migrants originated from Rwanda or Uganda.
They spoke their native languages, and they hardly understand Kiswahili.
Wahaya are widespread in Kagera region while Wanyambo are more concentrated in Karagwe District. They
have cultural and linguistic ties with Rwanda because they were part of the Karagwe Kingdom which rose
to power in the early 19th century and became an epicentre of trade in the Great Lakes
Region. Furthermore, those historical bonds with Rwanda were strengthened in the 1990s when many
refugees of the Rwandan Genocide fled to Karagwe. Both ethnic groups are traditionally patrilineal societies
structured around a clan system.
E.2 Languages, Religion and Ethnicity of the Affected Households
Almost all project-affected people declared they were of Tanzanian nationality. Three individuals were
Ugandan. During the 2020 complementary socioeconomic surveys, the affected people were asked their
ethnicity. Their responses are illustrated in Figure 5-175. Most of the affected people (87%) declared
themselves as Wahaya people. The second group was Wanyambo, followed by Tutsi, Sukuma and Hangaza.
Munyiramba 1% Sukuma 2%
Muhangaza 1%
Tutsi 2%
Muha 1%
Hangaza 2%
Wahaya 87%
Wanyambo 4%
Figure 5-175 – Ethnicity of the Affected Households Population
Almost half of the affected people are Christians (47%), while 47% are Muslim, as illustrated in Figure 5-176
below. Most Christians are Catholic, with Protestants second. A third group of Christians is made of several
Evangelist or Adventist churches, such as the Tanzanian Assemblies of God, the Seventh day Adventist
Church, or the Faith mission church.
33
The “Wa” is a prefix used for the names of all the ethnic groups when identified in Kiswahili.

Evangelist/Adventist 6%
Catholic 34%
Muslim 47%
Protestant 13%
Figure 5-176 – Religions of the Affected Households Population
The affected households speak several languages. Two main languages are used as communication
languages at home, as shown in Figure 5-177 below: Haya and Swahili. More than three quarter (84.5%) of
the affected households also speak a secondary language at home, while 10.7% speak 2 other languages
and 3.6% of them are speaking 3 other languages.
Nyambo 2%
Swahili 33%
Rwandese 1%
Haya 64%
Figure 5-177 – Main Language Spoken at Home in the Affected Households
E.3 Non applicability of the World Bank ESS7 on the Indigenous peoples
The concept of indigenous peoples is not acknowledged in Tanzanian legal framework.

The paragraphs below only discuss the applicability of the World Bank Environmental and Social Standard
n°7 on the Indigenous peoples.
The World Bank ESS7 applies to distinct social and cultural groups identified as ‘Indigenous Peoples’ or ‘Sub-
Saharan African Historically Underserved Traditional Local Communities’. paragraphs 8 and 9 of this ESS.
The terminology used for such groups varies from country to country. The World Bank ESS7 uses the term
‘Indigenous Peoples/Sub-Saharan African Historically Underserved Traditional Local Communities’
recognizing that such groups may be referred to in different countries by different terms. Such terms

include ‘Sub-Saharan African historically underserved traditional local communities,’ ‘indigenous ethnic
minorities,’ ‘aboriginals,’ ‘hill tribes,’ ‘vulnerable and marginalized groups,’ ‘minority nationalities,’
‘scheduled tribes,’ ‘first nations’ or ‘tribal groups.
For the purposes of this ESS, the term ‘Indigenous Peoples/Sub-Saharan African Historically Underserved
Traditional Local Communities’ includes all such alternative terminology. This term is used in a generic sense
to refer exclusively to a distinct social and cultural group possessing the four characteristics in varying
degrees (World Bank, 2018):
• Self-identification as members of a distinct indigenous social and cultural group and recognition of
this identity by others;
• Collective attachment to geographically distinct habitats, ancestral territories, or areas of seasonal
use or occupation, as well as to the natural resources in these areas;
• Customary cultural, economic, social, or political institutions that are distinct or separate from
those of the mainstream society or culture; and
• A distinct language or dialect, often different from the official language or languages of the country
or region in which they reside.
The term also applies to ‘communities or groups of Indigenous Peoples/Sub-Saharan African Historically
Underserved Traditional Local Communities who, during the lifetime of members of the community or group,
have lost collective attachment to distinct habitats or ancestral territories in the project area, because of
forced severance, conflict, government resettlement programs, dispossession of their land, natural disasters,
or incorporation of such territories into an urban area’ (World Bank, 2018).
In Tanzania, there are more than 120 ethnic groups and each of these groups differs from other groups in
culture, social organisation and language (TASAF III Government Project Preparation Team, 2012).
Currently, Tanzania has no specific legislation or policy regarding Indigenous People. However, Tanzania
recognised the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights (ACHPR) by ratifying the 2005 ACHPR’s
report untitled ‘Report of the African Commission’s Working Group of Experts on Indigenous
Population/Communities’ (African Commission on the Human and People's Rights, 2005) . Most of the
‘Indigenous Peoples’ communities identified by the ACHPR report are (but not exclusively) groups of hunter-
gatherers and pastoralists.
According to the ACHPR report (African Commission on the Human and People's Rights, 2005), the Hadzabe
ethnic group, a hunter-gather community is considered as ‘Indigenous People’. The report also mentions
the Barabaig and the Maasai. The International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs (IWGIA) indicates that, in
Tanzania, four groups have been organising themselves around the concept and movement of ‘Indigenous
Peoples’34. These four groups are the hunter-gatherer Akie and Hadzabe, and the pastoralist Barabaig and
Maasai.
• The Akie are living in the western Arusha Region, more than 450 km south-east of the Project area.
The Akie population was estimated to be about 5,000 persons in 2000 (Eberhard, Simons &
Fennig, 2015);
• The Hadzabe ethnic group live around Lake Eyasi, in the southern part of the Ngorongoro
Conservation Area located in Ngorongoro District, in Arusha Region, and in the neighbouring
Serengeti Plateau. These areas are more than 450 km south-east of the Project area. There are, as
of 2015, between 1,200 and 1,300 Hadza people living in Tanzania, however only around
300 Hadza still survive exclusively based on the traditional means of foraging (Skannes, 2015;
Marlowe, 2002);
• The Barabaig is a nomadic tribe found in the northern volcanic highlands near Mount Hanang in
Manyara Region, more than 500 km south-east of the Project area. Their populations estimated to
be about 50,000 (Eberhard, Simons & Fennig, 2015); and
34
This information is based on the article on indigenous people in Tanzania, prepared by Edward Porokwa for the International Work
Group for Indigenous Affairs. « The Indigenous World 2019 », 2020. https://www.iwgia.org/en/resources/indigenous-world (accessed
on 05/06/2020). Edward Porokwa is a lawyer and advocate at the High Court of Tanzania. He has 15 years’ experience of working
with indigenous peoples’ organizations in the areas of human rights advocacy, policy analysis, and constitutional issues. He is
currently Executive Director of Pastoralists Indigenous NGOs Forum (PINGOs Forum). This forum is an advocacy coalition of
indigenous peoples' organizations (currently 53), working in Tanzania for the rights of the marginalized indigenous pastoralists and
Hunter-gatherers communities. It was established in 1994 by six pastoralists and hunter gatherers organizations in their struggle for
land right and development agenda.

• The semi-nomadic Maasai ethnic group is mainly located in Monduli and Ngorongoro Districts
which are part of Arusha region, and Simanjiro, and Kiteto Districts, both part of Manyara Region.
All these areas are more than 500 km south-east of the Project area.
None of those four ethnic groups live in Kagera region. Arusha and Manyara regions are on the north-east
of the country, on the eastern side of the Victoria Lake while Kagera region is located on the north-west of
the country, on the western side of the Victoria Lake.
The social field surveys undertaken in 2020 have also confirmed that the Hadzabe, the Barabaig and the
Maasai ethnic groups do not live in the three Districts of the study area. Furthermore, according to the
interviews conducted, there is no social group in the Project area that correspond to the above
characteristics.
The two common ethnic groups in the Project area - the Wahaya and the Wanyambo – both have vernacular
languages. However, none of those two has a collective attachment to geographically distinct habitats, a
culture or a social/political institution that could be distinct or separate from those of the mainstream
society or culture. Lastly, according to the interviews undertaken with local communities in Feb. and March
2020, the local communities in the Project area do not consider themselves as a distinct indigenous social
and cultural group.
Based on the elements presented above, SLR opinion is that the World Bank ESS n°7 on ‘Indigenous Peoples’
/ Sub-Saharan African Historically Underserved Traditional Local Communities’ is not triggered for the
Project.
F Migration
The social surveys performed in 2020 have revealed that two types of in migration patterns are occurring
in the Project area. Firstly, the Project area accommodates foreigners who have migrated from
neighbouring countries like Rwanda, Burundi and Uganda. The main factors that make foreigners migrate
to those Districts are the presence of industries, especially in Missenyi where there is the Kagera Sugar
Company and the presence of ranches, but also a greater accessibility to land due to relatively low
population density. Interviews stressed out that migrants can be found in every villages and that most of
them arrived many years ago to essentially work in the livestock sector.
Foreign migrants need to be registered at the Immigration Service Department (ISD) to be recognised as
legal. At the village level, a migrant should cooperate with the Village Council and ask formally for a plot of
land to settle within the village boundaries. Interviews have confirmed that illegal migrants used to be more
numerous few years ago. However, the government took radical measures in the past years to lower their
numbers. First, the government has arrested illegal immigrants. They were sought out in upcountry regions,
at roadblocks, through police patrols and raids. Second, village security committee work hard to spot them
and report them to the District authorities. Once reported, illegals migrants are immediately sent back to
their respective countries.
The social investigations have revealed that upstream of the proposed reservoir, most of the foreigners live
down the Chabadaki hill35, in communal village land. They usually do not own the land but have access to it
through agreements with the Village Council. Furthermore, as most of the foreigners live down the hill, they
usually do not mix with the mainstream population. They sometimes live in temporary structures. Most of
the time they do not live with their family even though some of the migrants’ families have settled near the
river like in Mugaba where four Rwandese families have settled permanently (see Figure 5-179). They
sometimes farm a plot of land and are also engaged in livestock keeping. Their number differs from on
village to another.
Box n°1: Interview with a Ugandan woman in her forties who moved in Tanzania 20 years ago
(29/02/2020 in Mugaba village)36
She and her husband are originating from Uganda. She used to live in Mbarara District, the capital of the
Ankole long-horned cows. She comes from a family of herdsmen. They left Uganda around 20 years ago
35
The Chabadaki hill is located in Karagwe District.
36
Personal communication with a Ugandan woman in Mugaba village held on 29 of February 2020.

to settled in Mugaba village. According to her, it was easier to get land in Tanzania and to get a job as a
shepherd. They have built their home near the river, on the village communal grazing land. Her husband
is a herdsman, but he does not own the cattle, he is only looking after them. Her oldest son is helping her
husband when he is not at school. She stressed out that most of the herdsmen live down the hill near the
river as it is more convenient to look after the cattle. Her children go to school, the family can access any
public infrastructures within the village. She doesn't see any difference in treatment between her family
and the others. However, she thinks that in politics it is the natives who are favoured. For example, a
chairman cannot be a foreigner, even if he has lived in the village for decades.
Interviews conducted in villages downstream of Kyaka village have revealed that migrants coming from
abroad constitutes a small part of the population. In Kyaka village, amongst the project-affected persons,
only two individuals were Ugandan.
Secondly, according to the interviews performed in 2020, people are also migrating from the neighbouring
Districts of Muleba, Bukoba and Biharamulo, in search for business opportunities and agricultural land.
Villagers seem to consider any persons who is not born in the village as a migrant, even though that person
is Tanzanian, or if the foreigner has been living in the country for decades. For instance, Mushabaiguru
village Council considers that three quarters of its village population is composed of migrants as they are
people coming from other Districts. This statute of migrant is however not discriminating. Interviews have
revealed that the relationship between migrants and natives of the villages are good because it has been
built on trust. Interviews did not stress out major differences in rights between migrants and natives.
Internal migrations from rural District to other rural areas is therefore common in the Project area.
According to the quantitative social surveys undertaken in 2020 in the Project area, out of the 168
households interviewed, only 13 have declared to not have their main residence in the area (7,7%). Among
them, seven households are however living in Missenyi or Karagwe. The households were also asked since
how long they were living in their village. Only 31 households (18.4%) have indicated living here since less
than 10 years. The main reasons why the 31 households have decided to settle in the Project area is
illustrated by Figure 5-178. For both male and female headed households, the two main reasons were first
to seek for a land and second to come back to the village where they were born.
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Was born here To seek more To seek for a To be closer to Other Do not know
farourable land family
economic
condition
Male headed-household Female headed-household
Figure 5-178 – Affected Households’ Reasons for Moving in the Project Area

Figure 5-179 – Legal migrants from Rwanda living near the proposed reservoir in Mugaba village (29/02/2020)
G Land ownership and land right
G.1 Land ownership in Tanzania
According to the Land Act (1999), all land in Tanzania is public land vested in the President as the trustee
on behalf of the citizens. Therefore, the Land Act places ultimate land ownership in the President as a
trustee for all Tanzanian people. The Land Act deals with general land, including urban areas and private
estates. It provides the legal framework for three land categories, namely Village Land, General Land and
Reserved Land. Reserved Land includes all land set aside for special purposes, including forest reserves,
game parks, game reserves, land reserved for public utilities and highways, hazardous land and land
designated under the Town and Country Planning Ordinance. General Land is a residual category. It includes
all unused land that is not Reserved Land or Village Land. According to the interviewees, there is no
Reserved or General Land in the Project area.
As freehold does not exist in Tanzania, the Land Act provides for Granted Right of Occupancy for persons
who want to occupy land. Granted Rights of Occupancy are available for General and Reserved land, subject
to any statutory restrictions and the terms of the grant. The terms of Right of Occupancy are between 33
years and 99 years. The Act states that rights of occupancy are granted under development conditions and
restricted to nationals only. One significant exception to this rule is for land acquisitions connected to
investments that have investment approval37. In the Project area, the first dominant land tenure categories
are Granted Right of Occupancy for Kagera Sugar Company (KSC), the Kitengule prison and the National
Ranching Company (NARCO).
All village land falls under the Village Land Act (1999). In Tanzania, the Act became effective with the
enactment of the Village Land regulations passed in 2001. However, the regulations provide more than 50
different forms to be used by the land administration at the village level, a significant number that has
prevented Village Councils of taking full ownership of the land regulations. The Village Land Act vests all
village land in the Village Assembly, and the Village Council administers the land through the authority of
the Village Assembly. The Village Council is accountable to the Village Assembly for land
management decisions and has the responsibility and authority to manage land, including issuing
certificates of Customary Right of Occupancy within their area, and establishing and administering
local registers of communal land rights. In theory, it concentrates considerable powers in the Village Council
to impose detailed control of the use of land and to define the terms and criteria for ownership of land. In
practice, interviews have stressed out that Village Councils do not have neither the knowledge nor the
necessary infrastructures to manage customary land registration. Therefore, Village Councils are more
involved with local customary practices application, provided it does not conflict with state land regulations.
Village land comprises (i) all land within the boundaries of a registered village established by the Local
Government Act, (ii), all land of a given village according to agreement between that village and its
37
Everything that concerns land acquisitions fall under the Land Acquisition Act of 1967.

neighbours, and (iii) any land a villager has been using or occupying for the past 12 years. According to the
Village Land Act, Customary Rights of Occupancy automatically apply to village lands in perpetuity and is of
equal status and effect to a Granted Right of Occupancy.
In the study area, the second dominant land tenure category is Customary Right of Occupancy. It concerns
Kyaka, Omundongo, Bulifani, Mushasha, Nyabihanga, Kassambya, Gabulanga, Mushabaiguru, Mugaba,
Bugara and Businde village land. During the socio-economic quantitative socioeconomic surveys, the
affected persons were asked about how many plots of land they own. The large majority of households
own one or two land plots as shown by Table 5.85 below. Most of the time, their land ownership is however
not officially registered. About 90% of the land plots are owned by the households under Customary Right
of Occupancy on village land, but without any certificate or document. The remaining 10% are owned with
a Certificate of Customary Right of Occupancy.
Table 5.85 – Number of land plots owned by the Affected Households

Number of land plots owned Men-headed households Women-headed households Total respondents
by the household
1 Num. 47 10 57
% 34.6% 31.3% 33.9%
2 Num. 62 21 83
% 45.6% 65.6% 49.4%
3 Num. 18 1 19
% 13.2% 3.1% 11.3%
4 Num. 7 0 7
% 5.1% 0% 4.2%
5 Num 1 0 5
% 0.7% 0% 0.6%
7 Num. 1 0 1
% 0.7% 0% 0.6%
Total Num. 136 32 168
respondents % 100% 100% 100%
As far as Bubale village is concerned, the strip of land located on the left bank of Kagera River legally belongs
to KSC territory, despite the agreement existing between KSC and the village of Bubale. In Tanzania, each
registered village should have received a village registration number from the Ministry of Local Government
and a village land certificate which includes a description of the village boundaries. In practice, out of the six
villages visited, only Businde village had an updated village land certificate in March 2020 (see Figure
5-180).

Figure 5-180 - Village Boundaries of Businde Village Land Certificate (5/03/2020)
Finally, holders of Granted Right of Occupancy or Customary Rights of Occupancy may lease that right
(leasehold), or part of that right, to any person for a definite or indefinite period. Long-term leases shall be
in writing and registered. Short-term leases are defined as leases of one year or less; they may be written
or oral and need not be registered. Holders of Customary Rights of Occupancy may lease and rent their land,
subject to any rules and restrictions imposed by the Village Council. NARCO is leasing most of its land to
private investors and Kitengule Prison lends some plots of land to third parties.
In the study area, there is no General or Reserved land. Dominant tenure types are Customary Rights of
Occupancy in the villages and Granted Right of Occupancy and leasehold in the institutional lands (Kagera
Sugar plantation, ranches and Kitengule prison). Map 5-5 and Table 5.86 below shows the location and the
proportion of village land and institutional lands in the Project affected area.

Map 5-5 – Distribution of Land Ownership

Table 5.86- Proportion of Village lands within the Project affected area
Project- Total Area Village Lands Affected by the Project Footprint Institutional Lands Affected by the Project Footprint
affected areas in ha Right Bank Left Bank Left & Right Bank Right Bank Left Bank Right Bank
KSC Land Area Kitengule Ranch Missenyi Ranch Kitengule Prison
Mushabaiguru
Area Area Area
Omundongo
Nyabihanga
Kassambya
Gabulanga
Mushasha
Businde
Mugaba
Bulifani
Bugara
Bubale
Kyaka
Reservoir 1,713.5 ha - 0.4 % 7% 4% - - - - - - - - 867 ha 369 ha 208 ha -
Boundaries at (100% of 8 ha 164 ha 97 ha 39% of reservoir 17% of reservoir 9% of reservoir, of
Full Supply reservoir Granted Right of Leasehold which:
Level and dam and dam Occupancy 135 ha
area area) Granted Right of
Occupancy
34 ha
Leasehold
Transmission 38.50 km = - - - - 25 ha - - - - - - - 78 ha - - 28 ha
Line Wayleave 131 ha 18% of 61% wayleave 21% of wayleave
(35 m) (100% of wayleave Granted Right of Granted Right of
wayleave) Occupancy Occupancy
Access Road 30 km = - - - - - - - - - - - - 7 ha 39% of 11 ha 61% of
Wayleave 18 ha wayleave wayleave
(6 m) (100% of
wayleave)
Source: Information collected during the social surveys undertaken in February - March and October - November 2020.

H Land rights and land governance in the study area
H.1 Village land
At the village level, interviews conducted in February, March, October and November 2020 stressed that
most of the land is customary owned and only a minority of residents in Kyaka, Bulifani and Mushabaiguru
villages has a Granted Right of Occupancy, ‘Hati Miliki’ in Kiswahili. According to interviews, the
administrative process to obtain a Granted Right of Occupancy is too expensive and time-consuming. There
is no dissociation between residential and agricultural land as most of the people build their home on their
farmland. In the villages of the study area, customary land rights are gained by inheritance. Parents pass
the land to their children. Most of the villagers are using lands they own under customary land rights.
Interviews have also highlighted that there are few households which are obliged to rent land for
agriculture. There is no land shortage in any of the villages located in the Project area. However, interviews
stressed that village land is divided by households. The only plots which are not divided per family are
communal village land whose area is becoming smaller and smaller as the village population increases.
Land sale market activities are common in the study area, especially in Kyaka and Bulifani, two villages
located at the heart of the urban centre of Kyaka Ward. However, interviewees have stressed out that some
clans still resist to land monetisation, especially in urban areas, and have sometimes banned the purchase
and sale of customary lands. Interviewees have also highlighted that women do not always own land due
to patrilineal inheritance system but have access to the land of husband and families. Karagwe District
would be more subject to patriarchal practices than Missenyi and Kyerwa Districts.
Migrants have three ways to access land in the Study area. First, if they have good relations with some of
the villagers, they can hope to be offered land. The terms and conditions of this gift will depend on the
agreement. The land could be given or only lent. Second, they can buy land from individuals under the
witness of the village Council. Lastly, the village Council might allow them to use and settle on some
unoccupied communal village land.
Each village possesses private plots of land divided between the residents, and communal land. The size of
communal land varies from one village to another. Based on interviews conducted at the village level,
communal land is mainly used as grazing land and to collect natural resources such as medicinal plant and
firewood. However, agricultural activities are also allowed especially for those in need, such as residents
who do not own land, but also for the shepherds who stay down the hill to look after the cattle. Indeed,
when a household does not have access to a plot of land, the Village Council allows it to farm and live on
the communal village land. During the social field investigation, village land belonging to Mugaba, Bugara
and Businde villages were found in the reservoir footprint, but also in the wayleave of the proposed
Transmission Line in Kyaka village.
The chairman of a village is in charge of managing communal land by allocating land plots to each cattle
owner. Upstream of the dam, although decisions are taken by villages to establish an organised
management of communal gazing land, it appears that people are allowed to move freely from one village
communal land to another as they share a common border with each other. According to interviews, there
is no inter-village management of the communal grazing land. However, at present, nothing prevents a
villager from Mugaba from collecting wood or medicinal plants in the communal land of Bugara village.
With regard to land conflict resolution, the Land Act of 1999 makes special provisions for the establishment
of a Village Land Council to settle disputes between parties on any matters concerning village land. It is
composed of 7 members, including three women, to be nominated by the Village Council. However, these
provisions have been limited to cases related to land sharing arrangements with other villages or land
sharing arrangements between pastoralists and agriculturalists. Interviews have confirmed that Village
Land Councils exist at the village level. Lastly, if a land conflict of a different nature arises between two
people, it is often the chairman of the sub-village who acts as mediator. If he failed to resolve the dispute,
the village Land Council might talk to both sides including their witnesses/neighbours. In the event that the
conflict is not resolved at the village level, it is sent to the Ward level to be heard by the Ward Executive
Officer. If the conflict is still unresolved, it is sent to the District level where there is a special District Land
Court.
Overall, there are two land tenure systems co-existing in the study area: a first one based on Granted Right
of Occupancy and a second based on customary land rights. Even though both systems are recognised by
the Tanzanian law, there is a clear hierarchy in practice as there are very few registered lands at the village

level due to a deficient cadastral system. Indeed, all the institutions 38own land through a Granted Right of
Occupancy whereas there are very few at the village level. Therefore, the sensitivity of the community land
tenure and land rights’ baseline within the villages, camps and institutions potentially impacted by the
Project is considered to be medium.
H.2 Land Rights in the Floodplain
According to the Environmental Management Act No. 20 of 2004 section 57 (1) and the Water Resources
Management Act of 2009 section 34, no human activities shall be conducted beyond sixty metres from a
water dam, a reservoir or a water source. However, the social surveys have revealed that, in every village
located downstream of the dam and alongside the Kagera River, farming activities are taking place in the
floodplain, within 60m from the riverbank.
According to the interviews conducted in October and November 2020, there are two types of access to
land located in the floodplain. First, a dry customary land could extend up to the river edge. Therefore, the
customary owner of the land considers having full property over the plot, including the part located in the
floodplain. Second, one can open an uncultivated land located in the floodplain. In such cases, the right to
cultivate the plot is automatically given to the person who did first open the land. In practice, this user right
can be passed on as inheritance and can also be sold. However, the difference between this land right and
a classic customary land right lies in the illegality of the latter. The interviewees have stressed that the
majority of the farmers who did open a land located in the floodplain are aware of the ban on cultivating
and do not claim full ownership on this plot. However, local practices recognise a right to use that can be
unofficially claimed, inherited and sold. Two profiles of farmers who did open a land in the floodplain have
emerged from the social investigations performed in October and November 2020. On one hand, there are
impoverished farmers who either do not own a customary land or consider that cultivating in the floodplain
is essential for their survival. On the other hand, there are farmers who see floodplain cultivation as a way
to make quick extra income, especially during the dry seasons.
These two types of access to land located in the floodplain were found in the seven villages located
downstream of the dam. However, the social field survey undertaken in October-November has also
revealed that, depending on the village, one or the other type of access dominates. For instance, in Kyaka
village, all the land connected to the floodplain are dry customary lands while, in Omundungo village, most
of the land along the Kagera River are plots opened by villagers (see Figure 5-181).
Upstream of the proposed dam, in Mushabaiguru, Bugara, Mugaba and Businde villages, there is no
agricultural activity taking place near the riverbank. Therefore, no specific land access right has been
identified.
Figure 5-181 – Land Plots Opened by Villagers in the Floodplain in Omundungo Village (19/10/2020)
38
KSC, NARCO and Kitengule prison.

H.3 Kagera Sugar Cane Land
KSC currently has Granted Rights of Occupancy on 46,054 ha of land. In the Project area, part of KSC land
could be impacted by the new access road, the Transmission Line and the reservoir as shown by Map 5-5.
KSC Workers have no customary land rights within the land owned by KSC, neither over the land they are
settled on, nor over the forest they use to collect wood or local medicinal plants. According to the head of
Human Resources and Administration for the KSC39, it is also strictly forbidden to farm on any land owned
by the company.
H.4 Kitengule and Missenyi ranches land
Kitengule and Missenyi ranches (see Map 5-5) are administered by the National Ranching Company
(NARCO). The Missenyi ranch (Figure 5-182) used to cover a total land area of 60,851 ha. According to the
current manager of Missenyi ranch40, 15,000 ha of land that used to belong to Missenyi ranch were
transferred to KSC from 2002 and 2007. Of the remaining 45,851 ha, 23,998 ha are currently run and
operated by NARCO under block n° 287/12, while 22,000 ha have been demarcated into 21 private blocks
and leased to private investors and villagers by NARCO. Fourteen private blocks are under short term
contracts lasting up to a year while seven blocks are under long term contracts lasting between 27 and
30 years. All private investors lease the grazing land owned by NARCO for beef cattle or milk production.
In the Project area, the north western part of block n° 287/12, part of block n°287/6 leased to Royal Farm
distributor and part of block n°287/3 leased to Chang ‘Ombe Women Group Ranching Company’ (see Figure
5-183) could be potentially impacted by the reservoir as shown by Map 5-5.
Kitengule ranch used to cover a total area of 44,000 ha. From 2002 to 2007, approximately 28,000 ha have
been transferred to Kagera Sugar Company (KSC). Today, 14,000 ha of land out of the remaining 16,000 ha
have been divided into 14 blocks leased to private investors, and 2,000 ha have been transferred to villages.
The new access road required for the Project construction and operation will cross six blocks as shown on
Map 5-5: block n°288/12 managed by Kashalankolo ranch, block n°288/11 leased to Kasenene ranch,
n°288/10 managed by Kassano ranch, block n°288/9 leased to Chaburwa Ranch, block n°288/7 managed
by Mtebu Farm, and lastly block n°288/1 lease to Kiteto Agrobusiness company. The reservoir as well as
some of the proposed dam facilities could encroach on this block n°288/1.
Figure 5-182 – Headquarter of Missenyi Ranch in Missenyi District (27/02/2020)
39
Personal communication with the current head of Human Resources and Administration for the KSC held on 03 of March 2020.
40
Personal communication with the current Manager of Missenyi Ranch held on 26 of February 2020.

Figure 5-183 - Advertising Signs for Block n°287/3 and Block n°287/6 in Missenyi Ranch (01/03/2020)
H.5 Kitengule Prison Land
Kitengule prison has Granted Rights of Occupancy on 15,000 ha of land 41. The Transmission Line route will
cross agricultural land owned by the Kitengule prison as illustrated on Map 5-5 and Figure 5-184. Prisoners
of Kitengule Prison have no rights to the land owned by that institution. However, prisoners cultivate the
prison’s land in order to make the institution self-sufficient. Kitengule prison also lends some plots of land
to third party, as it is the case with the Agricultural Research Institute of Maruku.
Figure 5-184 - Agricultural Land Owned by Kitengule Prison, lent to Agricultural Research Institute of Maruku
(27/02/2020)
41
Personal communication with the Procurement Officer of Kitengule prison held on 27 of February 2020.

Land Use: Sugar Cane Plantations, Flood Recession Farming, Dry Land
Farming, Livestock farming
Map 5-6 and Figure 5-185 describe the main land uses encountered in the study area. Table 5.87 describes
the mainland uses within the project footprint.
The villages and the four institutions42 located in the Project affected area use land for different purposes
(e.g. self-sufficient farming, grazing, commercial plantations).
Figure 5-185 - Land Use Within the Wards of the Study area
42
KSC, Missenyi ranch and Kitengule ranch and Kitengule prison.



Map 5-6 – Land Uses

Table 5.87 – Land Use in Village Lands and Institutional Stakeholders Within the Project-Affected Area
Project-affected areas Total Area in Village Lands Affected by the Project Footprint Institutional Lands Affected by the Project Footprint
ha Right Bank Left Bank Left & Right Bank Right Bank Left Bank Right Bank
KSC Land Area Kitengule Ranch Area Missenyi Kitengule
Bubale
Mugaba
Gabulanga
Omundongo
Mushabaiguru
Businde
Kyaka
Bulifani
Bugara
Mushasha
Nyabihanga
Kassambya
Ranch Area Prison Area
Reservoir Boundaries 1,713.5 ha - 8 ha 165 ha 96,5 ha - - - - - - - - 867 ha 369 ha 208 ha -

at Full Supply Level (100% of 0.4% of 7% of 4% of 39% of the affected 17% of the affected 9% of
and Dam Area reservoir and reservoir reservoir reservoir land and reservoir land and reservoir reservoir,
dam area,) 6 ha Bush / 141 ha Bush 90 ha Bush / 688 ha Bush / 349 ha Bush/woodland 186 ha Bush
woodland / woodland woodland woodland 19.3 ha Floodplain / Woodland
2 ha 23 ha 7 ha 2 ha forest 0.3 ha Forest 7.5 ha
Floodplain Floddplain Foodplain 12.5 ha Floodplain floddplain
165 ha Sugar Cane
Plantation
Transmission Line 38.50 km = - - - - 25 ha - - 78 ha - - 29 ha

Wayleave (35 m) 131 ha 18% of 61% wayleave 21% of
(100% of Wayleave, of 58 ha wayleave, of
wayleave) which: Bushland/Woodland which:
20 ha Sugar Cane
22 ha Plantation 15 ha
Residential/ Bush /
farmland Woodland
mixed
14 ha
3 ha Farmland Farmland
not mixed (not mixed)
Access Road 30 km = 18 ha - - - - - - - - - - - - 7 ha 11 ha - -
Wayleave (6m) 39% of wayleave 61% of wayleave
Bushland/Woodland Bushland/Woodland
Farm/Residential land: Villagers often built their house near their farming land. Therefore, it is difficult to dissociate residential land from farming land. Farm/residential land is therefore a plot of land under cultivation
or capable of supporting crops with or without a house.

Structures in the Project footprint
As shown by Table 5.88 , 23 structures have been identified by combining the data collected during the
social reconnaissance site visit of December 2019 and both social field surveys performed in Feb/March and
July-August 2020 (see Figure 5-186 and Figure 5-187). They are shown on Map 5-7. Most of these
structures (18) are affected by the Transmission Line and the extension of Kyaka substation as only
5 derelict houses will be inundated by the reservoir. Amongst the 23 structures, only 15 are inhabited.
In Tanzania, a wayleave is periodically used to perform maintenance or repair equipment and must be kept
clear of buildings. There are also restrictions on tree and vegetation growth due to operational
requirements for clearances from conductor lines. The wayleave width depends on the voltage. For Kakono,
a wayleave corridor of 27 m was considered by TANESCO. As a results of the Transmission Line voltage
increased from 132 kV to 220 kV, the width of the wayleave to be acquired has increased from 27 m to
35 m (17.5 m on each side of the line).
Table 5.88 – Structures Located in the Reservoir and the Wayleave of the Transmission Line
Type of structures Project component Number of structures* Number of households claiming
ownership of the structures
House Transmission Line/Kyaka 11 9
sub-station
Unfinished house Transmission Line /Kyaka 2 2
sub-station
Derelict house Reservoir 5 3 on the right bank
On the left bank 2 abandoned structures
with unidentified owners on Kagera
Sugar Company lands
Foundations Transmission Line /Kyaka 2 2
sub-station
Latrine Transmission Line /Kyaka 1 1
sub-station
Outdoor kitchen Transmission Line /Kyaka 1 1
sub-station
Storage Transmission Line /Kyaka 1 1
sub-station
Total 23 15**
* Social reconnaissance site visit of December 2019 and social field surveys of Feb/March and July/August 2020
** Some households own more than one structure

Figure 5-186 – House in Kyaka Village Surrounded by Banana Garden Crossed by the Transmission Line
(01/03/2020)
Figure 5-187 – Abandoned House Located in the Proposed Reservoir in Bugara Village (03/03/2020)

Map 5-7 – Structures in the Project Footprints



Sugar Cane Plantations
Sugarcane plantations are the dominant land use in Kagera Sugar Company (KSC) property. KSC’s core
business is sugarcane growing, processing and marketing of sugar. This is the biggest company in Missenyi
District that provides jobs for more than 10,000 people at peak periods. All workers have a job related to
sugarcane production, from cutters to factory workers. The 2020 social investigations show that these
economic activities are significant for some villages and are essential to the food security in some camps.
The company directly employs people as cutters, weeders and factory workers. The sugarcane harvesting
is a labour-intensive activity which is done manually by various types of hand knives. Usually, cane is a long
duration crop that takes about 12 to 15 months to become ready for harvesting. At the camps, the majority
of the residents, both men and women, are workers for the Company. The sugar cane harvesting technology
is currently pre-harvest burning. The irrigation system used by the company relies on pump stations located
along the Kagera River (See Section 5.4.4.1).
KSC territory has been divided in phases, as shown on Map 5-8. At the time of the field survey in March
2020, PH2A, PH1, PH2B, and part of PH2B* were under cultivation. 10,000 ha of the land acquired by the
company from Kitengule ranch were not cultivated for sugar cane production but used for livestock keeping.
In KSC, the company employees are also cultivating some plots of land to provide workers with fresh
vegetables. Interviewees stressed that the cultivated plots are usually not located near the Kagera River
but close to the worker camps (see Figure 5-188).
Figure 5-188 - Plots of Land Cultivating by KSC Employees for the Camp Workers in Camp n°2 (21/10/2020)

Map 5-8 – Existing and Planned Sugar Cane Plantation Developments

Farming on Dry Land
In the three Districts of the Study area – Missenyi, Karagwe and Kyerwa - agriculture is the main economic
activity. The predominant farming system is subsistence under rain-fed conditions, practiced by the majority
of the population. According to interviewed farmers, the sources of labour for agriculture include family
members and casual labourers. They farm using hand hoes and they rarely use fertilizers or modern seeds.
There are two rainy seasons in the area: (i) a long rainy season from March to May, and (ii) a short rainy
season from September to November. Major crops grown are bananas, potatoes, cassava, beans and maize
for local consumption. Coffee (Robusta), bananas, maize, vanilla and Irish potatoes are the main cash
crops43. According to interviewees, they plant crops twice a year according to the rainy and flooding
seasons. The first season of planting is done between February and March, and the second season in
September as shown on Figure 5-189.
Figure 5-189 Crop calendar in the Project area

Rainy season
Banana
Potatoes
Cassava
Beans
Maize
Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May. Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May. Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec.
Planting
Harvesting
The average farm size is two hectares per household in Missenyi (Socio-economic profile of Missenyi District,
2015) and in Karagwe District (Socio-economic profile of Karagwe District, 2015). At the household level,
crop farming is mostly practiced for subsistence purposes. Some households are involved into commercial
crop farming - such as banana and potatoes - although at a limited scale and only for the local market.
According to the interviews, there are three main farming systems in the villages of the study area. These
are Kibanja, Kikamba and Rweya:
• The Kibanja system (plural bibanja) is the most common one, especially among Haya communities.
It comprises of banana plots normally inter cropped during the two wet seasons with coffee,
beans, maize and other annual crops and tree species;
• The Kikamba system is practiced in the periphery of Kibanja and is used for cultivation of annual
crops and sometimes left fallow. Common kikamba crops include maize, beans, cassava, sweet
potato, sorghum and millet, occupying separate parts of the field; and
• Rweya system is found in areas of poor-quality land and mostly used for provisional farming of
mulching grasses, as well as fodder and tree planting.
Kagera region is said to produce nearly half of Tanzania's banana production with the cooking banana
(matoke44) making up the majority of the banana yield.
In the study area, farming on dry land is not common upstream of the proposed dam. Within the proposed
reservoir area, the only crop cultivation consists of a few scattered, small-scale farms along the riverbanks
in Bugara and Mugaba villages. Some of the farms are located within the 60 m buffer zone from the
riverbank (See Figure 5-190). They belong to several permanent settlements identified approximatively
100m from the reservoir (See Figure 5-191). The crops cultivated are vegetables, potatoes, maize and
bananas. However, fewer and fewer residents are leaving and cultivating near the riverbank because of the
frequent elephants ‘attacks. In Businde village, whereas interviews stressed that no one is cultivating down
the Chabadaki hill, the satellite images have shown some farmlands located outside of the proposed
reservoir but approximatively 100 m from the Kagera River. According to farmers, there are no reliable
markets near the villages located upstream of the dam, and poor road infrastructure makes it hard to
transport crops to selling centres. As a result, middlemen come to buy the crops from individual villagers,
43
Vanilla cultivation is not a widespread cash crop.
44
The popular food dish, matoke, includes beans with either beef or fish, and it is seen as a fulfilling meal compared to only
consuming crops like maize and cassava.

which prevents them from negotiating a good price. Households also sell food to KSC camps and villages
located on the left side of the riverbank.
Farming on dry land is more developed downstream of the proposed dam. The Transmission Line (TL) and
Kyaka substation crosses both Kyaka village located downstream of KSC territory where farming activity is
the dominant land use. Indeed, during the 2020 complementary socioeconomic survey performed in July
and August, the affected people were asked what the main activities they used to conduct on their land
were. As shown by Table 5.89, the interviewees have revealed that more than half of their land is used as
farming land (51.6%) while more than one quarter is both used as residential and farming land. No land is
solely used as grazing land but 15,3% are used as residential land, pastureland and for agriculture.
Table 5.89 – Main Activities Conducted on Dry Land in Kyaka Village

Main activity Number of land plots Average land plot size (acre)
Residential 3 (2.4%) 0.3
Farming 64 (51.6%) 3.1
Unused 3 (2.4%) 0.8
Residential and Farming 34 (27.4%) 3
Farming and Grazing 1 (0.8%) 7
Residential Farming and Grazing 19 (15.3%) 3.4
Total 124 (100%) 3
Village land crossed by the Transmission Line includes dry customary lands used for agricultural activities
and houses. Agricultural land is used to grow non-permanent crops as maize, beans, peanuts, vegetables,
and peas. There are also permanent crops as banana and coffee plantations. Eucalyptus plantations were
also observed in the Wayleave (See Figure 5-192). The average size of farming land is 3 acres as shown by
Table 5.89. Villagers mostly conduct their activities on their own land. Among the 168 affected households,
only four (2.3%) have declared using communal village land and solely for collecting wood for construction,
grass as construction material or medicinal plants.
As illustrated on Map 5-5, the Project’s reservoir footprint and the Transmission Line encroach into bushland
and farmland used by the villages in Missenyi, Karagwe and Kyerwa Districts.
Figure 5-190 - Small Garden Near the Riverbank in Mugaba Village (29/02/2020)

Figure 5-191 - Households in Mugaba Village Living just outside the border of the future Reservoir (29/02/2020)
Figure 5-192 - Eucalyptuses Trees in the Background Crossed by the Proposed Transmission Line (01/03/2020)
Livestock farming
A Livestock farming in Kitengule and Missenyi ranches
Commercial livestock production is the dominant land use in Missenyi and Kitengule ranches. Missenyi ranch
has been divided in two with 23,998 ha of land run and operated by NARCO under block n°287/12 and
22,000 ha demarcated into 21 private blocks. Private blocks are ranging from 1,118 ha to 14,829 ha per
block and are leased to private investors and villagers for commercial livestock production.
The proposed Kakono HPP reservoir could encroach onto part of block n°287/6 (leased to Royal Farm
Distributor), part of block n°287/3 (leased to Chang ‘Ombe Women Group Ranching Company), and part of
block n°287/12. For block n° 287/6, houses and gardens where found in the Project study area,
approximately 300m north of the planned reservoir (see Figure 5-193). According to informal interviews
conducted with residents, the identified gardens and structures may belong to the owner of the block as
well as his employees. Block n°287/12 operated by NARCO is intended to offer technical support to private

livestock keepers within the ranches to improve their skills and produce quality cattle 45. For instance, it
provides training facilities for artificial inseminations or in-services courses for NARCO workers and local
livestock keepers in the region.
Kitengule ranch operates as Missenyi ranch and all private investors leasing blocks are developing livestock
farming activities (see Figure 5-194). Some investors conduct other activities, but they are secondary. This
is the case of the manager of block n°288/1 who mainly deals with the keeping of livestock while cultivating
sunflowers used to feed his livestock. One temporary shelter for shepherds was found approximately
250 m west of the proposed access road (see Figure 5-195), as well as one shepherds’ camp (camp n°4)
belonging to KSC (see Figure 5-196) also located 250 m west from the road. Lastly, block n°288/9 leased
to Chaburwa Ranch has permanent structures used as offices for the company which are located 430 m
west of the new access road (see Figure 5-197).
Figure 5-193 - House and Garden Belonging to Employees Working in Block n°287/3 in Missenyi Ranch
(06/03/2020)
Figure 5-194 - Livestock in Block n°288/12 on the Proposed Access Road in Kitengule Ranch (01/03/2020)
45
Udadisi Mdadisi, “The State of the then NAFCO, NARCO and Absentee Landlords’ Farms/Ranches in Tanzania”, Land Rights
Research and Resources Institute, 14 of February 2019.

Figure 5-195 - Temporary Shelter for Shepherds in Block n°288/9 (01/03/2020)
Figure 5-196 - Shepherds Camp n°4 Belonging to KSC (02/08/2020)
Figure 5-197 – Permanent Structures Belonging to Block n°288/9 Leased to Chaburwa Ranch in Kitengule Ranch
(02/08/2020)

As reflected in Table 5.86 and illustrated on Map 5-5, the Project’s reservoir footprint and the new access
road encroach into open woodland used as grazing land on the Kitengule and Missenyi Ranches Land in
Missenyi and Karagwe Districts.
B Livestock farming at the village level
B.1 Livestock farming upstream of the proposed dam
Livestock farming is the dominant land use in Mushabaiguru, Mugaba, Bugara and Businde. In these villages,
all the land located within the boundaries of the proposed reservoir is open woodland, used as communal
grazing land by cattle keepers (Figure 5-198). The land located in the footprint of the proposed reservoir is
bushy and crossed by small paths, which are called ‘cattle corridors’ by the villagers, because they are
usually shaped by herds.
A wooden structure used to treat livestock against parasites was also found: These enclosed plots of land
are made of wood called zizi in Kiswahili (Figure 5-199). According to the interviews conducted with cattle
keepers from Mugaba village, some shepherds stay permanently on the communal grazing land while some
return to the village every evening.
In Mugaba village, there are around 25 families living down the hill. The interviewees have revealed that
foreigners such as one Ugandan family have settled on communal grazing land decades ago during the
1978 Uganda–Tanzania War, known in Tanzania as the Kagera war -Vita vya Kagera in Kishwahili. Later,
other families of shepherds (foreigners and Tanzanian) have also settled at the bottom of the hill. It takes
approximatively an hour to climb the hill and reach the centre of the village. Living down near the river is
therefore a practical choice for shepherds.
In Mushabaiguru, the grazing land is located close to the village, so cattle keepers are used to coming back
to the village every night. They might stay a few nights in temporary structures however there is no family
living near the river. No temporary structure has been observed in the footprint of the proposed reservoir.
According to interviews, grazing land would be smaller in Mushabaiguru as the land plot located west of the
village does belong to Kitengule ranch and is leased to private businessman (Block 288/1 as shown on map
Map 5-5).
In Bugara village, interviewees stressed that the 5 families living down in permanent structures are all
working as shepherds.
In Businde village, cattle keepers do not live permanently down the hill. If they have long contracts of one
or two years, they temporarily settle on the communal grazing land, but their main family houses remain
in the village. In Businde communal grazing land, some temporary structures for cattle keepers were found
in the study area, outside of the proposed reservoir (see Figure 5-200).
During the 2020 complementary socioeconomic survey performed in July and August 2020, the three
affected people living in the reservoir confirmed that they were mainly using their land for grazing and as
residential land.
Figure 5-198 - Grazing Land and Cattle in Mushabaiguru Village (29/02/2020)

Figure 5-199 - Wooden Structure to Treat Cattle in Mugaba Village (29/02/2020)
Figure 5-200 - Temporary structure for cattle keepers in Businde village, down the Chabadaki hill (05/03/2020)
B.2 Livestock farming in the villages downstream of the proposed dam
Interviewees have also revealed that livestock can be found on the floodplain or along the riverbanks.
Although the seven villages located at the east of the institutional lands of KSC and Kitengule prison do not
have a developed livestock farming activity, some families owning cattle heads or goats have confirmed
they are using the riverbanks as grazing land (see Figure 5-202). According to interviews, floodplains will
mainly be used as grazing land during dry seasons as grasslands are generally able to withstand extremely
heavy grazing over the dry seasons without becoming degraded because they are inaccessible to grazers
during the period of flooding over the wet season.
In Mushasha village (right bank), a Village Land Use Plan has been developed in 2015 by the local authorities.
It divides the village into different areas according to land uses (i.e. grazing, agricultural, residential). Two

areas located in the floodplain have been identified for livestock keeping. The two grazing land areas are
named Kanywa and extend over 107 ha (see Figure 5-201). There are accessible by foot during the dry
seasons. However, accesses can be difficult during raining and flooding periods.
Figure 5-201 – Entrance Panel to the Grazing Area Kanywa in the Floodplain in Mushasha Village (01/11/2020)
Figure 5-202 – Cattle Grazing Land on the river bank in Nyabihanga Village (26/10/2020)
C Livestock farming in KSC
In KSC territory, the southern part of PH2B* which falls into the footprint of the proposed reservoir is yet to
be cultivated by the company. At the time of writing, the land was used for cattle grazing. Two abandoned
shelters (see Figure 5-206) and one wooden structure used to treat livestock against parasites (see Figure
5-207) were also observed in this area. 46 They are all located inside the proposed reservoir. KSC is also
46
Cattle are confined into an enclosed space made of wood called zizi in Kiswahili, so shepherds can treat them.

currently conducting temporary livestock activities downstream of the dam, west of camp n°10 (See Map
5-6). No livestock has been found during the social survey but one cattle water point and one wooden
structure to treat cattle parasite were found near the left bank. However, livestock do not usually graze
along the riverbank as the nutritious grasses are located further north, away from the river.
Figure 5-203- Abandoned Shelters Located in KSC land, in the Southern Part of PH2B* (06/03/2020)
Figure 5-204 - Wooden Structure used to Treat Livestock Against Parasites Located on KSC Land in the Southern
Part of PH2B* (06/03/2020)
Flood Recession Farming
Downstream of the dam, eight KSC workers camps have a direct access to the Kagera River on the left side
of the riverbank. On the right side, there is only one KSC workers’ camp (4 additional camps located along
the river are planned to be built in the two coming years). KSC workers camps’ population is described in
Section 5.4.2.2 (estimate of 6,121 workers). Since 2016, the KSC has officially forbidden agricultural
activities. As detailed in Section 5.4.3.2, only a few company employees are allowed to cultivate some small
plots of land to provide workers with fresh vegetables. Despite the ban on cultivation, two transgressions
have been identified during the social field survey.
Firstly, nine workers living in camp n°4 are officially allowed by the camp authorities to cultivate temporary
crops along the Kagera River for self-consumption (see Figure 5-205). Secondly, some KSC workers are
secretly cultivating small plots of land along the left bank of the river. The social field survey performed in

October-November 2020 has revealed that the average plot size is 0.1 acre (404,7m²) and that most of the
agricultural activities are taking place between camps n°4 and camps n°9. West of camp n°9, a cliff
extending up to camp n°10 prevent workers from cultivating. In total, 43 cultivated land plots have been
identified on the left bank of the Kagera River. This figure is a low estimate for two main reasons. Firstly,
cultivated lands on KSC territory are not easily accessible and most are difficult to find. Workers choose
hidden areas due to the illegality of agricultural activities. Therefore, some plots have certainly been left out
of the social investigations. Secondly, because of the extreme flooding period that occurred in 2020, the
level of water was still high and has prevented workers from farming wherever they wanted to.
According to the interviewees, only non-permanent crops are being cultivated such as vegetables, sweet
potatoes, beans or maize. Due to the illegality of such activity, workers usually do not cultivate twice in the
same area so as not to be arrested by the KSC security guards (see Figure 5-206 and Figure 5-209). The
social field survey has identified one exception to this rule. In the floodplain, on the western side of camp
n°5, one strip of land of approximately 8.3 ha is regularly used by camps workers and fishermen to grow
non-permanent crops for self-consumption. According to the interviewees, this “island” can only be
accessed by foot in May and June (see Figure 5-208 and Figure 5-209).
On the right bank of Kagera River, three settlements have been identified during the social field survey
performed in October and November 2020. The area is sparsely inhabited since the land belongs to KSC -
only one camp of about 300 workers has been built up to date - or to Kitengule prison. The few agricultural
plots identified belong to fishermen’s families. According to the interviewees, they settled in temporary
structures near the river from April to September. Men fish while women cultivate vegetables on small plots
of land (see Figure 5-210 and Figure 5-211).
Figure 5-205 – Agricultural Plots Along the Left Bank of the Kagera River Near Camp n°4 on KSC Territory
(22/10/2020)

Figure 5-206 – Agricultural Plots Along the Left Bank of the Kagera River on the KSC Territory (26/10/2020)
Figure 5-207 – “Island” Located on the Northern Part of the Papyrus Near KSC Workers Camp n°5 on the Left Bank
of the Kagera River (21/10/2020)

Figure 5-208 – Agricultural Plots in the Floodplain Located on the “Island” Near the KSC Workers Camp n°5 on the
Left Bank of the Kagera River (21/10/2020)
Figure 5-209 - Agricultural Plot Along the Left Bank of the Kagera River on the KSC Territory (26/10/2020)

Figure 5-210 – Agricultural Plot Along the Right Bank of the Kagera River Located in KSC Territory (28/10/2020)
Figure 5-211 – Temporary structure Along the Right Bank of the Kagera River Located in KSC Territory
(28/10/2020)
Downstream of the dam, 4 villages (i.e. Omundungo, Nyabihanga, Kassambya and Gabulanga villages) on
the left bank and 3 villages (i.e. Kyaka, Bulifani and Mushasha villages) on the right bank have a direct access
to the Kagera River. The village population is described in Section 5.4.2.2 (estimate of 50,000 residents).
Farming activity is the dominant land use on the riverbanks. During the 2020 complementary
socioeconomic survey performed in October and November 2020, the affected people were asked what the
main activities they used to conduct on their land were. As shown by Table 5.90 below, the interviewees
have revealed that more than two third of their land located downstream of Kyaka village along the
riverbank are used both as farming and residential land (66%) while more than one third is only used for
farming. The average size of one agricultural plot is 1.3 acres.

Table 5.90 – Main activities conducted on the land located in the floodplain
Main activity Land plots Average land plot size (acre)
Residential 0.9% 0.5
Farming 33% 1.3
Residential and Farming 66% 1.4
Total 100% 1.4
Only non-permanent crops are cultivated such as vegetables, sweet potatoes, beans or maize. The
Environmental Management Act No. 20 of 2004 section 57 (1) and the Water Resources Management Act
of 2009 section 34 forbid any kind of human activities conducted beyond sixty metres from a water dam, a
reservoir or a water source. However, this ban does not discourage farmers from cultivating on the
riverbanks using flood recession agriculture practices (see Figure 5-212, Figure 5-213 and Figure 5-214).
Therefore, farming activities on the riverbanks are controlled by the seasonal floods. They move to ‘higher’
land during the high flows and return to the bank of the river when the area is still wet, but the water level
has fallen. Therefore, they usually do not plant during rainy seasons. Farmers usually cultivate for their own
consumption although they sometimes sell one part of their harvest to get quick cash.
The social field survey performed in October and November has led to the identification of 43 land plots
located in KSC territory and 537 cultivated land from Kyaka down to Mushasha village, all located in the
riverbanks. This figure is a low estimate. Because of the extreme flooding period that occurred in 2020, the
level of water was still high. Either it prevented farmers cultivating their plots, or it restricted their
agricultural area (see Figure 5-215).
Tree or vegetable nurseries were also found very close to the riverbanks (see Figure 5-216 and Figure
5-217). Interviews have revealed that the 60 m restriction is usually common knowledge to the farmers,
but no one knows where this limit starts and ends. In Omundungo village, interviewees have also revealed
that wild spinach (Mchicha pori in Kiswahili) usually grow near the riverbanks. The poorest farmers are
selling them in local markets.
Box n°2: Interview with a young farmer in his twenties who cultivates in the floodplain (19/10/2020 in
Omundongo village)47
His mother has opened a land located in Omundongo floodplain. Since 2012, he has inherited her land
rights on that plot and cultivates non-permanent crops from April to December she as vegetables, beans
and sweet potatoes. This land plot is the only one he has. Therefore, his livelihood depends exclusively on
it. Apart from the harvest, he also collects Mchicha pori along the riverbanks and sells the wild spinach to
the local markets. He confessed knowing about the governmental ban that forbids any kind of human
activities in the floodplain. However, in view of its economic situation, he argued that he cannot stop
cultivating his plot. He does not use the floodplain for any other activity.
In Mushasha village (right bank), a Village Land Use Plan has been developed in 2015 by the local authorities.
It divides the village into different areas according to land uses (i.e. grazing, agricultural, residential). One
“island” named Kaliko and located in the floodplain has been identified for cultivation. This agricultural area
measure 27,12 ha and is accessible by foot during the dry seasons. However, access could be difficult during
raining and flooding periods. Farmers cultivating in Kaliko have been selected by the village authorities. Most
of them are village residents who do not possess a dry customary land or own a very small plot (see Figure
5-218).
There is no permanent structure located in the floodplain or on the riverbanks. However, several temporary
structures have been identified near the Kagera River. These structures are used by farmers to guard plots
located near the river. Interviewees have confirmed that wild animals such as hippopotamuses could eat or
destroy farmers crops (see Figure 5-219).
47
Personal communication with a farmer in Omundongo village held on 19 of October 2020.

Figure 5-212 – Plot of Land cultivated on the River Bank in Nyabihanga Village (27/10/2020)
Figure 5-213 – Plot of land Cultivated on the River Bank in Mushasha Village (03/11/2020)

Figure 5-214 – Plot of Land Cultivated on the River Bank in Bulifani Village (29/10/2020)
Figure 5-215 – Cultivated land plot half under water in Bulifani Village (29/10/2020)

Figure 5-216 – Trees Nursery on the Rriver Bank in Mushasha Village (2/11/2020)
Figure 5-217 – Vegetables Nursery on the River Bank in Mushasha Village (2/11/2020)

Figure 5-218 – Agricultural Plot in the Floodplain Located in Kaliko Area, Mushasha village (03/11/2020)
Figure 5-219 – Temporary Structure Near the Kagera River Used by Farmers to Guard the Plots in Omundungo
Village (21/10/2020)

Water Use
Sugar Cane Irrigation
In March 2020, KSC had seven functional water pumps on the left bank of the river all located
downstream of the proposed Kakono dam (See Map 5-9) and several mobile diesel pumps which
extract water from the Kagera River for irrigation and domestic consumption. In total, KSC has three
water permits, for both domestic and commercial purposes, to extract up to 460,000 m³ per day48.
Cane is very sensitive to water supply and needs water more than other crops. Cane requires sufficient
water supply at every crucial stage. KSC uses a combination of centre pivot irrigation systems and drip
feed irrigation systems to reduce water loss. According to the Victoria Water Basin Office, KSC is the
largest water user in Missenyi District. As a water user, KSC is part of the water users’ association which
gather all water users from the District who possess a water permit. Its main objective is to bring water
users together so they can discuss their problems and find solution together.
At the time of writing, KSC was expanding its sugar cane fields, and new pump stations needed to be
built along the Kagera Riverbanks. On the left bank, downstream of the proposed Kakono dam, six new
pump stations are under construction since 2019. One new pump station (Pump Station NRP2) located
upstream of the proposed Kakono dam, in PH2B* area, is also under construction in the footprint of
the future reservoir (See Map 5-9 and Figure 5-220).
On the right bank, downstream of the proposed Kakono dam, KSC is planning to build six new pump stations.
Currently, one pump located near camp n°6 is under construction (see Figure 5-221). See Map 5-9. KSC is
in the process of expanding another 6,000 ha over the next three years, south of the Kagera River, and
further 3,000 to 4,000 ha in a close future near Mwisa village, on the southern side of the main tarmac road
going to Karagwe.
Figure 5-220 - Site Construction of the Pump Station NRP2 Located in the Footprint of the Reservoir (04/02/2020)
48
Personal communication with the Water quality Manager of the Lake Victoria Water Basin Office held on the 25 of February 2020.

Figure 5-221 – New Pump Station Under Construction Near Camp n°6 on the Right Bank of Kagera River
(28/10/2020)
Water Supply in KSC Workers Camps
According to the KSC Head of Human Resources & Administration, the company provides clean water in
each camp. There are handpumps for water supply and water tanks of 5,000 litres regularly filled by the
company (see Figure 5-222). The water is pumped from the river by the pump stations built along the
riverbank by the company, treated at the company’s headquarters, and then distributed to camps using
water bowsers.
Figure 5-222 - Handpumps and Water Tanks at Camp n°9 (28/02/2020)
Although KSC camps are provided with water, interviews conducted with camp residents stressed that many
workers still use raw river water for their daily activities such as drinking, cooking, washing and cleaning.
Two main reasons were given by the interviewees. One was that the company would not always fill the

water tanks on a regular basis, which forced workers to use the Kagera River. Another was that the water
extracted from the handpumps would sometimes be too salty to be used for domestic purposes.
Water Supply in the villages
There are no public water supply facilities within the villages located upstream of the proposed dam.
Mushabaiguru, Mugaba, Bugara and Businde villagers rely on wells, and springs for drinking water and only
the people residing down the hill who do not have access to a stream use the Kagera River for domestic
purposes. Some households also use rainwater harvested through water tanks. According to the
interviewees, most villagers do not treat water before drinking it and few either boil the water or use water
filters.
In Mushabaiguru, Mugaba, Bugara and Businde, the Kagera River is largely used by cattle keepers, whether
they live temporarily or permanently on the communal grazing lands. According to interviews conducted
with shepherds, the water is used for drinking and for domestic activities such as cooking, bathing and
washing clothes. Only one household living permanently in Mugaba communal land has revealed that a
small stream runs close to their house. The other residents of the villages living up the hill, at the centre of
the villages never fetch water from the river for domestic purposes, but rather use water springs, wells and
small streams coming from the hill. Indeed, the river is located too far from the centre of the villages.
Transportation of goods seems to be critically important for some of the camps, especially for Kifaru camp,
camp n°10 and camp n°9. According to the interviewees of KSC camps, the gardens cultivated by KSC
employees only provide vegetables and also the daily market built at the headquarters is too far for the
camps located west of the headquarters. Therefore, transportation of food such as bananas, potatoes and
cassava are said to be essential to those camps. The food is brought to the camps about three times a week
by villagers from Mugaba or Mushabaiguru. Camps, such as camp n°9, also get food from the villages
located north of the sugar plantation like Bubale village.
Downstream of the proposed dam, the 2020 complementary socioeconomic surveys have revealed that
Kagera River and pumping wells are the two most common drinking water sources listed by the
interviewees as shown by Figure 5-223. Villagers do not boil the Kagera River water before consumption.
100% 1%
11% 19%
90% None
80%
Other
70%
Kagera river
60% 57%
50%
Tanker truck
50%
40% Natural spring

1%
30% 1% 3% Own well
2%
20%
19% 22% Pumping well
10%
5% Tap water from elsewhere
6%
0% 1%
Male-headed households Female-head households Tap water inside the House
Figure 5-223 – Sources of Water Used by the Households
All sub-villages of the seven villages connected to the floodplain depend on the Kagera River for their daily
life activities including cooking, bathing and washing clothes (see Figure 5-227).

Of the 31 pumping wells and natural wells identified during the social field survey performed in October and
November 2020, only one pumping well belonging to Bulifani village was located within 200 m of the river49.
Each village has between four and eight pumping wells scattered all over the village’s territory (see Figure
5-224). Only village residents are allowed to use them during time slots fixed by the village’s authorities.
Water users must pay 1000 TSH per month to the Village Council for the pumping wells maintenance.
In Bulifani village, pipes are pumping water from Kagera River to store it in tanks before being treated and
distributed. In Kyaka village, one Government Water Project for the construction of a water reservoir is also
being implemented to supply Kyaka and Bunazi villages. The water supply project is part of a national
program (RUWASA) and concerns the design and build of an intake raw water transmission Pipe with a
pumping capacity of 7,235 m3/day, and a water treatment plant with an approximate production capacity
of 6,574 m3/day (see Figure 5-225).
In October 2019, one new Water User Association (WUA) under the Ministry of Water Resources
Management has been registered. Called Kamirabingo, it gathers 14 villages connected to the Kagera River
located in seven wards. The association brings together all registered businesses, cooperative or private
individuals using the Kagera River. All seven villages located in the study area are part of it. In Tanzania, the
Water Resources Management Act of 2009 allows WUAs to acquire and operate a permit, and to have a say
during the permit distribution process managed by the basin authority. Furthermore, WUA must
theoretically check that water users do not abstract more water than their water permit allows.
Interviewees stressed that beyond the water abstraction monitoring, Kamirabingo’s key objective is to
protect the river and its banks50. As a result, the WUA forbids farmer to cultivate in the floodplains and raise
awareness about soil erosion, tree planting and agroforestry. In 2021, Kamirabingo is planning to
demarcate the sixty metres limit imposed by the Tanzanian law in each of the 14 villages connected to the
Kagera River.
At the village level, interviews conducted in the seven villages located in the study area have confirmed that
few people abstract water for private businesses. During the field mission, only one private pipe has been
identified on the riverbank in Gabulanga village (see Figure 5-226).
The interviewees also stressed that the river is used for different types of activities:
• Public institutions like the Kyaka primary school also use the Kagera River for drinking, cooking and
cleaning (Figure 5-228);
• Some villagers in Omundongo would also use local pumps to irrigate their field, taking water from
the Kagera River. However, it seems to be a minority as most of the villagers practice rainfed
agriculture; and
• Households living at the eastern south of the Kyaka village also use the Mwisa river which serve as
a natural border between the village and the Kitengule Prison’s territory. Mwisa river runs north,
bending to the northeast, crossing the Kitengule plains, then enters the Kagera River near Kyaka,
just before the main bridge. Those two rivers are used by livestock keepers as cattle water points.
49
Only the closest pumping wells from the riverbanks were visited.
50
Personal communication with the secretary of Kamirabingo held on the 4 of November 2020.

Figure 5-224 – Pumping well in Omundungo village (20/10/2020)
Figure 5-225 – Location of the New Water Supply Project in Kyaka village (23/10/2020)

Figure 5-226 – Private pipe used by a business man in Gabulanga village (05/11/2020)
Figure 5-227 – A women Washing Clothes at the Kagera River near KSC workers camp n°5 (22/10/2020)

Figure 5-228 - Water Point Collection for the Kyaka Primary School (02/03/2020)
Overall, there is a dependency on the Kagera River water in the potentially affected areas even though this
dependency does not affect all the receptors in the same way. All the villages and camps located in the
study area are regularly using land and water, whether for daily domestic or economic activities.
Water supply for ranches and Kitengule prison
Missenyi and Kitengule ranches are relying on the Kagera River and small underground pumping systems
for their water needs. One pumping system has been identified near the new proposed access road in Block
n288/°9, within the study area (Figure 5-229 & Figure 5-230).
At the Kitengule prison, the prisoners use five water wells. None of them are located along the riverbank
and they do not use the Kakono river water. The prison used to have a water pump near the river, but it has
been years since it last worked. However, like Kitengule and Missenyi ranches, the prison’s cattle use the
Kagera River as water points. No other activities are conducted near the river. According to the Director of
the prison51, the river is too deep, water flows fast, and crocodiles and hippos are frequently encountered.
51
Personal communication with the Director of the Prison held on the 27 of February 2020.

Figure 5-229 – Tanks Feed by an Underground Pumping System in Block n°288/9 of Kitengule Ranch (01/03/2020)
Figure 5-230 – Water Tower fed by underground pumping system in block n°9 of Kitengule ranch (01/03/2020)
Cattle water points and navigation
Upstream and downstream of the dam, several cattle water points were identified during the social field
surveys. First, upstream of the proposed dam, all blocks belonging to Missenyi ranches and NARCO adjacent
to the Kagera River use the river as cattle water points as shown on Map 5-9. Interviews conducted in
Mushabaiguru, Mugaba, Bugara and Businde villages have also revealed that shepherds are using the river
to water their cattle. Some water points were identified during the social investigations and others were
pointed out by the interviewees during the community land and water uses mapping. In total, about
17 cattle water points have been identified in the reservoir footprint.
Downstream of the dam, in KSC territory, two cattle water points were identified. The first one is located
near the dam and is used by shepherds who are working for KSC (see Figure 5-231). The second one belongs
to Bubale village located north of the sugar cane fields. A strip of land connecting Bubale village to the river
is the subject of an agreement with KSC company (see Figure 5-232 and Map 5-9). The villagers are allowed
to move with their cattle along this corridor to reach their water point. However, villagers do not use the
KSC land for grazing.
Interviews conducted in Mushabaiguru, Mugaba, Bugara and Businde villages have also revealed that the
river is crossed by canoes several times per day by many villagers who sell and sometimes buy goods on
either side of the river (Figure 5-233 & Figure 5-234). Canoes are made of wood and have paddles. The

2020 social investigations have identified three crossing points as shown on Map 5-9. Mushabaiguru and
Mugaba villages have regular trade activities with the KSC camps. They sell food such as maize, cassava,
bananas or coffee to Kifaru camp and camp n°10. According to the villagers and the camps’ workers, these
activities are essential for both parties since they generate significant economic gains for the villages and
ensure part of the food security of some camps. In Businde, the crossing point is used to trade with other
villages (e.g. Kitoboka in Kakunyu village) more than with KSC workers camps (see Figure 5-235).
Box n°3: Interview with the ferryman of Businde village (05/03/2020 in Businde village)
It has been more than 20 years that he is in charge of transporting people and goods. According to him,
villagers of Businde are mainly trading with the sub-village of Kitoboka located in Kakunyu village, but also
with workers of block n°6 in Missenyi ranch. A lot of people and goods pass through his boat as he makes
about 50 trips a week. Banana, maize and cassava are the most common crops sold to this sub-village.
Villagers also crossed the river to see their friends and relative that live in Kakunyu village. According to
him, the two villages have special bonds. A passage costs 2,000 Tanzanian Shillings but the amount can
go up to 4,000 if the person carries a lot of goods or a bicycle. In 20 years, he has never experienced an
accident. He stressed out that crocodiles and hippos keep quiet, and when hippo gets a little too close to
the boat, he just throws a stone to make him move away.
Figure 5-231 - A Cattle Water Point near the Proposed Dam on KSC territory (25/10/2020)

Figure 5-232 - Bubale Cattle Water Point on KSC Territory (28/02/2020)
Figure 5-233 – Wooden Canoes in Mugaba Village (29/02/2020)
Figure 5-234 – Left - Residents from Mugaba Village Crossing the River to go to Kifaru Camp (29/02/2020)
Figure 5-235 – Right - Businde villager Who has Crossed the River to Sell Goods in Kitoboka Sub-Village
(06/03/2020)

Map 5-9 – Water Uses





Fisheries
The fisheries of all water bodies in Tanzania including Kagera River are managed by the Fisheries Act no. 22
of 2003 and its Regulation of 2015. There is no family/clan tenure in Tanzania fisheries, therefore all
citizens are allowed to join fishery as long as they have fishing license. There is no fishery management at
the village level. In Missenyi District, every fisher is supposed to pay TZS 75,000 to get the fishing licence
and will continue to pay TZS 50,000 annually. Fish traders are supposed to pay TZS 25,000 per year.
Fishing is not a main economic activity conducted in the Project area. According to the fisheries survey, most
of the visited villages perceive fishery has no economic value. It would only be important for food, especially
for those who know how to fish as they only sell surplus catch. However, fishing is not equally developed in
the Project area.
Upstream of the proposed dam, in Mushabaiguru, Mugaba, Bugara and Businde villages, interviewees
explained that fishing was practiced by less than 20 people throughout the year. The quantities of fish
caught are small and mostly consumed at family level. The sale of a surplus is rare. Fishing is said to not be
a widespread activity because few people know how to fish, the river flow is too strong, and many are scared
of wild animals like crocodiles and hippos. No dedicated fishing area has been identified during the field
surveys.
According to one fisher living in Bugara village, fishing is not a popular activity because there are few fish in
the Kagera River and they are hard to catch due to the speed of the river. Fishing spots would also be difficult
to find as the vegetation is very dense on the riverbank. He fishes twice a week, especially during the rainy
season from March to May. He uses a fishing rod made of wood. According to him, the species he is used to
catching are locally known as Empola, Emamba (lungfish), Mbojo, Kasulubana (Mormyrus) and Ebihumpi.
Kagera River does however host many more fish species. A total of 288 fish representing 24 species in nine
families were collected in surveys or recorded in fisher catches from 10 sites on the main stem and
tributaries of the Kagera River during the February 2020 field survey conducted over 11 days by the SLR
fish expert52.
Fishing activities seem, however, to be more common downstream of the proposed dam, especially after
the Bulifani village bridge where the river velocity is slower and where the banks are further transformed
by man-made actions such as agriculture. As a result, the vegetation is sometimes less dense and access
to the river is easier (Figure 5-237). The Acting Fisheries Officer for Missenyi District indicated that there are
approximately 200 fishers in Missenyi District, and that these fishers are required to possess a permit and
must pay taxes when they transport fish53. However, the fishery field survey has also revealed that all
fishers do not have a licence. Out of the 82 interviewees who regularly fish into the Kagera River, only ten
had a fishing licence.
KSC does not authorize camp residents to fish and use the river for transportation purposes, but these
activities still take place. Indeed, during the 2020 social investigations, one group of fishers were met while
fishing at the bridge construction site on KSC territory (Figure 5-238) and four fishers’ settlements were
identified on the right and left bank of the river. They stressed that fishing is practised by residents from
other villages such a Bubale located north of the sugar cane plantations, more than by camp workers.
52
Aquatic Baseline Survey Report, Complementary Environmental & Social Studies (Revision A) prepared for AFD and Tanesco, 11th
of May 2020.
53
Interview of the Acting Fisheries Officer for Missenyi District conducted by the SLR fish expert on the 27 of February 2020.

Box n°4: Interview with a fisherman working for the construction of the new bridge (28/02/2020 at the
bridge construction site in Kagera Sugar Company) 54
He stays at the construction site as he lives in a prefabricated building. After work, he is used to fish with
some of his colleagues. However, he highlighted that few people fish. First, because few people know how
to fish, and second because it could be dangerous. There are crocodiles and hippos that might attack, and
the river flows is fast. He is fishing for his own consumption, not for commercial purposes. However, if there
is a good catch, he may decide to sell the fish surplus. According to him, this place would be a good fishing
spot as he has seen some villagers from Bubale coming to fish.
According to the fishery survey, most of the fishers who regularly fish inside KSC territory are not workers
of the KSC company but licensed fishers. They daily sell one part of their catch directly at some of the KSC
camps such as camp n°5 and n°3 (see Figure 5-239).
However, fishing remains a second-class economic activity. According to the fishery survey conducted in
2020, only 39% of the interviewed fishers considered fishing as their main source of income among the
other sources as illustrated by
Figure 5-236. This was followed by farming which scored 29%. In the second rank, farming was dominant
as indicated by 58%, while fishing and fishing related activities was followed as represented by 17%. In the
third rank, livestock farming was dominant as indicated by 92%.
54
Personal communication with a fisherman working for the construction of the new bridge in Kagera Sugar Company held on the 28
of February 2020.

Figure 5-236 – Fisher’s ranking of income sources
The fishery survey highlighted that fishers are using different types of fishing gear such as handline, boats,
gillnet but also traps and longlines set overnight to collect the fish in the morning. Each boat is however
operated by only one fisher and there were no fishing crews in the fishery of Kagera River.
According to the survey, 68% of the fishers are selling their catch at landing site and only 32% sell their fish
at markets such as the Kyaka, Bunazi or Bugorora open markets (See Figure 5-240). The main buyers of
fish are fish traders (73%), followed by those involved in fish trading and processing (27%). However, fishers
do not only sell their catch as about 45.2% of fishers interviewed eat fish almost daily in a week, followed
by 42% of fishers who eat fish 3-4 times in a week and only 12.8% of fishers who eat fish once or twice a
week.
As demonstrated by Table 5.91, the majority of the fish species commonly harvested in the Project area are
categorized by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) as “least concern”. The L.
victorianus is the only fish classified as “near threatened” but the fishery survey revealed that it is a rarely
caught fish as it only represented 3% of the catch encountered during the survey. Fishers are used to fish
in the main channel, in the papyrus swamps and in the floodplain. However, fishing in the main channel is
less common, whatever the fish species targeted. Fishing is taking place throughout the year, but it appears
that both long and short rainy seasons are favoured by fishers.
Table 5.91 – Main Fish Species Targeted in the Project Area

Fish species IUCN red % of % of catch % of % of catch in Catch Catch Catch
list catch in in papyrus catch in the floodplain during during during
the study swamps main long short dry
area channel rainy rainy season
season season
C. gariepinus Least 25% 67% 14% 19% 0% 71% 29%
Concern
P. aethiopicus Least 24% 63% 19% 19% 38% 38% 23%
Concern
L. victorianus Near 3% 100% 0% 0% 67% 33% 0%
threatened
B. docmak Least 7% 50% 20% 30% 56% 33% 11%
Concern
S. intermedius Least 9% 46% 23% 31% 46% 31% 23%
Concern
M. kannume Least 9% 43% 29% 29% 55% 27% 18%
Concern
H. grahami Least 5% 33% 17% 50% 17% 33% 50%
Concern
O. niloticus Least 11% 40% 10% 50% 46% 23% 31%
Concern
Haplochromines Least 5% 33% 17% 50% 17% 33% 50%
cichlid Concern

Fish species IUCN red % of % of catch % of % of catch in Catch Catch Catch

list catch in in papyrus catch in the floodplain during during during
the study swamps main long short dry
area channel rainy rainy season
season season
L. niloticus Least 1% 40% 10% 50% 46% 23% 31%
Concern
The fishery survey also revealed that P. aethiopicus and C. gariepinus are the two fish species mostly
harvested by fishers. In the Project area, the total catch landed by fishers per week was estimated to be
483 kg and, of those, 159 kg was for P. aethiopicus and 112 kg was for C. gariepinus as illustrated by Table
5.92. Their selling prices are relatively high compared to other fish species. According to the survey, fishing
generates an average income of TZS 204,923 per fisher in a week while fish traders generate TZS 209,421
per week.
Table 5.92 – Catch Values per Week in the Study Area

Fish species Total catch per week (Kg) Trip per week Average Price (TZS) per Kg
C. gariepinus 112 4 2,426
P. aethiopicus 159 5 2,389
L. victorianus 4 2 850
B. docmak 16 4 5,000
S. intermedius 77 5 586
M. kannume 41 4 1,314
H. grahami 30 5 550
Tilapines 37 7 1,000
Haplochromines cichlid 6 3 75
L. niloticus 1 1 10,000
In the Project area, fish is part of the common meal consumed by the villagers. However, it is not considered
a staple food. The results of the fishery survey have shown that only 43% of household’s heads considers
fish as the main sauce to their daily meal while beans/legumes and vegetable scored as an alternative sauce
to them (56.9%). The P. aethiopicus and C. gariepinus species both from Kagera River are the most preferred
fish species by the respondents. However, households’ heads also reported to often eat dagaa (R. argentea)
from Lake Victoria because it is affordable and more abundant compared to other fish species caught in the
Kagera River. Therefore, fish from Lake Victoria supplement the fish supply for food in the Project area. A
large quantity of fish eaten by households are bought from the market (75%) while the rest come directly
from the fishers (25%). The results also show that about 62.7% of households’ heads reported that a week
can pass without eating fish while 23.5% eat fish only once in a week. Most of the respondents highlighted
that the limited supply of fish and high price were the main reasons why villagers do not eat fish more
regularly.
Overall, fishing is not a main economic activity in the Project area. Out of the 168 affected household
interviewed during the social surveys, only 17 (10%) have declared fishing. Among them, 94% are fishing in
the Kagera River and 71% fish for family consumptions while the remaining 21% have declared fishing for
both sale and household consumption. The 17 families are all living downstream of the proposed dam and
most of them (14) were households owning a plot of land located on the riverbanks.

Figure 5-237 – Fishing Spot in Kyaka Village (02/03/2020)
Figure 5-238 – Fisherman Near the Bridge Construction Site in KSC (28/02/2020)

Figure 5-239 – Fishers at KSC camp n°5 (20/10/2020)
Figure 5-240 – Fish Sellers at Bunazi open Market (21/10/2020)
Community Infrastructure and Utilities
Transports
At the village and KSC workers’ camps , very few people own a car. Bicycles and Boda Bodas are the most
widely used modes of transport. According to interviews conducted at the village level, motorcycle taxis
called Boda Bodas are a form of employment favoured by the youth. Bodo Bodas provide 'for hire' type
transport services for passengers and goods. The number of Boda Bodas operators has skyrocketed in
recent years, making it one of the fastest growing businesses. Lastly, river transport is another type of

transport service for passengers and goods frequently used between villages and KSC camps (See Section
5.4.4.5). Overall, there are few tarmac roads in the Project affected area and the majority of the roads are
unmaintained and made of dirt.
A Right Bank
On the right bank, the main road leading to the dam is the B181. It branches from B8 at Bunazi and crosses
through the Kagera Sugar plantations in Missenyi District, north of the Project area. It leads to Bubale and
Kakunyu villages. It is an all-weather road and wide enough to take heavy loads. It is commonly known as
‘barabara ya kwenda Kakunyu’ which means the road to Kakunyu village. In March 2020, there was no bridge
to connect the right bank to the left bank, but one is under construction near KSC camp n°8 (see Figure
5-241) as shown on Map 5-10. Three kilometres after camp N°9, B181 goes north and one needs to follow
a dirt road along the river to reach the proposed dam.
Figure 5-241 – New Bridge under Construction Connecting the Right Bank to the Left Bank (29/02/2020)
B Left Bank
The Bukoba-Mutukula road (B8) connects Bukoba to Kyaka and crosses the Kagera River to Bunazi and
further to the Uganda border (see Map 5-10). This road is in the process of being widened and several
houses located on the sides of the current road will have to be demolished. From B8, one secondary dirt
road (R125) goes to the north, one kilometre before Kyaka bridge, up to the Ugandan border.
From this main road, the Kakono project area can only be accessed via one route. The B182 from Kyaka to
Bugene runs through the Karagwe District to the south of the Project area (Figure 5-242). The Kakono dam
site is located in a remoted area that is not easily accessible. The site can be accessed via the new access
road which follows an existing track. However, it must also be noted that the new proposed access road is
following an existing path for the three quarters of its length. Thereafter, there is no more road but only
small footpaths or cattle trails (Figure 5-243).
The closest village from the dam site is Mushabaiguru. However, there is no road to connect quickly the
village to the dam site. By foot, one should walk around 7km to access the site and the end of the new
access road. There is a dirt road leading to Mushabaiguru. It branches from B182 near Kihanga village and
parallel to the new access road proposed for the Project (Figure 5-244). From Mushabaiguru, one need to
drive down 36km to reach the new access road following the dirt road up to B182 asphalted road.
Mugaba, Bugara and Businde are all located further north-west from Mushabaiguru. To access the dam site
by foot, one need to go down the Chabadaki hill where there is no propre dirt road. However, cattle tracks
are most of the time width enough to be used. One should walk respectively around 11km, 14km and 25km
to access the dam site and the end new access road from Mugaba, Bugara and Businde villages. Mugaba,
Bugara and Businde can all be accessed via another dirt road (T38) branching from B182 around 1,5km
before Kayanga village (see Map 5-10). From T38, there is no road connected to the new access road (see

Map 5-10). To join the new access road by road, one need to drive down respectively 42km, 46km and 55km
from Mugaba, Bugara and Businde villages.
Lastly, the Transmission Line is not easily accessible. It is crossed once by the B182 road, after Kyaka village,
but also by a dirt road leading to the new bridge under construction in KSC territory (see Map 5-10).
Figure 5-242 - B182 Tarmac Road from Kyaka to Bugene (03/032020)
Figure 5-243: Left - End of the Exiting Path on the Proposed New Access Road (01/03/2020)
Figure 5-244: Right - Dirt Road Parallel to the Proposed New Access Road (03/032020)

Map 5-10 – Roads in the Study Area

Traffic
No traffic survey has been carried out as part of this social baseline study as the project is not expected to
significantly adversely impact the existing public roads during construction and operation.
The traffic load is generally low except for the Bukoba-Mutukula road (B8) which is the main carriage route
for goods and services between Uganda and Tanzania55. The traffic composition on this road is mainly made
of heavy trucks mixed with passenger trucks and Boda Bodas.
Along the Kyaka-Bugene road (B182), traffic is low and only comprises of few cars, lorries and passenger
trucks.
Traffic on the Kakunyu road (B181) through the sugar plantations comprises of passenger vehicles, Boda
Bodas and sugarcane haulers.
The traffic load on the dirt road from B182 to the Kakono dam site is also very low. However, this road is
much used on foot or by bicycle. Lastly, no vehicle has been seen on the new access road during the social
investigations.
According to the socio-economic profile of Missenyi District (Socio-economic profile of Missenyi District,
2015), Road Traffic Accidents (RTA) are one of the major causes of injuries, deaths and disabilities. Even
though accidents on all these roads are rare, collisions occur, especially with overloaded, and are very
deadly. Condition of the vehicle or motor bike, poor condition of roads, risky behaviour of the driver, drive in
high speed and misuse of roads by pedestrians are the main causes of these accidents.
Schools
Each village in the Study area has at least one primary school (Figure 5-245 & Figure 5-246).
In Mushabaiguru, there is no secondary school and pupils attend the nearby one in Kihanga village about
20 km south from the village. Pupils from Mugaba and Bugara attend the secondary school of Businde
located about 8 to 10 km west of the villages. Interviews conducted with the local authorities in the seven
villages located downstream of the dam have confirmed that each village has a primary school.
Interviews conducted at the village level have also highlighted that both primary and secondary schools
have deficiency in infrastructural and furniture items to meet the required standard. According to the social
investigations conducted for the Social Impact Assessment of 2016 (Norplan, 2016a), the households
reported an average of 30 minutes walking distance to a primary school, more than 1 hour for a secondary
school. Pupils living down the Chabadaki hill in Mugaba village have to climb the hill to go to school, which
approximatively takes 45 minutes. Number of pupils for each school of the villages located in the Project
affected area was not available during the social field surveys. The only data made available have revealed
that there are 579 students in Mushabaiguru primary school and 1,459 students in Bubale primary school.
Some of the KSC works camp do not have a primary school. Out of the nine camps visited, only camp n°5
and camp n°10 had one primary school: KSC has built the main primary school at the company headquarters
and has established few primary school classes in some camps. As a result, pupils sometimes need to walk
long distance to reach the main primary school of a nearby camp or village. However, interviewees have
revealed that there is one kindergarten at each camp for the youngest children.
55
Personal communication with Missenyi District Commissioner held on the 26 of February 2020.

Figure 5-245 – Kyaka Primary School (28/02/2020)
Figure 5-246 – Mushabaiguru Primary School (29/08/2020)
Water supply
As explained in Section 5.4.4.3, there is no public water supply facility within the villages located upstream
of the proposed dam (Mushabaiguru, Mugaba, Bugara and Businde). These villagers rely on wells, and
springs for drinking water and only the people residing down the hill who do not have access to a stream
use the Kagera River for domestic purposes. Downstream of the proposed dam, pumping wells and streams
are the two most common drinking water source listed. However, villagers also use the Kagera River water
for their daily life activities, including drinking for some households. At the KSC camps, workers use
handpumps and water tanks for water supply, but they also use raw river water for their daily activities.
Sanitation and waste management
According to the interviews conducted at village level, most households have toilets. The most common
toilets are traditional pit latrines, as there is no running water. Only few people need to use other methods
including neighbour’s toilet or even gardens/bush. At the camp level, separate structures of toilet facilities
exist in each camp. These toilets are shared by all residents in the camp.

With regards with solid waste management, waste is disposed of by burning or throwing it in the farms as
well as special holes close to the households. As shown by Figure 5-247, more than two thirds of the
affected households throw their waste directly into an open drain or ditch. However, even with the relatively
good sanitation coverage at household level, hygiene and sanitation related diseases are still common in
the project area; Diarrhoea is one of the top five common diseases in all the health centres and dispensaries
located near the Project footprint56.
80%
69%
70% 66%
60%
50%
40%
Male headed household
30% 26%
Female headed household
19%
20%
9%
10% 7%
1% 3%
0%
Centralised Directly into Other Do not
sewerage open drain know
system or ditch
Figure 5-247 – Access to Sanitation among the Affected Households
Security, Human Rights and public order
A police post can be found in every Ward of the Study area. In each police station there are at least two
policemen who work together with the village and Ward leadership in case of an emergency or any crime
that needs to be tackled at the local level. The leaders in the Ward, the village chairmen and the sub-village
chairman usually solve minor cases and advise the community on the actions to be taken in case of
important security issues.
At the village level, day to day security is ensured by special security agents named ‘Mgambo’ in Swahili.
They form the village security committee. They are trained by the Government, under the command of the
Village Executive Officer. Their number depends on the size of the village. In KSC workers camps, security is
ensured by security guards and security officers, both directly employed by the company. According to the
interviews conducted at the village and camp level, villages and camps are safe and there is no security
issue apart from a few cases of theft. For instance, livestock stealing was the most common type of crime
in Mushabaiguru and Businde villages while food thefts were the most prevalent in camp n°9. Some cases
of violence toward women have been reported as further explained in Section 5.4.8 However, the results of
the socio-economic qualitative survey performed in 2020 did not highlight husband violence as a major
issue among the affected households as illustrated in Table 5.93. Among the interviewed women head
households, only 9,4% have revealed that it was a problem among a few groups and almost 60% thought
it did not exist at all. For both men and women headed households, the major widespread problem among
the community is alcohol abuse.
56
Personal Communication with the District Medical Officer for Missenyi District held on the 27 of February 2020.

Table 5.93 – Main Social Issues Among the Affected Households

Man headed household Female headed household
Total respondents
Problem among a
Problem among a
A few instances
A few instances
Does not exist
Does not exist

Do not know
Do not know
Widespread
Widespread
few groups
few groups
problem
problem
Social issues
Num. 4 26 49 52 5 3 3 12 11 3 168
Crime
% 3% 19.1% 36% 38.2% 3.7% 9.4% 9.3% 37.5% 34.4% 3.7% 100%
Num. 4 17 25 85 5 0 6 3 20 3 168
Drug
% 2.9% 12.5% 18.4% 62.5% 3.7% 0% 18.8% 9.4% 62.5% 9.4% 100%
Num. 18 18 36 58 6 6 3 4 16 3 168
Alcohol
abuse
% 13.2% 13.2% 26.5% 42.6% 4.4% 18.7% 9.4% 12.5% 50% 9.4% 100%
Num. 0 9 27 95 5 0 3 7 19 3 168
Husband
violence
% 0% 6.6% 19.8% 69.8% 3.7% 0% 9.4% 21.9% 59.4% 9.4% 100%
Num. 3 8 9 103 13 0 0 3 26 3 168

work
Sex
% 2.2% 5.9% 6.6% 75.7% 9.6% 0% 0% 9.4% 81.2% 9.4% 100%
The interviews did not mention law enforcement and corruption as an issue even though recent academic
research highlights that access to employment and services mainly work on the basis of personal contacts
and the ability to pay, discriminating against the most vulnerable groups (Baez & all, 2017).
In Mushabaiguru, Mubaga, Bugara and Businde villages, elephants were cited as a serious issue putting
residents at risk. In March 2020, interviewees told that movements of elephants have increased significantly
in the last five years, as well as the number of human-elephant accidents. According to the District
Commissioner of Karagwe District, more than 600 elephants would live in the Karagwe District. Most of the
elephants would be localised in the ranch areas south of the Kagera River, including the Kitengule ranch,
but also in the communal grazing land of Mushabaiguru, Mubaga, Bugara and Businde villages. Most of the
residents upstream of the proposed dam have stopped cultivating near the river because elephants destroy
their garden and eat their crops. They also damage fences and cattle pens.
In the seven villages downstream of the dam, hippos and crocodiles were cited as dangerous animals.
According to the villagers, elephants are not an issue for the downstream communities. During the social
field survey performed in October and November 2020, interviewees have confirmed that conducting
activities in floodplain is at risk. However, only few accidents were mentioned. The socio-economic
qualitative survey performed in 2020 asked the Affected households about the frequency of their contact
with wild animals, where they usually seen them as well as the animal’s reactions. Wild animals are usually
seen near the river (see Figure 5-250), they do not represent a direct threat (see Figure 5-249). However,
contact with wild animals would not be rare as respectively 35% and 24% of the Affected households have
seen a hippopotamus and a crocodile during the last 6 months (see Figure 5-248).

45%
39%
40%
35%
35% 33%
30%
24%
25%
19%
20% 17%18%
15% 15%
15% 13%
12%
10% 7% 6%
4% 4% 4% 5%
5% 4% 4%
1% 1%
0%
During the last During the last Between 1 Between 2 Never Do not know No answer
6 months year and 2 years and 4 years
Elephant Hippopotamus Crocodil
Figure 5-248 – Last time the Affected Household saw a Wild Animal
80%
68%
70%
60%
50%
41%
40%
31%
30% 26%
21% 20% 21% 20%
18%
20%
13%
10% 4% 6% 5%
4%
1%
0%
Danger Crop or asset Nothing Do not know No answer
destruction
Elephant Crocodil Hipopotamus
Figure 5-249 – Wild Animal Reaction

80%
71%
70%
60%
50%
42%
40%
34% 33%
29%
30%
22% 21%
19%
20% 16%
10%
3% 4% 5%
2%
0% 0%
0%
At the river In my garden Close to my house Do not know No answer
Elephant Crocodil Hippopotamus
Figure 5-250 – Location of the Wild Animal
Source of Energy for Lighting and Cooking
According to interviewees, the main energy source for lighting for households in the villages is kerosene
wick lamp, firewood, candles, torch/rechargeable lamps and gas. The main energy source for cooking in the
Project area is firewood, followed by charcoal and paraffin. None of the villages located on Chabadaki hill
have access to electricity (i.e. Mushabaiguru, Mugaba, Bugara and Businde). However, some very few people
living in the villages located downstream of the dam (i.e. Kyaka, Bulifani, Omundongo, Niabihanga,
Kassambya, Gabulanga and Mushasha) have access to electricity. During the social surveys undertaken in
July and October, 12.2% of the respondents declared having access to electricity.
In the KSC camps, residents are also using firewood and charcoal as the main energy source for cooking,
and kerosene lamps, candles and torch/rechargeable lamps as main source for lighting 57. Few confirmed
having electricity and using cookers made available to the workers by the company. According to residents,
electricity is provided to permanent workers with permanent contracts. Firewood and charcoal are brought
to the camp by the vendors and sold to the residents or bought by the workers at the main market located
at the headquarter of KSC.
Overall, the Project is located in a remote area, is difficult to access and away from a developed urban
centre. All potentially directly and indirectly villages, institutions and camps do not have access to good
quality public utilities and services.
Community Health
Within the Project area, the health facilities are poor (i.e. long waiting times, poor-quality healthcare
delivery, old and poorly maintained infrastructure, and poor disease control and prevention practices for
instance) with the exception of the KSC hospital. According to the socio-economic qualitative survey
performed in 2020, only 40.5% of the affected households have declared to have access to hospital.
The KSC hospital has a capacity of 72 beds and one operating room. Health services are free of charge,
whether it is for KSC workers or outsiders. The hospital is running special health programs every week in
the camps, especially on nutrition for children under five years old. Indeed, one of the health challenges the
57
Only workers living in camp n°6 on the left bank of the river have access to electricity. It could be explained by their proximity with
the KSC headquarter.

camps are facing is child malnutrition caused by poor diet. KSC has also established day-care centres in
some camps to provide food for children left unattended while parents work at the sugar plantations. There
is one dispensary in KSC camp n°10.
Apart from KSC hospital, there are several health centres and dispensaries in the Project area (Figure 5-251
and Table 5.94). According to the socio-economic qualitative survey performed in 2020, health centres are
more accessible as more than 83% of the affected households have access to them.
Table 5.94 – Health Facilities used by the Villages and Camps of the study area
District Ward Village Health facilities
Missenyi District Kassambya ward Bunazi village Bunazi health centre
Kassambya village No health facility
Omundungo village No health facility
Nyabihanga village Nyabihanga dispensary
Gabulanga village Gabulanga dispensary
Kyaka ward Kyaka village Kyaka dispensary
Bulifani village Bulifani health centre and two
dispensaries
Kakunyu ward Bubale village Bubale dispensary
Kakunyu ward Kakunyu village Kakunyu dispensary
Nsunga wad N/A Kagera Sugar Company hospital
Mushasha ward Mushasha village Mushasha health centre
Kyerwa District Businde Ward Businde village Health centre
Bugara village Bugara dispensary
Mugaba village No health facility
Kihanga ward Mushabaiguru village No health facility
There is no health facility in Kassambya, Omundungo, Gabulanga, Mushabaiguru and Mugaba villages.
Residents of Mushabaiguru rely on the health facility in the nearby village of Kyerwa. Mugaba villagers go
to the Bugara dispensary. Downstream of the proposed dam, residents of Omundungo, and Kassambya
villages usually rely on the health facility of Bunazi and Bulifani villages. In Tanzania, Kagera region has a
relatively low facility density (0.17 per 10,000 population) (Armstrong & all, 2016). Health services are free
of charge for children under five years old, pregnant women and elderly people. Interviews conducted with
the medical staff in charge of the health facilities of Kyaka, Bunazi and Bubale villages show that they all
lack human and material resources to treat their patients in good conditions.
Upper Respiratory Infections, Malaria, Urinary Tract Infections and diarrhoea were the most common
diseases in the Project area in 2019 as shown by Table 5.95.
Table 5.95 – Top ten diseases in 4 health facilities

N° Disease Diagnosed clients Percentage
Bubale Dispensary (2019)
1 Upper Respiratory Infections 1,196 35.1%
2 Malaria 779 22.8%
3 Diarrhoea with no dehydration 491 14.4%
4 Urinary Tract Infections 411 12.1%
5 Skin Infection 130 3.8%
6 Pregnancy Complications 126 3.7%
7 Rheumatoid and Joint Diseases 86 2.5%
8 Pneumonia 79 2.3%
9 Intestinal Worms 67 2%
10 STI Genital Discharge Syndrome 38 1,1%
TOTAL 3,403 100%
Bunazi Health Centre (2019)
1 Urinary Tract Infections 5,371 34.5%
2 Upper Respiratory Infections 3,873 25%
3 Malaria 3,675 23.6%

N° Disease Diagnosed clients Percentage

5 Intestinal Worms 447 2.8%
6 No Diagnosis 445 2.8%
7 Hypertension 356 2.9%
8 Peptic Ulcers 280 1.8%
9 Skin Infection 247 1.5%
10 Pneumonia 243 1.5%
TOTAL 15,553 100%
Kagera Sugar Hospital (2019)
1 Upper Respiratory Infections 8,867 30%
2 Malaria 6,193 21%
4 Diarrhoea with no dehydration 3,337 11.3%
5 Other Surgical Condition 2,598 8.8%
6 Skin Infection 1,184 4%
8 No diagnosis 680 2.3%
9 Other emergencies 600 2%
10 Other non-infectious Gastrointestinal 479 1.6%
diseases
TOTAL 29,534 100%
Kyaka Dispensary (2019)
1 Upper Respiratory Infections 2,769 36.5%
2 Malaria 1,669 22%
6 Intestinal Worms 245 3.2%
7 Skin Infection 156 2%
8 Referred out from Out Patient 139 1.8%
Department
9 Rheumatoid and joint diseases 136 1.8%
10 Diarrhoea with some dehydration 97 1.3%
TOTAL 7,590 100%
Source: Information provided by the District Medical Officer of Missenyi District during the social field survey conducted in
Feb/March 2020.
In Tanzania, Kagera region has one of the malaria highest risk. Indeed, Malaria has been endemic in the
Kagera region for a long time due to the presence of floodplain. Malaria is a leading cause of morbidity and
mortality, especially in children under age 5 and pregnant women as they have insufficient immunity against
malaria. Prevalence of malaria in children under 5 was of 15.4% in 2017 (Ministry of Health, 2018).
All interviewed health facilities have stressed that the high rate of malaria cases is primarily caused by the
unhygienic environment. To counter malpractices, health facilities have run health programs to educate
people on the importance of sleeping under mosquito nets, distributed free mosquito nets to pregnant
women or school children and have also participated in various malaria prevention programs, which
encourages people to clean their surroundings by cutting grass and removing stagnant water from their
surroundings.
Regarding diarrhoea, this Infection is also one of the major causes of morbidity and mortality among
children of under five years of age. Prevalence of malaria in children under 5 in Kagera region was of 10,9%
in 2016 (Edwin & all, 2019). Diarrhoea usually happens when there is a shortage of adequate sanitation and
hygiene and safe water for drinking, cooking and cleaning. As revealed by the interviewees, residents using
the raw Kagera water river do not boil it before consumption (See Section 5.4.4.3).
Results from the 2018 HIV/AIDS impact survey (Tanzania HIV Impact Survey, 2018) revealed that HIV
prevalence reaches 6.1% among the 15-49 aged population in the Kagera region, which is above the
national average of 4.7%. HIV prevalence is higher among women (7.6%) than men (6.1%).
While Tanzania has one of the highest prevalence rates of schistosomiasis (also known as bilharzia) in Sub-
Saharan Africa, none of the interviews conducted has mentioned bilharzia - Kichocho in Kiswahili - as a
common disease, and it does not appear in any of the ten top diseases of the 4 health facilities listed in

Table 5.95. Bilharzia is a waterborne disease. Larval forms of the parasites, which are released by
freshwater snails, penetrate the skin of people in the water. Snails serve as the intermediary agent between
mammalian hosts.
According to KSC acting chief medical, the hospital has had only one case of Kichocho over the period of five
years. Interviews conducted at Bunazi, Kyaka, Bubale and Businde dispensaries have confirmed the absence
of this disease as they only had four diagnosed people in two years. Indeed, the overall prevalence rate of
bilharzia in Kagera Region was less than 10% in 2012 and was mostly restricted to the shores and islands
of Lake Victoria while, in comparison, the national prevalence rate was estimated at 51.5% 58. Recent
academic research on schistosomiasis prevalence in Tanzania have confirmed the absence of these
intermediate hosts (Mazigo & all, 2012).
According to the District Medical Officer of Missenyi, Kichocho is almost inexistent because there are few
stagnant waters due to the high-speed river flow of Kagera River which prevent the proliferation of
freshwater snails hosting the parasitic worms. In addition, only a few people swim in Kagera River, because
of the presence of crocodiles and hippos. District health campaigns have also encouraged hygiene and warn
communities to not walk or swim in stagnant water. During the 2020 social investigations, many
interviewees have highlighted the role played by the high speed of the Kagera River flow in limiting the
formation of stagnant waters.
Human African Trypanosomiasis (HAT) or sleeping sickness, has not been mentioned as a common disease
during the interviews. It is a vector-borne parasitic disease caused by trypanosomes and transmitted by
tsetse flies. Tsetse flies were prevalent in the Kagera region during the 90s, but they were virtually
eradicated from large proportions of Bukoba and Karagwe districts between 1991 and 1996 thanks to
tsetse flies control campaigns involving the use of insecticide treated cattle (Malele, 2011). It has led to a
great decline of trypanosomiasis. In 2006 in Tanzania, only five regions have reported sleeping sickness
cases and a large number originated from Kigoma, in Kibondo and Kasulu Districts (Kibona & all, 2006).
Figure 5-251 – Kyaka Village Dispensary (27/02/2020)
Overall, Kagera Sugar Hospital is the only good health infrastructure in the Project area. The other health
facilities all lack of human and material resources to treat their patients to good health. There are high rates
of transmissible diseases and poor environmental health conditions.
Gender Issues
The Constitution of Tanzania and its amendments forbid discriminations based on gender. Key international
and regional human rights documents have also been ratified in by the Tanzanian Government such as the
58
Ministry of Health and Social Welfare (MoHSW). Tanzania Mainland Strategic Master Plan for the Neglected Tropical Diseases
Control Program, 2012–2017; MoHSW: Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, 2012.

Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women in 1985. Policies and guidelines
have been formulated by several Government entities including the National Plan of Action for Prevention
and Eradication of Violence against Women and Children 2001-2015.
The 2020 social investigations conducted at the villages level stressed that women’s ability to participate
in decisions within households, or to access to natural resources such as land are still limited by several
patriarchal traditional norms.
Women are in charge of the households’ chores. They are responsible for cooking, cleaning, heating,
collecting firewood and taking care of children. In Mugaba and Bugara villages, women have to go down the
hill to collect wood. Near the river, the path is steep, and a return trip can take more than half an hour.
Interviews with women have also stressed that there are many socioeconomic differences between men
and women, rooted in traditional division of labour. Women are usually in charge of weeding and harvesting
while men are more into soil preparation and ridging. At the household level, women seem to be the main
producers, providers and traditional managers of food production for the household subsistence. However,
they are only engaged in subsistence farming; Everything related to cash crops (e.g. banana and coffee
plantations) appears to be a male business. Men are usually responsible for selling livestock and more
generally take all decisions on livestock, while women traditionally sell milk.
According to interviewed women, decisions related to land are also most of the time taken by men. With
the exception of Businde village where women said that they can own land, land management is controlled
by men. The Land Act of 1999 prescribes that both women and men have the equal rights for land
ownership and use, and that discriminations against women by using customary law is not accepted. The
most common barriers which undermine women’s ability to enjoy their land rights are the social obligation
to get married, and the payment of bride price to the groom’s family. As women are being bought from the
bride’s family, it predetermines property entitlements. Women interviewees have stressed women are the
ones moving to the husband’s property. Therefore, women may have access to, and use, their husband’s
land, but they do not necessarily own it.
According to the statutory law of inheritance, women should inherit land, like men do. But the inheritance
customary law prevents gender equality in this respect: A daughter can be heiress if the family does not
have a male heir. Yet for wives who lose their husband, inheritance is rarely successful and when the
husband dies, the land often goes back to the family of the late husband. Some interviewees have reported
violence against women, especially in Karagwe District where women would be beaten to death if they
oppose their husband, or if they insist on keeping the land after the death of their husband.
In an agrarian society, managing land has consequences on farming decisions. Interviewed women said
that, even though women are in charge of food production for the household subsistence, men still
manage/sell crops so they have generally a larger voice in how the resulting income will be spend.
However, if at the household level discriminations are strong, the 2020 social investigations show that
women are always represented at the Village Council level. According to women interviewees, their voices
have the same value as those of men when it comes to village affairs.
Discriminations are sometimes exacerbated when women do not have equal access to schooling. Indeed,
household chores automatically fall on girls’ shoulders when they are not allowed to go to school. It was
not possible to obtain accurate data on access to education in the villages of the study area. However,
national statistics confirm that there is a gap in educational attainment between males and females. In
2010, 27% of females had never attended school; this compares with 18% of males 59. Schooling
discrimination was however not confirmed by the socio-economic qualitative survey performed in 2020 as
many affected women headed household as men had access to elementary school (See Table 5.84 –
Education Level of the Affected Households Population Table 5.84).
Lastly, traditional customs call for marriages to be arranged by the parents of the bride and groom,
although such arrangements are becoming less common, particularly in urban settings. In patrilineal ethnic
groups traditional marriage customs often include the presentation of a dowry or bride price to the wife's
family by the bridegroom. The dowry may include livestock, money, clothing, locally brewed beer, and other
items. Such tradition affects both men and women who cannot freely choose their spouse.
59
United Republic of Tanzania, Demographic and Health Survey of 2010, National Bureau of Statistics, Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania, April
2011.

Overall, the villagers of the study area live in traditional communities with patriarchal practices which have
been rarely exposed to social changes. Even though women can participate in the village affairs, at the
household level they are still obedient to their husbands and kept away from economic activities.
Vulnerable Groups
According to the World Bank Environmental and Social Standard (ESS) n°1 60, disadvantaged or vulnerable
refers to ‘those who may be more likely to be adversely affected by the project impacts and/or more limited
than others in their ability to take advantage of a project’s benefits’. Such individuals and groups are
therefore more likely to be excluded from, or unable to participate fully in the consultation process.
According to the interviewees at the village level, vulnerability refers to the exposure to contingencies,
stress and risks that lead individuals or groups to a situation that is too difficult to cope with. It is the result
of not only individual misfortunes, but also the social conditions which follow from systematic differences
in the flow of resources and opportunities which constrain their potential and capabilities. Therefore,
children, elders, people with disabilities, pregnant women and landless were often cited as vulnerable
people. There was no current data regarding the age structure of the village’s population, however the
national and Districts trends presented in Section 5.4.2.2 suggests that Tanzanian communities are young.
Therefore, it is likely that the six villages have a significant proportion of children under 5 years old.
As far as land rights are concerned, the social investigations have revealed that land management at the
village level allows families to get access to a plot of land, even though they do not own it by inheritance.
As explained in Section 5.4.2.2H, the majority of the villagers' own land and the families who do not have
access to a plot can rent land or use the communal village land. As a result, cases of landless are rare.
However, interviewees have highlighted that women do not always own land due to patrilineal inheritance
system but have access to the land of husband and families as further explained in Section 5.4.8.
Interviews have however revealed the existence of foreign legal migrants in most of the villages potentially
impacted by the Project. Upstream of the proposed dam, they are Ugandan or Rwandese who have settled
down the Chabadaki hill, along the Kagera River. Downstream of the dam, some foreigners are looking for
a land to cultivate. As explained in Section 5.4.2.2E, three categories of legal migrants have been identified:
• Cattle keepers with short contracts living down Chabadaki hill. They live in temporary structures,
they do not farm and, most of the time, they do not live with their family;
• Families who arrived in Tanzania sometimes decades ago living down Chabadaki hill. Most of them
are keeping livestock and sometimes cultivating crops on the riverbanks within the proposed
reservoir area. Interviews conducted with legal migrants and members of the Village Councils have
stressed out that none of them have formal rights of occupancy as most of them live on
communal village land. However, their access to the communal village land is protected by the
Village Councils and
• Foreigners who have settled in villages located downstream of the dam. In most cases, they are
looking for a land to cultivate.
However, none of the impacted household is headed by a foreign migrant. Overall, taking into account the
perception of the interviewees regarding vulnerability, the social patterns identified during the social field
visit and the World Bank Environmental and Social Standard (ESS) n°1, the households recognised as
vulnerable are the following:
• Household headed by someone older than 50, without any other breadwinner in the household;
• Household headed by someone disabled, without any other breadwinner in the household;
• Household headed by women; and
• Household headed by landless persons.
The socio-economic quantitative surveys performed in July and October 2020 screened for vulnerable
households based on the Social Standard (ESS) n°1. As explained in Section 5.4.1, the first socio-economic
survey was performed among the people affected by the construction of the Transmission Line. Regarding
the potentially impacted riverine communities located downstream of the dam, a sample of 86 households
60
World Bank Environmental and Social Standard n°1, 2017.

was interviewed. Table 5.96 shows the number of surveyed households according to the vulnerability
categories previously identified. In total, there are 43 vulnerable households among which 32 are headed
by women.
Table 5.96 – Number of Surveyed Households by Vulnerability Category

Number of HH % of HH Woman Man
surveyed surveyed headed HH headed HH
Total of all affected HH 168* 100% 32 136
HH not vulnerable 125 74.4% -- 128
Vulnerable HH 43 25.5% 32 11
Household headed by someone disabled, without any other
1 0.6% -- 1
breadwinner in the household
Household headed by someone older than 50, without any
7 4.1% 4 3
other breadwinner in the household
Landless household (who declared they do not own land) 9 5.3% 8 1
* Three of the households identified in the 2018 Valuation Report left the Project area. It was not possible to interview them
during the complementary socioeconomic survey.
Cultural Heritage
According to the World Bank Environmental and Social Standard (ESS) n°861, the term ‘cultural heritage’
encompasses tangible and intangible heritage, which may be recognized and valued at a local, regional,
national or global level. The following sections provides information on the tangible and intangible cultural
heritage elements identified in the direct and indirect spatial extends of the Project.
Material Cultural Heritage
The World Bank Environmental and Social Standard (ESS) n°8 describes tangible cultural heritage elements
as ‘movable or immovable objects, sites, structures, groups of structures, natural features and landscapes
that have archaeological, paleontological, historical, architectural, religious, aesthetic, or other cultural
significance’.
There are seven UNESCO World Heritage Sites in Tanzania – See Map 5-11. This list is composed of three
cultural sites, three natural sites and one mixed site as follows:
• Kondoa Rock-Art Sites (2006). It is an important archaeological site with more than 150 natural
shelters and caves;
• Ruins of Kilwa Kisiwani and Ruins of Songo Mnara (1981). Another archaeological site that features
the ruins of two ports that played a significant role for East African trade;
• Stone Town of Zanzibar (2000);
• Kilimanjaro National Park (1987). The Kilimanjaro National Park is located within the Kilimanjaro
Region that encompasses the Mount Kilimanjaro;
• Selous Game Reserve (1982). It is one of the world’s largest faunal reserves. The reserve is located
south of Tanzania;
• Serengeti National Park (1981). The park comprises the Seregeti ecosystem, which is notable for
the annual migration of white-bearded wildebeest and zebras; and
• Ngorongoro Conservation Area (1979). The Ngorongoro Conservation Area is the only mixed site
on this list of UNESCO World Heritage Sites in Tanzania. This world heritage property is a protected
area encompassing more than 8,200 km in land area. The designation of this site as a UNESCO
property is based on the volcanic caldera that formed within the area.
None of the seven UNESCO World Heritage Sites in Tanzania is located in Kagera region. Likewise, none of
the five cultural heritage elements listed on the UNESCO World Heritage tentative list, is located in Kagera
region:
61
World Bank Environmental and Social Standard n°8, 2017.

• Eastern Arc Mountains Forests of Tanzania (10/01/2006). This chain runs from northeast to
southwest, with the Taita Hills being in Kenya and the other ranges being in Tanzania up to the
Mount Kilimanjaro;
• Gombe National Park (27/05/1997) It is located on the western border of Tanzania and the Congo,
in Kigoma region;
• Jozani - Chwaka Bay Conservation Area (27/05/1997). This is a natural protected forest reserve
located South of Zanzibar Town;
• Oldonyo Murwak (27/05/1997). This is a site where the Maasai tribes of Kenya and Tanzania are
performing coming of age ceremonies. The hill is located in Hai District, in the Kilimanjaro region;
and
• The Central Slave and Ivory Trade Route (20/02/2006). The route started in Ujiji at the shore of
Lake Tanganyika, then went over 1,200 km and ended in Bagamoyo just opposite of Zanzibar on
mainland Tanzania.
At the regional level, there is a rich cultural heritage resources which document the origin and development
of humanity from Stone Age to present era. The following information are drawn from the Social Impact
Assessment of 2016 (Norplan, 2016a). The earliest archaeological research in Bukoba Rural District
(including the present day Missenyi District) were deeply focused on rock art sites and Iron Age sites (e.g.
Chaplin 1974, Kwekason and Chami 2003, Chami 2008, Alexander 2010). However, Stone Age researches
and other issues like public archaeology and conservation as well as management of heritage resources
were not given due emphasis until 2010 when Alexander (2010) conducted an archaeological research
basing exploration of subsistence strategies of Kanazi lucustrine society in Bukoba Rural District by
employing ethnoarchaeological approaches. Alexander (2010) concluded that, during the Iron Age period
(500 BC-500 AD) although domestication animals at Kanazi site were in place, fishing outweighs
domestication and hence it formed basic part of the people’s subsistence.
Other investigations were conducted basically focusing on rock art sites along the Lake Victoria Basin,
especially the western and southern parts of the Lake shore. The region was found endowed with rock
paintings attributed to the Bantu or early Iron Age community (Mturi 2001, Kwekason and Chami 2003). In
Lake Victoria Basin, stylised cattle are the most dominant motif, especially in Bukoba Rural, Bukoba Urban
and Muleba Districts. Bukoba rural (including Missenyi) become an ideal place for archaeological and rock
art studies in the area.
Historically, literature and oral tradition revealed that especially during the nineteenth century, slaves were
transported from Buganda through the wider project area (i.e. Karagwe, Missenyi and Kyerwa Districts) to
join the central slave and ivory trade route at Tabora which acted as the main centre. From Tabora, they
marched through various places to the coast before being shipped to the Zanzibar slave market. With
regards with physical elements, the social investigations performed in 2013 as part of the 2016 Kakono
ESIA (Norplan, 2016a) have identified an extensive Kagera war site near Rwekubo Hill, located south of the
dam site and just outside the study area. The Kagera war site has defensive stone walls and some trenches
surrounded by stones which were used by TPDF soldiers during the war between Tanzania and Uganda
from 1977 to 1979. A few artefacts such as local pottery and grinding stones were also discovered in the
vicinity of the planned reservoir area. One grinding stone was found within the direct impact zone. They
would belong to the Late Iron Age traditions. The local communities explained that these stones were used
for grinding foodstuffs, medicines, cosmetics, or colorants as. Pottery traditions, pottery fragments and
grinding stones which belong to the period between seventeenth and nineteenth century were also
discovered.
As part of the social investigation conducted in 2020 at the local level, it was discovered that each village
and KSC camp has cultural heritage elements such as churches and mosques. However, none of them was
located in the proposed reservoir area, the Wayleave of the Transmission Line, the Kyaka substation
extension area or the dam site. According to interviewees, only one grave is located down the Chabadaki
hill, but outside the proposed reservoir. The social field survey performed in July-August 2020 has however
confirmed that seven graves belonging to 4 households are located in the Transmission Line wayleave (see
Figure 5-252). However, beliefs and traditions in the project area allow graves to be relocated if it is done in
a culturally sensitive way.
Two churches located down the Chabadaki hill in Mugaba and Businde villages are located within 500m from
the river (see Figure 5-253). Residents from Mushabaiguru and Mugaba villages regularly attend masses
celebrated by a Rwandese pastor every Sunday. Two churches have also been identified downstream at the

workers camps, one in camp n° 9 (see Figure 5-254) and one located along the road B181 close to the camp
n°8 (see Figure 5-255).
Figure 5-252 – Grave located in Kyaka village in the wayleave of the Transmission Line (29/07/2020)
Figure 5-253 – Catholic church located in Mugaba village approximately 500m from the reservoir (29/02/2020)

Figure 5-254 – Catholic church located 50m from KSC camp n°9 (28/02/2020)
Figure 5-255 – Catholic church located along the road B-181 approximately 200m from camp n°8 (Mar. 2020)
Intangible Cultural Heritage
The World Bank Environmental and Social Standard (ESS) n°8 describes Intangible cultural heritage as
‘practices, representations, expressions, knowledge, skills as well as the instruments, objects, artefacts and
cultural spaces associated therewith that communities and groups recognize as part of their cultural heritage,
as transmitted from generation to generation and constantly recreated by them in response to their
environment, their interaction with nature and their history’.
Tanzania has become a State Party to the 2003 convention for the safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural
Heritage on January 2012. A workshop on community-based inventorying took place in Zanzibar in
February 2012 to train people in identifying, defining, inventorying and documenting the Intangible Cultural
Heritage (ICH) elements of Tanzania. Since February 2012, several workshops and trainings were held to
develop a general framework of the inventorying of ICH, but also to strengthen the ability of experts and
cultural officers to identify ICH and to elaborate strategies to favour the participation of communities. Up to
today, there is no official list of the Tanzanian ICH, but scattered information on various practices,
representations, expressions and knowledge.
Interviews conducted during the social field surveys in the study area have not revealed any strong
traditions or living expressions inherited from ancestors and passed on to descendants such as performing

arts. Additionally, the socio-economic qualitative surveys performed in 2020 have confirmed that there is
no traditional or ancient belief or cultural practice associated to the Kagera River.
However, interviews have revealed that communities have daily life customs and traditions. For instance,
the Haya ethnic group usually have a banana plantation near their house (See Section 5.4.3.3) as well as
area in front the house used for relaxation and food drying. The traditional houses are usually divided into
separate use areas, some reserved for cooking or for animals for instance. Food customs were also cited,
especially for ceremonial occasions which demand the preparation of enormous platters of food. Pilau, a
spiced rice, with meat are, for instance, a favourite meal served for special occasions. As described in
Section 5.4.8, traditional customs also play a important role as far as marriage is concerned, even though
arranged unions are becoming less and less common.
However, apart from daily life customs, interviews conducted during the social field surveys in the study
area have not revealed any strong traditions or living expressions inherited from ancestors and passed on
to descendants such as performing arts and social practices. Additionally, the socio-economic qualitative
surveys performed in 2020 have confirmed that there is no traditional or ancient belief or cultural practice
associated to the Kagera River.
However, one special ritual takes place in Bugara village, in the footprint of the proposed reservoir (See Map
5-12 ). According to the villagers, one special family is in charge of doing sacrifices when the rain is late to
come. Most of the time, one chicken or one goat is scarified in the name of the ancestors of the village. They
are seen as protectors of the community to whom request should be addressed in case of critical issues
impacting the village. The ceremony is not attended by the villagers. The sacrifice site is undertaken near
the river, within the footprint of the proposed reservoir (see Figure 5-256). As the most frequent request
concerns the rain, the site must be located next to a watering place. In the past, several generations ago, it
was common to have one similar sacrifice site in each village. However, interviewees have revealed that
rituals are less and less practiced and only one such site has been identified, in Bugara village. According to
the chairman of Bugara and the villagers, this ritual is now rarely performed, and the site could be relocated.
Figure 5-256 - Sacrifice Site in the Communal Village Land of Bugara located inside the reservoir (03/03/2020)
Overall, there is few material assets of limited value but that could have a potential to contribute to local
research as the history of the war between Tanzania and Uganda from 1977 to 1979. There are no cultural
sites or assets legally or customarily protected in the area, apart from the sacrifice site identified in Bugara
village.

Map 5-11 – UNESCO World Heritage Sites and UNESCO World Heritage tentative list for Tanzania

Map 5-12 – Local Cultural Heritage Sites in the Project Area


5.5 Ecosystem Services
According to the World Bank Environmental and Social Standard (ESS) n°1, ecosystem services are the
benefits that people derive from ecosystems. They are organized into four types:
• Provisioning services are the products people obtain from ecosystems and which may include, but
are not limited to, food, freshwater, timbers, fibres, and medicinal plants;
• Regulating services are the benefits people obtain from the regulation of ecosystem processes and
which may include surface water purification, carbon storage and sequestration, climate regulation,
protection from natural hazards;
• Cultural services are the non-material benefits people obtain from ecosystems and which may
include natural areas that are sacred sites and areas of importance for recreations and aesthetic
enjoyment;
• Supporting services are the natural processes that maintain the other services and which may
include soil formation, nutrient cycling and primary production.
Ecosystem services valued by humans are often underpinned by biodiversity and impacts on biodiversity
can often adversely affect the delivery of ecosystem services. Therefore, the identification of ecosystem
services requires both social and environmental expertise and stakeholder consultation. While ecosystem
services should be considered across multiple topic areas, with an emphasis on interlinkages between social
and environmental aspects, the provisioning and cultural services are more related to social components
of the environment. Regulating and supporting services need an interdisciplinary study, mobilising
biodiversity, hydrological, social expertise, as well as other disciplines such as sedimentology or
hydrogeology.
The study area for the assessment of ecosystem services is the study area defined in Section 2.
The methodology followed is the one defined by the World Resource Institute (World Resources Institute,
2013). It includes 4 steps:
• Screening of ecosystem services, to determine whether these services occur in the Project area;
• Scoping of the ecosystem services, to select the ecosystem services that are likely to be affected by
the Project or on which the Project depends for its operational success;
• Baseline study of ecosystem services, to assign a value to the ecosystem services, according to their
importance to the beneficiaries and their replaceability; and
• Assessment of the signification or potential impacts on ecosystem services.
This section identifies, screens and scopes the relevant ecosystem services provided by the various habitats
in the study area. The assessment of potential impacts on ecosystem services are presented in Chapter 7.
Identification of ecosystems the Project could impact
During the social and environmental field surveys, five ecosystems (i.e. lotic, floodplain, forest,
woodland/grassland, and anthropized ecosystems) were identified in the Project area as shown on . An
ecosystem is a community of living and non-living things that work together. An ecosystem is basically the
neighbourhood where animal and plants live, while the habitats support life by providing the food, water
and shelter that its inhabitants need to survive. Therefore, one ecosystem can support several habitats as
illustrated by Table 5.97.

Table 5.97 - Classification of habitats types making the ecosystems

Ecosystem Habitat (from habitat map – terrestrial ecology report)
Lotic ecosystem (river) River
Floodplain Floodplain wetland
Floodplain woodland / thicket
Forest Riparian Forest
Scarp Forest
Dry Evergreen Forest
Woodlands / grasslands Rocky Grassland
Rocky Grassland / Thicket Mosaic
Rocky Outcrop Thicket
Termitaria Thicket
Woodland / Bush clump Mosaic
Degraded secondary woodland / grassland
Woodland/ Bush clump Mosaic (Sodic soils)
Edaphic Grassland
Riparian Woodland
Anthropized ecosystem Agriculture area
Settlement
The Project could directly and indirectly impact the identified ecosystems. The direct impacts will be caused
by the necessary land acquisitions at the Project footprint. The indirect impacts are consequences of the
Project.

Map 5-13 – Ecosystems Identified in the Study Area

Screening of Ecosystem Services in the Study Area
The screening exercise used a common ecosystem services classification list and drew upon information on
the habitats, communities and Project activities in each area to identify which ecosystem services were
potentially present in the study area. The outputs of the screening assessment are summarized in Table
5.98 below. All services identified as potentially present were then considered in the ecosystem services
scoping process presented in Annex 5-17.
Table 5.98 – Ecosystem Services Potentially Present in the Study Area

Service Ecosystem service Resource/Examples
category
Provisioning Food: game meat Animals hunted primarily for food or sale (recreational hunting is covered under
cultural services)
Food: wild plants, Fruit, wild plants, nuts, etc. collected in natural areas for consumption or sale
nuts, mushrooms,
fruits, honey
Food: cultivated Annual and permanent crops grown for subsistence use and commercial sale
crops
Food: livestock Sedentary livestock farming
farming
Food: wild-caught Fish caught for subsistence or commercial sale
fish
Freshwater Freshwater for bathing, drinking, irrigation, laundry, household sanitation, cattle, and
husbandry
Timber and wood Wood collected for local use or for sale as timber.
products
Biomass fuel Wood
Biochemicals, Natural medicines, biocides, food additives, pharmaceuticals and other biological
natural medicines, material for commercial or domestic use
pharmaceuticals
Ornamental For example, pelts, carved or decorative animal products, live animal trade
resources
Cultural Spiritual or religious Natural spaces or species with spiritual or religious importance
value
Traditional practices Cultural value placed on traditional practices such as hunting, fishing, crafts and use of
natural resources
Recreation and Use of natural spaces and resources for tourism and recreation (e.g. fishing, kayaking,
tourism hiking, hunting)
Aesthetic value Cultural value placed on the aesthetic value provided by landscapes, natural landmarks
Intrinsic value of Species or specimens valued for their mere existence, regardless of their utilitarian
biodiversity value to humans (e.g., ‘each species has an intrinsic right to exist’)
Regulating Regulation of air The influence ecosystems have on air quality by extracting chemicals and dust from the
quality atmosphere (i.e., serving as a ’sink‘) or emitting chemicals to the atmosphere (i.e.,
serving as a ’source’)
Climate regulation: Vegetated areas sequester carbon dioxide, with implications for global climate change,
local regional and regulation of temperature, shade, and quality of vegetated areas
global
Regulation of water Influence ecosystems have on the timing and magnitude of water runoff, flooding, and
timing and flows aquifer recharge
Erosion regulation Role of vegetation in regulating erosion on slopes and riparian areas
Pollination Birds, insects and some small mammals pollinate certain flora species, including some
agricultural crops
Natural hazard Regulation of hydrological (e.g. flood) and meteorological (e.g. drought) frequency and
regulation intensity (e.g. dense forest can limit floods, droughts and provide firebreaks)
Pest regulation Regulation of the presence/abundance of pests (animal or plant) including invasive
species
Disease regulation Influence ecosystems have on the incidence and abundance of human pathogens
Supporting Nutrient cycling Flow of nutrients (e.g., nitrogen, sulphur, phosphorus) through ecosystems
Water cycling Flow of water through ecosystems in its solid, liquid, or gaseous forms
Soil formation Contribution to natural soil-forming processes
Habitat Provision Natural spaces that maintain species populations and protect the capacity of ecological
communities to recover from disturbances

Scoping of Ecosystem Services in the Study Area
The ecosystem services identified as potentially present in the study area have been first scoped in or out,
based on the information available, from the site visit conducted in December 2019 and from interviews
and focus groups conducted in February, March, July, August, October and November 2020.
The scoping was performed by identifying the potential impacts that may affect the provision of services by
ecosystem and the impacts that may prevent the beneficiaries from obtaining the services provided by the
ecosystems. When a potential impact is linked to a beneficiary, then the ecosystem service is scoped in.
When there is a potential impact on an ecosystem service but no beneficiary, that ecosystem service is
scoped out and will not be assessed further. The results of the scoping process are found in Annex 5-17.
Based on the scoping results, a prioritization of the relevant ecosystem services has been performed in
order to select the ecosystem services that should be presented under Table 5.99. The results of the
prioritization process are found in Annex 5-17. The below baseline only presents the priority ecosystem
services.
Types and Value of Ecosystem Services
Table 5.99 below describes the prioritized ecosystem services identified in the Study area and their values,
based on the importance of ecosystem services for their beneficiaries and the replaceability of the
ecosystem services.

Table 5.99 – Values of Ecosystem Services in the Study Area

Service Ecosystem providing the Description/beneficiaries Importance to beneficiaries / dependency of Replaceability Value
service beneficiaries to this ecosystem service
Provisioning services
Cultivated crops • Floodplain Ecosystem Subsistence farming in the floodplain is major source of Agriculture is vital for communities as it is the Not replaceable High
income and means of livelihood in the three districts located primarily subsistence activity, providing food for
in the Study area. Upstream of the dam no local is cultivating household consumption and surplus sold for
while this activity is widespread downstream of the dam. additional income. Agroindustry activities are
also undertaken in large part of the study area,
providing incomes to the industries employees.
• Anthropized ecosystem Subsistence farming and industrial plantations are major

source of income and means of livelihood in the study area.
All the villagers have plots of land located in their village they
do cultivate.
Kagura Sugar Company and Kitengule are the two main

institutions that cultivate on a broader scale.
Livestock farming • Woodland/Grassland Livestock farming is the dominant land use in the direct and Livestock farming is one of the main economic Not replaceable High
Ecosystem indirect spatial extend of the Project. Livestock farming is for activities in the Project study area.
both commercial and subsistence purposes. Cow wastes are
used as farmyard manure and fertiliser for crop production.
Cows are using woodland/grassland as gazing land.
More farming activities can be found upstream of the dam on

Missenyi and Kitengule ranch as well as on KSC land. Few
farming activities were identified downstream of the dam.
• Floodplain Ecosystem Cattles can be found in the floodplain both upstream and
downstream the dam, especially to access water and graze
the nutritious grass growing there. However, majority were
found on woodland/grassland.
Fishing • Lotic Ecosystem There are few fishing activities in the area Fishing activities are an economic activity for Not replaceable Low
• Floodplain Ecosystem in the Kakono Reservoir downstream to Mwisa River, mainly some households downstream of Kyaka but
due to river velocity, hippos and crocs and access. Fishing is is not essential for the communities living near
more common downstream of Kyaka. Fishing is mostly the Kakono HPP.
for own consumption although some is traded by fishermen,
especially near KSC and Ngono River confluence.

Freshwater for • Lotic Ecosystem Villagers mostly use stream and wells to fetch water for People who are using Kagera river have Not replaceable High
domestic purposes, • Floodplain Ecosystem domestic purposes. However, families and individuals living sometimes no other access to water for
industrial/ farming down the Chabadaki hills and along the river downstream of domestic purposes.
activities and the dam are using the Kagera water, as well as workers from
transportation of goods KSC camps. Kagera river is essential to several communities
and people as it provide water points for cattle as well as a
Shepherds brought their cattle to the river. There are many mode of transportation to sell goods to one
cattle water points along the river. KSC is also using the river village or camp to another. The economy of
to irrigate the sugar cane plantations. Many people are also some camps or villages depends on it.
using the river as a mode of transportation.
KSC also depends on it to irrigate their sugar
cane plantations.
Regulating services
Erosion regulation • Floodplain Ecosystem Sediment transported by the Kagera River and the fringing As above. Agriculture is vital for communities as Not replaceable – available High
• Lotic Ecosystem papyrus floodplain vegetation reduces the erosional effect of it is the primarily subsistence activity, providing agricultural land along the lower
the river flow, thereby maintaining riverbanks food for household consumption and surplus Kagera River is scarce
and maintaining and providing land for riverbank cultivation sold for additional income.
Natural Hazard • Floodplain Ecosystem The attenuation of flow in the lower Kagera River due to the As above, floodplain and riverbank Not replaceable – available High
regulation • Lotic Ecosystem low gradient and extensive floodplain systems helps to farming is important for food security and agricultural land along the lower
protect local communities and infrastructure along the river livelihoods of communities living along the Kagera River is scarce.
from sudden or rapid fluctuations of flow during flooding. Kagera River, while harvesting of reeds
This reduces community safety risks of boat from seasonal floodplains also provides an Reeds in seasonal floodplains are
navigation, and floodplain cultivation or harvesting. River important ecosystem service for housing and abundant and not limiting.
level changes occur at a rate that communities can adapt to household goods.
and predict.
Disease regulation • Floodplain Ecosystem High river velocity and flooding serves to flush pathogens Many communities downstream Not replaceable – role of natural High
• Lotic Ecosystem more rapidly downstream preventing the establishment of of Kakono HPP are reliant on close contact with hydrological cycle of the Kagera
bilharzia snails and reducing habitat for mosquitoes and the river water for bathing/washing, collection River in disease regulation cannot
other water borne vectors of disease. for watering crops, be adequately replaced by other
livestock watering and fishing. Therefore, disease prevention or curative
contact with clean water with few vectors of measures.
disease minimises the incidence of disease. No
bilharzia is currently reported along the lower
Kagera River.

Supporting services
Nutrient cycling • Floodplain Ecosystem Floodplain vegetation, especially in swampy areas where As for disease regulation above, many Not replaceable – filtering role of High
• Lotic Ecosystem water moves slowly through the papyrus and Vossia grass, communities are reliant on close contact with Kagera River floodplain
plays a water quality purification role through filtering out water for livelihoods. vegetation plays critical role in
high nitrogen and other contaminants entering the river from filtering nutrients and water
settlements/industry upstream quality maintenance. There is
limited treated water supply to
communities along the river that
can provide an alternative to river
water use for multiple purposes.
Soil formation • Floodplain Ecosystem The large sediment volume carried by the Kagera River Floodplain and riverbank farming is important Partially replaceable – sediment High
• Lotic Ecosystem serves to buffer potential erosional effects of the river and for food security and livelihoods of communities inputs from the catchment can
thereby maintain riverbanks and sediment delivery to living along the Kagera River, while fishing is a only partially be replaced
floodplains to support the aquatic ecosystem, and marginal subsistence activity mainly for some by erosion contributed
particularly fisheries downstream, as well as supply of households living downstream of Kyaka. Fishing from adjacent riverbanks and
sediment to support riverbank cultivation. increases in importance downstream tributaries such as the Mwisa to a
of Ngono River. limited degree.
Habitat provision • Floodplain Ecosystem The extensive seasonally and permanently flooded wetland The fisheries productivity supported by the Not replaceable – habitat High
• Lotic Ecosystem and riparian habitats along the Kagera River provides flowing Kagera River and its fringing floodplain provision role and fisheries
important feeding and refugia habitat for macroinvertebrates habitats provide a subsistence food source provided by the Kagera River is
and fish, thereby supporting fisheries. It also provides for local residents, primarily downstream not replaceable although
important resources for floodplain cultivation and harvesting of Kyaka where the river velocity is slower and aquaculture can potentially
of reeds. there is easier access to the riverbanks near provide an alternative fishery
settlements. resource (depending on support
and training provided), although
may have adverse effects on
indigenous fish.

ANNEXES


2012 Population and Housing Census. (2013, March). National Bureau of Statistics.
(2019, December 11). Retrieved from Africa GeoPortal:
https://www.africageoportal.com/datasets/0daa0d195c844fcb91b2f7936614d081
African Commission on the Human and People's Rights. (2005). Report of the African Commissions' Working Group of
Experts on Indigenous Populations:Communities.
Armstrong, & all. (2016). Subnational variation for care at birth in Tanzania: is this explained by place, people, money or
drugs ?
Aurecon. (2012a). Development of a Basin-wide IWRM-based Development Plan for the Kagera Basin. Diagnostic Report.
Final.
Aurecon. (2012a). Development of a Basin-wide IWRM-based Devlopment PLan for the Kagera Basin - Diagnostic Report -
Final - Submitted to NELSAP-NBI.
Baez, & all, a. (2017). Behavioural influences on attitudes towards petty corruption.
BRL. (2008). Kagera River Basin Transboundary Integrated Water Resources Management and Development Project.
Kagera River Basin Monograph. Basin Development Report.
COWI. (2002). Lake Victoria Environmental Management Project - Integrated Water Quality / Limnology Study for Lake
Victoria - Final Report - Part II - Technical Report.
Demographic and Health Survey of 2010. (2011). National Bureau of Statistics. Dar Es Salaam.
Distribution, Population by Age and Sex. (2013). National Bureau of Statistics.
Doornkamp, J. (1968). The geomorphology of southwest Uganda. East African Geographical Review, 75–81.
Dutton, C., Subalusky, A., Hill, T., Aleman, J., Rosi, E., Onyango, K., . . . Post, D. (2019). A 2000-year sediment record
reveals rapidly changing sedimentation and land use since the 1960s in the Upper Mara-Serengeti Ecosystem.
The Science of the Total Environment, 148-160.
Eberhard, Simons & Fennig. (2015). Ethnologue: Languages of the World. 18th edition. Dallas, Texas: SIL International.
Retrieved from http://www.ethnologue.com
Edwin, & all. (2019). Geographical Variations and Factors Associated with Childhood Diarrhea in Tanzania: A National
Population Based Survey 2015–16. Ethiopian Journal of Health Science.
FAO. (n.d.). Land Use and its Effects on Biodiversity in the Kagera River Basin.
Hagai, M. (2019). An Investigation of Kagera River Basin Land Cover Dynamics for Sustainability of Lake Victoria Water
Regime. Journal of Sustainable Development, 12(4), 166-176. doi:https://doi.org/10.5539/jsd.v12n4p166
Harvard. (2003). Tanzania Geomorphology: Landform and Lithology in EarthWorks. Retrieved August 18, 2020, from
https://earthworks.stanford.edu/catalog/harvard-africover-tz-lndfrm
IAHS. (1999). The Hydrology of the Nile. J.V. Sutcliffe, Y.P. Parks. The International Association of Hydrological Sciences
1999. IAHS Special Publication n°5.
International water Management Institute. (2014, July). Transboundary Aquifer Mapping and Management in Africa.
Retrieved from CGIAR Research Program on Water, Land and Ecosystems:
http://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/Publications/Other/PDF/transboundary_aquifer_mapping_and_management_in_af
rica.pdf
Kibona, & all. (2006). Drug-resistance of Trypanosma b. rhodesiense isolates from Tanzania.
Koegelenberg, C., & Kisters, A. F. (2014). Tectonic wedging, back-thrusting and basin development in the frontal parts of
the Mesoproterozoic Karagwe-Ankole belt in NW Tanzania. Journal of African Earth Sciences, 97, 87–98.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ja
LVEMP. (2005). Lake Victoria Environment Management Project (LVEMP) Water Quality and Ecosystem Status - Lake
Victoria Regional Water Quality Synthesis Report.
DISCLOSURE AUTHORIZED - Kakono HPP_ESIA_Section 5_BASELINE_June 2022 Page i

Malele. (2011). Fifty years of tsetse control in tanzania: challenges and prospects for the future.
Marlowe, F. (2002). Why the Hadza are Still Hunter-Gatherers. In S. Kent, Ethnicity, Hunter-Gatherers, and the “Other”:
Association or Assimilation in Africa (pp. 247-275). Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Mazigo, & all. (2012). Epidemiology and control of human schistosomiasis in Tanzania.
Miller, B. W., & Doyle, M. W. (2014). Rangeland management and fluvial geomorphology in northern Tanzania.
Geomorphology, 214, 366–377. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2014.02.018
Ministry of Health, C. D. (2018). Tanzania Malaria Indicator Survey 2017.
Mwanukuzi, P. (1993). Origin and geomorphology of the wetlands of Tanzania. In G. Kamukala, & S. Crafter, Proceedings
of a seminar on the wetlands of Tanzania (pp. 27–36). IUCN.
Norplan. (2014). Feasibility Study of Kakono Hydropower Project and Transmission Line: Feasibility Report Volume 1.
Norplan. (2014). Feasibility Study of Kakono Hydropower Project and Transmission Line; Final Feasibility Report Volume 2
Appendices.
Norplan. (2014a). Kakono Hydropower Project. Environmental and Social Impact Assessment - Draft Final Report -
November.
November.
Rach, N. (1992). Tectonic Controls on the Lake Victoria Basin. In Mason, Basement Tectonics 7 (pp. 219–226). Dordrecht:
Springer.
Sangea H, U. K.-H. (2018). Africa Groundwater Atlas: Hydrogeology of Tanzania. Retrieved from Earthwise - British
Geological Survey: http://earthwise.bgs.ac.uk/index.php/Hydrogeology_of_Tanzania
Sekamana, D. (1989). La Qualité des Eaux de Surface au Burundi. Mémoire, Faculté des Sciences Appliquées, Université
du Burundi, Département de Génie civil.
Skannes, T. (2015). Notes on Hadza cosmology: Epeme, objects and rituals. Hunter Gatherer Research, 2(1), 247-267.
Socio-economic profile of Karagwe District. (2015).
Socio-economic profile of Missenyi District. (2015).
Studio Pietrangeli. (2019a). Kakono Hydropower Plant and Transmission Line - Phase 2 Basic Design - Vol.1 Main Report
(Final). October.
Studio Pietrangeli. (2019b). Kakono Hydropower Plant and Transmission Line. Phase 2 - Basic Design - Vol. 3 -
Hydrological Report.
TANESCO. (2017b). Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) - Draft Report for the Proposed Kakono Hydropower Plant and the
132kV Transmission Line Project (38.5km).
Tanzania HIV Impact Survey. (2018). A Population-Based HIV Impact Assessment 2016-2017.
TASAF III Government Project Preparation Team. (2012). Draft TASAF III Indigenous Peoples Policy Framework.
The Nature Conservancy. (2010). Ecosystem Flow Recommendations for the Susquehanna River Basin.
URT. (2020). Ministry of Water - Hydrological Year Book 2010-2019 River Flows Data - Volume I.
Vanmaercke, M., Poesen, J., Broeck, J., & Nyssen, J. (2014). Sediment yield in Africa. Earth-Science Reviews, 350–368.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2014.06.004
World Bank. (2018). Environmental and Social Framework. Washington, DC.: World Bank.
World Resources Institute. (2013). Weaving Ecosystem Services into Impact Assessment. Washington DC: World
Resources Institute.
Afdb, 2013. Safeguards and Sustainability Series. Volume 1, Issue 1. Policy Statement and Operational Safeguards.
AFDB, 2015. Safeguards and Sustainability Series. Volume 2, Issue 1. Guidance Materials. Vol 3: Sector sheets
DISCLOSURE AUTHORIZED - Kakono HPP_ESIA_Section 5_BASELINE_June 2022 Page ii

Albright, T.P., Moorhouse, T.G. and McNabb, T. (2004) The Rise and Fall of Water Hyacinth in Lake Victoria and the Kagera
River Basin, 1989-2001. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 42: 73-84
ARTELIA (2013a) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) for the proposed Rusumo Falls Hydroelectric
Project. Dam & Powerplant Component, Volume 1: Main Report E4144v1. Ref 1770050. Report prepared by
ARTELIA EAU ENVIRONNEMENT, Echirolles, France, under the auspices of the Nile Basin Initiative, Nile Equatorial
Lakes Subsidiary Action Program (NELSAP), Kigali, Rwanda.
ARTELIA (2013b) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) for the proposed Rusumo Falls Hydroelectric
Project. Dam & Powerplant Component, Volume 2: Appendices. E4144v4. Ref 1770050. Report prepared by
AURECON (2012a) Development of a Basin-wide IWRM-based Development Plan for the Kagera Basin: Basin
Development Plan. Abridged Version. Report for Nile Basin Initiative. Contract No.: Kagera/2011/S/BDP-01.
AURECON (2012b) Scenario Analysis Report: NELSAP Multi-Sectoral Investment Programme – Kagera Basin. Draft –
Version 1.0 March 2012. Report prepared by Aurecon in association with Beuster, Clarke & Associates, Climate
Systems Analysis Group, Solaris Engineering & Consulting, Conningarth Economists and Nepid Consultants CC.
Report prepared for Nile Basin Initiative, Addis Ababa.
BAKER N.E. & BAKER L.M. (2001). Tanzania. In: Fishpool, L. D. C. and Evans, M. I., (eds) Important Bird Areas in Africa and
Associated Islands: Priority Sites for Conservation. Pisces Publications; Cambridge: Birdlife International.
BIRDLIFE INTERNATIONAL (2016a). Species factsheet: Balearica regulorum. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species
2016: e.T22692046A93334893.
BIRDLIFE INTERNATIONAL (2016b). Species factsheet: Bucorvus leadbeateri. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species
2016: e.T22682638A92955067.
BIRDLIFE INTERNATIONAL (2016c). Species factsheet: Laniarius mufumbiri. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species
2016: e.T22707593A94130975.
BIRDLIFE INTERNATIONAL (2017) Species factsheet: Necrosyrtes monachus (amended version of 2017 assessment). The
IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2017: e.T22695185A118599398.
BIRDLIFE INTERNATIONAL. (2019a). Species factsheet: Torgos tracheliotos (amended version of 2017 assessment). The
BIRDLIFE INTERNATIONAL. (2019b). Species factsheet: Aquila nipalensis (amended version of 2017 assessment). The
BIRDLIFE INTERNATIONAL (2021). Species factsheet: Terathopius ecaudatus. Downloaded from http://www.birdlife.org
on 07/04/2021.
BIRDLIFE INTERNATIONAL (2020) Important Bird and Biodiversity Area (IBA) digital boundaries: March 2020 version.
BirdLife International, Cambridge, UK.
BLANC J. (2008). Loxodonta africana. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2008: e.T12392A3339343.
BRITTON P.L. (ed.). 1980. Birds of East Africa. Nairobi: East African Natural History Society.
BROWN L.H. & BRITTON P.L. (1980). The breeding seasons of East African birds. East African Natural History Society,
Nairobi.
BURGESS N., HALES J. A., UNDERWOOD E., DINERSTEIN E., OLSON D., ITOUA I., SCHIPPER J., RICKETTS T. & NEWMAN K.
(2004). Terrestrial ecoregions of Africa and Madagascar: a conservation assessment. Island Press.
DARWALL, W., SMITH, K., LOWE, T. and J.-C. VIÉ (2005) The status and distribution of Freshwater Biodiversity in Eastern
Africa. Occasional Paper of the IUCN Species Survival Commission No. 31.
EDWARDS D. (1983). A broad-scale structural classification of vegetation for practical purposes. Bothalia, 14(3/4), 705-
712.
FERGUSON-LEES J. and CHRISTIE D.A. 2001. Raptors of the world. Christopher Helm, London.
FRAME G.W. (1982). East African crowned cranes breeding ecology and behaviour in northern Tanzania. Scopus 6: 60 –
69.
FRY H. (2020). Papyrus Gonolek (Laniarius mufumbiri), version 1.0. In Birds of the World (J. del Hoyo, A. Elliott, J.
Sargatal, D. A. Christie, and E. de Juana, Editors). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA.
DISCLOSURE AUTHORIZED - Kakono HPP_ESIA_Section 5_BASELINE_June 2022 Page iii

GICHUKI N.N. (2000). Influence of breeding on foraging behaviour and diet of crowned cranes. Ostrich 71: 74-79.
GOFF F. G., DAWSON G. A. & ROCHOW J. J. (1982). Site examination for threatened and endangered plant species.
Environmental Management, 6(4), 307-316.
HUEBNER C. D. (2007). Detection and monitoring of invasive exotic plants: a comparison of four sampling methods.
Northeastern Naturalist, 14(2), 183-206.
INTERNATIONAL FINANCE CORPORATION (IFC) (2012) Performance Standard 6: Biodiversity Conservation and
Sustainable Management of Living Natural Resources. World Bank Group.
INTERNATIONAL FINANCE CORPORATION (IFC) (2019) Guidance Note 6: Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable
Management of Living Natural Resources. January 1, 2012, Updated June 27, 2019. World Bank Group.
INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR THE CONSERVATION OF NATURE (IUCN) (2020) The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.
Version 2020-1. https://www.iucnredlist.org.
ISBERG S., COMBRINK X., LIPPAI C. & BALAGUERA-REINA S.A. (2019). Crocodylus niloticus. The IUCN Red List of
Threatened Species 2019: e.T45433088A3010181.
IUCN (2018). 2018 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. www.iucnredlist.org
IUCN (2021). Gobush, K.S., Edwards, C.T.T, Balfour, D., Wittemyer, G., Maisels, F. & Taylor, R.D. 2021. Loxodonta africana.
The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2021: e.T181008073A181022663. Downloaded on 26 March 2021.
KINDT R, VAN BREUGEL P, LILLESØ J-P B, BINGHAM M, DEMISSEW S, DUDLEY, C, FRIIS I, GACHATHI F, KALEMA J, MBAGO F,
MINANI V, MOSHI HN, MULUMBA J, NAMAGANDA M., NDANGALASI H.J., RUFFO C K, JAMNADASS, R and GRAUDAL,
L O V. (2011a). Potential natural vegetation of Eastern Africa (Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi, Rwanda, Tanzania,
Uganda and Zambia). Volume 4: Description and tree species composition for bushland and thicket potential
natural vegetation types. University of Copenhagen. Forest & Landscape Working Papers, No. 64/2011.
KINDT R., VAN BREUGEL P., LILLESØ J-P. B., BINGHAM M., DEMISSEW S., DUDLEY, C., FRIIS I., GACHATHI F., KALEMA J.,
MBAGO F., MINANI V., MOSHI H.N., MULUMBA J., NAMAGANDA M., NDANGALASI H.J., RUFFO C.K., JAMNADASS, R.
and GRAUDAL, L.O.V. (2011b). Potential Natural Vegetation of Eastern Africa (Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi, Rwanda,
Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia). Volume 3: Description and Tree Species Composition for Woodland and
Wooded Grassland Potential Natural Vegetation Types. University of Copenhagen. Forest & Landscape Working
Papers, Vol. 63/2011.
KINDT R., LILLESØ J-P B, VAN BREUGEL P, BINGHAM M, DEMISSEW S, DUDLEY, C, FRIIS I, GACHATHI F, KALEMA J, MBAGO F,
MINANI V, MOSHI HN, MULUMBA J, NAMAGANDA M., NDANGALASI H.J., RUFFO C K, JAMNADASS, R and GRAUDAL,
L O V (2011c) Potential natural vegetation of Eastern Africa (Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi, Rwanda, Tanzania,
Uganda and Zambia). Volume 5: Description and tree species composition for other potential natural vegetation
types (vegetation types other than forests, woodlands, wooded grasslands, bushlands and thickets). University
of Copenhagen. Forest & Landscape Working Papers, No. 65/2011.
KINGDON J. (2015). The Kingdon Field Guide to African Mammals. Bloomsbury Publishing.
LEVIN A.S. & KURKIN G.A. (2013). The Scope of Death of Eagles on Power Lines in Western Kazakhstan. Raptors
Conservation 27(240-244).
LEWISON R. & PLUHÁČEK, J. 2017. Hippopotamus amphibius. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2017:
e.T10103A18567364.
LILLESØ J.-P. B., VAN BREUGEL P., KINDT R., BINGHAM M., DEMISSEW S., DUDLEY C., FRIIS I., GACHATHI F., KALEMA J.,
MBAGO F., MINANI V., MOSHI H.N., MULUMBA J., NAMAGANDA M., NDANGALASI H.J., RUFFO C.K., JAMNADASS R.
and GRAUDAL L.. (2011). Potential natural vegetation of eastern Africa. Volume 1: The Atlas. University of
Copenhagen. Forest & Landscape Working Paper 61-2011.
LONGDARE O. (2012). Environmental Impact Statement on the Nsongezi Hydropower Project. Nsongezi Power Company
Limited.
MACPHERSON J. (2013). Report on an Aerial Census of Akagera National Park.
MEYBURG B.-U., MEYBURG C. & PAILLAT P. (2012) Steppe Eagle migration strategies – revealed by satellite telemetry.
British Birds 105:506-519.
MORRISON K. (2019). International Single Species Action Plan for the Conservation of the Grey Crowned Crane Balearica
regulorum. AEWA Technical Series No. 59. International Crane Foundation/Endangered Wildlife Trust
Partnership.
DISCLOSURE AUTHORIZED - Kakono HPP_ESIA_Section 5_BASELINE_June 2022 Page iv

OGADA D. L., & BUIJ R. (2011). Large declines of the Hooded Vulture Necrosyrtes monachus across its African range.
Ostrich, 82(2), 101-113.
NEWPLAN (2011) Additional studies of the proposed Kikagati Hydropower Project. Environmental and Social Impact
Assessment. Final Report.
NORPLAN (2014). Kakono Hydropower Project: Environmental and Social Impact Assessment. Draft Final Report.
November 2014. 268 pp.
NORPLAN (2016a) Kakona Hydropower Project (87MW) Kagera River. Environmental and Social Impact Assessment.
Report prepared by Norplan AS Norway, in association with Norplan Tanzania for the Tanzania Electricity Supply
Company, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
NORPLAN (2016b) Kakona Transmission Lines (132KV). Environmental and Social Impact Assessment. Report prepared
by Norplan AS Norway, in association with Norplan Tanzania for the Tanzania Electricity Supply Company, Dar
es Salaam, Tanzania.
NTIBA M., KUDOJA W. and MUKASA C. (2001). Management issues in the Lake Victoria watershed. Lakes & Reservoirs:
Research & Management 6 (3) 211-216.
OLUPOT W., MUGABE H. & PLUMPTRE A.J. (2009) Species conservation on human-dominated landscapes: the case of
crowned crane breeding and distribution outside protected areas in Uganda. African Jounral of Ecology 48,
119–125.
PLUMPTRE A.J., AYEBARE S., POMEROY D., TUSHABE H., NANGENDO G., MUGABE H., KIRUNDA B. and NAMPINDO S.
(2017). Conserving Uganda's Biodiversity: Identifying critical sites for threatened species and habitats. USAID.
Ministry of Tourism, Wildlife and Antiquities. 25 pp.
READING R.P., BRADLEY J., HANCOCK P., GARBETT R., SELEBATSO M. and MAUDE G. (2019) Home-range size and
movement patterns of Hooded Vultures Necrosyrtes monachus in southern Africa. Ostrich 90(1), 73-77.
SANBI (2020). Draft Species Environmental Assessment Guideline. Guidelines for the implementation of the Terrestrial
Flora (3c) & Terrestrial Fauna (3d) Species Protocols for environmental impact assessments in South Africa.
South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria. Version 1.0.
STABACH J.A., LAPORTE, N. & OLUPOT W. (2009) Modelling habitat suitability for Grey-crowned-cranes (Balearica
regulorum gibbericeps) throughout Uganda. International Journal of Biodiversity and Conservation Vol. 1(5) pp.
177-186.
STEVENSON T. & FANSHAWE J. (2004). Birds of East Africa: Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi. A&C Black.
STUDIO PIETRANGELI (2019a) Main Report. Kakono Hydropower Plant and Transmission Line. Report prepared by
Studio Pietrangeli Consulting Engineers for the Tanzania Electric Supply Company Limited (TANESCO). Phase 2
– Basic Design. Volume 1 – Main Report (Draft)). July 2019.
STUDIO PIETRANGELI (2019b) Hydrology Report. Kakono Hydropower Plant and Transmission Line. Report prepared by
– Basic Design. Volume 3 – Hydrological Report (Draft)). July 2019.
TANESCO (2017) Environmental Impact Assessment for Kakono Hydropower Plant (87MW) in the Kagera Region. Report
prepared by the Tanzania Electric Supply Company (TANESCO), Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
TATUM-HUME E., A. SERCKX, C. FLETCHER, V. KATARIYA, M. STARKEY, J. PILGRIM. (2018). Bujagali Project: Critical Habitat
Assessment. Report prepared on behalf of BEL by The Biodiversity Consultancy Ltd, Cambridge, UK.
WORLD BANK (2018a) Environmental and Social Framework. World Bank, Washington, DC.
WORLD BANK (2018b). ESS6: Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Management of Living Natural Resources.
Guidance Note for Borrowers.
WORLD COMMISSION ON DAMS (2000) Dams and development a new framework for decision-making. The Report of the
Word Commission on Dams. London: Earthscan Publications, Thanet Press.
WSP (2003) Kagera River Basin Integrated Water Resources Management Project: Project Document. Prepared by WSP
Sweden with assistance of BCEOM and ERM.
ZAAKE, B. and AGUMA, J. B. (2009) Consultancy for the review of the existing documents for the navigability of the
Kagera River. Nile equatorial subsidiary action program Kagera Transboundary Integrated Water Resources
Management and Development Project. Nile Basin Initiative. Final Report. February 2009.
DISCLOSURE AUTHORIZED - Kakono HPP_ESIA_Section 5_BASELINE_June 2022 Page v

AADLAND L.P. (1993) Stream habitat types: their fish assemblages and relationship to flow. N. Am. J. Fish. Manage. 13
(4) 790-806.
ALABASTER, J. S., and Lloyd, R. (1987) Water quality criteria for freshwater fish. Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations. Butterworths. 297 pp.
Albright, T.P., Moorhouse, T.G. and McNabb, T. (2004) The Rise and Fall of Water Hyacinth in Lake Victoria and the Kagera
River Basin, 1989-2001. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 42: 73-84
ALMEIDA, S.F.P. (2001) Use of diatoms for freshwater quality evaluation in Portugal. Limnetica 20(2): 205-213.
ANTENEH W., GETAHUN A., DEJEN E., SIBBING F.A., NAGELKERKE L.A.J., DE GRAAF M., WUDNEH T., VIJVERBERG J. and
PALSTRA A.P. (2012). Spawning migrations of the endemic Labeobarbus (Cyprinidae, Teleostei) species of Lake
Tana, Ethiopia: status and threats. J. Fish Biol. 81 (2) 750-765.
ARTELIA (2013a) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) for the proposed Rusumo Falls Hydroelectric
Project. Dam & Powerplant Component, Volume 1: Main Report E4144v1. Ref 1770050. Report prepared by
ARTELIA (2013b) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) for the proposed Rusumo Falls Hydroelectric
Project. Dam & Powerplant Component, Volume 2: Appendices. E4144v4. Ref 1770050. Report prepared by
AURECON (2012a) Development of a Basin-wide IWRM-based Development Plan for the Kagera Basin: Basin
Development Plan. Abridged Version. Report for Nile Basin Initiative. Contract No.: Kagera/2011/S/BDP-01.
AURECON (2012b) Scenario Analysis Report: NELSAP Multi-Sectoral Investment Programme – Kagera Basin. Draft –
Version 1.0 March 2012. Report prepared by Aurecon in association with Beuster, Clarke & Associates, Climate
Systems Analysis Group, Solaris Engineering & Consulting, Conningarth Economists and Nepid Consultants CC.
Report prepared for Nile Basin Initiative, Addis Ababa.
BALIRWA J.S. and BUGENYI F.W.B. (1988) An attempt to relate environmental factors to fish ecology in the lotic habitats
of Lake Victoria. SIL Proceedings, 1922-2010 23 (3) 1756-1761.
BALIRWA J.S., CHAPMAN C.A., CHAPMAN L.J., COWX I.G., GEHEB K., KAUFMAN L., LOWE-MCCONNELL R.H., SEEHAUSEN O.,
WANINK J.H. and WELCOMME R.L. (2003). Biodiversity and fishery sustainability in the Lake Victoria basin: an
unexpected marriage? Bioscience 53 (8) 703-715.
BALIRWA, J. S., CHAPMAN, C. A., CHAPMAN, L. J., GEHEB, K., LOW-MCCONNELL, R., SEEHAUSEN, O., WANINK, J.,
WELCOMME, R., WITTE, F. (2000) The role of conservation in biodiversity and fisheries sustainability in the Lake
Victoria Basin. Proceedings of Lake Victoria 2000: a new beginning Conference, 2005 Jinja, Uganda. Lake
Victoria Fisheries Organisation (LVFO).
BALIRWA. J. S. and BUGENYI, F .W. B. (1988) An attempt to relate environmental factors to fish ecology in the lotic
habitats of Lake Victoria. SIL Proceedings, 1922-2010 23: 1756-1761.
BASIITA R.K., ZENGER K.R. and JERRY D.R. (2017) Populations genetically rifting within a complex geological system: The
case of strong structure and low genetic diversity in the migratory freshwater catfish, Bagrus docmak, in East
Africa. Ecology and evolution 7 (16) 6172-6187.
BASIITA R.K., ZENGER K.R. and JERRY D.R. (2017). Populations genetically rifting within a complex geological system:
The case of strong structure and low genetic diversity in the migratory freshwater catfish, Bagrus docmak, in
East Africa. Ecology and evolution 7 (16) 6172-6187.
BATTARBEE, R.W. (1986) Diatom Analysis. In Berglund BE (ed) Handbook of Holocene Paleoecology and Paleohydrology.
John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Chichester. Great Briton. pp 527-570. [web] www.rhone-alpes.developpement-
durable.gouv.fr.
BAUMGARTNER L.J., CONALLIN J., WOODEN I., CAMPBELL B., GEE R., ROBINSON W.A. and MALLEN‐COOPER M. (2013).
Using flow guilds of freshwater fish in an adaptive management framework to simplify environmental flow
delivery for semi‐arid riverine systems. Fish Fish.
BAUMGARTNER L.J., CONALLIN J., WOODEN I., CAMPBELL B., GEE R., ROBINSON W.A. and MALLEN‐COOPER M. (2013)
Using flow guilds of freshwater fish in an adaptive management framework to simplify environmental flow
delivery for semi‐arid riverine systems. Fish Fish.
DISCLOSURE AUTHORIZED - Kakono HPP_ESIA_Section 5_BASELINE_June 2022 Page vi

BIRDLIFE INTERNATIONAL (2020) Important Bird and Biodiversity Area (IBA) digital boundaries: March 2020 version.
BirdLife International, Cambridge, UK.
BIZURU, E. (2017) Water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) Study and Management Plan. Report for Rusumo Falls
Hydroelectric Project. Report prepared for the Nile Basin Initiative.
BOK A., KOTZE P., HEATH R. and ROSSOUW J. (2007). Guidelines for the planning, design and operation of fishways in
South Africa. WRC Report WRC Report No. TT 287/07. Water Research Commission, Pretoria. 158 pp.
BOOTH A.J. and MCKINLAY B.W. (2001) Spatial aspects of the reproductive and feeding biology of the striped robber,
Brycinus lateralis (Pisces: Characidae), in the Okavango Delta, Botswana. Afr. Zool. 36 (1) 31-40.
BOOTH A.J., MUWANIKA V.B., MASEMBE C., NYAKAANA S. and RUTAISIRE J. (2004). Evolution of Labeo victorianus
predates the Pleistocene desiccation of Lake Victoria: evidence from mitochondrial DNA sequence variation. S.
Afr. J. Sci. 100 (11) 607-608.
BOSCO, J. 2015. Final Fish Baseline Surveys’ Report: Rusmo Falls HPP. Report by Prof Gashagaza Mukwaya John Bosco.
Report prepared for the Nile Basin Initiative.
BOWMAKER A. (1969). Contribution to knowledge of the biology of Alestes macrophthalmus Gunther (Pisces:
Characidae). Hydrobiologia 33 (3-4) 302-341.
BOWMAKER A.P. (2013). Potamodromesis in the Mwenda River, Lake Kariba. Man-Made Lakes: Their Problems and
Environmental Effects. American Geophysical Union. 159-164.
BOWMAKER, A. (1969) Contribution to knowledge of the biology of Alestes macrophthalmus Gunther (Pisces:
Characidae). Hydrobiologia 33: 302-341.
BRUNE, G. M. (1953) Trap efficiency of Reservoirs. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 34(3): 407-418.
BUNT C., CASTRO‐SANTOS T. and HARO A. (2012). Performance of fish passage structures at upstream barriers to
migration. River Res. Appl. 28 (4) 457-478.
BURNETT M.J., O'BRIEN G.C., JACOBS F.J., BOTHA F., JEWITT G. and DOWNS C.T. (2020). The southern African inland fish
tracking programme (FISHTRAC): An evaluation of the approach for monitoring ecological consequences of
multiple water resource stressors, remotely and in real-time. Ecol. Indicators 111 106001.
ČADA G.F. (2001). The development of advanced hydroelectric turbines to improve fish passage survival. Fisheries 26 (9)
14-23.
CADWALLADR D. (1965). Notes on the breeding biology and ecology of Labeo victorianus Boulenger (Pisces: Cyprinidae)
of Lake Victoria. Revue de Zoologie et de Botanique Africaines 72 109-134.
CADWALLADR D.A. (1969). A discussion of possible management methods to revive the Labeo victorianus fishery of
Lake Victoria, with special reference to the Nzoia River, Kenya. Occasional Papers. No. 2 of 1969. Ministry of
Animal Industry, Game and Fisheries. Fisheries Department, Republic of Uganda. 6 pp.
CADWALLADR. D. (1965) Notes on the breeding biology and ecology of Labeo victorianus Boulenger (Pisces: Cyprinidae)
of Lake Victoria. Revue de Zoologie et de Botanique Africaines 72: 109-134.
CAMBRAY J.A. (1990). Adaptive significance of a longitudinal migration by juvenile freshwater fish in the Gamtoos River
system, South Africa. S. Afr. J. Wildl. Res. 20 (4) 148-156.
CASTRO-SANTOS T. (2011) Adaptive fishway design: a framework and rationale for effective evaluations. Monitoring,
Funktionskontrollen und Qualitätssicherung an Fischaufstiegsanlagen 76-90.
CASTRO-SANTOS T. (2011). Adaptive fishway design: a framework and rationale for effective evaluations. Monitoring,
Funktionskontrollen und Qualitätssicherung an Fischaufstiegsanlagen 76-90.
CEMAGREF (1982) Etude des méthodes biologiques quantitatives d'appréciation de la qualité des eaux. Rapport Division
Qualité des Eaux Lyon - Agence Financiére de Bassin Rhône- Méditerranée- Corse. Pierre-Benite.KELLY M.G.
and WHITTON, B.A. (1995). The Trophic Diatom Index: a new index for monitoring eutrophication in rivers,
Journal of Applied Phycology 7, 433- 444.
CLAUSNITZER, V., KIPPING, J., DIJKSTRA, K. -D. B. and CARR, J. A. (2018) The status and distribution of dragonflies and
damselflies in the Lake Victoria Basin. Chapter 6: 82-98. In: SAYER, C.A., MÁIZ-TOMÉ, L. and DARWALL, W.R.T.
(2018) Freshwater biodiversity in the Lake Victoria Basin: Guidance for species conservation, site protection,
climate resilience and sustainable livelihoods. Cambridge, UK and Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. xiv +226pp.
DISCLOSURE AUTHORIZED - Kakono HPP_ESIA_Section 5_BASELINE_June 2022 Page vii

CORBET, P. S. (1962) Observations on the attachment of Simulium pupae to larvae of Odonata. Annals of Tropical
Medicine & Parasitology 56(2): 136-140.
COUTANT C.C. and WHITNEY R.R. (2000). Fish behavior in relation to passage through hydropower turbines: a review.
Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 129 (2) 351-380.
COVENEY, M. F., J. C. HENDRICKSON, E. R. MARZOLF, R. S. FULTON, J. DI, C. P. NEUBAUER, D. R. DOBBERFUHL, G. B. HALL,
H. W. PAERL, AND E. J. PHLIPS. (2011) Chapter 8. Plankton. In: St. Johns River water Supply Impact Study. St.
Johns River Water Management District, Palatka, FL, USA. St. Johns River Water Management District, Palatka,
Florida.
CUMBERLIDGE, N. and P. F. CLARK (2017) Description of three new species of Potamonautes MacLeay, 1838 from the
Lake Victoria region in southern Uganda, East Africa (Brachyura: Potamoidea: Potamonautidae). European
Journal of Taxonomy 371: 1-19. https://doi.org/10.5852/ejt.2017.371
DARWALL, W., SMITH, K., LOWE, T. AND J.-C. VIÉ (2005) The status and distribution of Freshwater Biodiversity in Eastern
Africa. Occasional Paper of the IUCN Species Survival Commission No. 31.
DE VOS L. and THYS VAN DEN AUDENAERDE D.F.E. (1990). Description de Barbus claudinae sp. n. (Cyprinidae) avec
synopsis des grandes espèces de Barbus du Rwanda. Cybium 14 (1) 3-25.
DONES, R., HECK, T. and HIRSCHBERG, S. (2004) Greenhouse gas emissions for energy systems: Comparison and
overview. Energy 2004, 27–95.
ECCLES D.H. (1992). Field guide to the freshwater fishes of Tanzania. FAO species identification sheets for fishery
purposes. Project URT/87/016. United Nations Development Programme. Food and Agriculture Organization of
the United Nations, Rome.
ECOREGIONS OF THE WORLD (FEOW) (2020) Lake Victoria Basin. [https://www.feow/ecoregions/details/521]
FISHBASE RMCA and GEELHAND D. (2016). Labeo victorianus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016:
e.T60318A47182908. Accessed 11 March 2020 https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-
3.RLTS.T60318A47182908.en
FISHBASE RMCA, GEELHAND, D. (2016) Brycinus jacksonii. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016:
e.T60748A47213317. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-3.RLTS.T60748A47213317.en. Downloaded
on 07 April 2020.
FISHBASE RMCA, GEELHAND, D. (2018a). Labeobarbus acuticeps (amended version of 2016 assessment). The IUCN Red
List of Threatened Species 2018: e.T61262A135919181. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2018-
2.RLTS.T61262A135919181.en. Downloaded on 07 April 2020.
FISHBASE RMCA, GEELHAND, D. (2018b) Labeobarbus altianalis (amended version of 2016 assessment). The IUCN Red
List of Threatened Species 2018: e.T61243A135920524. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-
FISHBASE TEAM RMCA and GEELHAND D. (2018a). Enteromius nyanzae (amended version of 2016 assessment). The
IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2018: e.T61313A126515818. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-
FOUCHÉ P.S.O. and HEATH R.G. (2013). Functionality evaluation of the Xikundu fishway, Luvuvhu River, South Africa. Afr.
J. Aquat. Sci. 38 (1) 69-84.
FROESE, R., PAULY, D. (2019) FishBase [Online]. Available: www.fishbase.org [Accessed 15 March 2020].
FRYER G. and WHITEHEAD P. (1959). The breeding habits, embryology and larval development of Labeo victorianus
Boulenger.(Pisces: Cyprinidae). Revue de Zoologie et de Botanique Africain 59 33-49.
GAIGHER I.G. (1984). Reproduction of Labeo umbratus (Pisces, Cyprinidae) in Wuras Dam, a shallow, turbid
impoundment. S. Afr. J. Zool. 19 105-108.
GIBBS, H.K. and BROWN, S. (2007) Geographical Distribution of Woody Biomass Carbon in Tropical Africa: An Updated
Database for 2000, NDP-055b. Available at [http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ndp055/ndp055b.html] from the
Carbon Dioxide Information Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. doi:
10.3334/CDIAC/lue.ndp055.2007.
GLOBAL LAND COVER (2000) Database. European Commission, Joint Research Centre, 2003. http://www-
gen.jrc.it/glc2000.
DISCLOSURE AUTHORIZED - Kakono HPP_ESIA_Section 5_BASELINE_June 2022 Page viii

GLOBAL LAND COVER DATABASE (2000) Database. European Commission, Joint Research Centre, 2003. http://www-
gen.jrc.it/glc2000.
GOODLAND, R. 1996. Distinguishing better dams from worse. International Water Power & Dams Construction.
September 1996: 34-36.
GOUDSWAARD K.P. and WITTE F. (1997). The catfish fauna of Lake Victoria after the Nile perch upsurge. Environ. Biol.
Fishes 49 (1) 21-43.
GOUDSWAARD P., WITTE F. and KATUNZI E. (2002). The tilapiine fish stock of Lake Victoria before and after the Nile
perch upsurge. J. Fish Biol. 60 (4) 838-856.
HALLA, A. S. (1999) Spatial Models for the Evaluation and Management of Inland Fisheries. Final Report. FIR Plansys
23220 01 20, MRAG Ltd. London.
HECKY R., MUGIDDE R., RAMLAL P., TALBOT M. and KLING G. (2010). Multiple stressors cause rapid ecosystem change in
Lake Victoria. Freshwat. Biol. 55 19-42.
HIGGINS K. and LYNCH M. (2001). Metapopulation extinction caused by mutation accumulation. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences 98 (5) 2928-2933.
HIJMANS, R.J., S.E. CAMERON, J.L. PARRA, P.G. JONES and A. JARVIS, (2005) Very high resolution interpolated climate
surfaces for global land areas. International Journal of Climatology 25: 1965-1978. Data downloaded from
http://www.worldclim.org.
INTERNATIONAL FINANCE CORPORATION (IFC) (2012) Performance Standard 6: Biodiversity Conservation and
Sustainable Management of Living Natural Resources. World Bank Group.
INTERNATIONAL FINANCE CORPORATION (IFC) (2019) Guidance Note 6: Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable
Management of Living Natural Resources. January 1, 2012, Updated June 27, 2019. World Bank Group.
INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR THE CONSERVATION OF NATURE (IUCN) (2020) The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.
Version 2020-1. https://www.iucnredlist.org.
ITA E.O. (1984). Lake Kainji (Nigeria). Status of African reservoir fisheries. In: Kapetsky J.M. and Petr T. (eds). CIFA
Technical Paper 10. Food & Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, Rome. 44-104 pp.
http://www.fao.org/tempref/FI/CDrom/aquaculture/a0844t/docrep/008/AD795B/AD795B00.htm
IUCN (2018). 2018 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2018.2. Accessed 22 Nov 2018. www.iucnredlist.org
JACKSON D.C. and MARMULLA G. (2001). The influence of dams on river fisheries. FAO Fish. Tech. Pap. (419) 1-44.
KAAYA, L.T. (2014) Biological assessment of tropical riverine systems using aquatic macroinvertebrates in Tanzania, east
Africa. PhD thesis, University of Cape Town.
KARENGE L. and KOLDING J. (1995). On the relationship between hydrology and fisheries in man-made Lake Kariba,
Central Africa. Fisheries Research 22 (3-4) 205-226.
KEMBENYA, E. M., MARCIAL, H. S., OUTA, N. O., SAKAKURA, Y., HAGIWARA, A. (2016) Captive Breeding of Threatened
African Carp, Labeo victorianus, of Lake Victoria. Journal of World Aquaculture Society Vol 48.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jwas.12328
KENMUIR D. (1984). Fish population changes in the Sanyati basin, Lake Kariba, Zimbabwe. Afr. Zool. 19 (3) 194-209.
KIBAARA D. (1986). Endangered fish species of Kenya's inland waters with emphasis on Labeo spp. Kenya Aquatica 3 14-
25.
KIMMINS, D. E. (1960) Notes of East African Ephemeroptera, with descriptions of new species. Bulletin of the British
Museum (Natural History) Entomology 9(6): 337-355.
KIPPING, C. V., DIJKSTRA, K. -D. B. and J. A. CARR (2018) The status and distribution of dragonflies and damselflies in the
Lake Victoria Basin. In: SAYER, C.A., MÁIZ-TOMÉ, L. and DARWALL, W.R.T. (2018). Freshwater biodiversity in the
Lake Victoria Basin: Guidance for species conservation, site protection, climate resilience and sustainable
KOLDING J., MEDARD M., MKUMBO O. and VAN ZWIETEN P. (2014) Status, trends and management of the Lake Victoria
fisheries. Inland fisheries evolution and management—case studies from four continents. FAO Fisheries and
Aquaculture Technical Paper 579.
DISCLOSURE AUTHORIZED - Kakono HPP_ESIA_Section 5_BASELINE_June 2022 Page ix

KOLDING J., MEDARD M., MKUMBO O. and VAN ZWIETEN P. (2014). Status, trends and management of the Lake Victoria
fisheries. Inland fisheries evolution and management—case studies from four continents. FAO Fisheries and
Aquaculture Technical Paper 579.
KÖPPEN, W. (1931) Grundriss der Klimakunde. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin.
KRAMMER, K. and LANGE-BERTALOT, H. (1986-1991) Bacillario-phyceae. Süßwasserflora von Mitteleuropa 2 (1-4).
Spektrum Akademischer Verlag, Heidelberg. Berlin.
LAKE VICTORIA BASIN COMMISSION (2011) A study on the aquatic biodiversity of the Lake Victoria Basin. ACTS Press,
Lake Victoria Basin Commission Kenya.
LECONOITE, C., COSTE, M. and PRYGIEL, J. (1993) “Omnidia”: Software for taxonomy, calculation of diatom indices and
inventories management. Hydrobiologia 269/270: 509-513.
LENOIR, A. and COSTE, M. (1996) Development of a practical diatom index of overall water quality applicable to the
French National Water Board network. In: Whitton, B.A. and Rott, E. (eds) Use of Algae for Monitoring Rivers 11.
lnstitut für Botanik. Universitӓt lnnsbruck: 29-43.
LEONARD P.M. and ORTH D.J. (1988). Use of Habitat Guilds of Fishes to Determine Instream Flow Requirements. N. Am.
J. Fish. Manage. 8 (4) 399-409.
LEWIS D.S.C. (1974). The effects of the formation of Lake Kainji (Nigeria) upon the indigenous fish population.
Hydrobiologia 45 (2) 281-301.
LINKE S, LEHNER B, OUELLET DALLAIRE C, ARIWI J, GRILL G, ANAND M, BEAMES P, BURCHARD-LEVINE V, MAXWELL S,
MOIDU H, TAN F, THIEME ML. (2019) Global hydro-environmental sub-basin and river reach characteristics at
high spatial resolution. Scientific Data 6: 283. doi: 10.1038/s41597-019-0300-6 (open access). Data available
at http://www.hydrosheds.org.
LONGDARE O. (2012). Environmental Impact Statement on the Nsongezi Hydropower Project. Nsongezi Power Company
Limited.
LUCAS, M., BARAS, E. (2008) Migration of Freshwater Fishes, Wiley pp.
LUĬS, A.T., TEIXIEIRA, P., ALMEIDAE, S.F.P., ECTOR, L., MATOS, J.X. and FERREIRA DA SILVA, A. (2008) Impact of Acid Mine
Drainage (AMD) on Water Quality, Stream Sediments and Periphytic Diatom Communities in the Surrounding
Streams of Aljustrel Mining Area (Portugal). Water Air Soil Pollution. DOI 10.1007/s11270-008-9900-z.
MACUIANE M.A., KAUNDA E.K., JAMU D.M. and KANYERERE G.Z. (2009). Reproductive biology and breeding of Barbus
paludinosus and B. trimaculatus (Teleostei: Cyprinidae) in Lake Chilwa, Malawi: implications for fisheries
management. Afr. J. Aquat. Sci. 34 (2) 123-130.
MAO X. (2018). Review of fishway research in China. Ecol. Eng. 115 91-95.
MAO X. (2018). Review of fishway research in China. Ecol. Eng. 115 91-95.
MAZIGO, H. D., NUWAHA, F., KINUNGHI, S. M., MORONA, D., PINOT DE MOIRA, A., WILSON, S., HEUKELBACH. J. and DUNNE.
D. W. (2012) Epidemiology and control of human schistosomiasis in Tanzania. Parasites & Vectors: 5: 274..
http://www.parasitesandvectors.com/content/5/1/274.
McCRAE, A. W. W., PIKE, M. C and SEMAKULA, E. (1968) Simulium and Kaposi’s Sarcoma. A brief survey in Bukoba District,
Tanzania. In: CLIFFORD, P., LINSELL, C. A., and TIMMS, G. l. (Eds) Cancer in Africa. East African Publishing House,
Nairobi.
MCLACHLAN A.J. (1974). Development of some lake ecosystems in tropical Africa, with special reference to the
invertebrates. Biological Reviews 49 (3) 365-397.
MERRON G.S. and MANN B.Q. (1995). The reproductive and feeding biology of Schilbe intermedius Rüppell in the
Okavango Delta, Botswana. Hydrobiologia 308 (2) 121-129.
MLEWA C.M., GREEN J.M. and SIMMS A. (2005). Movement and habitat use by the marbled lungfish Protopterus
aethiopicus Heckel 1851 in Lake Baringo, Kenya. Hydrobiologia 537 (1-3) 229-238.
MUGO, J, and TWEDDLE, D. (1999) Preliminary surveys of the fish and fisheries of the Nzoia, Nyando and Sondu Miriu
rivers, Kenya. FOA. 106-125.
NEWPLAN (2011) Additional studies of the proposed Kikagati Hydropower Project. Environmental and Social Impact
Assessment. Final Report.
DISCLOSURE AUTHORIZED - Kakono HPP_ESIA_Section 5_BASELINE_June 2022 Page x

NORPLAN (2014). Kakono Hydropower Project: Environmental and Social Impact Assessment. Draft Final Report.
November 2014. 268 pp.
NORPLAN (2016a) Kakona Hydropower Project (87MW) Kagera River. Environmental and Social Impact Assessment.
Report prepared by Norplan AS Norway, in association with Norplan Tanzania for the Tanzania Electricity Supply
Company, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
NORPLAN (2016b) Kakona Transmission Lines (132KV). Environmental and Social Impact Assessment. Report prepared
by Norplan AS Norway, in association with Norplan Tanzania for the Tanzania Electricity Supply Company, Dar
es Salaam, Tanzania.
NTIBA M., KUDOJA W. and MUKASA C. (2001). Management issues in the Lake Victoria watershed. Lakes & Reservoirs:
Research & Management 6 (3) 211-216.
O'BRIEN G.C., JACOBS F., CRONJE L., WEPENER V. and SMIT N.J. (2013). Habitat preferences and movement of adult
yellowfishes in the Vaal River, South Africa. S. Afr. J. Sci. 109 01-08.
O'BRIEN G.C., JACOBS F.J., BOTHA I.F. and O'BRIEN M. (2014). Manual to monitor fish behaviour and water variables
remotely in real time in South African inland aquatic ecosystems. WRC Report WRC Report No. TT 613/14.
Water Research Commission, Pretoria. 44 pp.
OCHUMBA P.B.O. and ALA J.O.M. (1992). Distribution of fishes along the Sondu-Miriu River of Lake Victoria, Kenya with
special reference to upstream migration, biology and yield. Aquacult. Res. 23 (6) 701-719.
OENGA D., MGAYA Y. and MBAHINZIREKI G. (2010) The Potential of Mara River as Refugia for Indigenous Fish Species of
Lake Victoria, East Africa: A Case Study for Labeo victorianus. SARNISSA Newsletter.
OGUTU-OHWAYO R. (1988). Reproductive potential of the Nile perch, Lates niloticus L. and the establishment of the
species in Lakes Kyoga and Victoria (East Africa). Hydrobiologia 162 (3) 193-200.
OGUTU-OHWAYO R. (1990). The decline of the native fishes of lakes Victoria and Kyoga (East Africa) and the impact of
introduced species, especially the Nile perch, Lates niloticus, and the Nile tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus. Environ.
Biol. Fishes 27 (2) 81-96.
ØKLAND F., THORSTAD E.B., HAY C.J., NÆSJE T.F. and CHANDA B. (2005). Patterns of movement and habitat use by
tigerfish (Hydrocynus vittatus) in the Upper Zambezi River (Namibia). Ecol. Freshwat. Fish 14 (1) 79-86.
OLLIS, D. J., SNADDON, C. D., JOB, N. M., and MBONA, N. (2013) Classification system for wetlands and other aquatic
ecosystems in South Africa. User manual: Inland systems. SANBI Biodiversity Series 22. South African National
Biodiversity Institute.
OMER-COOPER, J. (1974) The species of Bidessus Sharp (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae) of Africa south of the Sahara including
Madagascar. 1. Journal of the Entomological Society of Southern Africa 37: 305-314.
OUTA N.O., YONGO E.O., KEYOMBE J.L.A., OGELLO E.O. and NAMWAYA WANJALA D. (2019). A review on the status of some
major fish species in Lake Victoria and possible conservation strategies. Lakes & Reservoirs: Science, Policy and
Management for Sustainable Use n/a (n/a).
OYOO-OKOTH E., CHEROP L., NGUGI C.C., CHEPKIRUI-BOIT V., MANGUYA-LUSEGA D., ANI-SABWA J. and CHARO-KARISA H.
(2011). Survival and physiological response of Labeo victorianus (Pisces: Cyprinidae, Boulenger 1901) juveniles
to transport stress under a salinity gradient. Aquaculture 319 (1-2) 226-231.
OYUGI, D. and CHAPMAN, L. (2008) Ecoregion 57: Lakes Kivu, Edward, George and Victoria (including satellite lakes).
Appendix F. Ecoregion Descriptions. In: THIEME, M. L., ABELL, R., STIASSNY, M. L.. J. S., LEHNER, B., SKELTON, P.,
TEUGELS, G., DINERSTEIN, E., TOHAM, A. K., BURGESS, N. and OLSEN, D., Freshwater Ecoregions of Africa and
Madagascar. A Conservation Assessment. World Wildlife Fund. Island Press. Washington.
PALMER, R. W. and O’KEEFFE, J. H. (1989) Temperature characteristics of an impounded river. Arch. Hydrobiol. 116(4):
471-485.
PETR T. (1967). Fish population changes in the Volta Lake in Ghana during its first sixteen months. Hydrobiologia 30 (2)
193-220.
PETR T. (1968). Distribution, abundance and food of commercial fish in the Black Volta and the Volta man-made lake in
Ghana during its first period of filling (1964–1966). I. Mormyridae. Hydrobiologia 32 (3-4) 417-448.
PILSBRY, H. A., AND BEQUAERT (1927) The aquatic molluscs of the Belgian Congo, with geographical and ecological
account of Congo Malacology. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 53: 69-602.
DISCLOSURE AUTHORIZED - Kakono HPP_ESIA_Section 5_BASELINE_June 2022 Page xi

PLUMPTRE A.J., AYEBARE S., POMEROY D., TUSHABE H., NANGENDO G., MUGABE H., KIRUNDA B. and NAMPINDO S.
(2017). Conserving Uganda's Biodiversity: Identifying critical sites for threatened species and habitats. USAID.
Ministry of Tourism, Wildlife and Antiquities. 25 pp.
PLUMPTRE AJ, AYEBARE S, POMEROY D, TUSHABE H, NANGENDO G, MUGABE H, KIRUNDA B, NAMPINDO S. (2017)
Conserving Uganda's Biodiversity: Identifying critical sites for threatened species and habitats. USAID. Ministry
of Tourism, Wildlife and Antiquities. 25 pp.
POMPEU P.S., AGOSTINHO A.A. and PELICICE F.M. (2012). Existing and future challenges: the concept of successful fish
passage in South America. River Res. Appl. 28 (4) 504-512.
PRINGLE R.M. (2005). The Origins of the Nile Perch in Lake Victoria. Bioscience 55 (9) 780-787.
PRYGIEL, J., CARPENTIER, P., ALMEIDA, S., COSTE, M., DRUART, J.C., ECTOR, L., GUILLARD, D., HONORÉ, M.A., ISERENTANT,
R., LEDEGANCK, P., LALANNE-CASSOU, C., LESNIAK, C., MERCIER, I., MONCAUT, P., NAZART, M., NOUCHET, N.,
PERES, F., PEETERS, V., RIMET, F., RUMEAU, A., SABATER, S., STRAUB, F., TORRISI, M., TUDESQUE, L., VAN DER
VIJVER, B., VIDAL, H., VIZINET, J. and ZYDEK, N. (2002) Determination of the biological diatom index (IBD NF T
90-354): results of an inter-comparison exercise. Journal of Applied Phycology 14: 27-39.
RAYBOLD, J. N., and White, G. B. (1979) The distribution, bionomics and control of Onchocerciasis vectors (Diptera:
Simuliidae) in eastern Africa and the Yemen. World Health Organisation WHO/ONCHO/79.149.
REYNOLDS J. and JD R. (1973) Biology and fisheries potential of four species of Alestes (Pisces-Characinidae) in the new
Volta Lake, Ghana.
RÜGNER H. A., SCHWIENTEKA, M., EGNER, M. B., and GRATHWOHL P. (2014) Monitoring of event-based mobilization of
hydrophobic pollutants in rivers: Calibration of turbidity as a proxy for particle facilitated transport in field and
laboratory. Science of the Total Environment 490: 191-198.
RUTAISIRE J, BOOTH AJ. (2005) Reproductive biology of ningu, Labeo victorianus (pisces: cyprinidae), in the Kagera and
Sio rivers, Uganda. Environmental Biology of Fishes 73: 153-162.
RUTAISIRE J. (2003). The reproductive biology and artificial breeding of ningu Labeo victorianus (Pisces: Cyprinidae). PhD
Thesis. Rhodes University, Grahamstown. 183 pp.
RUTAISIRE J. and BOOTH A.J. (2004). Induced ovulation, spawning, egg incubation, and hatching of the cyprinid fish
Labeo victorianus in captivity. J. World Aquacult. Soc. 35 (3) 383-391.
RUTAISIRE J. and BOOTH A.J. (2005). Reproductive biology of ningu, Labeo victorianus (pisces: cyprinidae), in the Kagera
and Sio rivers, Uganda. Environ. Biol. Fishes 73 (2) 153-162.
RUTAISIRE, J. (2003) The reproductive biology and artificial breeding of Ningu, Labeo victorianus (Pisces: Cyprinidae).
PhD thesis.
SALIU J.K. and FAGADE S.O. (2003). The Reproductive Biology of Brycinus nurse (Paugy 1986), Pisces:-Characidae in Asa
Reservoir, Ilorin, Nigeria. Turkish J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 3 (1) 5-10.
SAYER C.A., MÁIZ-TOMÉ L. and DARWALL W.R.T. (2018) Freshwater biodiversity in the Lake Victoria Basin. Guidance for
species conservation, site protection, climate resilience and sustainable livelihoods. IUCN, Cambridge, UK and
Gland, Switzerland. xiv +226 pp.
SCANLON, A, A., KILE, R., and BLUMSTEIN, B. (2004) Sustainable hydropower - guidelines, compliance standards and
certification. United Nations Symposium on Hydropower and Sustainable Development, Beijing 27-29 October
2004. Hydro Tasmania, Australia.
SCHOEMAN, F.R. (1973) A systematical and ecological study of the diatom flora of Lesotho with special reference to
water quality. V&R Printers, Pretoria, South Africa.
SHOKO A., OENGA D., MGAYA Y. and MBAHINZIREKI G. (2010). The Potential of Mara River as Refugia for Indigenous Fish
Species of Lake Victoria, East Africa: A Case Study for Labeo victorianus. SARNISSA Newsletter.
STUDIO PIETRANGELI (2019). Kakono Hydropower Plant and Transmission Line. Phase 2 - Basic Design. Vol. 3.
Hydrological Report. July 2019. Prepared for Tanzania Electric Supply Company Limited (TANESCO). 85 pp.
STUDIO PIETRANGELI (2019a) Main Report. Kakono Hydropower Plant and Transmission Line. Report prepared by
– Basic Design. Volume 1 – Main Report (Draft)). July 2019.
DISCLOSURE AUTHORIZED - Kakono HPP_ESIA_Section 5_BASELINE_June 2022 Page xii

STUDIO PIETRANGELI (2019b) Hydrology Report. Kakono Hydropower Plant and Transmission Line. Report prepared by
– Basic Design. Volume 3 – Hydrological Report (Draft)). July 2019.
SUNDA KEMUNTO C. (2018). Distribution, growth and mortality of Labeobarbus altianalis of River Kuja, Lake Victoria
Basin, Kenya. Thesis. Kisii University,
TAKAMURA K. (2009). Population structuring by weirs and the effect on trophic position of a freshwater fish Zacco
platypus in the middle reaches of Japanese rivers. Fundamental and Applied Limnology / Archiv fur
Hydrobiologie 174 (4) 307-315.
TANESCO (2017) Environmental Impact Assessment for Kakono Hydropower Plant (87MW) in the Kagera Region. Report
prepared by the Tanzania Electric Supply Company (TANESCO), Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
TAYLOR, J.C., HARDING, W.R. and ARCHIBALD, C.G.M. (2007a) A methods manual for the collection, preparation and
analysis of diatom samples. Water Research Commission Report TT281/07. Water Research Commission.
Pretoria.
TAYLOR, J.C., HARDING, W.R. and ARCHIBALD, CGM. (2007b) An illustrated guide to some common diatom species from
South Africa. Water Research Commission Report TT282/07. Water Research Commission. Pretoria.
TAZIBIRWA J. (2016). Assessment of the influence of Bujagali dam on the spatial-temporal fish assemblages of the
upper Victoria Nile River, Uganda. MSc Thesis. Egerton University, 71 pp.
TEPLY, M. and BAHLS, L. (2006) Interpretation of Periphyton Samples for Montana Streams - Middle Rockies Ecoregion.
Prepared for the Montana Department of Environmental Quality. Water Quality Monitoring Section. Rosie Sada.
Project Manager.1520 E 6th Avenue. Helena, MT 59620.
THORSTAD E.B., HAY C.J., NÆSJE T.F., CHANDA B. and ØKLAND F. (2005). Movements and habitat utilization of nembwe,
Serranochromis robustus (Gunther, 1864), in the Upper Zambezi River. Afr. Zool. 40 (2) 253.
TÓMASSON T., CAMBRAY J.A. and JACKSON P.B.N. (1984). Reproductive biology of four large riverine fishes (Cyprinidae)
in a man-made lake, Orange River, South Africa. Hydrobiologia 112 179-195.
TWONGO T.K., BAYONA J.D.R. and HANSSENS M. (2006a). Oreochromis esculentus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species 2006: e.T15457A4587658. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2006.RLTS.T15457A4587658.en.
Downloaded on 19 April 2020.
TWONGO T.K., BAYONA J.D.R. and HANSSENS M. (2006b). Oreochromis variabilis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species 2006: e.T15457A4587658. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2006.RLTS.T15457A4587658.en.
Downloaded on 19 April 2020.
VAN DAM, H., MERTENS, A. AND SINKELDAM, J. (1994) A coded checklist and ecological indicator values of freshwater
diatoms from the Netherlands. Netherlands Journal of Aquatic Ecology 28(1): 177-133.
WAGNER-LOTKOWSKA, K. IZYDORCZYK, T. JURCZAK & M. TARCZYNSKA, and P. FRANKIEWICZ (2004) Ecohydrological
methods of algal bloom control. In: Zalewski, M & Wagner-Lotkowska (Eds). Chapter 12: Reservoir & lake
management: Improvement of Water Quality. Integrated watershed management – Ecohydrology 7
Phytotechnology Manual. United Nations Environmental Programme.
WAKWABI, E. O., BALIRWA, J. AND NTIBA, M. J. (2006) Aquatic biodiversity of Lake Victoria Basin. In: ODADA, E. O., OLAGO,
D. O., and OCHLOA, W. O. (Eds) Environment for Development: An Ecosystems Assessment of Lake Victoria
Basin. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Pan African START Secretariat (PASS), Nairobi, Kenya.
WELCOMME R., WINEMILLER K. and COWX I. (2006). Fish environmental guilds as a tool for assessment of ecological
condition of rivers. River Res. Appl. 22 (3) 377-396.
WELCOMME R.L. (1985). River Fisheries. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 262. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the
United Nations (FAO). Fishery Resources and Environment Division, Rome, Italy. 330 pp.
http://www.fao.org/3/T0537E/T0537E00.htm#toc
WELCOMME R.L. (2003). River fisheries in Africa: their relationship to flow regimes. NAGA, WorldFish Center Quarterly 26
(3) 22-26.
WELCOMME, R. L. (2011) An overview of global catch statistics for inland fisheries. ICES Journal of Marine Science 68(8):
1751-1756.
WHITEHEAD P. (1960). Three new Cyprinid fishes of the genus Barbus from the Lake Victoria Basin. Rev. Zool. Bot. Afr 62
106-119.
DISCLOSURE AUTHORIZED - Kakono HPP_ESIA_Section 5_BASELINE_June 2022 Page xiii

WHITEHEAD P.J.P. (1959). The anadromous fishes of Lake Victoria. Revue de Zoologie et de Botanique Africain 34 (329-
363).
WHITLOCK M.C. and MCCAULEY D.E. (1990). Some population genetic consequences of colony formation and extinction:
genetic correlations within founding groups. Evolution 44 (7) 1717-1724.
WINTON, R. S., CALAMITA, E., and WEHRLI, B. (2019) 1Reviews and syntheses: Dams, water quality and tropical reservoir
stratification. Biogeoscience 16: 1657-1671.
WITTE, F., DE GRAAF, M., MKUMBO, O. C., EL-MOGHRABY, A. I. and SIBBING, F. A. (2009) Fisheries production in the Nile
System. Dumont, H. J. (ed.). The Nile: origin, Environments, Limnology and Human Use. Springer. Monographiae
Biologicae 89: P 723-747.
WORLD BANK (2018a) Environmental and Social Framework. World Bank, Washington, DC.
WORLD BANK (2018b). ESS6: Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Management of Living Natural Resources.
Guidance Note for Borrowers.
WORLD COMMISSION ON DAMS (2000) Dams and development a new framework for decision-making. The Report of the
Word Commission on Dams. London: Earthscan Publications, Thanet Press.
WSP (2003) Kagera River Basin Integrated Water Resources Management Project: Project Document. Prepared by WSP
Sweden with assistance of BCEOM and ERM.
ZAAKE, B. and AGUMA, J. B. (2009) Consultancy for the review of the existing documents for the navigability of the
Kagera River. Nile equatorial subsidiary action program Kagera Transboundary Integrated Water Resources
Management and Development Project. Nile Basin Initiative. Final Report. February 2009.
ZENGEYA T.A. and MARSHALL B.E. (2015). Effects of habitat and fishing on fish assemblages in a tropical reservoir: Lake
Kariba, Zimbabwe. Lakes & Reservoirs: Science, Policy and Management for Sustainable Use 20 (4) 256-263.
DISCLOSURE AUTHORIZED - Kakono HPP_ESIA_Section 5_BASELINE_June 2022 Page xiv

Annex 5-2 – Daily River Flow Data
DISCLOSURE AUTHORIZED - Kakono HPP_ESIA_Section 5_BASELINE_June 2022

KAKONO DAM SITE Cathment Area =46'471 km2
KAGERA river All flows in m3/s
Kyaka Ferry st. Catchment Area km2 46,471
1967
Date JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Mean
1 177.4 175.0 175.0 174.4 187.1 205.5 199.1 202.9 194.0 185.3 177.4 206.2 188.3
2 178.0 174.4 175.0 177.4 186.5 204.9 198.4 202.3 194.0 184.7 178.0 205.5 188.3
3 177.4 174.4 175.0 176.8 185.9 202.9 198.4 201.6 193.4 184.7 177.4 208.1 188.0
4 176.8 173.8 175.6 176.2 185.9 201.6 198.4 201.6 192.7 183.5 177.4 207.5 187.6
5 175.6 173.8 174.4 176.2 187.1 201.0 199.1 201.0 192.7 183.5 176.8 206.8 187.3
6 174.4 172.7 173.8 176.2 187.8 199.7 199.7 200.3 193.4 182.8 176.8 204.9 186.9
7 173.8 172.7 173.8 175.6 190.2 199.1 199.7 201.0 192.7 182.2 176.2 202.9 186.7
8 173.3 173.8 174.4 175.0 195.3 199.1 200.3 202.3 192.1 182.2 175.6 201.0 187.0
9 172.7 173.8 175.0 174.4 197.8 198.4 201.0 201.6 192.1 181.6 175.0 197.8 186.8
10 172.1 173.8 175.0 174.4 200.3 198.4 199.7 201.6 191.5 181.0 175.6 194.6 186.5
11 170.9 174.4 175.6 173.8 203.6 197.8 199.7 201.0 190.9 181.0 176.2 191.5 186.4
12 171.5 173.8 175.0 173.8 203.6 197.2 199.1 200.3 189.6 180.4 176.8 188.4 185.8
13 171.5 173.8 175.0 175.0 204.2 197.2 199.1 200.3 189.6 179.8 178.0 185.3 185.7
14 170.9 173.3 174.4 175.0 203.6 197.2 199.7 199.7 189.0 179.8 178.0 183.5 185.3
15 170.9 172.7 174.4 175.6 204.9 196.5 200.3 199.7 189.0 179.2 177.4 182.8 185.3
16 170.9 172.7 174.4 176.8 205.5 195.9 200.3 199.1 189.6 177.4 178.0 182.2 185.2
17 171.5 172.7 175.0 179.8 206.8 195.9 201.6 199.1 189.6 177.4 179.8 181.0 185.9
18 171.5 172.7 175.0 182.2 208.8 195.3 201.6 198.4 189.0 177.4 179.8 181.0 186.1
19 171.5 173.3 174.4 184.7 210.8 194.6 201.6 198.4 189.0 178.0 181.0 179.8 186.4
20 172.1 173.8 173.8 184.7 214.7 194.6 202.3 199.1 188.4 178.0 182.8 179.2 187.0
21 171.5 173.3 173.8 185.9 215.4 195.3 202.3 198.4 187.8 177.4 185.9 176.8 187.0
22 171.5 173.8 173.8 185.9 216.1 195.9 202.3 198.4 187.1 177.4 185.9 175.6 187.0
23 171.5 173.8 174.4 187.1 215.4 195.9 203.6 198.4 187.1 177.4 187.1 175.0 187.2
24 173.8 174.4 174.4 187.1 214.7 197.2 203.6 198.4 186.5 177.4 187.8 173.8 187.4
25 174.4 174.4 175.0 186.5 214.7 197.2 203.6 197.2 186.5 176.8 189.0 172.1 187.3
26 175.0 175.0 176.2 185.9 214.1 198.4 202.9 197.2 186.5 176.8 194.6 170.9 187.8
27 175.0 175.6 176.2 184.7 212.7 198.4 202.3 196.5 186.5 176.2 197.2 170.3 187.6
28 175.0 175.0 176.8 184.1 211.4 199.1 202.3 195.9 185.9 176.2 202.3 169.2 187.8
29 175.6 177.4 184.1 210.1 199.7 201.6 195.3 185.9 176.8 205.5 168.6 189.1
30 176.2 177.4 185.9 208.8 199.1 202.3 195.3 185.9 176.8 206.8 168.0 189.3
31 175.6 174.4 206.8 202.3 194.6 176.8 168.6 185.6
Max 178.0 175.6 177.4 187.1 216.1 205.5 203.6 202.9 194.0 185.3 206.8 208.1
Mean 173.6 173.8 175.0 179.9 203.6 198.3 200.9 199.3 189.6 179.6 183.2 185.8 186.9
Min 170.9 172.7 173.8 173.8 185.9 194.6 198.4 194.6 185.9 176.2 175.0 168.0
ANNEX B - Hydrological data studio pietrangeli, rome

1968
1 170.9 179.8 220.8 278.1 366.3 437.9 450.0 404.5 337.1 278.9 238.8 244.5 300.6
2 172.7 180.4 223.5 279.7 369.9 439.9 449.0 403.5 335.3 276.6 238.1 243.8 301.0
3 172.7 181.0 226.3 280.4 375.4 440.9 448.0 401.6 331.9 275.0 237.4 246.0 301.4
4 173.3 181.6 228.3 282.0 380.0 440.9 446.9 396.9 330.2 273.5 237.4 246.7 301.5
5 173.8 182.2 231.1 283.6 384.6 440.9 445.9 394.0 328.5 271.2 237.4 247.4 301.7
6 173.8 182.8 236.0 283.6 392.1 441.9 443.9 391.2 325.9 268.9 236.0 247.4 302.0
7 172.7 183.5 237.4 284.4 396.9 442.9 442.9 389.3 324.2 267.4 235.3 248.9 302.1
8 172.7 183.5 238.8 285.1 401.6 443.9 442.9 387.4 322.6 265.9 233.9 249.6 302.3
9 171.5 184.1 239.5 287.5 405.5 444.9 440.9 385.6 320.0 264.4 233.9 249.6 302.3
10 171.5 185.3 240.2 288.3 408.3 444.9 439.9 381.9 317.5 262.9 233.2 250.3 302.0
11 170.9 185.9 242.4 291.5 407.4 444.9 437.9 380.9 315.0 261.4 231.8 251.1 301.8
12 170.9 188.4 243.8 295.4 407.4 445.9 436.9 381.9 313.4 259.9 231.1 250.3 302.1
13 170.9 189.6 244.5 291.5 410.3 446.9 435.9 383.7 311.7 258.4 229.7 248.1 301.8
14 171.5 190.9 246.0 295.4 411.2 446.9 434.9 373.6 312.5 254.0 229.0 247.4 301.1
15 172.7 192.1 247.4 299.5 413.2 448.0 432.9 371.7 308.4 253.3 228.3 246.0 301.1
16 172.7 193.4 250.3 301.9 415.1 450.0 431.9 369.9 307.6 252.5 228.3 244.5 301.5
17 173.3 194.6 251.8 305.1 417.1 440.9 429.9 367.2 306.0 251.8 227.6 242.4 300.6
18 173.8 195.9 254.0 307.6 416.1 441.9 428.9 365.4 306.0 250.3 227.6 241.7 300.8
19 173.8 197.8 255.5 310.1 412.2 447.5 426.9 363.6 303.5 249.6 228.3 241.0 300.8
20 174.4 199.7 256.9 312.5 411.2 453.1 424.9 361.8 301.1 248.9 229.0 240.2 301.2
21 175.0 201.6 259.9 316.7 411.2 455.1 423.0 360.0 299.5 247.4 233.2 239.5 301.8
22 175.0 203.6 262.9 319.2 410.3 455.1 421.0 360.0 296.2 246.0 234.6 238.1 301.8
23 175.6 206.2 265.9 320.9 411.2 446.9 420.0 362.7 294.6 245.3 236.0 237.4 301.9
24 176.2 208.1 267.4 324.2 411.2 456.1 420.0 352.8 293.0 245.3 237.4 235.3 302.3
25 176.2 208.8 268.9 329.3 414.2 456.1 418.0 351.0 292.3 243.8 238.8 233.2 302.6
26 176.8 210.1 272.0 334.5 414.2 455.1 415.1 349.3 292.3 243.1 240.2 231.1 302.8
27 176.8 210.1 273.5 343.1 414.2 455.1 412.2 346.6 290.7 242.4 243.1 231.1 303.2
28 177.4 210.8 274.3 348.4 425.9 454.1 410.3 344.9 288.3 241.7 244.5 229.0 304.1
29 178.0 215.4 275.8 361.8 430.9 452.0 409.3 342.3 285.1 241.0 245.3 228.3 305.4
30 178.0 275.8 364.5 433.9 451.0 407.4 343.1 282.0 241.0 245.3 228.7 313.7
31 179.2 277.3 435.9 406.4 337.9 239.5 228.7 300.7
Max 179.2 215.4 277.3 364.5 435.9 456.1 450.0 404.5 337.1 278.9 245.3 251.1
Mean 174.0 194.0 251.2 306.9 406.9 447.4 430.1 371.2 309.1 255.5 235.0 241.5 301.9
Min 170.9 179.8 220.8 278.1 366.3 437.9 406.4 337.9 282.0 239.5 227.6 228.3

1971
1 175.6 164.0 164.5 166.3 218.1 241.0 231.8 238.1 235.3 216.7 201.6 201.0 204.5
2 173.3 164.5 163.4 167.4 217.4 237.4 232.5 237.4 235.3 217.4 202.3 199.7 204.0
3 172.7 164.5 162.3 168.0 217.4 234.6 232.5 237.4 234.6 218.1 202.9 199.7 203.7
4 172.1 165.1 161.7 169.2 216.7 230.4 233.2 236.7 234.6 219.4 204.2 198.4 203.5
5 177.4 165.1 160.6 170.3 217.4 227.6 233.9 236.7 233.2 219.4 204.2 195.9 203.5
6 170.3 164.0 160.0 172.7 218.8 225.6 235.3 236.0 231.8 219.4 202.3 195.3 202.6
7 169.2 164.0 159.4 173.8 220.1 222.8 235.3 236.0 231.8 217.4 201.0 194.0 202.1
8 168.6 162.8 158.9 176.2 221.5 221.5 236.0 235.3 231.1 216.1 199.7 192.7 201.7
9 168.0 162.8 158.3 177.4 222.8 220.8 236.7 235.3 230.4 214.7 199.1 190.9 201.4
10 167.4 161.7 157.7 178.0 224.2 218.8 236.7 234.6 229.7 212.7 198.4 190.2 200.9
11 167.4 161.1 158.3 180.4 224.9 218.8 236.7 234.6 229.0 211.4 197.8 189.0 200.8
12 168.6 160.0 159.4 181.6 224.9 218.1 237.4 234.6 228.3 210.1 199.1 188.4 200.9
13 169.7 159.4 160.0 183.5 224.9 218.1 237.4 233.9 227.6 209.4 199.7 186.5 200.8
14 170.9 159.4 161.7 184.7 223.5 218.8 238.1 233.9 226.9 208.8 200.3 184.7 201.0
15 172.1 158.3 163.4 185.9 222.8 219.4 238.8 233.9 225.6 208.1 201.0 182.8 201.0
16 172.7 157.7 165.7 194.0 225.6 219.4 239.5 233.2 224.9 206.8 201.6 182.2 201.9
17 173.8 157.2 168.0 190.9 227.6 220.1 239.5 233.2 223.5 206.8 201.6 181.6 202.0
18 175.0 156.6 169.2 194.0 229.7 220.8 240.2 232.5 223.5 206.2 202.3 181.0 202.6
19 176.2 156.1 169.7 195.3 231.1 221.5 241.0 232.5 222.2 205.5 202.3 180.4 202.8
20 173.8 157.2 170.3 197.2 232.5 222.2 241.7 231.8 221.5 204.9 201.6 184.1 203.2
21 172.1 158.3 170.9 200.3 235.3 222.8 242.4 231.8 220.1 203.6 201.6 179.2 203.2
22 170.9 158.9 171.5 202.9 238.8 223.5 242.4 231.1 218.1 203.6 200.3 179.2 203.4
23 169.7 159.4 172.1 208.1 241.7 224.2 241.0 230.4 218.1 202.9 198.4 178.0 203.7
24 168.6 160.0 172.7 216.1 244.5 224.9 240.2 231.1 216.7 202.3 196.5 177.4 204.3
25 168.0 161.1 173.3 216.7 246.7 225.6 240.2 232.5 216.7 201.6 195.9 176.8 204.6
26 166.8 162.8 173.8 217.4 247.4 226.9 239.5 233.9 216.1 201.0 196.5 176.8 204.9
27 165.7 163.4 173.8 217.4 248.1 227.6 239.5 234.6 216.1 200.3 196.5 176.8 205.0
28 165.1 164.0 174.4 218.1 248.9 228.3 238.8 235.3 215.4 199.7 197.8 177.4 205.3
29 164.5 175.0 218.1 249.6 229.7 238.8 236.7 214.7 199.7 199.1 177.4 209.4
30 164.5 165.1 218.1 247.4 230.4 238.8 237.4 215.4 200.3 200.3 176.8 208.6
31 164.5 165.7 244.5 238.1 236.7 201.0 176.2 203.8
Max 177.4 165.1 175.0 218.1 249.6 241.0 242.4 238.1 235.3 219.4 204.2 201.0
Mean 170.2 161.1 165.8 191.3 230.8 224.7 237.9 234.5 224.9 208.6 200.2 185.5 203.0
Min 164.5 156.1 157.7 166.3 216.7 218.1 231.8 230.4 214.7 199.7 195.9 176.2

1972
1 176.2 175.7 192.1 202.3 275.0 303.5 286.7 249.6 226.9 202.3 196.5 210.1 224.8
2 175.6 176.1 192.1 202.9 277.3 302.7 285.1 248.1 226.3 201.6 197.8 209.4 224.6
3 176.2 176.5 190.9 202.9 281.2 302.7 283.6 247.4 224.9 201.0 199.1 208.1 224.5
4 176.8 176.9 190.9 204.2 284.4 303.5 282.0 246.0 224.2 200.3 200.3 207.5 224.7
5 177.4 177.2 190.2 205.5 285.9 304.3 280.4 244.5 222.2 199.7 201.6 208.8 224.8
6 177.4 177.6 190.2 205.5 287.5 303.5 279.7 243.8 221.5 199.1 202.3 209.4 224.8
7 176.8 178.0 189.6 206.8 288.3 301.9 278.1 243.1 220.1 197.8 203.6 210.8 224.6
8 176.8 178.4 189.6 208.1 291.5 301.1 275.8 241.7 219.4 197.2 204.9 211.4 224.6
9 176.8 178.7 190.2 209.4 292.3 299.5 275.0 240.2 218.8 195.9 206.2 212.7 224.6
10 179.8 179.1 189.6 211.4 291.5 296.2 273.5 238.8 218.1 195.3 207.5 212.1 224.4
11 179.8 179.5 189.6 212.7 291.5 295.4 272.0 237.4 216.7 194.0 208.8 212.1 224.1
12 179.8 179.8 189.0 215.4 292.3 293.8 270.4 234.6 215.4 193.4 210.8 211.4 223.8
13 179.8 180.2 189.6 217.4 293.8 292.3 269.7 232.5 214.7 194.6 211.4 210.1 223.9
14 178.0 180.6 190.2 219.4 295.4 292.3 267.4 230.4 214.1 196.5 212.7 208.8 223.8
15 176.8 181.0 190.9 222.2 299.5 291.5 266.7 228.3 213.4 197.2 214.1 207.5 224.1
16 176.2 181.3 191.5 224.2 301.1 290.7 265.1 227.6 212.7 198.4 215.4 206.8 224.3
17 175.0 181.7 192.1 227.6 302.7 290.7 264.4 226.3 212.1 199.1 216.1 205.5 224.4
18 174.4 182.1 193.4 231.1 304.3 289.9 262.9 225.6 211.4 200.3 216.7 204.2 224.7
19 174.4 182.4 194.6 233.9 305.1 288.3 261.4 224.9 210.8 201.0 218.8 203.6 224.9
20 174.4 182.8 195.9 236.7 306.8 287.5 260.6 225.9 210.1 201.0 219.4 202.3 225.3
21 175.0 183.2 196.5 241.0 308.4 285.9 259.9 226.9 208.8 199.7 220.1 201.6 225.6
22 175.6 183.6 197.2 244.5 310.1 287.5 259.2 228.3 207.5 199.1 221.5 200.3 226.2
23 176.2 183.9 198.4 247.1 310.9 289.1 259.2 229.7 207.5 198.4 220.1 199.7 226.7
24 176.8 184.3 198.4 249.6 311.7 289.9 258.4 231.1 206.2 197.2 218.8 199.1 226.8
25 176.2 184.7 199.1 251.8 313.4 290.7 256.9 232.5 206.2 195.9 216.7 198.4 226.9
26 176.2 185.1 199.7 255.5 313.4 291.5 255.5 231.8 205.5 195.3 214.7 197.8 226.8
27 175.6 185.3 200.3 261.4 312.5 292.3 254.7 231.1 205.5 194.0 213.4 197.8 227.0
28 175.0 186.5 201.0 265.1 311.7 291.5 253.3 230.4 208.1 192.7 212.7 197.2 227.1
29 174.4 190.2 201.0 268.2 310.1 289.9 252.5 229.7 204.2 193.4 212.1 195.9 226.8
30 175.0 201.6 271.2 306.8 289.1 251.1 228.3 202.9 194.6 210.8 195.3 229.7
31 175.4 202.3 304.3 250.3 227.6 195.9 194.6 221.5
Max 179.8 190.2 202.3 271.2 313.4 304.3 286.7 249.6 226.9 202.3 221.5 212.7
Mean 176.5 181.1 194.1 228.5 298.7 294.3 266.8 234.3 213.9 197.5 210.8 204.8 225.1
Min 174.4 175.7 189.0 202.3 275.0 285.9 250.3 224.9 202.9 192.7 196.5 194.6

1973
1 194.6 195.9 201.6 229.2 288.3 279.7 254.0 240.2 231.1 213.4 200.3 203.6 227.7
2 194.0 195.3 201.0 230.3 287.5 275.8 255.5 239.5 229.7 212.7 199.1 202.3 226.9
3 193.4 194.0 201.0 231.5 286.7 271.2 256.9 240.2 229.0 212.7 198.4 202.3 226.4
4 192.7 193.4 202.3 232.6 285.1 267.4 257.7 241.0 227.6 212.1 197.8 201.6 225.9
5 192.1 193.4 203.6 233.8 284.4 265.1 259.2 242.4 226.9 211.4 197.2 199.7 225.8
6 190.9 192.1 205.5 234.9 284.4 263.6 259.9 242.4 226.3 210.8 196.5 197.8 225.4
7 192.1 192.7 206.2 236.1 282.8 262.9 258.4 243.1 224.9 210.1 196.5 195.9 225.1
8 192.7 193.4 207.5 237.2 282.0 259.9 256.9 243.1 224.2 209.4 195.9 194.6 224.7
9 193.4 194.6 208.1 238.4 283.6 259.2 256.2 243.8 222.8 208.8 195.9 192.7 224.8
10 194.6 195.3 208.1 239.5 285.9 257.7 255.5 243.8 222.2 208.1 196.5 190.9 224.8
11 195.9 195.9 208.8 240.2 287.5 257.7 254.0 243.8 221.5 207.5 198.4 190.2 225.1
12 196.5 197.2 209.4 241.7 288.3 256.9 254.0 243.1 223.5 206.8 200.3 189.0 225.6
13 197.8 197.8 210.1 242.4 289.1 256.2 252.5 243.1 225.6 205.5 202.3 188.4 225.9
14 198.4 199.1 210.8 243.8 289.1 256.2 251.8 242.4 226.3 204.9 204.2 187.8 226.2
15 199.1 199.7 211.4 246.7 290.7 255.5 251.8 241.7 226.9 204.2 205.5 187.1 226.7
16 199.7 201.0 212.1 249.6 291.5 254.7 251.1 241.7 228.3 204.2 207.5 187.8 227.4
17 200.3 202.3 212.1 253.3 292.3 254.0 249.6 241.0 229.0 203.6 208.8 188.4 227.9
18 201.0 203.6 213.4 257.7 293.0 254.0 249.6 240.2 229.7 202.9 210.1 189.0 228.7
19 201.6 204.2 214.1 262.9 294.6 253.3 248.9 239.5 229.0 202.3 210.8 189.0 229.2
20 202.3 205.5 215.4 270.4 295.4 253.3 248.1 239.5 227.6 202.3 212.1 189.6 230.1
21 201.6 206.8 216.5 276.6 296.2 252.5 247.4 238.8 226.9 201.6 211.4 190.2 230.6
22 201.0 208.1 217.7 280.4 294.6 251.8 247.4 238.1 226.3 201.0 210.1 190.2 230.6
23 200.3 206.8 218.8 286.7 293.0 251.1 246.7 237.4 224.9 201.0 208.8 190.9 230.5
24 199.7 205.5 220.0 290.7 291.5 250.3 246.0 236.7 224.2 200.3 208.1 190.9 230.3
25 199.7 204.9 221.1 295.4 289.9 249.6 246.0 236.0 220.8 199.7 208.1 191.5 230.2
26 199.1 204.2 222.3 297.0 288.3 248.9 243.8 235.3 216.7 199.7 206.8 192.1 229.5
27 199.1 202.9 223.4 295.4 287.5 248.1 243.1 234.6 215.4 199.1 206.2 192.7 229.0
28 198.4 202.3 224.6 293.0 285.9 249.6 242.4 233.9 214.7 198.4 205.5 193.4 228.5
29 197.8 225.7 292.3 285.1 250.3 241.7 233.9 214.1 198.4 204.9 194.0 230.7
30 197.8 226.9 290.7 282.8 251.8 241.7 232.5 214.1 199.1 204.2 193.4 230.4
31 197.2 228.0 281.2 241.0 231.8 200.3 193.4 224.7
Max 202.3 208.1 228.0 297.0 296.2 279.7 259.9 243.8 231.1 213.4 212.1 203.6
Mean 197.3 199.6 213.1 258.4 288.3 257.3 250.6 239.5 224.3 204.9 203.6 192.9 227.5
Min 190.9 192.1 201.0 229.2 281.2 248.1 241.0 231.8 214.1 198.4 195.9 187.1

1974
1 192.7 250.3 188.4 202.9 207.5 220.1 251.8 255.5 238.1 217.0 201.0 194.6 218.3
2 192.1 249.6 189.0 203.6 208.8 221.5 253.3 254.7 237.4 216.5 200.3 194.0 218.4
3 192.7 250.3 190.2 204.2 209.4 223.5 254.7 254.7 236.0 216.0 200.3 193.4 218.8
4 193.4 251.1 190.2 204.9 209.4 224.9 256.2 254.0 235.3 215.5 199.7 193.4 219.0
5 194.0 251.8 190.9 205.5 210.8 225.6 257.7 253.3 234.6 215.0 199.1 192.7 219.2
6 194.0 253.3 190.9 206.2 211.4 226.9 259.2 253.3 233.9 214.5 199.1 192.7 219.6
7 194.6 254.0 189.6 206.2 212.7 227.6 261.4 252.5 233.2 214.0 198.4 194.0 219.9
8 195.3 254.7 189.0 204.9 214.7 229.0 263.6 251.1 233.2 213.5 197.8 194.6 220.1
9 195.9 255.5 188.4 204.2 216.1 229.0 265.1 251.1 232.5 213.0 197.8 195.3 220.3
10 196.5 255.5 187.8 205.5 217.4 229.7 265.9 250.3 231.8 212.5 197.2 194.6 220.4
11 195.9 256.2 187.8 206.8 218.1 230.4 265.9 250.3 231.1 212.0 197.2 193.4 220.4
12 192.1 256.9 187.1 208.1 218.8 231.1 266.7 249.6 231.1 211.5 196.5 192.7 220.2
13 194.6 257.7 186.5 210.8 218.1 231.8 267.4 248.9 229.7 211.0 195.9 192.1 220.4
14 194.0 257.7 185.9 213.4 216.7 233.2 266.7 248.9 229.0 210.5 195.9 191.5 220.3
15 193.4 258.4 185.9 214.1 215.4 234.6 265.1 248.1 228.3 210.0 197.2 190.9 220.1
16 192.7 257.7 185.3 214.7 214.1 236.0 264.4 247.4 227.6 209.5 198.4 190.2 219.8
17 192.7 256.9 184.1 216.1 212.7 236.7 264.4 246.7 226.9 209.0 199.7 189.6 219.6
18 192.1 256.2 183.5 216.1 212.7 237.4 263.6 246.0 226.9 208.5 201.0 189.0 219.4
19 191.5 256.2 183.5 214.7 212.1 238.8 263.6 246.0 225.6 208.0 201.6 189.0 219.2
20 190.9 255.5 184.7 214.1 210.1 238.8 262.9 245.3 225.6 207.5 201.6 188.4 218.8
21 190.2 255.5 186.5 213.4 211.4 240.2 262.1 243.8 224.2 207.0 201.0 187.1 218.5
22 189.6 254.7 187.8 212.7 212.1 241.7 261.4 243.1 222.8 206.5 200.3 186.5 218.3
23 189.0 254.0 188.4 212.1 212.7 242.4 261.4 241.7 221.5 206.0 199.7 185.9 217.9
24 188.4 254.0 189.0 210.1 212.7 243.1 261.4 241.7 220.8 205.5 199.1 184.7 217.5
25 187.8 253.3 190.2 208.1 213.4 243.8 259.9 241.0 220.1 205.0 198.4 183.5 217.0
26 187.1 185.9 191.5 206.8 214.1 243.8 259.2 240.2 219.4 204.5 197.8 182.8 211.1
27 186.5 187.1 193.4 206.2 215.4 246.0 258.4 240.2 218.8 204.0 197.8 182.2 211.3
28 185.9 187.8 194.6 208.1 216.1 247.4 257.7 239.5 218.5 203.5 196.5 181.6 211.4
29 253.3 197.8 207.5 216.7 249.6 256.9 239.5 218.0 203.6 195.9 182.2 220.1
30 252.5 200.3 206.8 217.4 249.6 256.9 238.8 217.5 202.3 195.3 182.8 220.0
31 251.1 202.3 218.8 255.5 238.8 201.6 182.2 221.5
Max 253.3 258.4 202.3 216.1 218.8 249.6 267.4 255.5 238.1 217.0 201.6 195.3
Mean 197.8 247.4 189.4 209.0 213.8 235.1 261.0 247.0 227.7 209.5 198.6 189.3 218.8
Min 185.9 185.9 183.5 202.9 207.5 220.1 251.8 238.8 217.5 201.6 195.3 181.6

1975
1 182.2 169.7 172.2 175.0 203.6 188.4 172.7 187.8 157.7 169.2 170.3 171.5 176.7
2 182.2 170.3 172.4 175.6 201.0 187.8 172.7 189.0 157.2 168.0 169.7 170.3 176.4
3 181.6 170.9 172.6 176.8 198.4 186.5 172.1 189.6 156.6 167.4 169.7 171.5 176.2
4 181.0 171.5 172.8 177.4 197.2 185.9 170.9 189.6 156.1 166.8 169.2 174.4 176.1
5 180.4 172.1 173.0 178.0 195.3 185.3 170.3 188.4 155.0 166.3 168.6 176.2 175.7
6 179.8 171.5 173.2 177.4 194.0 183.5 169.7 187.1 154.4 165.1 169.2 178.6 175.3
7 179.2 170.9 173.3 177.4 192.7 183.5 169.2 185.9 153.9 164.5 169.7 181.6 175.2
8 178.6 169.7 173.5 176.8 191.5 182.8 168.6 184.7 152.8 164.0 170.3 183.5 174.7
9 177.4 169.2 173.7 176.8 190.9 182.2 168.0 182.8 153.3 163.4 170.9 184.7 174.4
10 176.8 168.0 173.9 177.4 189.6 182.2 166.8 181.6 153.9 162.8 170.9 185.9 174.2
11 176.8 167.4 174.1 179.2 189.0 181.6 166.8 180.4 155.0 162.3 171.5 187.8 174.3
12 176.2 166.3 174.3 182.8 187.8 181.0 165.7 183.5 155.5 161.1 173.3 189.6 174.8
13 175.0 165.1 174.5 188.4 187.1 181.0 165.1 177.4 156.6 160.6 173.8 192.1 174.7
14 174.4 164.5 174.6 193.4 185.9 180.4 165.1 176.8 157.2 160.0 175.0 194.0 175.1
15 173.8 164.0 174.8 195.9 184.7 180.4 166.3 175.6 157.7 158.9 176.8 194.0 175.2
16 173.3 162.8 175.0 201.0 183.5 179.8 167.4 174.4 158.3 160.6 178.0 195.9 175.8
17 172.1 162.3 175.2 202.9 182.8 179.2 169.2 172.7 156.6 161.1 179.8 197.8 176.0
18 170.9 162.8 175.4 205.5 182.2 178.6 170.9 171.5 160.0 162.3 180.4 199.1 176.6
19 170.3 164.0 175.6 208.1 181.6 178.6 172.7 170.3 161.1 163.4 181.6 200.3 177.3
20 169.7 165.1 175.8 208.1 182.2 178.0 174.4 169.2 162.3 164.0 182.2 199.1 177.5
21 168.6 166.3 175.9 207.5 183.5 177.4 175.6 168.0 163.4 165.1 182.8 196.5 177.5
22 168.0 167.4 176.1 206.2 184.1 176.8 176.8 166.8 164.5 166.3 182.2 194.6 177.5
23 166.8 169.2 176.3 205.5 185.3 176.8 178.0 165.7 162.3 168.6 181.0 191.5 177.2
24 165.7 170.3 176.5 205.5 185.9 176.2 179.2 164.5 166.3 169.2 181.0 188.4 177.4
25 165.1 171.5 176.7 206.8 186.5 175.6 180.4 164.0 167.4 169.7 177.4 185.9 177.3
26 164.5 171.7 176.9 208.1 187.1 175.0 181.6 163.4 168.6 170.3 176.8 183.5 177.3
27 164.0 171.9 177.0 208.8 188.4 174.4 182.2 162.3 169.7 171.5 176.2 181.6 177.3
28 163.4 172.0 177.2 208.1 189.6 174.4 182.8 161.1 170.3 172.1 175.0 180.4 177.2
29 166.3 177.4 206.8 189.6 173.8 183.5 160.0 169.7 171.5 173.8 165.1 176.1
30 167.4 176.8 204.9 189.6 173.3 184.1 159.4 169.2 170.9 172.7 166.8 175.9
31 168.6 175.6 189.0 185.3 158.3 170.9 168.6 173.8
Max 182.2 172.1 177.4 208.8 203.6 188.4 185.3 189.6 170.3 172.1 182.8 200.3
Mean 172.9 168.2 174.9 193.4 189.0 180.0 173.4 174.6 160.1 165.7 175.0 184.9 176.0
Min 163.4 162.3 172.2 175.0 181.6 173.3 165.1 158.3 152.8 158.9 168.6 165.1

1976
1 170.9 152.2 161.2 164.5 184.7 195.3 173.3 170.9 175.0 171.5 162.8 170.3 171.0
2 172.1 153.3 161.2 165.7 185.9 194.0 172.1 170.9 175.6 170.9 163.4 170.9 171.3
3 173.3 153.3 161.2 165.7 187.1 193.4 171.5 171.5 176.2 169.7 164.5 171.5 171.6
4 173.8 154.4 161.2 164.5 187.1 192.1 170.9 172.1 176.2 170.9 165.7 172.1 171.8
5 174.4 155.0 161.3 164.0 185.9 190.9 169.7 172.7 175.6 171.5 166.3 173.3 171.7
6 173.8 156.1 161.3 165.1 184.7 189.6 169.2 173.3 175.0 172.7 167.4 174.4 171.9
7 172.1 157.2 161.3 165.7 183.5 187.8 169.2 173.8 173.8 173.3 169.2 175.0 171.8
8 170.3 158.3 161.3 169.2 181.6 186.5 168.6 174.4 172.7 174.4 169.7 175.0 171.8
9 169.2 159.4 161.3 168.0 180.4 185.3 168.0 175.6 171.5 175.0 170.3 173.8 171.5
10 168.6 160.6 161.3 168.0 179.2 184.1 167.4 176.2 170.9 175.6 170.9 172.7 171.3
11 167.4 161.1 161.4 170.3 177.4 183.5 168.0 176.8 170.3 175.6 170.3 172.1 171.2
12 166.3 162.3 161.4 170.9 175.6 182.2 168.6 177.4 169.2 175.0 169.7 170.9 170.8
13 165.1 162.8 161.4 171.5 174.4 181.6 169.2 177.4 168.0 173.8 168.6 169.7 170.3
14 164.5 163.4 161.4 172.1 171.5 181.0 169.7 176.2 167.4 172.7 168.0 168.6 169.7
15 163.4 164.5 161.4 172.7 171.5 180.4 170.3 175.6 166.3 172.7 166.8 167.4 169.4
16 162.3 165.1 161.5 173.8 172.1 180.4 170.9 176.8 165.1 171.5 165.7 166.3 169.3
17 161.1 165.7 161.5 175.0 175.0 179.8 171.5 172.7 166.3 170.3 164.5 165.7 169.1
18 160.0 165.7 161.5 176.2 177.4 179.2 172.1 178.0 166.3 169.2 164.0 164.5 169.5
19 160.0 164.5 161.5 176.8 180.4 178.0 172.7 178.0 168.0 168.0 163.4 162.8 169.5
20 158.3 164.0 161.5 176.8 183.5 177.4 173.3 178.0 169.2 166.8 162.8 161.1 169.4
21 157.2 163.4 161.5 177.4 185.9 176.8 174.4 176.8 170.3 165.7 162.3 160.0 169.3
22 156.6 162.8 161.6 178.0 187.8 176.2 174.4 176.2 170.9 165.1 161.7 158.9 169.2
23 156.1 162.3 161.6 178.6 190.2 175.6 175.0 175.6 171.5 164.0 161.1 157.7 169.1
24 155.0 162.3 161.6 180.4 192.1 175.6 175.6 175.6 172.1 163.4 160.0 156.6 169.2
25 154.4 161.7 161.6 181.6 193.4 175.0 176.2 175.0 172.1 162.3 159.4 156.1 169.1
26 153.9 161.1 161.6 182.8 194.6 174.4 175.6 174.4 172.7 161.7 158.3 155.0 168.8
27 153.9 161.1 161.6 184.1 195.9 173.8 175.0 173.8 173.3 160.6 158.3 154.4 168.8
28 152.8 161.2 161.7 182.2 197.2 175.6 175.0 173.3 173.8 159.4 167.4 153.9 169.5
29 152.2 161.2 161.7 181.0 197.8 174.4 174.4 173.3 173.3 160.6 168.0 154.1 169.3
30 151.7 162.3 183.5 197.8 174.4 173.8 173.8 172.7 161.7 169.2 154.1 170.4
31 151.1 163.4 196.5 173.3 174.4 162.3 154.1 167.9
Max 174.4 165.7 163.4 184.1 197.8 195.3 176.2 178.0 176.2 175.6 170.9 175.0
Mean 162.6 160.5 161.5 173.5 184.8 181.8 171.9 174.9 171.4 168.6 165.3 164.9 170.2
Min 151.1 152.2 161.2 164.0 171.5 173.8 167.4 170.9 165.1 159.4 158.3 153.9

1977
1 170.9 152.2 161.2 164.5 194.0 194.6 272.0 257.7 225.6 197.2 225.6 208.8 202.0
2 172.1 153.3 161.2 165.7 196.5 195.9 272.7 256.2 224.9 196.5 224.9 207.5 202.3
3 173.3 153.3 161.2 165.7 200.3 197.2 274.3 256.2 224.2 195.3 224.2 204.9 202.5
4 173.8 154.4 161.2 164.5 203.6 198.4 274.3 254.7 223.5 194.0 222.2 202.3 202.2
5 174.4 155.0 161.3 164.0 206.8 201.0 275.8 253.3 222.2 192.7 222.2 199.1 202.3
6 173.8 156.1 161.3 165.1 210.1 203.6 277.3 251.8 221.5 193.4 221.5 196.5 202.7
7 172.1 157.2 161.3 165.7 212.7 204.9 275.8 250.3 220.8 194.0 220.8 193.4 202.4
8 170.3 158.3 161.3 169.2 216.1 206.8 276.6 248.9 220.1 195.3 220.1 189.0 202.7
9 169.2 159.4 161.3 168.0 216.1 208.8 277.3 247.4 219.4 195.9 219.4 187.8 202.5
10 168.6 160.6 161.3 168.0 214.7 213.4 278.1 247.4 218.8 195.9 219.2 184.7 202.6
11 167.4 161.1 161.4 170.3 214.1 215.4 278.9 246.0 218.1 194.6 218.7 182.2 202.4
12 166.3 162.3 161.4 170.9 212.1 218.1 279.7 244.5 216.7 194.0 218.3 181.0 202.1
13 165.1 162.8 161.4 171.5 210.1 223.5 278.9 243.1 215.4 193.4 217.8 181.6 202.1
14 164.5 163.4 161.4 172.1 208.1 228.3 277.3 241.7 214.1 192.7 217.4 182.2 201.9
15 163.4 164.5 161.4 172.7 207.5 228.3 277.3 240.2 213.4 190.9 216.9 183.5 201.7
16 162.3 165.1 161.5 173.8 206.8 231.8 278.1 238.8 212.1 189.6 216.5 184.7 201.8
17 161.1 165.7 161.5 175.0 204.2 234.6 277.3 237.4 210.8 187.1 216.0 185.9 201.4
18 160.0 165.7 161.5 176.2 200.3 237.4 275.8 235.3 208.8 185.9 215.6 187.1 200.8
19 160.0 164.5 161.5 176.8 200.3 241.7 273.5 233.9 207.5 184.7 215.1 187.1 200.6
20 158.3 164.0 161.5 176.8 197.8 243.1 272.7 233.2 206.8 184.1 214.6 184.7 199.8
21 157.2 163.4 161.5 177.4 195.9 244.5 271.2 232.5 206.2 183.5 214.2 182.8 199.2
22 156.6 162.8 161.6 178.0 194.6 249.6 269.7 232.5 204.9 182.8 213.7 182.2 199.1
23 156.1 162.3 161.6 178.6 194.0 251.1 268.2 231.1 203.6 183.5 213.3 219.4 201.9
24 155.0 162.3 161.6 180.4 193.4 256.2 268.2 230.4 202.3 184.1 212.8 179.8 198.9
25 154.4 161.7 161.6 181.6 192.1 259.9 265.9 229.0 201.0 184.7 212.4 177.4 198.5
26 153.9 161.1 161.6 182.8 191.5 262.9 265.1 229.0 201.0 185.9 211.9 177.4 198.7
27 153.9 161.1 161.6 184.1 190.9 265.1 263.6 227.6 199.7 187.1 211.5 176.8 198.6
28 152.8 161.2 161.7 187.1 189.6 269.7 262.1 227.6 199.7 187.1 210.1 176.2 198.7
29 152.2 161.7 189.0 191.5 269.7 261.4 228.3 199.1 227.6 211.4 176.5 206.2
30 151.7 162.3 191.5 192.7 271.2 260.6 226.9 198.4 226.3 210.1 176.5 206.2
31 151.1 163.4 194.0 258.4 226.3 225.6 176.5 199.3
Max 174.4 165.7 163.4 191.5 216.1 271.2 279.7 257.7 225.6 227.6 225.6 219.4
Mean 162.6 160.5 161.5 174.2 201.7 230.9 272.2 240.0 212.0 193.7 216.9 187.6 201.2
Min 151.1 152.2 161.2 164.0 189.6 194.6 258.4 226.3 198.4 182.8 210.1 176.2

1982
1 166.8 166.8 166.8 169.2 172.7 236.7 306.0 306.0 285.1 277.3 250.3 280.4 232.0
2 166.8 166.8 166.8 169.2 172.7 254.0 306.0 306.0 283.6 277.3 251.8 281.2 233.5
3 166.8 166.8 166.8 169.2 172.1 256.2 306.0 306.0 282.0 278.9 253.3 280.4 233.7
4 166.8 166.8 166.8 169.2 172.1 259.2 306.8 305.1 280.4 278.9 254.7 280.4 233.9
5 166.8 166.8 167.4 169.7 172.7 262.9 307.6 305.1 278.9 280.4 254.7 280.4 234.5
6 166.8 166.8 168.0 169.7 173.8 264.4 307.6 304.3 277.3 282.0 255.5 281.2 234.8
7 166.8 166.8 168.0 170.3 176.2 267.4 307.6 304.3 276.6 283.6 256.2 281.2 235.4
8 166.8 166.8 168.0 170.3 178.6 270.4 307.6 304.3 276.6 285.1 257.7 281.2 236.1
9 166.8 166.8 168.0 170.3 183.5 273.5 307.6 304.3 276.6 286.7 259.2 281.2 237.0
10 166.8 166.8 168.0 170.3 186.5 276.6 308.4 303.5 275.8 288.3 260.6 281.2 237.7
11 166.8 166.8 169.2 170.3 187.8 279.7 308.4 303.5 275.8 289.9 262.1 281.2 238.5
12 166.8 166.8 169.2 170.9 189.0 282.8 309.2 302.7 274.3 291.5 263.6 281.2 239.0
13 166.8 166.8 169.2 170.9 190.2 285.9 309.2 302.7 274.3 293.0 263.6 281.2 239.5
14 166.8 166.8 169.2 170.9 192.7 289.1 309.2 302.7 275.0 294.6 263.6 280.4 240.1
15 166.8 166.8 169.2 170.9 195.9 292.3 308.4 302.7 274.3 296.2 265.1 279.7 240.7
16 166.8 166.8 169.2 170.9 197.2 295.4 308.4 301.9 275.0 297.9 266.7 280.4 241.4
17 166.8 166.8 169.7 170.9 199.7 298.7 307.6 301.9 274.3 299.5 268.2 279.7 242.0
18 166.8 166.8 169.7 170.3 202.9 301.9 307.6 301.1 275.0 301.1 269.7 278.9 242.7
19 166.8 166.8 169.7 170.3 205.5 305.1 307.6 301.1 275.8 302.7 271.2 278.9 243.5
20 166.8 166.8 169.7 170.3 208.1 308.4 307.6 301.1 275.8 304.3 272.7 278.1 244.2
21 166.8 166.8 169.2 170.3 210.1 308.4 306.8 301.1 275.8 306.0 274.3 278.1 244.5
22 166.8 166.8 169.2 170.3 210.1 306.8 306.8 301.1 275.0 307.6 275.8 278.9 244.6
23 166.8 166.8 169.2 170.9 212.1 306.0 306.8 299.5 275.0 309.2 277.3 278.1 244.8
24 166.8 166.8 169.2 170.9 214.7 306.8 306.0 297.9 275.8 310.9 278.9 277.3 245.2
25 166.8 166.8 169.2 170.9 221.5 307.6 306.0 296.2 275.8 312.5 280.4 277.3 245.9
26 166.8 166.8 169.2 170.9 225.6 307.6 306.0 294.6 275.8 314.2 280.4 277.3 246.3
27 166.8 166.8 169.2 170.9 228.3 306.8 306.0 293.0 276.6 315.9 280.4 276.6 246.4
28 166.8 166.8 169.2 172.1 228.3 306.8 306.0 295.4 276.6 317.5 280.4 276.6 246.9
29 166.8 169.2 172.7 229.0 306.8 306.0 290.7 277.3 241.7 280.4 277.3 247.1
30 166.8 169.2 172.7 229.7 306.0 306.0 288.3 277.3 243.1 280.4 276.6 246.9
31 166.8 169.2 230.4 306.0 286.7 247.4 276.6 240.4
Max 166.8 166.8 169.7 172.7 230.4 308.4 309.2 306.0 285.1 317.5 280.4 281.2
Mean 166.8 166.8 168.7 170.6 199.0 287.7 307.2 300.5 276.8 290.8 267.0 279.3 240.1
Min 166.8 166.8 166.8 169.2 172.1 236.7 306.0 286.7 274.3 241.7 250.3 276.6

1983
1 276.6 270.4 267.4 368.1 383.7 306.0 290.7 278.9 246.0 203.6 198.4 188.4 273.2
2 276.6 270.4 267.4 369.0 383.7 306.0 293.0 278.9 244.5 202.3 198.4 188.4 273.2
3 276.6 269.7 268.2 369.9 384.6 306.0 292.3 277.3 243.1 201.0 197.8 188.4 272.9
4 276.6 269.7 268.9 370.8 384.6 305.1 292.3 277.3 241.7 200.3 197.8 188.4 272.8
5 276.6 269.7 269.7 371.7 385.6 304.3 291.5 277.3 240.2 199.1 197.8 188.4 272.7
6 276.6 269.7 270.4 372.6 385.6 304.3 291.5 276.6 238.8 199.1 197.8 188.4 272.6
7 276.6 269.7 271.2 373.6 386.5 303.5 290.7 276.6 237.4 198.4 197.8 188.4 272.5
8 276.6 269.7 272.0 374.5 386.5 303.5 290.7 275.0 235.3 198.4 197.8 188.4 272.4
9 276.6 268.9 272.7 375.4 387.4 302.7 289.9 274.3 233.9 198.4 197.2 188.4 272.1
10 276.6 268.9 273.5 376.3 387.4 302.7 289.9 273.5 232.5 198.4 197.2 188.4 272.1
11 276.6 268.9 274.3 376.3 388.4 301.9 289.1 272.7 231.1 198.4 197.2 187.8 271.9
12 276.6 266.7 275.0 376.3 388.4 301.9 289.1 272.0 229.7 197.8 196.5 187.1 271.4
13 276.6 268.2 275.0 377.2 389.3 301.1 288.3 271.2 228.3 197.8 196.5 186.5 271.3
14 276.6 268.2 275.0 377.2 389.3 300.3 288.3 270.4 226.9 198.4 196.5 185.9 271.1
15 276.6 268.2 275.8 377.2 390.3 300.3 287.5 269.7 225.6 198.4 195.9 185.3 270.9
16 276.6 267.4 275.8 377.2 390.3 299.5 287.5 268.9 224.2 198.4 195.3 184.1 270.4
17 276.6 267.4 275.8 378.2 391.2 298.7 286.7 268.2 222.8 198.4 194.6 183.5 270.2
18 275.8 267.4 276.6 378.2 391.2 297.9 286.7 267.4 221.5 197.8 194.0 183.5 269.8
19 275.0 267.4 277.3 378.2 392.1 297.9 285.9 265.9 219.4 197.8 193.4 183.5 269.5
20 274.3 267.4 277.3 378.2 392.1 297.0 285.9 264.4 218.8 198.4 192.7 183.5 269.2
21 273.5 266.7 278.1 379.1 393.1 297.0 285.1 262.9 217.4 198.4 192.1 183.5 268.9
22 272.7 266.7 278.9 379.1 393.1 296.2 285.1 261.4 216.1 198.4 191.5 183.5 268.6
23 272.0 266.7 279.7 379.1 393.1 296.2 284.4 259.9 214.7 198.4 190.2 183.5 268.2
24 271.2 266.7 280.4 380.0 394.0 295.4 283.6 258.4 213.4 197.8 190.2 183.5 267.9
25 270.4 266.7 280.4 380.0 394.0 295.4 283.6 256.9 212.1 197.8 189.6 183.5 267.5
26 269.7 266.7 281.2 380.9 395.0 294.6 282.0 255.5 210.1 198.4 189.0 183.5 267.2
27 268.2 266.7 282.0 380.9 395.0 294.6 281.2 254.0 208.8 198.4 188.4 183.5 266.8
28 267.4 266.7 282.8 380.9 395.0 293.8 280.4 252.5 207.5 198.4 188.4 183.5 266.4
29 270.4 367.2 380.9 306.8 293.8 279.7 251.1 206.2 198.4 188.4 183.5 266.0
30 270.4 367.2 382.8 306.8 293.8 279.7 248.9 204.9 198.4 188.4 183.5 265.9
31 270.4 367.2 306.8 279.7 247.4 198.4 183.5 264.8
Max 276.6 270.4 367.2 382.8 395.0 306.0 293.0 278.9 246.0 203.6 198.4 188.4
Mean 274.3 268.1 284.0 376.7 381.6 299.7 286.8 266.6 225.1 198.8 194.2 185.6 270.1
Min 267.4 266.7 267.4 368.1 306.8 293.8 279.7 247.4 204.9 197.8 188.4 183.5

1985
1 161.7 162.3 155.0 164.0 231.1 233.9 282.0 258.4 226.3 194.0 181.0 181.0 202.5
2 159.4 160.6 155.5 162.8 237.4 236.7 283.6 256.9 224.9 193.4 181.0 181.0 202.8
3 158.3 160.6 155.5 162.8 236.7 241.0 282.8 255.5 224.9 192.1 181.0 181.0 202.7
4 157.7 160.0 156.6 163.4 238.8 244.5 283.6 254.0 216.7 192.1 181.0 181.0 202.5
5 159.4 161.7 157.7 163.4 234.6 250.3 283.6 252.5 215.4 191.5 181.0 181.0 202.7
6 157.2 161.1 157.2 164.0 229.0 255.5 283.6 250.3 214.7 190.2 181.0 181.0 202.1
7 156.1 160.6 156.1 164.5 224.9 258.4 283.6 249.6 214.1 189.6 181.0 181.0 201.6
8 155.5 160.6 156.1 165.1 220.1 259.9 282.0 248.1 212.7 188.4 181.0 181.0 200.9
9 155.0 160.0 155.5 165.7 220.1 262.1 282.0 246.7 212.1 188.4 181.0 181.0 200.8
10 155.0 159.4 155.5 167.4 211.4 265.9 280.4 243.8 211.4 188.4 181.0 181.0 200.1
11 154.4 160.6 155.0 170.9 208.1 270.4 279.7 242.4 210.1 186.5 181.0 181.0 200.0
12 153.9 161.1 154.4 173.8 205.5 272.7 278.9 241.0 210.1 185.9 181.0 181.0 199.9
13 153.9 162.3 153.9 178.0 202.3 276.6 277.3 240.2 210.1 184.7 181.0 181.0 200.1
14 152.8 160.0 153.9 181.6 201.0 278.9 275.8 239.5 208.8 184.7 181.0 181.0 199.9
15 152.2 158.3 153.3 184.1 202.3 278.9 277.3 238.1 208.1 183.5 181.0 181.0 199.8
16 151.7 157.2 153.9 186.5 201.0 280.4 274.3 236.7 207.5 183.5 181.0 181.0 199.5
17 153.3 156.6 154.4 190.2 201.0 278.9 273.5 235.3 207.5 182.2 181.0 181.0 199.6
18 152.8 156.1 154.4 192.7 202.3 280.4 272.0 233.9 206.2 182.2 181.0 181.0 199.6
19 151.7 155.5 155.0 194.0 203.6 282.8 272.0 232.5 204.9 183.5 181.0 181.0 199.8
20 153.3 155.0 154.4 196.5 206.2 283.6 271.2 231.1 203.6 184.1 181.0 181.0 200.1
21 153.3 154.4 156.1 199.1 207.5 284.4 269.7 230.4 202.3 185.3 181.0 181.0 200.4
22 153.9 154.4 156.1 201.6 208.1 285.1 268.2 229.0 201.6 185.9 181.0 181.0 200.5
23 153.9 153.9 160.0 202.9 209.4 286.7 267.4 228.3 200.3 184.7 181.0 181.0 200.8
24 153.3 155.0 160.6 203.6 213.4 285.1 266.7 227.6 199.1 183.5 181.0 181.0 200.8
25 154.4 155.5 160.6 209.4 214.1 283.6 265.1 226.3 198.4 183.5 181.0 181.0 201.1
26 155.5 155.5 159.4 212.7 215.4 282.8 263.6 225.6 197.2 182.2 181.0 181.0 201.0
27 156.1 156.1 161.1 217.4 216.7 283.6 262.9 224.9 197.2 181.6 181.0 181.0 201.6
28 156.1 155.5 162.8 221.5 218.1 282.8 262.9 223.5 195.9 181.0 181.0 181.0 201.8
29 158.3 163.4 226.3 221.5 283.6 262.1 229.0 195.9 181.0 181.0 190.2 208.4
30 160.6 163.4 231.1 224.9 283.6 260.6 228.3 194.6 181.0 181.0 189.0 208.9
31 161.7 165.1 229.0 259.2 226.9 181.0 187.8 201.5
Max 161.7 162.3 165.1 231.1 238.8 286.7 283.6 258.4 226.3 194.0 181.0 190.2
Mean 155.5 158.2 157.1 187.2 216.0 271.1 273.8 238.3 207.7 185.8 181.0 181.8 201.1
Min 151.7 153.9 153.3 162.8 201.0 233.9 259.2 223.5 194.6 181.0 181.0 181.0

1986
1 187.1 183.5 181.6 191.5 237.4 293.0 337.9 342.3 282.8 238.1 199.7 184.7 238.3
2 185.9 183.5 182.2 192.1 238.8 294.6 340.5 341.4 281.2 236.0 201.0 185.9 238.6
3 184.7 184.7 182.2 195.3 241.0 297.0 342.3 338.8 280.4 234.6 200.3 187.1 239.0
4 184.1 184.7 182.2 196.5 242.4 297.9 344.9 337.1 278.9 233.9 199.1 187.8 239.1
5 182.8 183.5 182.2 198.4 243.8 299.5 346.6 336.2 277.3 232.5 197.8 189.0 239.1
6 181.6 183.5 183.5 199.1 245.3 301.9 347.5 334.5 275.0 231.1 195.9 189.0 239.0
7 181.0 182.8 183.5 200.3 248.1 302.7 349.3 331.9 272.7 230.4 195.9 187.8 238.9
8 179.8 182.2 184.1 201.6 249.6 304.3 350.2 330.2 271.2 223.5 195.9 187.1 238.3
9 179.8 182.2 184.7 202.9 251.1 305.1 348.4 328.5 270.4 228.3 195.9 185.9 238.6
10 177.4 182.2 185.9 206.8 253.3 306.8 346.6 326.8 268.9 226.3 196.5 184.7 238.5
11 176.8 181.0 185.9 206.8 255.5 307.6 349.3 324.2 267.4 224.9 199.7 184.1 238.6
12 176.2 180.4 187.1 209.4 257.7 309.2 352.8 322.6 266.7 222.2 195.3 182.8 238.5
13 175.0 179.8 185.9 212.1 259.2 310.1 354.6 320.9 265.1 219.4 194.0 182.8 238.2
14 182.2 179.8 184.7 213.4 261.4 310.9 357.3 318.4 264.4 216.1 192.7 183.5 238.7
15 182.2 181.0 184.1 214.7 262.9 312.5 358.2 316.7 262.9 215.4 191.5 184.7 238.9
16 182.8 179.8 184.7 216.7 264.4 313.4 360.0 314.2 261.4 214.7 190.2 186.5 239.1
17 182.2 179.8 183.5 217.4 265.9 314.2 361.8 312.5 259.9 213.4 189.0 187.1 238.9
18 181.0 181.0 184.7 218.1 268.2 315.9 364.5 310.1 258.4 211.4 188.4 188.4 239.2
19 181.0 181.6 185.3 218.1 270.4 316.7 365.4 312.5 256.9 210.1 187.1 189.0 239.5
20 181.6 182.2 185.3 219.4 272.0 318.4 365.4 305.1 254.7 208.8 187.1 189.6 239.1
21 182.2 182.2 184.1 220.1 273.5 319.2 364.5 303.5 253.3 207.5 187.1 190.9 239.0
22 182.2 182.8 183.5 220.8 275.8 320.9 363.6 301.9 251.1 205.5 185.9 190.9 238.7
23 183.5 183.5 183.5 222.2 278.9 321.7 360.0 297.9 249.6 204.2 187.1 189.6 238.5
24 183.5 183.5 184.7 222.8 280.4 323.4 358.2 296.2 248.9 202.9 185.9 189.0 238.3
25 183.5 182.8 184.7 224.9 281.2 325.1 356.4 293.8 247.4 202.3 187.1 188.4 238.1
26 183.5 182.2 184.7 226.3 283.6 325.9 355.5 292.3 246.0 201.0 186.5 187.8 237.9
27 183.5 181.6 185.9 229.0 285.9 327.6 352.8 290.7 245.3 201.6 185.9 186.5 238.0
28 183.5 181.0 186.5 231.8 287.5 331.0 351.0 288.3 243.8 199.7 184.7 185.9 237.9
29 182.8 187.8 234.6 288.3 335.3 347.5 285.9 241.0 199.7 184.1 186.5 243.0
30 182.2 189.6 235.3 290.7 337.1 346.6 285.1 239.5 198.4 183.5 187.1 243.2
31 183.5 190.2 293.0 344.9 283.6 198.4 188.4 240.3
Max 187.1 184.7 190.2 235.3 293.0 337.1 365.4 342.3 282.8 238.1 201.0 190.9
Mean 181.9 182.1 184.8 213.3 264.7 313.3 353.0 313.7 261.4 215.9 191.7 187.0 238.6
Min 175.0 179.8 181.6 191.5 237.4 293.0 337.9 283.6 239.5 198.4 183.5 182.8

1987
1 187.8 192.1 199.7 230.4 259.9 268.9 260.6 264.4 236.7 194.6 186.5 224.4 225.5
2 187.1 191.5 200.3 231.8 260.6 270.4 259.2 263.6 235.3 194.0 185.9 225.4 225.4
3 185.9 190.2 201.6 232.5 262.1 271.2 257.7 262.1 233.9 193.4 185.3 226.3 225.2
4 185.9 189.0 202.9 234.6 262.9 272.7 259.2 260.6 232.5 192.7 184.7 227.2 225.4
5 187.1 189.0 203.6 236.0 264.4 272.7 260.6 260.6 231.1 192.1 184.7 228.1 225.8
6 187.1 190.2 204.9 236.0 265.1 272.7 261.4 259.2 229.7 190.9 184.7 229.1 225.9
7 186.5 191.5 205.5 238.1 266.7 272.7 262.9 258.4 228.3 190.9 183.5 230.0 226.2
8 185.9 192.7 206.8 240.2 267.4 274.3 263.6 256.9 226.9 189.6 183.5 230.9 226.6
9 185.9 193.4 207.5 241.7 268.2 272.7 265.1 256.2 225.6 190.2 183.5 231.8 226.8
10 185.3 192.1 208.8 243.8 268.2 272.0 266.7 255.5 224.2 190.9 185.3 232.8 227.1
11 184.7 193.4 209.4 246.7 266.7 271.2 268.2 254.7 222.8 192.1 186.5 233.7 227.5
12 184.7 194.6 210.8 248.1 267.4 271.2 269.7 253.3 221.5 190.9 188.4 234.7 227.9
13 183.5 195.9 212.1 249.6 268.9 269.7 271.2 252.5 220.1 190.9 189.6 235.6 228.3
14 182.8 194.6 213.4 251.1 269.7 268.2 272.7 251.8 218.8 192.1 190.2 236.5 228.5
15 182.8 194.0 214.7 251.8 271.2 266.7 273.5 251.8 217.4 192.7 191.5 237.5 228.8
16 184.1 192.7 216.7 253.3 272.0 265.9 275.0 250.3 216.1 192.7 193.4 238.4 229.2
17 184.7 192.1 222.2 254.0 272.7 265.1 275.8 249.6 214.7 192.1 196.5 239.4 229.9
18 185.9 193.4 221.5 254.7 274.3 265.1 277.3 248.9 212.1 190.9 199.1 240.3 230.3
19 185.9 194.6 224.2 253.3 274.3 263.6 278.9 247.4 210.8 190.9 200.3 241.3 230.5
20 184.7 193.4 226.3 254.0 275.0 265.1 280.4 246.7 209.4 189.6 202.9 242.2 230.8
21 185.3 194.6 227.6 254.7 275.0 266.7 278.9 246.0 208.1 189.6 208.8 243.2 231.5
22 186.5 195.9 225.6 256.2 274.3 266.7 277.3 245.3 206.8 189.6 210.8 244.2 231.6
23 187.1 197.2 225.6 256.2 272.7 267.4 275.8 244.5 205.5 189.6 214.1 245.1 231.7
24 185.9 197.8 226.3 256.2 272.0 268.9 274.3 243.8 203.6 190.2 218.1 246.1 231.9
25 185.9 199.1 227.6 256.2 271.2 268.9 273.5 243.1 202.3 190.2 219.4 247.1 232.0
26 187.1 200.3 227.6 256.9 271.2 267.4 272.0 241.7 200.3 189.0 219.4 248.0 231.8
27 187.8 200.3 229.0 257.7 269.7 265.1 271.2 243.1 199.1 187.8 220.8 249.0 231.7
28 188.4 200.3 229.0 257.7 269.7 263.6 269.7 242.4 197.8 186.5 221.7 250.0 231.4
29 189.6 229.7 259.2 268.2 262.9 268.9 241.0 196.5 185.9 222.6 251.0 234.1
30 190.2 229.7 259.2 266.7 261.4 267.4 239.5 195.9 185.9 223.5 251.9 233.8
31 190.9 229.7 267.4 265.9 238.1 187.1 252.9 233.1
Max 190.9 200.3 229.7 259.2 275.0 274.3 280.4 264.4 236.7 194.6 223.5 252.9
Mean 186.2 194.1 216.8 248.4 268.9 268.4 269.5 250.7 216.1 190.5 198.8 238.5 228.9
Min 182.8 189.0 199.7 230.4 259.9 261.4 257.7 238.1 195.9 185.9 183.5 224.4

1989
1 220.8 231.1 275.0 365.4 416.1 469.6 450.0 394.0 339.7 297.9 275.8 279.7 334.6
2 220.8 231.8 278.1 365.4 417.1 469.6 448.0 393.1 338.8 296.2 275.8 279.7 334.5
3 220.8 231.8 282.0 366.3 417.1 469.6 443.9 391.2 337.9 295.4 275.0 280.4 334.3
4 221.5 232.5 285.9 366.3 418.0 471.7 442.9 387.4 337.1 295.4 275.0 281.2 334.6
5 221.5 232.5 290.7 366.3 419.0 471.7 442.9 384.6 335.3 294.6 274.3 281.2 334.6
6 221.5 233.2 293.8 367.2 420.0 472.7 441.9 383.7 335.3 294.6 272.7 280.4 334.8
7 222.2 233.2 296.2 370.8 421.0 473.8 440.9 382.8 334.5 293.8 269.7 282.8 335.1
8 222.2 233.9 298.7 372.6 419.0 473.8 439.9 381.9 333.6 292.3 271.2 284.4 335.3
9 222.2 233.9 301.1 373.6 424.9 473.8 438.9 378.2 331.9 290.7 271.2 286.7 335.6
10 222.8 234.6 303.5 374.5 427.9 473.8 436.9 375.4 328.5 289.9 271.2 284.4 335.3
11 222.8 234.6 306.8 374.5 428.9 472.7 434.9 374.5 325.1 289.1 270.4 282.0 334.7
12 222.8 235.3 309.2 376.3 432.9 471.7 432.9 372.6 323.4 288.3 269.7 279.7 334.6
13 223.5 236.7 315.0 378.2 436.9 471.7 431.9 369.0 321.7 287.5 269.7 278.9 335.0
14 223.5 237.4 317.5 380.9 453.1 470.6 430.9 367.2 318.4 286.7 268.9 278.1 336.1
15 224.2 238.8 320.0 383.7 461.3 470.6 426.9 366.3 315.9 285.9 269.7 278.1 336.8
16 224.2 241.0 322.6 386.5 468.6 469.6 424.9 365.4 314.2 285.1 269.7 275.8 337.3
17 224.9 243.1 327.6 392.1 472.7 468.6 423.9 363.6 313.4 284.4 268.9 273.5 338.1
18 224.9 246.0 329.3 394.0 476.9 467.5 423.0 361.8 311.7 283.6 268.9 273.5 338.4
19 225.6 248.1 343.1 395.0 480.1 466.5 422.0 360.0 311.7 282.0 268.2 275.0 339.8
20 225.6 250.3 347.5 395.9 480.1 464.4 419.0 358.2 310.9 282.0 268.2 275.8 339.8
21 226.3 252.5 355.5 396.9 479.1 464.4 417.1 355.5 310.1 281.2 266.7 278.1 340.3
22 226.9 254.7 357.3 398.8 479.1 463.4 416.1 352.8 309.2 280.4 265.9 278.9 340.3
23 226.9 256.9 357.3 400.7 475.9 463.4 415.1 350.2 307.6 279.7 265.9 279.7 339.9
24 227.6 259.2 357.3 401.6 475.9 462.3 414.2 348.4 306.0 278.9 265.9 279.7 339.7
25 227.6 261.4 358.2 404.5 474.8 461.3 412.2 347.5 305.1 278.1 264.4 279.7 339.6
26 228.3 264.4 359.1 406.4 473.8 461.3 409.3 345.8 303.5 277.3 265.1 279.7 339.5
27 229.0 268.9 361.8 407.4 472.7 460.3 405.5 343.1 302.7 276.6 272.0 279.7 340.0
28 229.7 272.7 362.7 408.3 472.7 459.2 403.5 342.3 301.9 275.8 273.5 278.9 340.1
29 230.4 362.7 409.3 471.7 456.1 399.7 341.4 301.1 275.8 272.0 278.9 345.4
30 230.4 363.6 411.2 470.6 452.0 396.9 340.5 299.5 275.8 276.6 281.2 345.3
31 231.1 364.5 470.6 395.0 340.5 275.0 289.1 338.0
Max 231.1 272.7 364.5 411.2 480.1 473.8 450.0 394.0 339.7 297.9 276.6 289.1
Mean 224.9 243.9 325.9 386.3 451.9 467.3 425.2 365.1 318.9 285.5 270.4 279.8 337.1
Min 220.8 231.1 275.0 365.4 416.1 452.0 395.0 340.5 299.5 275.0 264.4 273.5

1990
1 289.9 266.7 305.1 319.2 445.9 444.9 410.3 355.5 301.9 270.4 255.5 257.7 326.9
2 289.1 267.4 306.0 320.0 451.0 444.9 408.3 353.7 301.9 269.7 255.5 258.4 327.2
3 289.9 268.2 306.0 323.4 453.1 442.9 406.4 352.8 301.1 268.2 254.7 259.2 327.1
4 285.9 268.9 306.0 325.1 452.0 440.9 404.5 350.2 297.9 266.7 254.0 259.2 325.9
5 285.9 269.7 307.6 329.3 450.0 438.9 402.6 348.4 297.0 265.9 256.9 259.2 326.0
6 285.9 270.4 308.4 331.0 450.0 438.9 400.7 346.6 294.6 265.1 259.2 256.9 325.7
7 288.3 271.2 310.1 335.3 449.0 437.9 399.7 344.9 292.3 263.6 260.6 258.4 325.9
8 287.5 272.7 310.9 339.7 448.0 437.9 398.8 343.1 291.5 262.9 262.1 259.2 326.2
9 288.3 275.8 310.1 344.0 449.0 438.9 396.9 341.4 289.9 262.1 262.1 261.4 326.7
10 281.2 276.6 309.2 351.9 449.0 433.9 395.9 339.7 289.9 260.6 261.4 262.9 326.0
11 279.7 276.6 308.4 359.1 449.0 432.9 394.0 337.1 289.1 259.9 260.6 262.1 325.7
12 276.6 279.7 307.6 367.2 450.0 431.9 392.1 333.6 288.3 259.9 260.6 261.4 325.7
13 277.3 280.4 306.8 375.4 452.0 430.9 391.2 331.0 286.7 259.2 259.2 259.9 325.8
14 272.7 281.2 306.8 382.8 454.1 429.9 387.4 330.2 284.4 259.2 259.2 261.4 325.8
15 272.7 282.0 307.6 386.5 456.1 428.9 381.9 329.3 282.8 258.4 258.4 260.6 325.4
16 271.2 282.8 308.4 389.3 458.2 427.9 380.0 328.5 282.0 258.4 258.4 262.9 325.7
17 269.7 282.8 309.2 390.3 458.2 426.9 378.2 326.8 281.2 257.7 257.7 265.9 325.4
18 266.7 286.7 309.2 393.1 458.2 425.9 378.2 324.2 280.4 257.7 256.9 264.4 325.1
19 267.4 293.8 310.1 395.0 456.1 424.9 377.2 322.6 279.7 256.9 256.2 261.4 325.1
20 268.2 293.8 310.1 397.8 456.1 423.0 377.2 320.9 278.9 259.2 256.2 259.2 325.0
21 267.4 296.2 309.2 401.6 455.1 422.0 375.4 320.0 277.3 258.4 254.0 258.4 324.6
22 266.7 297.9 310.1 406.4 455.1 421.0 374.5 318.4 275.0 258.4 251.1 256.9 324.3
23 267.4 299.5 310.9 409.3 454.1 421.0 373.6 315.0 272.7 257.7 249.6 255.5 323.8
24 267.4 302.7 310.9 412.2 453.1 420.0 370.8 314.2 272.0 256.9 250.3 254.7 323.8
25 267.4 305.1 310.9 413.4 451.0 419.0 368.1 312.5 272.0 257.7 251.8 254.0 323.6
26 266.7 306.0 312.5 418.0 449.0 418.0 366.3 311.7 272.7 257.7 253.3 253.3 323.8
27 267.4 306.0 313.4 422.0 448.0 415.1 364.5 309.2 272.7 257.7 254.0 253.3 323.6
28 267.4 306.8 314.2 428.9 448.0 413.2 362.7 307.6 271.2 256.9 255.5 253.3 323.8
29 268.2 316.7 431.9 446.9 412.2 360.9 306.8 270.4 256.2 256.2 253.3 325.4
30 268.2 317.5 438.9 445.9 411.2 360.0 305.1 271.2 256.2 256.9 252.5 325.8
31 267.4 318.4 444.9 357.3 302.7 256.2 252.5 314.2
Max 289.9 306.8 318.4 438.9 458.2 444.9 410.3 355.5 301.9 270.4 262.1 265.9
Mean 275.3 284.6 309.9 377.9 451.5 428.5 383.7 328.5 284.0 260.4 256.6 258.4 324.9
Min 266.7 266.7 305.1 319.2 444.9 411.2 357.3 302.7 270.4 256.2 249.6 252.5

1991
1 252.5 251.8 254.0 271.2 294.6 344.0 348.4 315.0 288.3 262.9 257.7 254.7 282.9
2 252.5 251.8 254.0 273.5 297.0 326.8 348.4 315.0 287.5 262.1 257.7 254.7 281.8
3 251.8 251.8 253.3 272.7 300.3 320.9 339.7 314.2 286.7 260.6 257.7 254.7 280.4
4 251.1 251.8 253.3 274.3 301.9 319.2 348.4 314.2 286.7 259.9 257.7 255.5 281.2
5 250.3 251.8 253.3 275.0 301.1 317.5 357.3 313.4 285.9 259.2 257.7 254.7 281.4
6 248.9 251.8 254.7 275.0 299.5 315.9 357.3 311.7 284.4 260.6 257.7 254.0 280.9
7 248.1 251.8 254.7 275.0 298.7 314.2 361.8 310.9 283.6 262.1 257.7 254.0 281.0
8 247.4 251.8 255.5 274.3 297.0 314.2 357.3 309.2 282.8 262.9 257.7 253.3 280.3
9 246.7 251.8 254.7 275.8 295.4 315.0 366.3 307.6 281.2 265.1 257.7 253.3 280.9
10 246.0 251.8 256.2 275.8 294.6 315.0 357.3 306.8 281.2 265.9 257.7 252.5 280.1
11 246.0 251.8 257.7 275.8 293.0 315.9 357.3 306.0 281.2 266.7 257.7 251.8 280.1
12 243.8 251.8 259.2 275.8 292.3 315.9 357.3 306.0 279.7 266.7 256.9 251.8 279.7
13 253.3 251.8 259.2 275.8 291.5 316.7 348.4 299.5 278.9 266.7 255.5 251.8 279.1
14 253.3 251.8 258.4 275.8 291.5 317.5 339.7 300.3 278.1 266.7 255.5 251.8 278.4
15 253.3 251.8 257.7 275.8 292.3 318.4 339.7 300.3 277.3 265.1 255.5 251.1 278.2
16 253.3 251.8 256.9 277.3 293.0 318.4 331.0 299.5 275.8 264.4 254.7 251.8 277.3
17 253.3 251.8 256.2 277.3 293.8 321.7 322.6 298.7 273.5 263.6 254.7 251.8 276.6
18 252.5 251.8 255.5 277.3 295.4 335.3 322.6 298.7 273.5 262.9 254.7 251.1 277.6
19 251.8 251.8 254.7 276.6 296.2 348.4 322.6 297.9 272.7 262.1 255.5 251.1 278.4
20 253.3 251.8 254.7 275.8 302.7 352.8 321.7 297.0 270.4 261.4 256.2 250.3 279.0
21 252.5 251.8 254.0 275.8 301.9 357.3 321.7 296.2 268.2 260.6 256.9 250.3 278.9
22 252.5 251.8 254.0 276.6 303.5 370.8 319.2 296.2 265.9 263.6 257.7 249.6 280.1
23 253.3 251.8 254.7 277.3 306.0 398.8 318.4 295.4 265.9 265.1 259.9 249.6 283.0
24 252.5 251.8 256.9 278.1 309.2 394.0 318.4 294.6 266.7 265.1 261.4 248.9 283.1
25 252.5 251.8 259.9 278.1 314.2 375.4 318.4 293.8 266.7 262.9 261.4 244.5 281.6
26 251.8 251.1 262.1 277.3 320.0 366.3 317.5 293.0 265.9 261.4 258.4 247.4 281.0
27 251.8 252.5 262.9 279.7 321.7 361.8 316.7 290.7 265.9 261.4 256.9 247.4 280.8
28 251.8 253.3 265.1 285.1 321.7 357.3 315.9 290.7 265.1 259.9 256.2 246.7 280.7
29 251.8 266.7 288.3 322.6 348.4 315.9 290.7 264.4 259.9 256.2 246.0 282.8
30 251.8 267.4 291.5 335.3 348.4 315.9 289.1 263.6 258.4 254.7 244.5 283.7
31 251.8 269.7 352.8 315.9 288.3 257.7 243.8 282.8
Max 253.3 253.3 269.7 291.5 352.8 398.8 366.3 315.0 288.3 266.7 261.4 255.5
Mean 251.1 251.8 257.6 277.1 304.2 338.1 335.4 301.3 275.6 262.7 257.1 250.8 280.2
Min 243.8 251.1 253.3 271.2 291.5 314.2 315.9 288.3 263.6 257.7 254.7 243.8

1992
1 243.1 243.1 243.1 246.0 254.0 258.0 273.5 262.1 238.8 238.8 238.8 238.8 248.2
2 242.4 242.4 243.1 248.1 255.5 258.5 273.5 261.4 238.8 238.8 238.8 238.8 248.3
3 241.0 241.0 243.1 249.6 256.9 258.9 274.3 261.4 238.8 238.8 238.8 239.5 248.5
4 241.0 241.0 243.1 251.1 256.9 259.4 274.3 259.2 238.8 238.8 240.2 240.2 248.7
5 242.4 242.4 243.1 252.5 256.9 259.8 274.3 259.9 238.8 238.8 240.2 240.2 249.1
6 243.1 243.1 243.1 254.0 257.7 260.3 273.5 259.2 238.8 238.8 240.2 240.2 249.3
7 242.4 242.4 243.1 254.0 257.7 260.7 272.7 259.2 238.8 238.8 240.2 240.2 249.2
8 241.7 241.7 243.1 253.3 256.9 261.2 272.0 258.4 238.8 238.8 240.2 240.2 248.9
9 240.2 240.2 243.1 251.8 257.7 261.7 272.0 257.7 238.8 238.8 238.8 241.0 248.5
10 239.5 239.5 243.1 251.1 257.7 262.1 272.0 256.9 238.8 238.8 238.8 241.0 248.3
11 239.5 239.5 243.1 250.3 257.7 262.6 271.2 256.2 238.8 238.8 238.8 240.2 248.1
12 238.8 238.8 243.1 249.6 258.4 263.0 271.2 255.5 238.8 238.8 238.8 241.0 248.0
13 238.8 238.8 243.1 248.1 259.2 263.5 271.2 254.0 238.8 238.8 238.8 239.5 247.7
14 238.8 238.8 243.1 246.0 258.4 264.0 270.4 252.5 238.8 238.8 240.2 238.8 247.4
15 238.8 238.8 243.1 244.5 259.2 264.4 270.4 251.8 238.8 238.8 240.2 238.1 247.3
16 238.8 238.8 243.1 243.8 257.7 264.9 270.4 250.3 238.8 238.8 240.2 238.8 247.1
17 238.8 238.8 243.1 243.1 257.7 265.3 269.7 250.3 238.8 238.8 239.5 238.8 246.9
18 238.8 238.8 243.1 243.1 256.9 265.8 269.7 248.9 238.8 238.8 238.8 239.5 246.8
19 236.0 238.8 243.1 243.8 256.9 266.3 269.7 247.4 238.8 238.8 238.8 239.5 246.5
20 236.0 237.4 243.1 243.8 256.9 266.7 268.9 246.0 238.8 238.8 238.8 239.5 246.2
21 237.1 236.0 243.1 244.5 256.2 267.2 268.9 246.0 238.8 238.8 239.5 239.5 246.3
22 238.2 236.0 244.5 246.0 256.9 267.7 268.2 246.0 238.8 238.8 240.2 238.8 246.7
23 239.3 237.4 251.8 246.7 256.9 268.1 267.4 245.3 238.8 238.8 240.2 239.5 247.5
24 240.4 238.8 259.2 247.4 256.2 268.6 266.7 244.5 238.8 238.8 240.2 239.5 248.3
25 241.5 243.1 259.2 248.9 256.9 269.0 265.9 243.8 238.8 238.8 240.2 239.5 248.8
26 242.6 243.1 251.8 251.1 257.7 269.5 265.9 243.1 238.8 238.8 238.8 238.8 248.3
27 243.7 243.1 244.5 251.8 256.2 270.0 265.1 241.7 238.8 238.8 238.8 238.8 247.6
28 244.9 243.1 243.1 253.3 256.2 270.4 265.1 240.2 238.8 238.8 238.8 239.5 247.7
29 246.0 243.1 243.1 253.3 256.6 271.2 265.1 238.8 238.8 238.8 239.5 239.5 247.8
30 244.5 243.8 253.3 257.1 272.7 264.4 238.8 238.8 238.8 240.2 239.5 248.4
31 243.8 244.5 257.6 263.6 238.8 238.8 240.2 246.8
Max 246.0 243.1 259.2 254.0 259.2 272.7 274.3 262.1 238.8 238.8 240.2 241.0
Mean 240.7 240.3 244.9 248.8 257.1 264.7 269.7 250.8 238.8 238.8 239.5 239.6 247.8
Min 236.0 236.0 243.1 243.1 254.0 258.0 263.6 238.8 238.8 238.8 238.8 238.1

1993
1 240.2 241.0 239.5 240.2 240.2 257.7 256.9 252.5 250.3 249.6 234.5 205.1 242.3
2 239.5 241.0 239.5 240.2 240.2 257.7 257.7 252.5 250.3 249.6 233.5 204.2 242.2
3 238.8 240.2 238.8 240.2 241.0 257.7 257.7 252.5 250.3 248.9 232.5 203.2 241.8
4 238.8 240.2 238.8 240.2 241.0 256.9 257.7 252.5 249.6 248.9 231.5 202.3 241.5
5 239.5 240.2 238.8 239.5 241.0 256.9 256.9 252.5 249.6 248.1 230.5 201.3 241.3
6 240.2 240.2 238.8 239.5 241.7 256.9 257.7 252.5 249.6 247.4 229.5 200.4 241.2
7 240.2 239.5 239.5 239.5 241.7 256.9 257.7 252.5 249.6 247.4 228.5 199.5 241.1
8 239.5 239.5 239.5 239.5 242.4 256.9 257.7 251.8 248.9 247.4 227.5 198.6 240.8
9 239.5 239.5 239.5 238.8 242.4 256.2 257.7 251.8 248.9 246.7 226.5 197.6 240.4
10 239.5 238.8 239.5 238.8 243.1 256.2 257.7 251.8 248.9 246.7 225.5 196.7 240.3
11 240.2 239.5 239.5 239.5 243.1 256.2 256.9 251.8 248.9 246.7 224.5 195.8 240.2
12 240.2 239.5 239.5 239.5 243.8 256.2 256.9 251.8 248.9 246.7 223.5 194.9 240.1
13 239.5 239.5 239.5 239.5 243.8 256.2 257.7 251.8 248.9 246.0 222.5 194.0 239.9
14 239.5 239.5 239.5 239.5 241.0 255.5 257.7 251.8 248.9 246.0 221.5 193.0 239.5
15 239.5 239.5 239.5 239.5 241.0 255.5 257.7 251.8 248.9 246.0 220.5 192.1 239.3
16 238.8 239.5 240.2 239.5 244.5 255.5 257.7 251.8 249.6 245.3 219.5 191.2 239.4
17 238.8 240.2 238.8 239.5 248.1 254.7 258.4 251.8 249.6 245.3 218.6 190.3 239.5
18 239.5 240.2 239.5 239.5 248.1 254.7 258.4 251.8 249.6 245.3 217.6 189.4 239.5
19 240.2 240.2 239.5 239.5 249.6 254.7 258.4 251.8 249.6 244.5 216.6 188.5 239.4
20 240.2 240.2 239.5 240.2 249.6 254.0 257.7 258.4 249.6 244.5 215.6 187.6 239.8
21 240.2 239.5 239.5 239.5 250.3 254.0 257.7 251.1 249.6 243.8 214.7 186.7 238.9
22 240.2 240.2 239.5 240.2 251.1 254.0 257.7 251.1 249.6 243.8 213.7 185.8 238.9
23 240.2 239.5 239.5 239.5 251.1 254.0 256.9 251.1 250.3 243.8 212.7 184.9 238.6
24 241.0 240.2 239.5 239.5 253.3 254.0 256.9 251.1 250.3 242.8 211.8 184.0 238.7
25 240.2 239.5 238.8 239.5 254.0 254.0 256.9 251.1 250.3 241.7 210.8 183.2 238.3
26 239.5 239.5 238.8 238.8 254.7 254.0 256.9 251.1 250.3 240.7 209.9 182.3 238.0
27 239.5 239.5 238.8 239.5 256.2 253.3 256.9 251.1 250.3 239.7 208.9 181.4 237.9
28 239.5 239.5 238.8 239.5 256.9 256.2 257.7 250.3 250.3 238.6 207.9 180.5 238.0
29 238.8 238.8 240.2 257.7 256.2 252.5 250.3 250.3 237.6 207.0 179.6 237.2
30 239.5 239.5 240.2 257.7 256.9 253.3 250.3 250.3 236.6 206.0 178.8 237.2
31 239.5 239.5 257.7 253.3 250.3 235.6 177.9 236.3
Max 241.0 241.0 240.2 240.2 257.7 257.7 258.4 258.4 250.3 249.6 234.5 205.1
Mean 239.7 239.9 239.3 239.7 247.4 255.7 257.1 251.8 249.7 244.6 220.1 191.3 239.7
Min 238.8 238.8 238.8 238.8 240.2 253.3 252.5 250.3 248.9 235.6 206.0 177.9

1994
1 177.0 151.3 146.2 149.5 178.6 170.3 153.3 173.8 161.7 150.0 150.0 160.0 160.2
2 176.2 150.5 144.1 148.9 179.2 168.0 153.3 173.3 160.6 150.0 150.0 160.0 159.5
3 175.3 149.7 144.6 149.5 177.4 165.1 153.3 172.7 160.6 150.0 150.0 160.0 159.0
4 174.4 148.9 147.3 150.0 181.0 162.8 153.3 172.7 160.0 150.0 150.0 159.4 159.2
5 173.6 148.1 146.8 151.7 183.5 158.9 153.3 172.1 160.0 150.0 150.0 158.9 158.9
6 172.7 147.4 147.9 154.4 184.1 157.7 153.3 171.5 159.4 150.0 150.0 158.9 158.9
7 171.9 146.6 148.9 156.1 184.1 157.7 152.8 171.5 158.3 150.0 150.0 157.7 158.8
8 171.0 145.8 149.5 158.9 182.2 157.7 152.2 170.9 162.3 150.0 150.0 157.2 159.0
9 170.2 145.0 147.3 161.7 181.0 157.7 151.7 170.9 164.0 150.0 150.0 158.9 159.0
10 169.3 144.3 148.9 161.1 181.0 156.1 151.1 170.3 159.4 150.0 150.0 160.6 158.5
11 168.5 143.5 148.4 159.4 179.8 156.1 151.1 170.3 156.1 150.0 150.0 162.8 158.0
12 167.6 142.7 147.9 159.4 177.4 156.6 151.1 169.7 153.9 150.0 150.0 158.3 157.1
13 166.8 141.9 148.9 158.3 176.2 155.5 151.1 169.7 152.8 150.0 150.0 159.4 156.7
14 166.0 141.2 152.2 158.3 177.4 156.1 151.1 169.7 150.6 150.0 150.0 159.4 156.8
15 165.1 140.4 154.4 157.7 178.0 156.1 150.6 169.7 150.0 150.0 150.0 160.0 156.8
16 164.3 139.9 154.4 160.0 179.8 155.0 150.6 169.7 150.5 150.0 150.0 160.0 157.0
17 163.5 138.3 153.9 162.8 180.4 153.9 150.0 169.2 150.0 150.0 150.0 160.0 156.8
18 162.6 138.3 153.9 164.5 180.4 153.9 149.5 169.2 150.0 150.0 150.0 160.0 156.9
19 161.8 137.8 153.9 163.4 178.0 153.3 149.5 169.2 150.0 150.0 150.0 160.6 156.5
20 161.0 138.9 151.1 161.7 177.4 153.3 149.5 168.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 159.4 155.9
21 160.2 142.0 150.6 159.4 176.2 153.3 149.5 167.4 150.0 150.0 150.0 160.6 155.8
22 159.3 141.5 149.5 158.9 178.0 153.3 149.5 167.4 150.0 150.0 150.0 160.6 155.7
23 158.5 143.6 148.9 158.3 181.0 153.3 148.9 168.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 161.1 156.0
24 157.7 145.2 148.4 157.2 184.1 152.8 148.4 168.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 160.6 156.0
25 156.9 143.6 148.4 156.6 182.8 152.2 147.9 166.8 150.0 150.0 150.0 160.0 155.4
26 156.1 144.1 152.2 158.3 181.0 152.2 147.9 165.1 150.0 150.0 150.0 158.9 155.5
27 155.3 142.5 152.8 159.4 179.8 151.7 147.3 163.4 150.0 150.0 150.0 159.4 155.1
28 154.5 143.6 152.2 162.8 178.6 152.2 147.3 162.3 150.0 150.0 154.4 160.0 155.7
29 153.7 152.2 168.0 176.8 152.2 175.0 162.3 150.0 150.0 157.7 159.9 159.8
30 152.9 151.7 172.7 175.0 152.8 174.4 162.3 150.0 150.0 159.4 159.9 160.1
31 152.1 150.6 172.7 174.4 161.7 150.0 159.8 160.2
Max 177.0 151.3 154.4 172.7 184.1 170.3 175.0 173.8 164.0 150.0 159.4 162.8
Mean 164.4 143.8 149.9 158.6 179.5 156.3 153.0 168.7 154.0 150.0 150.7 159.7 157.4
Min 152.1 137.8 144.1 148.9 172.7 151.7 147.3 161.7 150.0 150.0 150.0 157.2

1995
1 159.8 158.9 162.8 169.7 165.7 170.9 170.9 211.4 179.8 161.1 142.0 145.2 166.5
2 159.7 158.3 164.0 170.3 166.2 170.9 170.9 211.4 179.8 159.4 141.5 143.6 166.3
3 159.7 158.3 164.0 171.5 166.8 170.9 170.9 210.1 179.8 156.6 141.5 143.6 166.1
4 159.6 157.7 164.5 177.4 167.4 170.9 171.5 210.1 179.8 159.4 140.9 141.5 166.7
5 159.6 157.2 164.5 177.4 168.6 170.9 171.5 209.4 179.8 152.2 140.4 139.4 165.9
6 159.5 156.6 165.1 176.8 169.7 170.9 172.1 208.8 179.8 148.9 140.9 138.9 165.7
7 159.5 156.6 164.0 177.4 169.2 170.9 172.1 208.1 179.8 145.7 141.5 140.4 165.4
8 159.4 156.1 165.1 150.0 169.7 170.9 172.7 206.8 179.2 142.5 142.0 140.4 162.9
9 159.4 157.2 165.7 152.8 172.1 170.9 173.8 206.2 179.2 140.4 143.1 140.4 163.4
10 159.3 157.2 167.4 152.2 172.1 170.9 174.4 204.2 179.2 137.8 143.6 140.4 163.2
11 159.2 158.3 172.1 153.9 172.7 170.9 175.6 204.2 179.2 138.9 143.6 140.9 164.1
12 159.2 159.4 169.2 156.1 172.7 170.9 176.8 201.6 178.0 139.4 144.1 140.9 164.0
13 159.1 160.0 169.7 157.2 172.1 170.9 178.0 197.8 178.0 139.9 143.6 139.9 163.9
14 159.1 160.0 172.1 155.5 172.7 170.9 181.0 196.5 177.4 138.9 139.9 135.8 163.3
15 159.0 160.0 169.2 155.0 172.7 170.9 182.2 194.0 177.4 138.3 143.6 135.8 163.2
16 159.0 160.6 168.6 154.4 172.1 170.9 184.7 192.7 176.8 138.3 143.1 135.2 163.0
17 158.9 161.1 167.4 153.9 172.1 170.9 186.5 191.5 176.2 137.8 140.9 134.2 162.6
18 158.9 161.7 166.8 154.4 172.7 170.9 190.2 190.9 175.6 138.3 139.4 134.2 162.8
19 158.8 161.7 166.3 153.3 172.7 170.9 192.7 190.2 175.0 138.9 142.0 135.2 163.1
20 158.8 161.7 166.8 153.9 172.1 170.9 196.5 189.6 174.4 138.9 143.6 134.7 163.5
21 158.7 161.1 166.8 153.3 172.1 170.9 200.3 189.6 173.8 139.4 143.6 135.2 163.7
22 158.7 161.1 165.7 154.4 171.5 170.9 202.9 187.8 173.3 140.9 144.1 136.8 164.0
23 158.6 161.1 168.0 156.6 170.9 170.9 205.5 185.9 171.5 143.1 144.6 137.8 164.5
24 158.6 160.6 166.8 158.9 170.9 170.9 208.1 184.1 170.9 144.6 146.2 138.9 165.0
25 158.5 160.6 167.4 159.4 170.9 170.9 210.8 182.8 170.3 141.5 147.3 140.4 165.1
26 158.5 160.6 168.0 158.9 170.9 170.9 213.4 183.5 169.7 140.4 146.2 143.6 165.4
27 158.4 160.6 168.0 162.3 170.9 170.9 213.4 182.2 169.2 140.9 146.2 147.9 165.9
28 158.4 162.3 168.0 165.1 170.9 170.9 213.4 182.2 168.0 140.4 146.2 147.9 166.1
29 158.3 168.0 166.8 170.9 170.9 211.4 181.6 164.5 141.5 146.2 150.0 166.4
30 158.3 168.6 166.8 170.9 170.9 211.4 180.4 164.5 142.5 145.7 148.4 166.2
31 158.9 169.2 170.9 211.4 179.8 142.5 147.9 168.6
Max 159.8 162.3 172.1 177.4 172.7 170.9 213.4 211.4 179.8 161.1 147.3 150.0
Mean 159.0 159.5 167.1 160.9 170.8 170.9 189.3 195.3 175.3 143.5 143.3 140.5 164.6
Min 158.3 156.1 162.8 150.0 165.7 170.9 170.9 179.8 164.5 137.8 139.4 134.2

1996
1 147.3 135.2 142.0 181.0 191.5 189.6 197.2 176.2 172.7 159.4 154.4 166.8 167.8
2 147.9 136.8 141.5 181.6 191.5 189.6 197.2 175.0 173.8 157.7 155.0 164.5 167.7
3 146.8 136.8 140.9 182.2 191.5 189.6 196.5 174.4 175.0 156.6 155.5 162.8 167.4
4 146.2 137.8 139.9 182.8 190.9 190.2 195.3 173.8 175.6 156.1 155.0 160.0 167.0
5 145.2 137.3 138.9 184.7 190.9 190.9 194.6 173.3 175.0 155.5 154.4 159.4 166.7
6 144.6 138.9 137.8 186.5 190.2 192.7 194.0 174.4 173.3 157.2 154.4 160.0 167.0
7 144.6 139.4 136.8 187.8 189.6 193.4 193.4 168.6 172.1 159.4 155.0 160.0 166.7
8 145.7 139.4 136.3 189.0 187.8 195.3 192.7 168.6 170.9 160.6 156.6 160.6 166.9
9 145.2 138.9 136.3 189.6 185.9 195.9 192.1 168.6 169.2 160.6 157.7 160.6 166.7
10 144.1 138.3 136.3 190.2 184.1 195.9 191.5 168.6 169.7 160.0 158.3 160.6 166.5
11 143.6 138.9 135.2 192.1 184.1 196.5 191.5 168.6 170.3 160.6 158.3 160.0 166.6
12 142.5 138.9 135.2 192.7 183.5 197.2 190.2 168.6 171.5 160.6 158.9 159.4 166.6
13 142.0 138.3 136.3 193.4 182.8 198.4 190.9 168.6 171.5 160.0 159.4 159.4 166.7
14 142.0 139.4 137.3 194.0 182.2 199.7 190.9 168.6 172.7 161.1 158.3 159.4 167.1
15 141.5 139.9 138.3 195.9 181.6 200.3 191.5 168.6 173.8 162.3 158.9 159.4 167.7
16 140.9 139.9 139.4 199.1 181.0 200.3 191.5 168.6 172.1 163.4 158.9 158.9 167.8
17 140.4 140.9 141.5 200.3 181.0 201.0 191.5 169.7 171.5 161.7 158.3 158.9 168.1
18 139.4 142.0 143.6 201.0 180.4 201.6 190.9 170.9 172.1 161.1 158.3 158.3 168.3
19 143.6 142.5 142.0 201.0 181.0 201.6 190.2 173.8 172.7 159.4 158.9 158.3 168.8
20 140.4 142.5 142.5 200.3 181.6 201.6 189.0 173.3 170.9 158.9 158.9 157.7 168.1
21 141.5 143.1 143.6 199.7 181.6 201.6 187.8 172.1 169.7 160.0 158.3 157.2 168.0
22 141.5 143.6 144.6 197.8 181.0 201.0 187.1 170.9 169.7 160.6 159.4 156.1 167.8
23 139.9 143.6 145.7 197.2 182.8 199.7 186.5 170.3 169.7 161.1 160.6 155.0 167.7
24 137.8 144.6 146.8 194.6 185.3 199.7 185.9 169.7 167.4 159.4 161.7 155.5 167.4
25 136.8 144.6 148.4 193.4 187.8 198.4 185.3 169.2 166.3 157.2 164.0 155.0 167.2
26 135.8 144.6 148.9 194.0 190.2 197.8 184.1 168.6 165.1 155.0 165.1 155.0 167.0
27 135.8 143.1 148.9 194.0 189.6 197.2 183.5 168.6 164.0 152.8 166.3 156.1 166.6
28 135.2 143.6 149.5 193.4 189.0 197.2 182.2 168.6 160.0 151.1 166.8 156.6 166.1
29 135.8 143.1 150.0 192.7 189.0 196.5 181.0 168.6 159.4 151.7 168.6 156.6 166.1
30 135.8 179.2 192.1 189.6 196.5 179.8 169.7 158.9 152.8 168.0 157.2 170.9
31 135.2 180.4 189.6 178.0 171.5 153.3 158.9 166.7
Max 147.9 144.6 180.4 201.0 191.5 201.6 197.2 176.2 175.6 163.4 168.6 166.8
Mean 141.5 140.5 144.0 192.5 186.1 196.9 189.5 170.6 169.9 158.3 159.4 158.8 167.3
Min 135.2 135.2 135.2 181.0 180.4 189.6 178.0 168.6 158.9 151.1 154.4 155.0

1997
1 160.6 156.1 149.5 155.0 194.0 169.7 178.0 210.8 193.4 172.7 175.6 224.9 178.3
2 161.7 155.0 150.0 155.5 192.7 168.0 178.6 210.8 192.7 172.1 176.2 229.0 178.5
3 162.3 154.4 150.0 156.6 201.6 166.3 180.4 211.4 192.1 171.5 178.0 231.1 179.6
4 162.3 153.3 150.0 160.0 203.6 166.3 181.0 212.1 190.9 171.5 179.8 239.5 180.8
5 162.8 152.8 149.5 162.8 201.6 162.8 185.3 211.4 190.9 170.9 183.5 249.6 182.0
6 163.4 152.8 147.3 164.0 200.3 162.8 187.8 210.8 189.0 170.3 186.5 249.6 182.0
7 164.0 152.2 148.9 166.3 197.2 160.0 190.2 209.4 188.4 169.7 208.1 251.8 183.8
8 164.0 152.2 148.9 168.6 194.0 160.6 193.4 210.1 187.8 169.7 191.5 254.7 182.9
9 163.4 151.7 148.9 168.0 190.2 161.7 195.3 211.4 187.1 169.2 194.0 256.9 183.1
10 163.4 151.1 149.5 168.0 187.8 162.8 196.5 210.1 185.9 168.6 197.2 258.4 183.3
11 162.3 151.1 150.6 169.7 185.9 164.0 197.8 210.8 185.3 168.0 197.8 260.6 183.6
12 161.1 150.6 150.0 170.3 185.3 166.3 198.4 209.4 184.7 166.8 199.1 262.9 183.7
13 159.4 150.0 151.7 171.5 187.8 168.0 199.1 208.8 183.5 167.4 200.3 264.4 184.3
14 158.3 149.5 151.1 173.3 190.2 169.2 200.3 207.5 183.5 168.0 201.0 265.1 184.7
15 157.7 149.5 151.1 175.6 192.1 169.7 201.6 207.5 184.1 168.0 203.6 266.7 185.6
16 157.7 148.9 151.7 175.6 192.1 169.7 201.6 206.8 183.5 168.6 205.5 267.4 185.8
17 157.7 148.9 152.2 178.6 195.3 168.6 203.6 206.8 182.8 168.6 206.8 267.4 186.4
18 157.7 151.1 152.8 182.2 197.2 168.6 204.9 206.2 182.2 169.2 208.1 267.4 187.3
19 157.2 151.7 152.8 182.8 197.2 169.2 205.5 205.5 180.4 169.2 210.8 265.9 187.3
20 156.6 150.6 151.7 180.4 195.9 170.9 206.2 203.6 178.0 169.2 213.4 265.1 186.8
21 156.6 151.7 151.7 178.0 195.3 172.1 206.8 202.9 175.6 168.6 214.7 266.7 186.7
22 156.1 151.1 151.7 179.2 194.6 170.9 206.8 201.6 175.6 169.2 215.4 265.9 186.5
23 156.1 150.0 152.2 179.9 193.4 169.2 207.5 200.3 175.6 169.2 217.4 265.1 186.3
24 155.5 145.7 153.3 181.6 190.9 169.7 208.8 199.1 175.0 169.7 218.1 265.1 186.1
25 155.0 148.9 154.4 184.1 189.0 170.9 209.4 198.4 175.0 170.3 219.4 262.9 186.5
26 156.1 149.5 154.4 184.7 186.5 172.1 209.4 197.8 174.4 171.5 221.5 262.9 186.7
27 157.7 149.5 154.4 185.3 182.8 172.7 210.1 197.8 173.8 172.7 222.8 263.6 186.9
28 157.2 148.9 154.4 187.1 179.8 174.4 210.1 196.5 173.3 173.8 220.1 263.6 186.6
29 156.6 154.4 190.2 176.8 176.2 210.1 195.9 173.3 174.4 218.1 262.9 189.9
30 157.2 153.9 194.0 174.4 177.4 210.1 195.3 172.7 175.0 220.8 262.1 190.3
31 156.6 154.4 170.9 210.8 194.0 175.6 262.9 189.3
Max 164.0 156.1 154.4 194.0 203.6 177.4 210.8 212.1 193.4 175.6 222.8 267.4
Mean 159.2 151.0 151.5 174.3 190.8 168.4 199.5 205.2 182.3 170.3 203.5 258.1 184.5
Min 155.0 145.7 147.3 155.0 170.9 160.0 178.0 194.0 172.7 166.8 175.6 224.9

1999
1 190.9 185.3 186.5 190.9 190.2 185.9 180.7 168.0 165.1 147.9 202.9 209.4 183.6
2 190.2 184.7 187.8 191.5 190.9 185.9 180.3 167.4 163.4 147.3 202.3 210.8 183.5
3 189.6 184.7 187.1 192.1 191.5 185.3 180.0 166.8 162.3 146.2 202.3 212.1 183.3
4 189.6 185.9 185.9 190.9 192.1 185.3 179.7 165.7 161.1 145.2 202.9 212.7 183.1
5 189.6 186.5 185.3 190.2 192.7 185.9 179.4 165.7 160.0 144.1 202.9 216.7 183.3
6 189.6 186.5 185.3 189.6 192.7 185.9 179.1 164.5 158.9 143.1 204.2 219.4 183.2
7 189.6 186.5 185.3 188.4 192.7 185.3 178.7 163.4 157.7 142.0 205.5 188.4 180.3
8 189.6 186.5 185.3 188.4 192.7 184.7 178.4 162.3 156.1 140.9 206.2 221.5 182.7
9 190.2 187.1 185.3 188.4 191.5 184.7 178.1 161.1 154.4 139.9 206.8 222.2 182.5
10 190.9 187.1 185.3 187.8 192.1 184.7 177.8 160.0 157.2 138.9 207.5 223.5 182.7
11 190.9 187.8 184.7 190.2 192.1 184.7 177.5 156.6 158.9 137.8 208.8 224.2 182.8
12 190.9 188.4 184.7 190.9 192.1 184.7 177.2 155.5 157.2 136.8 208.1 224.9 182.6
13 192.7 188.4 186.5 190.2 192.1 184.7 176.8 155.5 151.7 135.8 208.1 225.6 182.3
14 193.4 188.4 187.8 189.6 190.9 184.7 176.5 155.5 151.7 134.7 200.3 225.6 181.6
15 195.3 187.8 187.8 185.9 192.1 184.7 176.2 155.5 151.7 133.7 207.5 194.0 179.3
16 197.8 187.8 187.8 187.8 191.5 184.1 175.9 156.1 151.7 133.2 208.1 226.9 182.4
17 198.4 187.8 187.1 187.1 192.1 184.1 175.6 156.1 151.7 132.7 208.1 227.6 182.4
18 197.8 187.1 186.5 187.8 192.1 184.1 175.3 156.1 151.1 133.2 208.8 194.6 179.5
19 196.5 186.5 185.9 189.6 190.9 184.1 174.9 156.6 151.1 133.2 209.4 195.3 179.5
20 195.9 185.9 185.9 190.9 190.2 184.1 174.6 156.6 151.1 133.7 209.4 195.3 179.5
21 194.6 185.3 185.3 190.9 189.6 184.1 174.3 156.6 151.1 134.2 210.1 194.6 179.2
22 193.4 184.7 184.7 190.9 189.6 184.1 174.0 156.6 150.6 134.7 210.8 194.6 179.0
23 192.7 184.7 184.7 189.0 189.0 184.1 173.7 157.2 150.6 135.2 210.1 195.3 178.8
24 192.1 184.1 185.3 188.4 189.0 179.1 173.4 157.2 150.6 136.8 210.1 194.6 178.4
25 191.5 183.5 185.3 187.8 188.4 182.8 173.1 157.7 150.6 137.8 210.1 194.6 178.6
26 190.9 184.7 185.3 186.5 187.8 182.2 172.7 158.9 150.6 138.3 210.1 194.0 178.5
27 189.6 185.3 185.3 185.9 186.5 182.2 172.4 160.0 150.0 138.3 210.8 194.0 178.4
28 189.0 185.3 187.1 185.9 186.5 181.6 172.1 160.0 150.0 138.9 210.8 194.0 178.4
29 188.4 188.4 186.5 186.5 181.3 171.8 161.1 150.0 138.3 209.4 193.4 177.7
30 186.5 189.6 189.0 186.5 181.0 171.5 164.0 148.9 203.6 208.1 152.2 180.1
31 185.9 190.9 185.9 169.2 166.3 202.3 153.3 179.1
Max 198.4 188.4 190.9 192.1 192.7 185.9 180.7 168.0 165.1 203.6 210.8 227.6
Mean 191.7 186.2 186.3 189.0 190.3 184.0 175.8 160.0 154.2 142.5 207.4 204.0 181.0
Min 185.9 183.5 184.7 185.9 185.9 179.1 169.2 155.5 148.9 132.7 200.3 152.2

2003
1 177.3 101.2 101.2 153.3 177.4 176.2 173.8 169.2 170.3 166.8 171.5 172.1 159.2
2 177.3 101.2 101.2 155.0 179.2 174.4 174.4 169.2 169.7 166.8 171.5 172.1 159.3
3 177.4 101.2 101.2 157.2 182.8 172.7 174.4 169.2 170.3 166.8 171.5 172.7 159.8
4 177.4 101.2 101.2 158.3 185.3 172.1 175.0 169.2 170.3 166.8 171.5 172.7 160.1
5 177.4 101.2 101.2 158.9 187.8 171.5 175.0 168.6 170.3 166.8 171.5 172.1 160.2
6 177.4 101.2 101.2 158.9 189.6 170.9 175.6 168.6 171.5 166.8 172.1 171.5 160.4
7 176.8 101.2 101.2 161.1 192.7 170.3 175.6 168.0 172.7 166.8 172.1 170.9 160.8
8 176.8 101.2 101.2 161.1 195.3 170.3 175.6 168.0 173.8 166.8 172.1 170.9 161.1
9 176.2 101.2 101.2 161.7 196.5 170.9 175.6 165.7 173.8 166.8 172.1 170.3 161.0
10 176.2 101.2 101.2 162.3 198.4 171.5 176.2 165.7 173.8 166.8 172.7 169.7 161.3
11 175.0 101.2 101.2 163.4 201.6 172.1 176.2 166.3 174.4 166.8 172.7 168.6 161.6
12 175.0 101.2 101.2 164.0 206.2 172.1 176.2 166.3 174.4 166.8 172.7 168.0 162.0
13 173.8 101.2 101.2 165.1 208.8 170.9 176.8 166.8 175.0 166.8 172.7 166.8 162.2
14 173.8 101.2 101.2 166.3 212.7 169.7 177.4 168.0 175.0 166.8 172.7 166.8 162.6
15 172.7 101.2 101.2 168.6 216.7 169.2 177.4 170.9 175.0 166.8 172.7 166.3 163.2
16 170.3 101.2 101.2 171.5 218.1 168.6 178.0 173.8 174.4 166.8 170.9 165.7 163.4
17 169.2 101.2 101.2 173.3 215.4 168.0 178.0 173.3 173.3 166.8 168.6 165.1 162.8
18 168.0 101.2 101.2 175.0 216.1 168.6 150.6 173.8 172.7 166.8 165.7 164.5 160.4
19 167.4 101.2 101.2 177.4 216.1 169.2 180.4 172.7 172.7 166.8 162.8 163.4 162.6
20 166.8 101.2 101.2 177.4 211.4 169.2 180.4 172.1 172.1 166.8 162.3 162.3 161.9
21 165.7 101.2 101.2 177.4 207.5 169.2 181.6 171.5 170.9 166.8 162.3 160.6 161.3
22 165.1 101.2 101.2 178.0 203.6 169.2 181.6 171.5 169.2 166.8 164.0 159.4 160.9
23 164.5 101.2 101.2 178.0 201.6 169.2 179.8 172.7 169.2 166.8 165.7 158.3 160.7
24 163.4 101.2 101.2 178.0 195.9 169.2 176.8 175.6 168.0 166.8 167.4 156.6 160.0
25 163.4 101.2 101.2 178.0 192.7 169.2 175.6 177.4 167.4 166.8 168.6 156.1 159.8
26 163.4 101.2 101.2 177.4 189.6 169.7 173.3 176.8 166.8 166.8 169.2 155.0 159.2
27 162.3 101.2 101.2 177.4 187.1 170.9 172.1 176.2 166.3 166.8 169.7 153.3 158.7
28 162.3 101.2 101.2 177.4 184.1 172.7 170.9 175.6 166.8 166.8 170.9 152.2 158.5
29 161.1 101.2 177.4 180.4 173.8 169.7 173.8 166.8 166.8 171.5 150.6 163.0
30 101.2 150.6 177.4 178.0 173.8 169.7 172.7 166.8 167.4 171.5 150.6 161.8
31 101.2 151.7 177.4 169.7 171.5 169.7 150.6 156.0
Max 177.4 101.2 151.7 178.0 218.1 176.2 181.6 177.4 175.0 169.7 172.7 172.7
Mean 166.3 101.2 104.4 168.9 197.0 170.8 175.0 171.0 171.1 166.9 169.8 163.7 160.5
Min 101.2 101.2 101.2 153.3 177.4 168.0 150.6 165.7 166.3 166.8 162.3 150.6

2007
1 111.0 105.2 152.8 154.4 268.9 237.4 190.9 194.0 123.8 111.5 111.9 121.3 156.9
2 110.1 106.9 153.3 156.1 271.2 236.7 204.2 194.0 121.3 111.5 111.9 121.3 158.2
3 109.2 109.6 153.3 156.1 274.3 236.0 218.1 193.4 119.4 111.5 111.5 120.4 159.4
4 108.3 111.5 153.9 156.1 286.7 235.3 216.7 192.7 119.4 111.0 112.9 119.4 160.3
5 107.8 113.3 154.4 158.9 293.8 234.6 216.1 190.9 119.4 110.6 115.2 119.4 161.2
6 107.8 114.7 155.0 162.3 298.7 234.6 215.4 189.6 119.4 110.1 117.1 119.4 162.0
7 106.9 115.6 155.0 165.1 296.2 233.2 215.4 187.8 120.4 109.6 118.5 119.9 162.0
8 106.1 116.1 154.4 169.2 293.8 233.9 214.7 187.1 121.3 111.0 119.4 120.4 162.3
9 104.7 116.1 154.4 170.3 292.3 231.8 214.1 185.9 122.3 112.9 120.9 120.4 162.2
10 104.3 116.1 155.0 173.8 282.8 230.4 214.1 185.9 123.3 113.3 119.4 120.4 161.6
11 103.0 116.1 155.0 181.0 292.3 229.7 212.7 184.7 123.3 114.2 118.0 119.4 162.4
12 103.0 115.6 155.0 186.5 291.5 227.6 211.4 183.5 122.3 115.2 117.5 118.9 162.3
13 102.1 114.7 155.0 194.0 291.5 226.3 210.8 182.2 121.8 115.2 117.1 118.5 162.4
14 101.6 113.8 155.0 201.6 289.9 224.2 209.4 181.6 121.3 115.2 117.1 118.0 162.4
15 101.6 112.4 156.1 208.8 289.9 222.2 208.8 181.0 120.9 114.2 117.5 116.6 162.5
16 101.6 110.6 158.3 212.1 287.5 221.5 206.8 180.4 120.4 112.4 119.4 116.1 162.3
17 101.6 109.2 159.4 212.1 285.1 217.4 205.5 180.4 120.4 111.0 121.8 114.7 161.6
18 102.1 107.8 160.6 215.4 282.0 215.4 204.2 180.4 119.9 110.1 119.9 113.8 161.0
19 102.1 106.9 161.7 213.4 278.1 214.1 202.9 180.4 119.4 110.1 118.9 112.9 160.1
20 103.8 105.2 163.4 212.1 275.0 213.4 202.3 179.8 119.4 110.1 118.9 111.9 159.6
21 105.2 104.3 164.5 218.8 272.7 212.1 200.3 179.8 118.5 110.1 119.4 111.5 159.8
22 106.5 103.0 166.8 222.8 261.4 210.8 199.7 179.8 118.0 110.1 119.4 110.1 159.0
23 107.4 102.1 169.2 223.5 256.2 209.4 198.4 178.0 117.1 110.6 120.4 107.4 158.3
24 107.4 101.2 171.5 225.6 251.1 208.1 197.8 176.8 116.6 111.5 173.8 109.2 162.5
25 106.1 101.2 173.3 229.7 248.1 206.8 197.2 172.7 116.6 112.4 120.4 108.3 157.7
26 105.6 101.2 176.2 235.3 244.5 203.6 196.5 169.2 115.6 112.9 120.9 107.4 157.4
27 105.6 151.7 178.0 240.2 241.7 191.5 195.9 163.4 114.7 113.3 121.3 107.4 160.4
28 101.2 152.2 150.0 241.7 240.2 195.3 195.9 163.4 113.3 113.3 121.3 107.4 157.9
29 104.7 151.1 243.8 239.5 190.9 195.3 159.4 112.4 112.9 121.3 106.9 158.0
30 104.3 151.7 266.7 240.2 189.6 195.3 155.5 111.5 112.4 121.3 106.5 159.5
31 103.4 152.2 239.5 194.6 151.7 112.4 106.1 151.4
Max 111.0 152.2 178.0 266.7 298.7 237.4 218.1 194.0 123.8 115.2 173.8 121.3
Mean 105.0 112.7 158.9 200.2 272.8 219.1 205.2 179.5 119.1 112.0 120.1 114.6 159.9
Min 101.2 101.2 150.0 154.4 239.5 189.6 190.9 151.7 111.5 109.6 111.5 106.1

2009
1 112.4 113.3 119.9 121.3 164.0 162.8 169.7 171.5 168.6 152.8 121.3 120.4 141.5
2 111.9 114.7 120.4 123.3 162.8 163.4 170.9 171.5 168.6 151.7 121.8 119.4 141.7
3 111.5 117.1 120.4 123.3 160.6 163.4 172.1 172.7 168.0 150.0 122.3 118.5 141.6
4 111.5 119.4 121.3 124.2 160.6 163.4 175.6 172.7 168.0 178.0 122.8 117.1 144.5
5 111.0 120.9 121.8 150.6 158.9 162.3 177.4 172.1 168.0 176.8 123.3 116.6 146.6
6 111.0 119.9 121.3 153.3 157.7 161.1 178.0 171.5 168.0 175.0 123.3 117.1 146.4
7 111.0 119.4 119.4 154.4 156.6 161.1 178.6 171.5 167.4 175.0 123.3 117.5 146.3
8 111.0 118.9 118.0 155.5 156.6 160.0 179.2 171.5 167.4 175.0 122.3 118.5 146.2
9 110.1 118.5 117.5 155.5 156.6 160.0 179.8 170.9 166.8 174.4 121.3 118.5 145.8
10 110.1 118.5 116.6 157.2 157.2 160.0 179.8 170.3 166.8 173.8 120.9 118.9 145.8
11 110.1 119.4 116.6 157.7 157.7 160.0 181.0 170.3 166.8 173.8 119.9 119.4 146.1
12 109.6 119.4 116.1 159.4 159.4 160.6 181.0 169.2 165.7 173.3 118.5 119.9 146.0
13 109.2 118.9 115.6 160.0 161.1 160.6 179.8 169.2 164.5 172.7 118.9 119.9 145.9
14 109.2 118.0 115.6 160.0 162.8 161.1 179.8 169.2 164.5 172.7 117.5 120.9 145.9
15 109.2 116.6 115.2 159.4 165.1 161.7 179.8 168.6 164.5 172.7 116.6 123.3 146.1
16 109.2 116.6 114.7 160.0 166.8 162.8 182.8 168.0 164.0 172.1 116.6 123.3 146.4
17 109.6 115.6 114.7 160.6 166.8 163.4 178.0 168.0 163.4 172.1 117.1 105.2 144.5
18 110.1 115.6 114.2 161.7 166.8 164.0 177.4 168.0 163.4 171.5 117.1 105.6 144.6
19 110.1 114.7 113.8 162.3 167.4 165.1 177.4 168.6 163.4 171.5 117.5 103.0 144.6
20 111.0 115.2 113.8 162.8 169.2 165.7 177.4 169.2 162.8 170.9 118.0 120.4 146.4
21 111.5 114.7 113.8 165.7 169.2 166.8 177.4 169.7 162.8 170.3 118.5 119.4 146.7
22 111.0 115.2 113.3 170.9 167.4 167.4 176.2 169.7 162.3 170.9 118.5 119.9 146.9
23 111.5 115.6 113.3 176.8 166.3 168.0 176.2 170.3 161.1 171.5 119.4 120.9 147.6
24 111.9 116.1 113.8 177.4 164.5 168.6 175.0 170.3 160.6 171.5 119.9 121.8 147.6
25 111.9 117.1 113.3 175.6 163.4 169.7 174.4 170.3 159.4 172.1 120.4 136.3 148.7
26 111.9 117.5 112.9 173.3 162.3 170.3 173.8 170.3 157.7 172.7 120.9 155.5 149.9
27 111.0 118.5 113.3 170.9 160.6 170.9 173.8 169.7 157.2 120.4 120.4 157.2 145.3
28 111.0 118.9 113.3 168.0 158.3 118.0 173.8 169.7 156.1 120.4 120.4 157.2 140.4
29 110.1 114.2 172.7 156.6 170.3 173.8 169.7 154.4 120.9 120.4 158.3 147.4
30 110.1 116.1 165.7 157.2 169.2 172.7 169.2 153.9 120.9 120.4 157.7 146.6
31 111.0 118.9 160.0 172.1 169.2 121.3 157.7 144.3
Max 112.4 120.9 121.8 177.4 169.2 170.9 182.8 172.7 168.6 178.0 123.3 158.3
Mean 110.7 117.3 116.2 158.0 162.0 162.7 176.6 170.1 163.5 162.5 120.0 126.0 145.5
Min 109.2 113.3 112.9 121.3 156.6 118.0 169.7 168.0 153.9 120.4 116.6 103.0

2015
1 180.8 168.0 162.5 173.7 197.9 203.2 223.6 213.3 199.4 190.8 178.3 192.6 190.3
2 180.5 168.0 162.8 173.7 197.9 203.2 223.6 212.5 199.0 189.6 179.8 192.6 190.3
3 180.1 167.3 163.2 174.4 197.9 203.6 223.6 212.5 198.6 189.3 181.6 191.9 190.3
4 179.4 167.3 163.2 174.4 198.3 204.0 223.6 211.7 198.6 188.2 182.7 191.1 190.2
5 179.4 167.0 163.2 174.4 198.6 204.8 224.4 211.0 198.3 187.8 183.8 189.3 190.1
6 179.0 166.6 163.2 174.4 198.6 207.1 224.4 210.2 197.9 186.7 185.2 187.4 190.1
7 178.3 166.6 163.8 175.1 198.6 209.4 224.4 209.8 197.9 186.0 187.1 184.9 190.2
8 177.6 166.6 163.8 175.8 199.0 211.3 224.0 209.4 197.1 185.2 188.2 183.8 190.2
9 176.9 166.3 163.8 176.5 199.4 214.9 223.6 208.6 196.8 184.5 188.2 182.7 190.2
10 175.8 165.2 163.8 178.0 199.4 214.9 223.6 207.8 196.4 182.3 188.5 182.3 189.8
11 174.4 165.2 164.2 179.8 199.4 214.1 222.8 207.1 196.4 181.6 188.9 183.0 189.7
12 173.7 164.9 164.5 180.8 199.4 214.1 222.0 206.3 196.0 181.6 189.3 183.8 189.7
13 173.3 163.8 164.5 181.6 200.2 214.1 221.2 205.5 195.6 180.8 189.6 184.5 189.6
14 173.0 163.8 164.5 182.3 200.9 214.1 221.2 204.8 195.2 180.8 189.6 185.2 189.6
15 173.0 163.8 165.2 183.0 202.5 214.9 220.4 204.4 195.2 180.8 189.6 184.5 189.8
16 172.6 163.8 165.2 185.2 202.5 215.7 219.6 204.0 194.9 180.8 188.5 185.2 189.8
17 172.2 163.2 165.2 187.4 203.2 215.7 219.6 204.0 194.9 180.1 188.5 186.3 190.0
18 172.2 162.8 165.2 190.4 203.2 216.5 218.8 203.6 194.9 180.1 188.2 186.3 190.2
19 171.5 161.8 165.2 193.4 203.2 219.2 218.8 203.2 194.1 179.4 187.4 183.4 190.1
20 171.5 161.8 165.2 197.5 203.6 220.4 218.8 202.8 194.1 179.4 186.7 180.8 190.2
21 171.5 161.8 165.2 200.2 204.8 222.0 218.0 202.5 194.1 179.4 186.7 178.7 190.4
22 171.5 161.8 165.2 200.5 206.3 223.2 217.6 202.5 193.4 179.0 187.8 174.4 190.3
23 171.5 161.8 166.3 199.8 209.4 223.6 217.2 201.7 193.4 178.7 188.5 171.9 190.3
24 170.8 162.5 166.6 199.0 211.3 222.8 216.5 202.5 192.6 178.7 190.0 168.4 190.1
25 170.5 162.5 166.6 198.3 213.3 222.0 216.5 202.5 191.9 178.3 190.4 168.0 190.1
26 170.1 162.5 167.0 197.5 212.5 222.0 215.7 201.7 191.9 178.0 191.1 168.0 189.8
27 170.1 162.5 168.0 197.1 211.0 222.0 214.9 201.3 191.9 177.2 192.6 167.7 189.7
28 169.4 162.5 168.7 197.1 208.2 222.8 214.9 200.9 191.1 176.5 192.6 167.3 189.3
29 169.4 169.8 197.9 206.7 222.8 214.1 200.9 191.1 175.8 192.6 167.0 191.6
30 168.7 171.5 197.9 204.4 222.8 214.1 200.2 191.1 175.8 192.6 166.6 191.4
31 168.7 173.7 203.2 213.3 199.4 175.8 166.6 185.8
Max 180.8 168.0 173.7 200.5 213.3 223.6 224.4 213.3 199.4 190.8 192.6 192.6
Mean 173.8 164.3 165.5 186.6 203.1 215.4 219.8 205.4 195.1 181.6 187.8 180.2 189.9
Min 168.7 161.8 162.5 173.7 197.9 203.2 213.3 199.4 191.1 175.8 178.3 166.6

2016
1 166.6 171.5 178.7 217.6 281.4 255.1 243.3 222.8 200.2 193.4 176.5 190.8 208.2
2 167.3 171.5 178.7 223.2 294.0 255.1 242.4 222.0 199.4 196.4 177.2 191.9 209.9
3 166.6 171.5 179.4 230.1 296.3 255.1 242.4 221.6 198.6 204.0 178.7 190.0 211.2
4 165.9 171.5 180.1 236.6 298.2 254.3 241.6 221.2 197.9 207.8 180.5 189.6 212.1
5 165.2 171.2 180.8 236.6 300.5 253.4 240.8 220.4 197.1 209.4 182.3 185.6 211.9
6 165.2 170.8 181.6 239.1 297.2 253.4 240.8 219.6 196.4 209.4 183.8 183.4 211.7
7 165.2 170.8 184.5 242.9 294.5 252.5 240.8 218.4 196.0 209.4 184.9 181.6 211.8
8 164.5 170.8 185.2 245.4 291.3 252.5 239.1 216.5 195.6 208.6 184.1 181.6 211.3
9 164.5 170.8 187.4 247.9 286.8 252.5 239.1 215.3 195.6 208.6 181.9 181.2 211.0
10 164.9 170.8 192.6 249.2 284.5 252.5 238.3 214.1 195.6 208.6 179.4 180.8 210.9
11 166.3 170.5 197.5 252.5 284.1 251.7 238.3 214.1 194.9 208.6 176.5 180.8 211.3
12 167.3 170.1 202.5 252.5 283.2 251.7 238.3 213.3 194.9 202.5 175.8 180.8 211.1
13 168.7 170.1 203.2 252.5 280.9 251.3 236.4 212.5 194.9 196.4 175.8 180.8 210.3
14 173.3 169.4 200.9 252.5 279.6 250.4 234.6 212.5 194.1 190.4 175.1 180.8 209.5
15 176.5 169.4 200.9 252.5 277.8 249.2 235.0 212.5 194.1 186.0 175.1 180.1 209.1
16 180.1 169.1 200.9 253.4 275.6 249.2 234.2 212.5 194.1 184.5 175.1 180.1 209.1
17 180.8 168.7 200.9 254.7 271.6 249.2 234.2 212.5 194.1 183.0 175.8 180.1 208.8
18 182.7 168.7 200.9 256.0 267.2 249.2 233.3 212.5 193.4 181.6 175.8 179.0 208.4
19 183.0 168.7 200.9 257.2 263.3 248.7 232.5 212.5 193.4 180.1 176.5 178.3 207.9
20 183.8 169.4 204.0 259.8 262.9 248.3 231.7 211.3 192.6 178.7 176.5 178.0 208.1
21 183.4 170.5 207.1 262.4 262.9 248.3 231.7 209.4 190.8 177.2 176.9 178.0 208.2
22 182.3 171.5 211.0 263.7 260.7 248.3 230.1 208.6 189.6 176.5 177.2 176.2 208.0
23 181.2 172.2 212.9 265.5 258.1 248.3 229.3 207.8 189.6 176.5 178.0 174.7 207.8
24 180.8 173.0 214.9 266.3 257.7 248.3 229.3 207.1 188.2 175.8 178.0 174.0 207.8
25 180.8 174.0 215.7 267.2 257.7 247.5 229.3 206.3 188.2 175.8 178.7 171.9 207.7
26 178.0 175.8 215.7 268.1 256.8 247.5 228.5 205.5 186.7 175.8 179.8 169.8 207.3
27 175.1 177.2 215.7 270.3 256.8 247.0 228.5 204.8 188.2 175.1 181.9 169.8 207.5
28 174.7 178.7 216.5 270.7 256.0 246.6 228.5 203.6 189.6 175.1 184.5 168.0 207.7
29 173.7 178.7 216.5 272.9 256.0 246.6 227.6 202.1 189.6 175.1 188.9 167.7 207.9
30 173.3 216.5 276.5 256.0 243.3 226.0 200.9 192.6 174.4 190.8 167.3 210.7
31 172.2 216.5 255.1 224.0 200.9 174.4 166.6 201.4
Max 183.8 178.7 216.5 276.5 300.5 255.1 243.3 222.8 200.2 209.4 190.8 191.9
Mean 173.4 171.6 200.0 253.2 274.3 250.2 234.5 212.1 193.5 189.6 179.4 178.7 209.2
Min 164.5 168.7 178.7 217.6 255.1 243.3 224.0 200.9 186.7 174.4 175.1 166.6

2017
1 166.6 159.0 155.6 173.0 173.0 166.6 160.4 158.4 154.3 161.1 145.0 141.1 159.5
2 166.6 159.0 155.6 173.0 173.0 166.6 160.4 158.4 154.3 161.4 145.7 141.1 159.6
3 166.6 159.0 155.6 173.0 173.0 166.6 160.4 157.7 154.3 161.8 146.7 142.4 159.8
4 166.6 158.4 155.6 174.4 173.7 166.6 160.4 157.7 154.3 161.8 148.3 141.1 159.9
5 165.2 158.4 155.6 174.4 174.4 165.9 160.7 157.7 154.3 161.8 149.3 141.1 159.9
6 165.2 158.4 156.3 174.4 174.4 165.9 161.1 157.7 154.6 161.1 149.6 142.4 160.1
7 164.9 157.7 156.3 174.4 174.4 165.9 161.1 157.7 155.0 161.1 150.3 141.8 160.0
8 164.5 157.7 156.3 173.7 176.5 165.6 161.1 157.7 155.0 161.1 150.3 141.8 160.1
9 162.8 157.7 156.3 173.0 176.9 163.8 161.1 157.7 155.0 160.4 151.0 141.8 159.8
10 163.5 157.7 156.3 171.5 177.6 163.5 161.1 157.3 155.0 160.4 149.3 141.8 159.6
11 159.4 157.7 156.7 170.1 178.0 163.5 160.4 157.3 155.0 159.4 148.3 141.8 159.0
12 157.3 157.7 156.7 170.1 179.4 162.5 160.4 157.3 155.3 159.0 147.0 141.1 158.7
13 157.0 157.7 157.0 170.1 179.4 162.5 160.4 156.7 155.6 157.7 144.4 141.1 158.3
14 157.0 157.0 157.7 170.1 179.4 162.5 160.4 155.6 155.6 157.3 144.4 141.1 158.2
15 157.0 157.0 158.0 167.3 179.4 161.1 160.4 155.6 156.3 156.7 141.1 140.2 157.5
16 153.6 157.0 158.0 167.3 180.1 160.7 160.4 154.3 156.3 156.0 141.1 140.2 157.1
17 153.6 157.0 158.4 167.3 178.0 160.4 159.7 153.0 156.3 155.3 140.5 139.9 156.6
18 153.0 157.0 158.4 167.7 174.4 160.7 159.7 152.3 156.3 154.0 139.9 139.2 156.0
19 153.0 156.7 158.4 168.0 171.5 162.5 159.7 147.6 157.0 153.3 139.9 139.2 155.6
20 152.3 156.3 158.4 168.0 171.5 162.5 159.7 147.6 157.0 153.0 142.4 139.2 155.7
21 152.0 156.3 159.0 168.0 170.8 162.5 159.7 147.6 157.0 152.3 143.7 139.2 155.7
22 151.6 156.3 159.0 168.0 170.1 163.2 159.7 149.0 157.7 151.0 143.7 139.2 155.7
23 150.0 155.6 160.4 168.7 169.8 163.2 159.7 149.0 157.7 150.6 141.8 138.6 155.4
24 149.0 155.0 165.9 168.7 169.4 163.2 159.7 150.3 157.7 150.3 139.9 138.6 155.6
25 147.0 155.0 167.0 170.1 169.4 163.2 159.7 150.6 157.7 149.6 139.9 138.3 155.6
26 148.3 155.0 167.3 170.5 168.7 162.1 159.0 152.3 158.4 148.3 139.9 137.9 155.6
27 148.3 155.0 168.7 170.5 168.0 160.7 159.0 152.6 158.7 147.0 146.3 137.3 156.0
28 151.6 155.0 170.5 172.2 167.3 160.4 159.0 153.0 159.0 145.7 145.7 137.3 156.4
29 154.6 172.2 172.2 167.3 160.4 159.0 153.6 159.7 145.0 145.7 137.3 157.0
30 156.7 172.2 173.0 166.6 160.4 158.7 153.6 160.7 145.0 141.1 137.3 156.9
31 157.7 173.0 166.6 158.4 154.3 145.0 137.3 156.0
Max 166.6 159.0 173.0 174.4 180.1 166.6 161.1 158.4 160.7 161.8 151.0 142.4
Mean 157.2 157.0 160.4 170.8 173.3 163.2 160.0 154.2 156.4 154.9 144.7 139.9 157.7
Min 147.0 155.0 155.6 167.3 166.6 160.4 158.4 147.6 154.3 145.0 139.9 137.3

Annex 5-3 – Water Quality Results

Annex 5-4 – Sediment Quality Results

Annex 5-5 – Biodiversity Survey Itineraries

AQUATIC FEBRUARY 2020 SURVEY
Date Activity
19th February 2020 Arrive Bukoba airport, meet vehicles, collect boat, skipper and obtain supplies.
Drive to Bunazi to accommodation, arrive 6pm
20th February 2020 Purchase meat from butchery for fish bait
Drive to first site at Pump Station G
Set up boat and equipment
Conduct aquatic surveys
Leave fish nets, light trap and baited crab trap overnight.
Purchase and cut metal weights to hold nets
21st February 2020 Retrieve fish from Pump station G
Travel upstream to find new boat launch in reservoir area
Set up boat and set net in side channel (main channel too fast), conduct aquatic surveys.
Sample small seasonal stream (northern boundary of Kagera Sugar estate)
22nd February 2020 Retrieve fish net from reservoir site and remove fish and cobra
Sample Kibologa stream at confluence with Kagera River.
23rd February2020 Team travel down Ngono River to floodplain to survey confluence with Kagera. Conduct survey of fishermen catch
at fisher village near confluence and interview fishermen.
Travel upstream Ngongo to crossing point and set gill nets in Ngono River. Fish team camps overnight.
24th February 2020 Fish team retrieve nets and catch at Ngono site.
Travel back to Bunazi. Fish team rests for afternoon.
Macroinvertebrate specialist samples pools / wetlands around periphery of Kagera Sugar estate
25th February 2020 Team travel to dam site.
Macroinvertebrate sweep of Kakono
Set fish nets at Pump station 3
26th February 2020 Fish team retrieved nets at Pump Station 3
Macroinvertebrate team sampled pump station 2 and Kibologa stream
Jessica and Bruce Paxton met Kagera Sugar Estate staff to discuss fish catch
27th February 2020 Hold team meeting to discuss data sources and aquatic report structure.
Fish team meet with Missenyi Fisheries officer at District Council.
Macroinvertebrate search and obtain bamboo pole and conduct macroinvertebrate sample and river substrate
sample at Pump Station 2.
28th February 2020 Dr R Palmer and J Hughes leave for Bukoba, return to RSA
B Paxton and fish team wait for rain to clear and conduct fish survey (and set gill nets) at Pump Station 2.
29th February 2020 Conduct fisher surveys near Kyaka.
Travel upstream to Nsongezi and set nets overnight.
1st March 2020 Retrieve nets, examine catch and travel back to Bunazi.
2nd March 2020 B Paxton and fish team depart for Bukoba and return home.
AQUATIC OCTOBER 2020 SURVEY

Date Activity
16th October 2020 Bruce Paxton, Mathew Ross and Nick Huchzermeyer arrived Bukoba
Collected boat and boatman at the Lake Victoria Basin Waterboard
Drove Bukoba to Bunanzi. Bruce Paxton met with District Commissioner
17th October 2020 Drive to Site K+3. Set up boat and equipment, set overnight gill nets and eletrofished. N. Huchzermeyer undertook
geomorphological surveys. Mathew Ross surveyed Kakono River for fishway design.
18th October 2020 Drive to Site K+3 and cleared overnight gill nets. Drive to Site K+23. Set up boat and equipment, set overnight gill
nets and eletrofished. N. Huchzermeyer undertook geomorphological surveys. Mathew Ross surveyed Kakono
River for fishway design.
19th October 2020 Drive to Site K+23 and cleared overnight gill nets. Drive to Site K+56. Set overnight gill nets and eletrofished. N.
Huchzermeyer undertook geomorphological surveys. Mathew Ross surveyed Kakono River for fishway design.
20th October 2020 Drive to Site K+56 and cleared overnight gill nets. Drive to Site K+92. Set up boat and equipment, set overnight gill
nets and eletrofished. N. Huchzermeyer undertook geomorphological surveys. Mathew Ross surveyed Kakono
River for fishway design.
21st October 2020 Drive to Site K+92 and cleared overnight gill nets. Set up boat and equipment, Set overnight gill nets and
eletrofished. N. Huchzermeyer undertook geomorphological surveys. Mathew Ross returns to Bukoba and fly’s
home.
22nd October 2020 Drive to Site K+92 and cleared overnight gill nets. Set up boat and equipment, Set overnight gill nets and
eletrofished. N. Huchzermeyer undertook geomorphological surveys.
23rd October 2020 Drive to Site K+92 and cleared overnight gill nets. Drive to Site K-11. Set up boat and equipment, Set overnight gill
nets and eletrofished. N. Huchzermeyer undertook geomorphological surveys.
24th October 2020 Drive to Site K-11 and cleared overnight gill nets. Drive to Site K+6. Set up boat and equipment, set overnight gill
nets and eletrofished. N. Huchzermeyer undertook geomorphological surveys.
25th October 2020 Cleared nets from Site K+6
26th October 2020 Bruce Paxton and Nick Huchzermer return to Bukoba and fly home.

TERRESTRIAL OCTOBER-NOVEMBER 2020 SURVEY

Date Activity
Arrive Bukoba airport, meet driver and vehicle, and obtain supplies.
23 October 2020
Drive to Bunazi to accommodation, arrive 5pm
Drive to dam wall area
Survey transect along Kakono Stream (KK-1)
24 October 2020 Set up baited camera traps
Survey transect at Kakono/Kagera junction (KK-2)
Survey transect on Rubira Hill (KK-3)
Drive to upper and middle inundation zone (Missenyi Ranch)
Survey transect within Missenyi Ranch (KK-4)
25 October 2020
Survey transects along the Kagera River (KK-5 – KK-6)
Survey transect along the Kagera River at Pump 32 (KK-7)
Collect boat and driver and drive to EFA 4
Boat transect along Kagera River to EFA 4 (KK-8)
Drive to southern bank of Kagera River near EFA 3
26 October 2020
Survey woodland transect to south bank at EFA 3 (KK-9)
Survey transect at EFA 3 (KK-10)
Boat trip along Kagera River to EFA 3
Drive to EFA 1 (north bank)
27 October 2020 Survey transect at EFA 1 (KK-11)
Survey transects along Kagera River (north bank) (KK-12-KK15)
Drive to access road and then north to dam wall site
Survey transect along Kagera River (south bank) (KK-16)
28 October 2020
Survey transect on hills south of dam wall (KK-17)
Survey transect along access road (KK-18 – KK 22)
Drive along road to New Bridge (south bank)
Survey woodland transect to south bank at EFA 2 (KK-23)
29 October 2020 Survey transect along Kagera River at EFA 2 (south bank) (KK-24)
Survey transects along transmission line route (KK-25 – KK-26)
Survey transect along transmission line route to main road (KK-27)
Survey transect on hills north of dam wall (KK-28)
30 October 2020 Survey transect along tributary of Kakono Stream (KK-29)
Retrieve camera traps
Drive along road to New Bridge (south bank)
31 October 2020 Survey transect along transmission line route (KK-30)
Survey transect along access road (KK-31)
Drive to access road and then north to dam wall site
Survey transect on hills southwest of dam wall (KK-32)
1 November 2020
Survey transect on plains southwest of dam wall (KK-33)
Survey transect along tributary of Kagera River (KK-34)
2 November 2020 Survey transect in forest along Kagera - Kyaka road (KK-35)
3 November 2020 Morning survey of Minziro Forest Reserve
4 November 2020 Ecology team depart for Bukoba and fly to Tanzania.
AQUATIC FEBRUARY - MARCH 2022 SURVEY

Date Activity
23rd February 2022 The South African survey team – Bruce Paxton (FRC), Denis Tweddle (SAIAB) and Doug Mcculloch (SLR) – fly Jhb ,
South Africa to Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania.
24th February 2022 The South African survey team fly Dar Es Salaam to Bukoba and purchase equipment and supplies for fieldwork
and book in at the Kolping Hotel, Bukoba.
25th February 2022 The South African survey team meet with the drivers and members of the Tanzanian survey team (Asilutu
Shechonge (TAFIRI) and Ombeni Moshe (TANESCO). Drove Bukoba to Site N01 close to Minazi on the Ngono River
and electrofished at the Ngono ferry.
26th February 2022 South African and Tanzanian teams drove Bukoba to Site N05 at Muleba and electrofished below the bridge in the
morning. The team drove from Muleba to the Ngono River bridge crossing at Muhutwe and sampled N03
27th February 2022 The survey team booked out of the Kolping Hotel, Bukoba and drove to Bunazi, sampling the Ngono River at Site
N01a on the way. After booking in at K’s Hotel, Bunazi, the team drove to the Kagera Sugar plantation and
sampled K+23.
28th February 2022 While waiting for additional formalin supplies to arrive from Dar Es Salaam before moving on to the Mwisa River,
the team sampled K+3 on the Kagera River to consolidate previous collections of Enteromius barbs. M02 and
M02a on the Mwisa River were sampled later in the afternoon before returning to Bunazi.
1st March 2022 The team drove from Bunazi to Milambi, on the way sampling the following sites: M01 on the Mwisa River, L01 on
Lake Nkwenda and L02 on Lake Rushwa. Booked into Rweru Plaza for the night.
2nd March 2022 In the morning the team sampled the mainstem Kagera River upstream of Kikagati and drove from Milambi to
Murongo, booking in at a guesthouse. In the afternoon, the team sampled at Murongo at Site K03 on the
mainstem of the Kagera River upstream of the Kikagati HPP.

AQUATIC FEBRUARY - MARCH 2022 SURVEY

Date Activity
3rd March 2022 Based from Murongo, the team sampled the mainstem Kagera River (Site K04) and a site on a small tributary –
the Mwasi River – K04a. The team then sampled a second tributary downstream of the Kikagati HPP on the
Chizanibaleba River (K03a) and then on the mainstem Kagera River (Site K03b).
4th March 2022 The team then returned to Bukoba at booked in at the Kolping to search for more potential sites on the Ngono
River and other rivers draining into Lake Victoria. Sites N01 and N01c, both isolated tributaries flowing into the
lake were sampled
5th March 2022 The team sampled the Kibengwe River north of Bukoba at Sites Kb01 and Kb02 as well as N05 for a second time
to secure more specimens of the target Enteromius species.
6th March 2022 The team revisited sites that had been sampled during the 2020 surveys where the target species had been
caught including S7 and S6 on the mainstem of the Ngono River, the latter being located at the confluence with
the Kagera River downstream of Kyaka on the floodplain. A tributary of the Ngono on the Bugonzi River at a road
crossing close to the village of Ruhanga was sampled as well (N03b).
7th March 2022 The last day in Bukoba was spent checking, reconciling and packing specimens for transport to South Africa.
8th March 2022 The South African team, with Asilatu flew Bukoba to Dar Es Salaam.
9th March 2022 Bruce and Denis of the South African team met with Asilatu at TAFIRI and held meetings with Dr Baraka Kuguru,
Principal Researcher at TAFIRI and Dr Simon Juma Kangwe, Centre Director at TAFIRI.
10th March 2022 The South African team left Dar Es Salaam for JhB South Africa

Annex 5-6 – Terrestrial Habitats Survey sites

KK1 (Kakono Stream)
Date: 24/10/2020
S 1.183657
Start
E 31.087630
S 1.191145
End
E 31.088828
Vegetation
Low to Tall Forest
Structure
Dominant Drypetes gerrardii, Teclea nobilis,
Species Argomuellera macrophylla
KK2 (Kagera / Kakono Confluence)
Date: 24/10/2020
S 1.191851
Start
E 31.092439
S 1.189496
End
E 31.095124
Vegetation Tall Woodland with patches of low
Structure thicket in understory
Dominant Vachellia kirkii, Ipomoea rubens,
Species Triumfetta cordifolia
KK3 (Rubira Hill)
Date: 24/10/2020
S 1.188066
Start
E 31.092325
S 1.185993
End
E 31.090387
Vegetation Short, closed grassland with few
Structure trees; also low open woodland
Eragrostis racemosa, Ctenium
Dominant
concinnum, Diheteropogon
Species
amplectens, Parinari curat.
KK4 (Missenyi Ranch)
Date: 25/10/2020
S 1.041477
Start
E 30.934262
S 1.049639
End
E 30.930482
Vegetation Numerous tall termitaria thickets
Structure in Vachellia woodland
Senegalia senegal, Albizia
Dominant
petersiana,Searsia natalensis,
Species
Grewia trichocarpa

KK5 (Missenyi Ranch)

Date: 25/10/2020
S 1.049393
Start
E 30.930013
S 1.041499
End
E 30.928783
Vegetation Low Thicket along edge of cliff and
Structure on steep slopes above river
Psydrax schimperiana, Scutia
Dominant
myrtina, Senegalia kraussiana,
Species
Searsia natalensis
KK6 (Kagera River - upper inundation zone))
Date: 25/10/2020
S 1.042047
Start
E 30.926979
S 1.042929
End
E 30.926120
Vegetation Tall Woodland with patches of low
Structure thicket in understory
Dominant Vachellia kirkii, Ipomoea rubens,
Species Cyperus papyrus
KK7 (Pump Station 32)
Date: 25/10/2020
S 1.173815
Start
E 31.018118
S 1.173052
End
E 31.016580
Vegetation Tall Woodland with dense low
Structure understory
Vachellia kirkii, Senegalia
Dominant
polyacantha, Abutilon angulatum,
Species
Acalypha cf. lanceolata
KK8 (EFA4)
Date: 26/10/2020
S 1.209184
Start
E 31.525119
S 1.211161
End
E 31.523089
Vegetation
Open to Closed Woodland
Structure
Dominant Vachellia kirkii, Phoenix reclinata,
Species Vossia cuspidata, Ipomoea rubens

KK9 (Main road to EFA 3)

Date: 26/10/2020
S 1.258989
Start
E 31.381208
S 1.247668
End
E 31.378340
Vegetation
Tall Closed Woodland
Structure
Dominant Vachellia sieberiana, V. gerrardii,
Species Hyparrhenia spp.
KK10 (EFA 3)
Date: 26/10/2020
S 1.248825
Start
E 31.380352
S 1.246913
End
E 31.380403
Vegetation
Tall Closed Woodland (flooded)
Structure
Dominant Vachellia kirkii, Eichhornia
Species crassipes
KK11 (EFA1)
Date: 27/10/2020
S 1.188503
Start
E 31.110119
S 1.188603
End
E 31.112433
Vegetation Low Thicket along steep bank and
Structure Tall Closed Woodland
Dominant Vachellia kirkii, Searsia natalensis,
Species Ipomoea rubens
KK12 (Kagera River)
Date: 27/10/2020
S 1.188016
Start
E 31.131772
S 1.186384
End
E 31.135439
Vegetation Tall Closed Woodland with patches
Structure of thicket in understory
Vachellia kirkii, V. polyacantha,
Dominant
Eichhornia crassipes, Ipomoea
Species
rubens

KK13 (Kagera River)

Date: 27/10/2020
S 1.188697
Start
E 31.164295
S 1.189353
End
E 31.173106
Vegetation Low to Tall Thicket, becoming
Structure Forest in places
Dominant
Species
KK14 (Kagera River)
Date: 27/10/2020
S 1.191255
Start
E 31.201735
S 1.191941
End
E 31.204269
Vegetation Tall Closed Woodland with patches
Structure of thicket in understory
Vachellia kirkii, V. polyacantha,
Dominant
Eichhornia crassipes, Allophylus
Species
rubifolius
KK15 (Kagera River)
Date: 27/10/2020
S 1.204214
Start
E 31.221380
S 1.204671
End
E 31.225743
Vegetation Tall Closed Woodland with
Structure scattered thickets
Dominant Vachellia polyacantha, Allophylus
Species rubifolius, Searsia natalensis
KK16 (Kakono Dam Wall)
Date: 28/10/2020
S 1.194523
Start
E 31.093195
S 1.197766
End
E 31.092413
Vegetation Tall Closed Woodland with
Structure scattered thickets
Dominant Vachellia polyacantha, Alchornia
Species cordifolia, Echinochloa stagnina

KK17 (Hills south of dam wall)

Date: 28/10/2020
S 1.195933
Start
E 31.096975
S 1.197431
End
E 31.099211
Vegetation Short, closed grassland with
Structure numerous evergreen thickets
Dominant Ozoroa insignis, Eragrostis
Species racemosa, Dalbergia nitidula
KK18 (Access Road)
Date: 28/10/2020
S 1.211866
Start
E 31.115681
S 1.212302
End
E 31.116084
Vegetation Tall mid-dense woodland with
Structure numerous termitaria thickets
Dominant Vachellia sieberiana, Albizia
Species petersiana, Searsia natalensis
KK19 (Access Road)
Date: 28/10/2020
S 1.247436
Start
E 31.144702
S 1.248795
End
E 31.145507
Vegetation Tall mid-dense woodland with
Structure numerous termitaria thickets
Species Albizia petersiana
KK20 (Access Road)
Date: 28/10/2020
S 1.323400
Start
E 31.173306
S 1.323400
End
E 31.174111
Vegetation Short, closed grassland on laterite
Structure hardpan
Dominant Microchloa kunthii, Craterostigma
Species plantagineum

KK21 (Access Road)

Date: 28/10/2020
S 1.35207
Start
E 31.19086
S 1.35207
End
E 31.19086
Vegetation Short, closed grassland on
Structure hillslope
Dominant Ozoroa insignis, Eragrostis
Species racemosa, Combretum collinum
KK22 (Access Road)
Date: 28/10/2020
S 1.369243
Start
E 31.217850
S 1.368912
End
E 31.217397
Vegetation Mid-high woodland with dense
Structure thickets
Dominant Vachellia gerrardii, Combretum
Species adenogonium, Searsia natalensis
KK23 (Near EFA2)
Date: 29/10/2020
S 1.207872
Start
E 31.216700
S 1.207872
End
E 31.216700
Vegetation Mid-high woodland with dense
Structure thickets
Dominant Vachellia sieberiana, Albizia
Species petersiana, Searsia natalensis
KK24 (EFA 2)
Date: 29/10/2020
S 1.204283
Start
E 31.216023
S 1.204841
End
E 31.216946
Vegetation Tall closed woodland with thickets
Structure in understory
Dominant Vachellia kirkii, Allophylus
Species rubifolius, Ipomoea rubens

KK25 (Transmission line West)

Date: 29/10/2020
S 1.255567
Start
E 31.251661
S 1.258757
End
E 31.258094
Vegetation Short, closed woodland
Structure (secondary)
Dominant Vachellia polyacantha, V.
Species sieberiana, Conyza albida
Date: 29/10/2020
S 1.264718
Start
E 31.271952
S 1.266444
End
E 31.276762
Vegetation Short, closed woodland
Structure (secondary)
Dominant Vachellia sieberiana, Searsia
Species natalensis, Conyza albida
Date: 29/10/2020
S 1.267758
Start
E 31.280371
S 1.284074
End
E 31.320612
Vegetation Mid-high, mid-dense woodland
Structure with scattered thickets
Species Searsia natalensis
KK28 (Hills near dam wall)
Date: 30/10/2020
S 1.183187
Start
E 31.086772
S 1.186290
End
E 31.086354
Vegetation Short, closed grassland on rocky
Structure hillslope
Dominant Securidaca longepedunculata,
Species Ozoroa insignis, Hyparrhenia spp.

KK29 (Kakono Stream)

Date: 30/10/2020
S 1.188207
Start
E 31.084820
S 1.189358
End
E 31.087156
Vegetation
Low to tall forest
Structure
Drypetes gerrardii, Craibia
Dominant
brownii, Argomuellera
Species
macrophylla
Date: 31/10/2020
S 1.244738
Start
E 31.222363
S 1.223715
End
E 31.172161
Vegetation Edaphic grassland / woodland with
Structure numerous tall thickets
Dominant Albizia petersiana, Vachellia
Species sieberiana, Searsia natalensis
KK31 (Access Road)
Date: 31/10/2020
S 1.223715
Start
E 31.172161
S 1.247012
End
E 31.147020
Vegetation Edaphic grassland / woodland with
Structure numerous tall thickets
KK32 (Hills south of dam)
Date: 1/11/2020
S 1.204706
Start
E 31.094516
S 1.212393
End
E 31.095719
Vegetation Short, closed grassland on rocky
Structure hillslope
Dominant Securidaca longepedunculata,
Species Ozoroa insignis, Hyparrhenia spp.

KK33 (Plains south-west of dam)

Date: 1/11/2020
S 1.213805
Start
E 31.096556
S 1.222957
End
E 31.084110
Vegetation
Woodland with dense, tall thickets
Structure
KK34 (Tributary of the Kagera)
Date: 1/11/2020
S 1.222408
Start
E 31.082889
S 1.218468
End
E 31.081042
Vegetation
Low to tall forest
Structure
Dominant Drypetes gerrardii, Craibia
Species brownii, Euphorbia dawei
KK35 (Kyaka - Kagera Road)
Date: 2/11/2020
S 1.344733
Start
E 31.261044
S 1.347453
End
E 31.257627
Vegetation
Low Forest
Structure
Dominant Euclea racemosa, Craibia brownii,
Species Suregada procera

Annex 5-7 – Aquatic Ecosystem Types
Aquatic Ecosystem Classification
Site Code: K0
River: Kagera
Date: 2020/02/25
Level 1: System ✓
Inland ✓
Estuarine -
Level 3: Landscape
Valley Floor ✓
Slope -
Plain -
Bench - Hilltop -
Bench - Saddle -
Bench - Shelf -
Level 4: HGM Unit

Channel (River) - Zone
Source -
Mountain Headwater -
Mountain Stream -
Transitional - Figure A: Lower Foothill.
Upper Foothill -
Lower Foothill ✓
Lowland River - Level 2: Regional Setting
Rejuvenated Cascade - Aquatic Ecoregion (FEOW) 521: Lake Victoria Basin
Rejuvinated Foothill -
Upland Floodplain -
Wetland
Depression - Endorheic - Level 6a: Biotopes (0-6) Level 6b: Salinity ✓
Depression - Exorheic - Natural Fresh (<500 mS/m) ✓
Hillslope Seep - Waterfall - Brackish (500-3 000 mS/m) -
Basin Seep - Cascade - Saline (3 000 - 8 000 mS/m) -
Valley Bottom - No Channel - Rapid - Hypersaline (>8 000 mS/m) -
Valley Bottom - Channel - Riffle -
Floodplain - Channel - Run 2 Level 6c: pH
Floodplain - Depression - Glide 6 Acidic (<6) -
Floodplain - Flat - Pool - Circum-neutral (6-8) ✓
Floodplain - Meander Cut-off - Backwater 2 Alkaline (>8) -
Lake - Inundation -
Estuary - Spring - Level 6d: Substrate Types (0-6)
Artificial Seep - Organic (>10% organic)
Dam - Artificial Leaves/Detritus 4
Canal - Canal - Organic (<30% organic) -
Dam (in-channel) - Peat (>30% organic) 4
Level 5: Hydrological Regime Dam (off-channel) - Mineral Soils (<10% organic)
5a) Flow regime / Inundation Excavation - Salt -
Permanent ✓ Salt Works - Clay -
Seasonal - WWTW pond - Loam -
Intermittent - Irrigated Land - Silt (<0.125) 5
Never - Stormwater Pond - Sand - Fine (0.125-0.5) -
Unknown - Other - Sand - Coarse (0.5-2.0) -
5b) Saturation Other -
Permanent ✓ Level 6e: Vegetation Cover (0-6) Rocky
Seasonal - Aquatic Gravel - F (2-8) -
Intermittent - Floating 4 Gravel - M (8-16) -
Never - Submerged - Gravel - C (16-64) 3
Unknown - Emergent 5 Cobble - Small (64-128) ?
5c) Depth Class Herbaceous Cobble - Large (128-250) ?
Limnetic (≥ 2m max depth) ✓ Grasses 4 Boulder - Small (250-500) ?
Littoral (≤ 2m max depth) - Herbs 3 Boulder - Medium (500-1000) ?
Unkown - Geophytes - Boulder - Large (1000-4000) ?
Sedges/Rushes 5 Bedrock -
Reeds - Waterfall -
Restios -
Palmiet -
Palms 1
Crops -
Shrubs
Shrubs -
Thicket -
Trees
Plantation -
Riparian Forest - Natural -
Swamp Forest 4
Other -
Reference: Ollis et al. (2013).

Aquatic Ecosystem Classification
Site Code: K+54

River: Kagera
Date: 2020/02/27
Level 1: System ✓
Inland ✓
Estuarine -
Level 3: Landscape
Valley Floor ✓
Slope -
Plain -
Bench - Hilltop -
Bench - Saddle -
Bench - Shelf -
Level 4: HGM Unit

Channel (River) - Zone
Source -
Mountain Headwater -
Mountain Stream -
Transitional - Figure A: Lowland River
Upper Foothill -
Lower Foothill -
Lowland River ✓ Level 2: Regional Setting
Rejuvenated Cascade - Aquatic Ecoregion (FEOW) 521: Lake Victoria Basin
Rejuvinated Foothill -
Upland Floodplain -
Wetland
Depression - Endorheic - Level 6a: Biotopes (0-6) Level 6b: Salinity ✓
Depression - Exorheic - Natural Fresh (<500 mS/m) ✓
Hillslope Seep - Waterfall - Brackish (500-3 000 mS/m) -
Basin Seep - Cascade - Saline (3 000 - 8 000 mS/m) -
Valley Bottom - No Channel - Rapid - Hypersaline (>8 000 mS/m) -
Valley Bottom - Channel - Riffle -
Floodplain - Channel - Run 2 Level 6c: pH
Floodplain - Depression - Glide 4 Acidic (<6) -
Floodplain - Flat - Pool 5 Circum-neutral (6-8) ✓
Floodplain - Meander Cut-off - Backwater 4 Alkaline (>8) -
Lake - Inundation -
Estuary - Spring - Level 6d: Substrate Types (0-6)
Artificial Seep - Organic (>10% organic)
Dam - Artificial Leaves/Detritus 4
Canal - Canal - Organic (<30% organic) -
Dam (in-channel) - Peat (>30% organic) 4
Level 5: Hydrological Regime Dam (off-channel) - Mineral Soils (<10% organic)
5a) Flow regime / Inundation Excavation - Salt -
Permanent ✓ Salt Works - Clay -
Seasonal - WWTW pond - Loam -
Intermittent - Irrigated Land - Silt (<0.125) 5
Never - Stormwater Pond - Sand - Fine (0.125-0.5) ?
Unknown - Other - Sand - Coarse (0.5-2.0) ?
5b) Saturation Other -
Permanent ✓ Level 6e: Vegetation Cover (0-6) Rocky
Seasonal - Aquatic Gravel - F (2-8) ?
Intermittent - Floating 4 Gravel - M (8-16) -
Never - Submerged - Gravel - C (16-64) -
Unknown - Emergent 5 Cobble - Small (64-128) -
5c) Depth Class Herbaceous Cobble - Large (128-250) -
Limnetic (≥ 2m max depth) ✓ Grasses 4 Boulder - Small (250-500) -
Littoral (≤ 2m max depth) - Herbs 3 Boulder - Medium (500-1000) -
Unkown - Geophytes - Boulder - Large (1000-4000) -
Sedges/Rushes 5 Bedrock -
Reeds - Waterfall -
Restios -
Palmiet -
Palms 1
Crops -
Shrubs
Shrubs -
Thicket -
Trees
Plantation -
Riparian Forest - Natural -
Swamp Forest 4
Other -
Reference: Ollis et al. (2013).

Annex 5-8 – List of Diatoms

Species K-12 S6
Achnanthidium exiguum (Grunow) Czarnecki 5
Achnanthidium species 11
Aulacoseira granulata (Ehrenberg) Simonsen 2
Aulacoseira species 2 9
Brachysira neoexilis (Grunow) DG Mannt 1
Cocconeis placentula Ehrenberg 62
Craticula molestiformis (Hustedt) Lange-Bertalot 1
Craticula species 1
Encyonema species 2 27
Eolimna minima (Grunow) Lange-Bertalot 29
Eunotia bilunaris (Ehrenberg) Mills 2
Eunotia camelus Ehrenberg 1
Eunotia implicata Norpel. Lange-Bertalot & Alles 7
Eunotia incisa Gregory 9
Eunotia paludosa Grunow 81
Eunotia rhomboidea Hustedt 108
Eunotia species 2 17
Eunotia zygodon var. elongata Hustedt 37
Fragilaria species 1
Frustulia species 1 3
Geissleria species 9
Gomphonema gracile Ehrenberg 6
Gomphonema parvulum (Kützing) Kützing 11 2
Gomphonema pumilum var. rigidum Reichardt & Lange-Bertalot 3
Gomphonema species 16 7
Lemnicola hungarica (Grunow) Round & Basson 89
Mayamaea atomus (Kützing) Lange-Bertalot 7
Mayamaea atomus var. permitis (Hustedt) Lange-Bertalot 1
Navicula feuerbornii f. africana Foged 33
Navicula schroeteri var. symmetrica (Patrick) Lange-Bertalot 1
Navicula small species 4
Navicula species 5 1
Nitzschia microcephala Grunow 2
Nitzschia species 20 29
Planothidium frequentissima (Lange-Bertalot) Round & Bukhityarova 103
Sellaphora seminulum (Grunow) DG Mann 7
Stenopterobia curvula (W Smith) Krammer 2
Stenopterobia delicatissima (Lewis) Brébisson 16
Stephanodiscus genera 3
Surirella species 2
Total count 400 400

Annex 5-9 – List of Macroinvertebrates

Taxon Species Status K-12 K+3 K+18 K+54 S1 S2 S3 S5 S6 S7 D01
PORIFERA
Spongillidae Ephydatia fluviatilis - A
ANNELIDA
Lumbriculidae - - B 1 C A
ARACHNIDA
Hydracarina - - A
CRUSTACEA
Atyidae Caridina nilotica LC X A A X X X
Atyidae Caridina togoensis LC A A
Palaemonidae Macrobrachium idella LC
Palaemonidae Macrobrachium lepidactylus LC
Palaemonidae Macrobrachium rude LC
Palaemonidae Macrobrachium scabriculum LC
Potamonautidae Potamonautes emini LC
Potamonautidae Potamonautes kantsyore DD
Potamonautidae Potamonautes niloticus LC A
EPHEMEROPTERA
Baetidae 1 sp - A A A A
Baetidae Cloeon sp. -
Caenidae - - A A B
Caenidae Afrocaenis sp. - X
Heptageniidae Afronurus sp. - A
Leptophlebiidae - - X
Polymitarcyidae Ephoron sp. - X
ODONATA
Aeshnidae Afroaeschna scotias LC
Aeshnidae Anaciaeschna triangulifera LC
Aeshnidae Anax chloromelas LC
Aeshnidae Anax ephippiger LC
Aeshnidae Anax imperator LC
Aeshnidae Anax speratus LC
Aeshnidae Anax tristis LC
Aeshnidae Gynacantha bullata LC


Aeshnidae Gynacantha cylindrata LC
Aeshnidae Gynacantha manderica LC
Aeshnidae Gynacantha vesiculata LC
Aeshnidae Gynacantha villosa LC
Aeshnidae Heliaeschna trinervulata LC
Aeshnidae Pinheyschna meruensis LC
Aeshnidae Pinheyschna rileyi LC
Aeshnidae Zosteraeschna ellioti LC
Calopterygidae Phaon irridipennis LC X
Chlorocyphidae Platycypha caligata LC
Chlorocyphidae Platycypha lacustris LC
Coenagrionidae - - A B
Coenagrionidae Aciagrion gracile LC X
Coenagrionidae Africallagma elongatum LC
Coenagrionidae Africallagma glaucum LC
Coenagrionidae Africallagma pseudelongatum LC
Coenagrionidae Africallagma subtile LC
Coenagrionidae Africallagma vaginale LC
Coenagrionidae Agriocnemis exillis LC
Coenagrionidae Agriocnemis sp. LC X
Coenagrionidae Agriocnemis inversa LC
Coenagrionidae Agriocnemis palaeforma VU
Coenagrionidae Agriocnemis victoria LC
Coenagrionidae Azuragrion nigridorsum LC
Coenagrionidae Ceriagrion corallinum LC
Coenagrionidae Ceriagrion glabrum LC X X
Coenagrionidae Ceriagrion kordofanicum LC
Coenagrionidae Ceriagrion platystigma LC
Coenagrionidae Ceriagrion suave LC X
Coenagrionidae Ceriagrion varians LC
Coenagrionidae Ceriagrion whellani LC
Coenagrionidae Ischnura senegalensis LC
Coenagrionidae Proischnura subfurcata LC
Coenagrionidae Pseudagrion glaucescens LC
Coenagrionidae Pseudagrion hageni LC
Coenagrionidae Pseudagrion hamoni LC
Coenagrionidae Pseudagrion kersteni LC


Coenagrionidae Pseudagrion massaicum LC
Coenagrionidae Pseudagrion melanicterum LC
Coenagrionidae Pseudagrion nubicum LC
Coenagrionidae Pseudagrion rufocinctum LC
Coenagrionidae Pseudagrion salisburyense LC
Coenagrionidae Pseudagrion sjoestedti LC X X
Coenagrionidae Pseudagrion spernatum LC
Coenagrionidae Pseudagrion sublacteum LC
Coenagrionidae Pseudagrion sudanicum LC
Coenagrionidae Pseudagrion torridum LC
Corduliidae Hemicordula africana LC
Gomphidae - - 1
Gomphidae Crenigomphus hartmanni LC
Gomphidae Crenigomphus renei LC
Gomphidae Gomphidia quarrei LC
Gomphidae Ictinogomphus ferox LC
Gomphidae Lestinogomphus sp. LC X
Gomphidae Notogomphus leroyi LC
Gomphidae Notogomphus lujai LC
Gomphidae Onychogomphus nigrotibialis DD
Gomphidae Onychogomphus styx LC
Gomphidae Paragomphus alluaudi LC
Gomphidae Paragomphus cognatus LC
Gomphidae Paragomphus genei LC
Gomphidae Paragomphus viridior LC
Gomphidae Phyllogomphus selysi LC
Lestidae Lestes dissimulans LC
Lestidae Lestes ictericus LC
Lestidae Lestes sp. LC X
Lestidae Lestes pallidus LC
Lestidae Lestes plagiatus LC
Lestidae Lestes tridens LC
Lestidae Lestes unicifer LC
Lestidae Lestes virgatus LC
Libellulidae - - A X B
Libellulidae Acisoma inflatum LC
Libellulidae Acisoma trifidum LC


Libellulidae Acisoma variegatum LC
Libellulidae Aethiothemis solitaria LC
Libellulidae Brachythemis impartita LC A
Libellulidae Brachythemis lacustris LC X
Libellulidae Brachythemis leucosticta LC
Libellulidae Bradinopyga strachani LC
Libellulidae Crocothemis divisa LC
Libellulidae Crocothemis erythraea LC
Libellulidae Crocothemis sanguinolenta LC
Libellulidae Diplacodes lefebvrii LC
Libellulidae Hadrothemis infesta LC
Libellulidae Nesciothemis farinosa LC
Libellulidae Notiothemis jonesi LC
Libellulidae Notiothemis robertsi LC
Libellulidae Olpogastra lugubris LC
Libellulidae Orhetrum hintzi LC
Libellulidae Orthetrum abbotti LC
Libellulidae Orthetrum austeni LC
Libellulidae Orthetrum brachiale LC X
Libellulidae Orthetrum caffrum LC
Libellulidae Orthetrum chrysostigma LC
Libellulidae Orthetrum guineense LC X
Libellulidae Orthetrum icteromelas LC
Libellulidae Orthetrum julia LC
Libellulidae Orthetrum machodoi LC
Libellulidae Orthetrum microstigma LC
Libellulidae Orthetrum monardi LC
Libellulidae Orthetrum stemmale LC X
Libellulidae Orthetrum trinacria LC
Libellulidae Oxythemis phoenicosceles LC
Libellulidae Palpopleura deceptor LC
Libellulidae Palpopleura jucunda LC
Libellulidae Palpopleura lucia LC X X
Libellulidae Palpopleura portia LC
Libellulidae Pantala flavescens LC
Libellulidae Parazyxomma flavicans LC
Libellulidae Rhyothemis fenestrina LC


Libellulidae Rhyothemis semihyalina LC
Libellulidae Tetrathemis polleni LC
Libellulidae Thermochoria equivocata LC
Libellulidae Tholymis tillarga LC
Libellulidae Thrithemis furva LC
Libellulidae Tramea basilaris LC
Libellulidae Trithemis aconita LC
Libellulidae Trithemis annulata LC
Libellulidae Trithemis anomala LC
Libellulidae Trithemis arteriosa LC X
Libellulidae Trithemis donaldsoni LC
Libellulidae Trithemis dorsalis LC
Libellulidae Trithemis hecate LC X X
Libellulidae Trithemis integra LC
Libellulidae Trithemis kirbyi LC
Libellulidae Trithemis pluvialis LC
Libellulidae Trithemis stictica LC X
Libellulidae Trithemis werneri LC
Libellulidae Trithetrum navasi LC
Libellulidae Urothemis assignata LC
Libellulidae Urothemis edwardsii LC
Libellulidae Zygonyx natalensis LC
Libellulidae Zygonyx torridus LC
Macromiidae Phyllomacromia contumax LC
Macromiidae Phyllomacromia melania LC
Macromiidae Phyllomacromia picta LC
Macromiidae Phyllomacromia sylvatica LC
Platycnemididae Elattoneura glauca LC
Platycnemididae Mesocnemis singularis LC
HEMIPTERA
Belostomatidae - - A X A 1
Corixidae - - A A
Gerridae - - B A A
Gerridae Limnogonus sp. - X
Naucoridae Laccocoris sp. - X
Nepidae Ranatra sp. - X
Notonectidae - - A


Pleidae - - A
Veliidae - - A
Veliidae Rhagovelia sp. - X
LEPIDOPTERA
Crambidae - - 1
TRICHOPTERA
Hydropsychidae - - X
Hydropsychidae Aethaloptera sp. - X
Leptoceridae - - A
Leptoceridae Athripsodes sp. - X
COLEOPTERA
Dytiscidae - - 1 A A
Dytiscidae Bidessini sp. - X
Dytiscidae Cybister sp. - X
Dytiscidae Hydaticus sp. - X
Dytiscidae Laccophilus sp. - X
Gyrinidae - - A A
Gyrinidae Gyrinus sp. - X
Hydrophilidae Helochares sp. - X
Hydrophilidae Hydrophilini sp. - X
DIPTERA
Ceratopogonidae Bezzia sp. - 1
Chironomidae - - A B B C
Chironomidae Chironominae - X
Chironomidae Dicrotendipes sp. - X
Chironomidae Rheotanytarsus sp. - X
Culicidae - - X A
Culicidae Mansonia sp. - X
Dolichopodidae Condylostylus sp. - X
Dolichopodidae Hercostomus sp. - X
Dolichopodidae Medetera sp. - X
Dolichopodidae Syntormon sp. - X
Muscidae Lispe sp. A - X
Muscidae Lispe sp. B - A
Psychodidae Clogmia sp. - A
Simuliidae - - A A
Simuliidae Simulium unicornutum - X


Simuliidae Silulium alcocki group X
Syrphidae - - X
Syrphidae Eristalinus taeniops - X
Syrphidae SF: Eristalinae - X
Syrphidae Phytomia natalensis - X
GASTROPODA
Ampullariidae Pila ovata ovata LC 1
Lymnaeidae Lymnaea natalensis LC A B
Planorbidae Biomphalaria pfeifferi LC A C
Planorbidae Bulinus africanus LC A
Planorbidae Bulinus globosus LC
Planorbidae Bulinus nasutus LC
Planorbidae Bulinus truncatus LC
Planorbidae Burnupia caffra LC
Planorbidae Ceratophallus natalensis LC
Thiaridae Melanoides tuberculata LC
Viviparidae Bellamya unicolor LC
BIVALVIA
Cyrenidae Corbicula africana LC
Sphaeriidae Eupera ferruginea LC A
Sphaeriidae Pisidium pirothi LC

Annex 5-10 – TARISS1 Data Sheet

TARISS version: 1 Taxon QV S V GSM TOT Taxon QV S V GSM TOT
PORIFERA 5 TRICHOPTERA
Date: 2020-02-24 COELENTERATA 5 Dipseudopsidae 10
Site Code: S5 TURBELLARIA 1 Ecnomidae 8
River: Mwisa ANNELIDA Hydropsychidae 1 sp 4
Egoregion Oligochaeta 3 Hydropsychidae 2 sp 6
Lake Victoria Basin Hirudinea 1 Hydropsychidae >2sp 12
CRUSTACEA Philopotamidae 10
Amphipoda 13 Polycentropodidae 12
Potamonautidae• 3 Psychomyiidae 8
Atyidae 8 Cased caddis:
Temp(•C): 20 Palaemondiae 10 Calamoceratidae ST 11
pH: 6.7 HYDRACARINA 8 Hydroptliidae 6
DO(mg/L): - PLECOPTERA Lepidostomatidae 10
Flow: Low Notonemouridae 14 Leptoceridae 6
Riparian Disturbance: Perlidae 12 Pisuliidae 10
lnstream Di sturbance: EPHEMEROPTERA COLEOPTERA
Latitude: -1.26470 Baetidae 1sp 4 Dytiscidae* 5
Longitude: 31.381670 Baetidae 2 sp 6 Elmidae/Dryopidae• 8
Baetidae > 2 sp 12 Gyrinidae* 5
Altitude (masl):1155 Caenidae 6 Hailplidae* 5
Cond (mS/m) 8 Ephemeridae 13 Scritidae 12
Clarity (em): Heptageniidae 13 Hydraenidae• 8
Turbidtiy: Leptophlebiidae 9 Hydrophilidae* 5
Colour: Dark Brown Oilgoneuridae 15 Limnichidae 10
Time for each sampling
Polymitarcyidae 10 Psephenidae 10
each biotic
Stones In Current (SIC)
Prosopistomatidae 15 DIPTERA
3
Stones Out Of Current
Ephemerythydae 9 Athericidae 10
(SOOC) 3
Bedrock 0 Tricorythidae 9 Blephariceridae 15
Aquatic Veg 3 Dicercomyzidae 10 Ceratopogonidae 5
MargVeg In Current 4 ODONATA Chironomidae 2 B B B C
MargVeg Out Of Current
Calopterygidae 10 Culicidae* 1 A A
4
Gravel 4 Chlorocyphidae 10 Dixidae* 10
Sand 2 Synlestidae 8 Empididae 6
Mud 1 Coenagrionidae 4 Ephydridae 3
Hand
Lestidae 8 Muscidae 1
pickingNisualobservation
Platycnemidae 10 Psychodidae 1
Protoneuridae 8 Simuliidae 5
Aeshnidae 8 Syrphidae• 1
Corduliidae 8 Tabanidae 5
Gomphidae 6 Tipulidae 5
Othertaxa Libellulidae 4 GASTROPODA
LEPIDOPTERA Ancylidae 6
Crambidae Bulininae• 3
HEMIPTERA Hydrobidae• 3
Belostomatidae* 3 1 A Lymnaeidae• 3
Corixidae* 3 Physidae* 3
Comments and
Gerridae• 5 Planorbinae• 3
Observations
Hydrometridae• 6 Thiaridae• 3
Naucoridae* 7 Viviparidae* 5
Nepidae* 3 Neritidae 4
Notonectidae* 3 PELECYPODA
Pleidae• 4 A A Corbiculidae 5
Veliidae/M..veliidae* 5 Sphaeriidae 3
MEGALOPTERA Unionidae 6
Corydaildae 8 SASS Score 10
Sialidae 6 No.of Taxa 4
Procedure: ASPT 2.5

TARISS version: 1 Taxon QV S V GSM TOT Taxon QV S V GSM TOT

PORIFERA 5 A A TRICHOPTERA
Date: 2020-02-24 COELENTERATA 5 Dipseudopsidae 10
Site Code: K-12 to
TURBELLARIA 1 Ecnomidae 8
K+18
River: Kagera ANNELIDA Hydropsychidae 1 sp 4 A A
Egoregion Oligochaeta 3 B B Hydropsychidae 2 sp 6
Lake Victoria Basin Hirudinea 1 Hydropsychidae >2sp 12
Zone CRUSTACEA Philopotamidae 10
Lower Foothill Amphipoda 13 Polycentropodidae 12
Potamonautidae 3 a A Psychomyiidae 8
Atyidae 8 A A Cased caddis:
Temp(•C): Palaemondiae 10 Calamoceratidae 11
pH: HYDRACARINA 8 Hydroptliidae 6
DO(mg/L): - PLECOPTERA Lepidostomatidae 10
Flow: Moderate Notonemouridae 14 Leptoceridae 6 A A
Riparian Disturbance: Perlidae 12 Pisuliidae 10
lnstream Di sturbance: EPHEMEROPTERA COLEOPTERA
Latitude: Baetidae 1sp 4 A A Dytiscidae* 5 A A
Longitude: Baetidae 2 sp 6 Elmidae/Dryopidae• 8
Baetidae > 2 sp 12 Gyrinidae* 5 A A
Altitude (masl): Caenidae 6 A A A Hailplidae* 5
Cond (mS/m) Ephemeridae 13 Scritidae 12
Clarity (em): Heptageniidae 13 A A Hydraenidae• 8
Turbidtiy: Leptophlebiidae 9 A A Hydrophilidae* 5 1 1
Colour: Red/Brown Oilgoneuridae 15 Limnichidae 10
Polymitarcyidae 10 A A Psephenidae 10
Stones In Current (SIC)
Prosopistomatidae 15 DIPTERA
1
Stones Out Of Current
Ephemerythydae 9 Athericidae 10
(SOOC) 1
Bedrock 0 Tricorythidae 9 Blephariceridae 15
Aquatic Veg 0 Dicercomyzidae 10 Ceratopogonidae 5
MargVeg In Current 1 ODONATA Chironomidae 2 A B B B
MargVeg Out Of
Calopterygidae 10 A A Culicidae* 1 A A
Current 4
Gravel 1 Chlorocyphidae 10 Dixidae* 10
Sand 0 Synlestidae 8 Empididae 6
Mud 2 Coenagrionidae 4 B B Ephydridae 3
Hand picking/Visual
Lestidae 8 A A Muscidae 1 A A
observation
Platycnemidae 10 Psychodidae 1
Protoneuridae 8 Simuliidae 5
Aeshnidae 8 Syrphidae• 1 B B
Corduliidae 8 Tabanidae 5
Gomphidae 6 A A Tipulidae 5
Other taxa Libellulidae 4 B B GASTROPODA
LEPIDOPTERA Ancylidae 6
Crambidae Bulininae• 3
HEMIPTERA Hydrobidae• 3
Belostomatidae* 3 A A Lymnaeidae• 3 A
Corixidae* 3 A A Physidae* 3
Comments and
Gerridae• 5 B B Planorbinae• 3
Observations
Hydrometridae• 6 Thiaridae• 3
Naucoridae* 7 Viviparidae* 5
Nepidae* 3 Neritidae 4
Notonectidae* 3 PELECYPODA
Pleidae• 4 Corbiculidae 5
Veliidae/M.veliidae* 5 A A Sphaeriidae 3 B B
MEGALOPTERA Unionidae 6
Corydaildae 8 SASS Score (145)
Sialidae 6 No..of Taxa (29)
ASPT (5.0)

Annex 5-11 – List of Fish Species

* Likely to be misidentifications 1. Mwisa-Lake 2. Nsongezi-Mwisa 3. Rusumo-Nsongezi
Norplan SLR SLR Norplan SLR SLR Norplan SLR Artelia SLR
Row Labels Species Common name Status
(2014) (2020) (2022) (2014) (2020) (2022) (2014) (2020) (2013) (2022)
CHARACIFORMES
Alestidae Brycinus affinis Redfin robber LC + +
Brycinus imberi Spot-tail robber LC +
Brycinus jacksonii Victoria robber LC +
Brycinus nurse Nurse tetra LC + +
Brycinus sadleri Sadler's robber LC + + +
Brycinus sp. Robber LC +
CYPRINIFORMES
Cyprinidae Cyprinus carpio Common carp LC + +
Enteromius “3-spot” (anal
- - + +
spot)
Enteromius “3-spot” (cf.
- - + +
cercops)
Enteromius “broken stripe” - - +
East African
Enteromius apleurogramma LC + + + + +
redfinned barb
Enteromius cercops Neumayer's barb LC +
Enteromius cf. atkinsoni - - + +
Enteromius eutaenia Orangefin barb LC +
Enteromius kerstenii Redspot barb LC + + + + +
Enteromius magdalenae Bunjako barb LC
Enteromius neumayeri Neumayer's barb LC + +
Enteromius nyanzae Nyanza barb LC + + + +
Enteromius paludinosus Straightfin barb LC + + + +
Enteromius perince Threespot barb LC +
Enteromius radiatus Redeye barb LC +
Enteromius sp. - - + +
Enteromius sp. (cf. E.
Dash-dot barb LC +
atkinsoni)
Enteromius sp. (cf. jacksoni) Jackson's barb LC + + + +
Enteromius sp. (cf.
Bunjako barb LC +
magdelanae)
Enteromius yongei Nzoia barb LC + +
Labeo cf. cylindricus - - +


(2014) (2020) (2022) (2014) (2020) (2022) (2014) (2020) (2013) (2022)
Labeo coubie* African carp LC +
Labeo niloticus* Nile carp LC +
Labeo senegalensis* - LC +
Labeo victorianus Ningu CR + + + + + + +
Labeobarbus acuticeps Matthes barb NT +
Labeobarbus altianalis Ripon barbel LC + + + + + + + +
Labeobarbus somereni - LC +
Rastrineobola argentea Lake Victoria sardine LC +
CYPRINODONTIFORM
ES
Poeciliidae Lacustricola pumilus Tanganyika lampeye - + +
Micropanchax hutereaui Meshcale topminnow LC +
Poecilia reticulata Guppy LC + + +
Lacustricola/Micropanchax
Procatopodidae - - + +
spp.
LEPIDOSIRENIFORME
S
Protopteridae Protopterus aethiopicus Marbled lungfish LC + + + + + +
OSTEOGLOSSIFORME
S
Mormyridae Longnose
Gnathonemus longibarbis LC + + + + + + + +
stonebasher
Graham's
Hippopotamyrus grahami LC + + + + + + +
stonebasher
Marcusenius cyprinoides Elephantfish LC + +
Marcusenius victoriae Victoria stonebasher LC + + + + +
Mormyrus caschive Kasuruban LC +
Mormyrus hasselquistii Elephantsnout LC +
Mormyrus kannume Bottlenose LC + + + + +
Petrocephalus catostoma Churchill LC + +
Petrocephalus degeni - DD +
Pollimyrus nigricans Dark stonebasher LC + + +
PERCIFORMES
Cichlidae Astatoreochromis alluaudi Alluaud's haplo LC + + + +
Astatotilapia nubilus - VU +
Coptodon rendali Redbreast tilapia LC + +


(2014) (2020) (2022) (2014) (2020) (2022) (2014) (2020) (2013) (2022)
Oreochromis esculentus Singida tilapia CR +
Oreochromis leucostictus Bluespotted tilapia LC + + + + +
Oreochromis macrochir Longfin tilapia - +
Oreochromis niloticus Nile tilapia LC + + + +
Oreochromis variabilis Victoria tilapia CR + + +
Other Haplochromine cichlids - - + + +
Egyptian
Pseudocrenilabrus multicolor LC + +
mouthbrooder
Thoracochromis wingatii - DD +
Latidae Lates niloticus Nile perch LC + +
SILURIFORMES
Amphiliidae Zaireichthys sp. - - +
Bagridae Bagrus docmak Semutundu LC + + +
Clariidae Clarias alluaudi Alluaud's catfish LC +
Clarias anguillaris Mudfish LC +
Clarias gariepinus Sharptooth catfish LC + + + + + + + +
Clarias liocephalus Smoothhead catfish LC + + + + + + + +
Clarias spp. - - +
Mochokidae Fischer's Victoria
Synodontis afrofischeri LC + + + + + + + + + +
squeaker
Synodontis ruandae Rwanda squeaker VU + +
Lake Victoria
Synodontis victoriae LC + +
squeaker
Schilbe intermedius Silver butter catfish LC + + + + + + + +
Schilbeidae
Schilbe mystus African butter catfish LC +
SYNBRANCHIFORMES
Mastacembelidae Mastacembelus frenatus East African spiny eel LC + + + + +
ANABANTIFORMES
Occelated labyrinth
Anabantidae Ctenopoma muriei LC +
fish

Data sources
Study Citation
1
Norplan Norplan. 2014. Kakono Hydropower Project: Environmental and Social Impact Assessment. Draft Final Report. November 2014. 268 pp.
Norplan Sources: Rutaisire, J. 2003. The reproductive biology and artificial breeding of ningu Labeo victorianus (Pisces: Cyprinidae). PhD Thesis. Rhodes University, Grahamstown. 183 pp.
Longdare, O. 2012. Environmental Impact Statement on the Nsongezi Hydropower Project. Nsongezi Power Company Limited.
Newplan 2011. Additional studies of the proposed Kikagati Hydropower Project. Environmental and Social Impact Assessment. Final Report.
Artelia. 2013. Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA): Rusumo Falls Hydroelectric Project - Dam & Powerplant Component. Volume 2: Appendices. E4144v4.
Ref 1770050.
2
SLR This ESIA: SLR Consulting
3
Artelia Artelia. 2013. Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA): Rusumo Falls Hydroelectric Project - Dam & Powerplant Component. Volume 2: Appendices. E4144v4. Ref 1770050.
Artelia Sources: Experco (2003) None provided
Sogreah (1991) None provided
De Vos (1986) None provided
Kiss (1976) None provided
Thys (1983) None provided
Frank et al. (1984) None provided
Mughanda (1989) None provided

Annex 5-12 – Fisher Interviews

Interviews conducted by Mr Charles Ezekiel Lake Victoria Fisheries Organisation
Date: 29.02.2020
Subject: A Brief Report on Fish landing survey (interview)
Landing Site: Vanilla, Camp No.06-Kagera Sugar
The Fishing ground: is dominated by three (3) species of macrophytes: Paper reeds (Cyperus papyrus), Hippo grass (Vosia
cuspidata), and water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassippes).
Interview with Fish Monger (trader)- Mr. Shaidu Valerian Kahamba Mkandala and four (4) fishermen (Mr. Peterson Michael,
Dickson Ibrahim, Barugale Paschale, and Erizeus Paschal) who regularly fish around and land at this Landing Site
During this wet/rainy season fishing is only conducted in the floodplains/marginal swamps among some vegetation where
fish go for spawning and feeding. During dry season when floodplains are dry, fishing activities are conducted in the main
river channel. On the interview day only Lungfish (Protopterus aethiopicus) - locally known as Kamongo - was landed. A
total of 27 fishes from the four (4) fishermen (9 + 8 + 6 + 4 pieces). Usually the fish (Lungfish) is sold by weight, at a price
of TShs. 2,500/= per kg. The fishermen target this species due to its high market demand and good prices accrued from
the sale. Other fish species are found in the area as well, but due to lower prices, the fishermen do not target them. This
is a kind of “selective fishing” – going for lungfish in their preferred habitats using some specific bait. One fisherman
reported that his big Clarias fish was eaten by a crocodile, which are common in those vegetated areas. Fishing gears (gill
nets, traps, hooks) are set overnight – from daytime to the following day (morning).
Status of fish landings: The fishers narrated that in the past two (2) years fish catches were better than the situation is
now. They cited possible causes as was probably and mainly due to changes in fishing gears/methods. They shifted from
using different fishing gears (Hooks of size nos. 5 – 10; Gillnets of mesh size ranges from 11/2” to 6”; and Traps made
from Cyperus papyrus (Papyrus Sedge/Paper Reed) and some wild plant species (names not provided). The shift was a
result of a ban imposed by the Fisheries Authority on smaller mesh-sized gillnets (1.5” – 3”). Usually, Gillnets of mesh size
ranges of 1.5” to 3” were mainly catching various fish species including: (Barbus spp localy known as Ekuyu/Kuyu), Bagrus
sp (Mboju/Hongwe), Mormyrids (Kasurubana/Domodomo), Synodontis spp/Synodontis afrofischeri (Enkorongo/Gogogo),
and Labeo spp (Ningu) the latter were caught sporadically – mainly in rainy season April and May, and in considerable
amounts of up to 40 fishes). Others include Schilbe intermedius/mystus, (Hendela/Nembe), Mormyrus kanume (Mbete),
Hippopotamyrus grahami (Ekiumpi), Synodontis spp/ Synodontis victoriae (Ngere), and Clarias alluandi (Nshonzi). Gillnets
of mesh size ranges of 4” to 6” were mainly targeting Tilapiines (Tilapias), whereas hooks were mainly for Clarias spp and
Lungfish (Protopterus spp/Protopterus aethiopicus) using Nshonzi (Clarias alluaudi) as a main bait. They catch their baits
using hooks of size number 18 – 20 with earthworms (oligochaetes) as bait.
Traps (Intukuru) are also commonly used to catch various species including Schilbe intermedius/mystus, Mormyrus
kanume, Hippopotamyrus grahami, Synodontis spp/ Synodontis victoriae, and Clarias alluandi, Tilapiines (tilapias),
Enteromius spp and Mormyrids This list was for fish species commonly encountered in their daily catches (especially during
high waters – rainy season of March – May. During low waters (dry season – from June onwards) the common fish species
were mainly comprised of Lungfish Protopterus aethiopicus Clarias spp, C. gariepinus (Kambale/Mumi), Bagrus
sp/B.docmak, Enteromius spp, Mormyrids, and Lates niloticus Nile perch (Sangara). This is the pattern still occurring in
many landing sites. Nile perch and Enteromius (Enkuyu) are most common in areas such as Camp sites Nos 8 -11, Kifaru
Camp and Bugara Ferry. Nile perch of up to 50kg has been recorded in a catch.
Current situation—Lately, fishers have changed their fishing gears to hooks (size numbers 8- 10), and traps (intukuru),
which are more commonly used.
Seasonal fish migration—There is no notable seasonal migrations for the mentioned fish species, but only that there are
some species which are found in more abundance than the other species due to some biological adaptations and
requirements (e.g. breeding seasonality, physico-chemical requirements, etc). That is why other species are dominant
during wet season, while for the others it is the opposite.

Annex 5-13 – Plant List

Taxon Growth Form Woodland Termite Rocky Riparian Scarp Floodplain Rocky Floodplain Dry Modified
Thickets Outcrop Forest Forest / Riverine Grassland Wetlands Evergreen Habitat
Thickets Woodland Forest
POLYPODIOPSIDA
Family Aspleniaceae
Asplenium buettneri Fern u u
Family Marsileaceae
Marsilea sp. (sterile) Hydrophyte r (pans)
Family Pteridaceae
Actiniopteris semiflabellata Fern r
Family Selaginellaceae
Selaginella sp. Fern r
Family Sinopteridaceae
Cheilanthes viridis Fern fc u fc
Pellaea calomelanos Fern u u
MAGNOLIOPSIDA
Family Acanthaceae
Acanthus polystachyus Shrub u fc
Asystasia gangetica Forb fc c c (edge) c (edge) fc u
Blepharis maderaspatensis Forb r r
Crabbea velutina Forb u
Dicliptera sp. (very small flowers) Forb r
Dyschoriste cf. multicaulis (photos) Forb fc
Hygrophila senegalensis Forb lc (pans) u
Hypoestes forskaollii Dwarf shrub u fc
Justicia anselliana Forb lc (pans)
Justicia betonica Forb u u
Justicia exigua Forb u
Justicia flava Forb u u u fc
Justicia heterocarpa Forb u fc u u
Justicia sp. (dwarf shrub; photos) Dwarf shrub fc fc
Ruellia sp. (photos) Forb fc
Thunbergia alata Climber u
Family Achariaceae
Rawsonia lucida Tree fc u
Family Amaranthaceae
Achyranthes aspera Forb u u

Aerva sp. (photos) Forb u

Amaranthus sp. (cf. hybridus; photos) Forb fc c
Pupalia lappacea Forb u
Family Anacardiaceae
Lannea edulis Dwarf shrub r
Lannea fulva Tree fc c fc u u u
Lannea schimperi Tree u u
Lannea stuhlmannii Tree lc lc u
Ozoroa insignis Tree fc fc
Searsia natalensis Tree fc c-d fc c u
Family Annonaceae
Annona senegalensis Shrub u u fc
Monodora sp. (sterile) Shrub r
Unknown genus (cf. Cleistopholis; unripe fruit; photos) Shrub u r
Uvaria sp. (photos) Shrub u
Xylopia sp. (sterile) Tree r
Family Apocynaceae
Acokanthera schimperi Shrub r r
Ancylobotrys amoenus Climber u
Carissa edulis Shrub c fc
Gomphocarpus physocarpus Dwarf shrub r
Pergularia cf. daemia (photos) Climber r
Raphionacme madiensis Dwarf shrub r
Sarcostemma viminale Climber fc u
Secamone parvifolia Climber fc
Secamone punctulata Climber u
Family Araliaceae
Cussonia holstii Tree fc u
Family Asteraceae
Ageratum conyzoides* Forb fc (edge) fc
Baccharoides adoensis Shrub u
Bidens pilosa* Forb fc fc
Bidens schimperi Forb fc
Blepharispermum pubescens Climber u fc fc fc
Conyza albida* Forb fc c
Conyza sp. (photos) Forb u
Crassocephalum crepidioides Forb u fc
Emilia caespitosa Forb fc u (edge) fc (edge)
Felicia sp. (photos) Forb u

Galinsoga sp. (photos) Forb u

Gutenbergia cordifolia Forb fc
Gymnanthemum amygdalinum Shrub r r
Helichrysum sp. 1 (photos) Forb r u
Helichrysum sp. 2 (cf. rugulosum; photos) Forb r
Hilliardiella sp. (cf. hirsuta) Forb u
Inula sp. (sterile) Forb u
Kleinia grantii Forb u (edge)
Laggera crispata Forb r
Melanthera scandens Forb u u
Microglossa pyrifolia Climber fc fc u
Microglossa pyrrhopappa Forb r
Senecio sp. 1 (climbing; deltoid leaves; sterile) Climber u
Senecio sp. 2 (cf. pleistocephalus; sterile) Climber r
Solanecio cf. nandensis (pinnatisect leaves; photos) Climber fc fc
Solanecio cydoniifolius Climber r u u
Tagetes minuta* Forb u fc
Unknown genus (climber; cf. Saba; sterile) Climber r
Unknown genus 1 (Conyza species?; photos) Forb u
Unknown genus 2 (white flowers; photos) Forb u
Unknown genus 3 (white flowers; photos) Forb u
Unknown genus 4 (cf. Aspilia; photos) Forb u
Vernonia brachycalyx Climber u r
Vernonia sp. 1 (photos) Forb u
Vernonia sp. 2 (shrublet; sterile) Dwarf shrub r
Vernonia sp. 3 (photos) Forb u
Family Bignoniaceae
Jacaranda mimosifolia* Tree r u
Kigelia africana Tree u r
Family Burseraceae
Commiphora africana Shrub u
Commiphora sp. (cf. glandulosa) Shrub r
Family Cactaceae
Opuntia ficus-indica* Succulent r
Rhipsalis baccifera Epiphyte r
Family Canellaceae
Warburgia ugandensis Tree r
Family Capparaceae
Boscia angustifolia Tree r u

Boscia salicifolia Tree u

Cadaba farinosa Shrub fc u
Capparis cf. fascicularis (photos) Climber u u
Capparis erythrocarpos Climber fc fc fc
Maerua triphylla Shrub u
Thilachium africanum Shrub u
Family Celastraceae
Elaeodendron buchananii Shrub u
Gymnosporia cf. buxifolia (sterile) Shrub u fc fc (edge)
Gymnosporia gracilipes Shrub u u
Gymnosporia senegalensis Shrub u u
Maytenus undata Shrub u
Pristimera sp. (photos) Climber u fc
Family Chrysobalanaceae
Parinari curatellifolia Tree u u fc
Family Clusiaceae
Psorospermum febrifugum Shrub u fc
Family Combretaceae
Combretum adenogonium Tree fc
Combretum collinum Tree c fc
Combretum molle Tree fc u (edge) u u
Terminalia mollis Tree u
Family Convolvulaceae
Evolvulus alsinoides Forb u u
Hewittia malabarica Climber r u
Ipomoea cairica Climber fc u
Ipomoea obscura Climber u r
Ipomoea rubens Climber c fc
Ipomoea sinensis subsp. blepharosephala (photos) Forb fc fc
Ipomoea sp. (narrow-leaved; photos) Forb u
Xenostegia tridentata Forb r r
Family Corbichoniaceae
Corbichonia decumbens* Forb u
Family Cucurbitaceae
Cucumis cf. aculeatus (photos) Climber r
Lagenaria sphaerica Climber u
Zehneria sp. (photos) Climber fc
Family Ebenaceae
Euclea racemosa Tree c fc fc (edge) c d

Family Euphorbiaceae
Acalypha bipartita Shrub fc
Acalypha cf. lanceolata (photos) Shrub u c
Acalypha cf. villicaulis Forb u
Alchornea cordifolia Shrub u lc
Argomuellera macrophylla Shrub fc fc
Croton megalocarpus Shrub r
Croton pseudopulchellus Shrub u (edge) u
Erythrococca bongensis Shrub r fc
Euphorbia candelabrum Tree u
Euphorbia dawei Tree fc fc u
Euphorbia tirucallii Tree fc
Heywoodia lucens Tree u fc
Ricinis communis* Shrub fc
Suregada procera Shrub fc
Synadenium sp. (sterile; photos) Tree r
Tragia sp. (photos) Climber u
Family Fabaceae: Caesalpinioideae
Baikiaea insignis subsp. minor Tree u c
Chamaecrista absus Forb u
Chamaecrista mimosoides Forb u
Piliostigma thonningii Tree u
Senna didymobotrya* Shrub u u
Family Fabaceae: Mimosoideae
Albizia adianthifolia Tree u
Albizia amara subsp. sericocephala Tree r
Albizia cf. harveyi (sterile) Tree r r
Albizia gummifera Tree u u u
Albizia petersiana Tree r c fc u
Albizia versicolor Tree u u
Albizia zygia Tree r
Dichrostachys cinerea Shrub fc u (edge) u
Faidherbia albida Tree u u
Mimosa pigra Shrub fc
Pterolobium stellatum Climber r
Senegalia brevispica Shrub u fc
Senegalia polyacantha subsp. campylacantha Tree c lc
Senegalia senegal var. kerensis Tree lc
Vachellia gerrardii Tree fc u u

Vachellia hockii Shrub u u

Vachellia kirkii Tree d
Vachellia robusta Tree u u
Vachellia seyal Tree u u
Vachellia sieberiana Tree c u
Family Fabaceae: Papilionoideae
Abrus precatorius Climber u u
Aeschynomene sp. (cf. elaphroxylon) Shrub lc
Craibia brownii Tree fc c
Crotalaria agatiflora Shrub r
Crotalaria cephalotes Forb r
Crotalaria incana Dwarf shrub fc u
Dalbergia nitidula Tree fc u
Desmodium barbatum Forb r
Eriosema psoraleoides Dwarf shrub u u
Eriosema sp. (sterile) Dwarf shrub u
Erythrina abyssinica Shrub u
Erythrina sp. (smaller leaves & narrower flowers than abyssinica) Shrub r
Indigofera cf. nummulariifolia Forb fc r
Indigofera sp. 1 (creeping; trifoliate) Forb fc
Indigofera sp. 2 (creeping; pinnate) Forb r
Neonotonia wightii Climber r
Ormocarpum kirkii Shrub u
Pseudarthria hookeri Dwarf shrub r
Rhynchosia minima Climber r u
Rhynchosia resinosa Dwarf shrub fc
Rhynchosia sp. (creeping; photos) Forb u
Sesbania sesban Shrub u (pans)
Stylosanthes fruticosa Forb u
Tephrosia cf. linearis (sterile) Dwarf shrub u
Tephrosia sp. (cf. rhodesica) Shrub r
Vigna sp. 1 (variegated leaflets; photos) Forb lc
Vigna sp. 2 (twisted keel; photos)
Zornia sp. (photos) Forb u
Family Gisekiacaceae
Gisekia pharnaceoides Forb fc
Family Hydnoraceae
Hydnora abyssinica Forb u
Family Icacinaceae

Apodytes dimidiata Tree u

Family Lamiaceae
Aeollanthus sp. (photos) Forb u
Clerodendrum rotundifolium Shrub u r
Fuerstia africana Dwarf shrub fc fc u
Hoslundia opposita Shrub fc u (edge) u (edge)
Leonotis nepetifolia Dwarf shrub fc u (edge)
Ocimum americanum Forb fc
Ocimum gratissimum Forb u
Ocimum obovatum Forb fc
fc
Orthosiphon thymiflorus Forb fc
(edge)
Plectranthus bojeri Forb u u
Plectranthus sp. (flowers; photos) Forb u
Rotheca myricoides Shrub r
Rotheca sp. (photos) Shrub u
Vitex doniana Tree u
Family Linaceae
Hugonia cf. castaneifolia (sterile) Shrub r
Family Linderniaceae
Craterostigma cf. plantagineum (photos) Forb fc fc
Lindernia sp. (photos) Forb r
Family Malvaceae
Abutilon angulatum Forb fc
Abutilon mauritianum Forb u u
Dombeya rotundifolia Tree r
Grewia similis Shrub fc fc fc
Grewia sp. 1 (cf. flavescens but round branches; photos) Shrub u
Grewia sp. 2 (cf. sulcata; 4-lobed fruit) Shrub r
Grewia trichocarpa Tree fc c u fc fc
Hibiscus aponeurus Dwarf shrub u
Hibiscus cannabinus Dwarf shrub u
Hibiscus cf. calyphyllus (photos) Dwarf shrub r r u
Hibiscus diversifolius Dwarf shrub u fc
Hibiscus micranthus Dwarf shrub fc u
Pavonia burchellii Dwarf shrub u u u
Sida cf. cordifolia (yellow leaves) Dwarf shrub u
Sida rhombifolia Dwarf shrub fc fc fc
Triumfetta cordifolia Dwarf shrub u u u c fc

Triumfetta sp. (deeply lobed leaves; photos) Dwarf shrub fc

Waltheria indica Dwarf shrub u
Family Meliaceae
Turraea holstii Tree u
Family Melianthaceae
Bersama abyssinica Tree u
Family Menispermaceae
Cissampelos mucronata Climber fc
Family Moraceae
Ficus asperifolia Shrub u
Ficus burkei Tree u u u u
Ficus exasperata Tree u
Ficus glumosa Tree r c r
Ficus lutea Tree r
Ficus sp. (cf. bussei) Tree r
Ficus sycomorus Tree r u
Milicia excelsa Tree r
Family Myrtaceae
Eucalyptus cf. grandis * Tree u fc
Syzygium cordatum Tree r r
Family Nyctaginaceae
Commicarpus pedunculosus Forb u u
Family Ochnaceae
Ochna cf. inermis (photos) Shrub u u r
Family Olacaceae
Ximenia caffra Shrub u fc
Family Oleaceae
Jasminum fluminense Climber u
Jasminum schimperi Climber lc u
Olea capensis Tree r
Olea europaea subsp. africana Tree fc u c
Family Orobanchaceae
Cycnium tubulosum Forb u
Striga cf. gesnerioides Forb r
Family Oxalidaceae
Oxalis corniculata* Forb r
Family Pedaliaceae
Sesamum sp. (cf. alatum) Forb u u

Family Phyllanthaceae
Antidesma venosum Shrub u
Bridelia cathartica Shrub u u
Flueggea virosa Shrub u u c
Phyllanthus sp. 1 (photos) Forb u
Phyllanthus sp. 2 (cf. reticulatus) Shrub u u
Family Phytolaccaceae
Phytolacca sp. (photos) Shrub u
Family Piperaceae
Peperomia blanda Forb r
Family Polygalaceae
Polygala sp. (pink flowers; photos) Forb u u
Securidaca longipedunculata Shrub r fc
Family Polygonaceae
Persicaria decipiens Forb u (pans) fc
Persicaria senegalensis Forb u (pans)
Family Proteaceae
Grevillea robusta* Tree fc
Family Putranjivaceae
Drypetes gerrardii Tree c u
Family Rhamnaceae
Scutia myrtina Shrub fc c c fc
Family Rhizophoraceae
Cassipourea cf. malosana Tree fc u
Family Rubiaceae
Afrocanthium lactescens Shrub fc fc u
Afrocanthium sp. (sterile) Shrub fc u
Coffea eugenioides Shrub r
Coffea robusta * Shrub fc
Coptosperma graveolens Shrub r u fc
Gardenia ternifolia Shrub u r
Hymenodictyon floribundum Tree r fc
Keetia sansibarica Shrub r u fc
Kohautia sp. (blue flowers; photos) Forb u u
Oldenlandia herbacea Forb u
Oxyanthus speciosa Shrub fc fc
Pavetta sp. 1 (narrow-leaved; photos) Shrub u fc
Pavetta sp. 2 (cf. gardeniifolia; photos) Shrub u u u

Psychotria sp. (photos) Shrub fc

Psydrax schimperiana Tree fc c fc
Pyrostria sp. (cf. bibracteata; photos) Tree fc
Rytigynia sp. (photos) Shrub u fc
Tricalysia sp. (photos) Shrub lc
Vangueria infausta Shrub u u
Family Rutaceae
Clausena anisata Shrub fc fc fc
Teclea nobilis Shrub u fc fc fc
Vepris cf. trichocarpa (sterile) Shrub u
Zanthoxylum chalybeum Tree fc
Family Salicaceae
Casearia runssorica Shrub u u
Dovyalis macrocalyx Shrub r
Flacourtia indica Shrub fc fc fc
Family Sapindaceae
Allophylus ferrugineus Shrub fc
Allophylus rubifolius Shrub fc u fc
Blighia unijugata Tree fc
Cardiospermum sp. Climber u
Haplocoelum foliolosum subsp. strongylocarpum Tree fc u c
Pappea capensis Tree fc fc c u
Paullinia pinnata Climber u
Family Sapotaceae
Englerophytum natalense Shrub r
Mimusops kummel Tree fc u
Pachystela sp. (fruit scars on stems) Tree r u
Family Solanaceae
Capsicum sp. * Dwarf shrub u
Physalis angulata * Forb fc
Physalis peruviana * Forb u fc
Solanum campylacanthum Dwarf shrub fc
Solanum dasyphyllum Dwarf shrub u (edge)
Solanum incanum Shrub fc u
Solanum sp. 1 (cf. tettense) Shrub u
Solanum sp. 2 (cf. nigrum) Forb fc fc
Family Strychnaceae
Strychnos cocculoides Tree r
Strychnos innocua Tree u

Strychnos lucens Climber fc fc u u

Strychnos sp.1 (climber; photos) Climber u
Strychnos spinosa Tree r
Family Thymelaeaceae
Gnidia sp. 1 (cf. kraussiana; sterile) Forb r
Gnidia sp. 2 (cf. chrysostachyos) Forb u
Family Urticaceae
Pilea sp. (photos) Climber u fc u u
Family Verbenaceae
Lantana camara * Shrub u
Lantana trifolia Shrub u u
Lippia cf. kituiensis (photos) Forb fc fc
Family Vitaceae
Cissus petiolata Climber fc u fc fc fc
Cissus quadrangularis Climber fc
Cissus sp. (trifoliate, crenate) Climber fc
Cyphostemma mildbraedii Climber fc
Rhoicissus revoilii Climber u u fc u
LILIOPSIDA
Family Agavaceae
Agave americana* Succulent u
Family Amaryllidaceae
Scadoxus multiflorus Geophyte r
Family Anthericaceae
Chlorophytum blepharophyllum Geophyte fc
Chlorophytum sp. (long-leaved; sterile) Geophyte r (edge)
Chlorophytum subpetiolatum Geophyte u
Family Aponogetonaceae
Aponogeton afroviolaceus Hydrophyte r (pans)
Family Araceae
Pistia stratiotes* Hydrophyte r (pans)
Family Arecaceae
Phoenix reclinata Tree fc
Family Asparagaceae
Asparagus africanus Dwarf shrub fc u
Asparagus falcatus Climber c fc fc fc
Bulbine abyssinica Succulent fc
Family Asphodelaceae

Aloe cf. macrosiphon (sterile) Succulent r fc u u (edge)

Aloe volkensii Succulent fc u fc
Family Colchicaceae
Gloriosa simplex Climber u
Family Commelinaceae
Commelina africana Forb u u
Commelina benghalensis Forb u
Commelina cf. latifolia (photos) Forb u fc
Commelina reptans Forb fc
Commelina sp. 1 (apricot flowers; photos) Forb r
Commelina sp. 2 (purple flowers; photos) Forb u
Cyanotis foecunda Forb r u
Cyanotis longifolia Forb u u (edge)
Cyanotis sp. 1 (cf. lanosa; photos) Forb u u
Cyanotis sp. 2 (cf. lapidosa, but flowers tiny; SC Africa sp) Forb r
Floscopa glomerata Forb r (pans)
Murdannia simplex Forb u
Family Cyperaceae
Bulbostylis sp. 1 Graminoid u
Bulbostylis sp. 2 Graminoid fc
Cyperus cf. articulatus (photos) Graminoid fc
Cyperus cf. proteus Graminoid u
Cyperus cf. tenax Graminoid u
Cyperus cyperoides Graminoid u
Cyperus dubius Graminoid u u
Cyperus niveus Graminoid fc
Cyperus papyrus Graminoid d
Cyperus richardi Graminoid fc
Cyperus sp. 1 (photos) Graminoid u
Fimbristylis complanata Graminoid fc
Schoenoplectus sp. Graminoid r (pans)
Family Dioscoreaceae
Dioscorea sp. (photos) Climber u u
Family Dracaenaceae
Dracaena fragrans Shrub r u
Sansevieria parva Succulent fc fc
Sansevieria sp. 1 (cf. kirkii; photos) Succulent u
Sansevieria sp. 2 (cf. pearsonii) Succulent r
Family Hyacinthaceae

Albuca sp. (sterile) Geophyte u

Family Hypoxidaceae
Hypoxis angustifolia Geophyte fc
Hypoxis sp. (cf. obtusa; photos) Geophyte r
Family Iridaceae
Gladiolus sp. (old fruit) Geophyte r
Family Orchidaceae
Eulophia calantha Geophyte u
Eulophia cucullata Geophyte u
Liparis sp. (sterile) Geophyte r
Orthochilus eustachyus Geophyte u
Tridactyle tricuspis Epiphyte r
Family Poaceae
Aristida sp. 1 (cf. congesta; fairly short) Graminoid u u
Aristida sp. 2 (cf. sciurus; fairly tall) Graminoid u fc
Ctenium concinnum Graminoid u fc
Cynodon dactylon Graminoid u fc fc
Dactyloctenium aegyptiacum Graminoid u fc
Digitaria maitlandii Graminoid u
Diheteropogon amplectens Graminoid u fc
Eragrostis cf. ciliaris Graminoid r
Eragrostis cf. curvula Graminoid u u
Eragrostis cf. olivacea Graminoid lc (pans)
Eragrostis cf. schweinfurthii Graminoid u fc
Eragrostis plana Graminoid u fc
Eragrostis racemosa Graminoid fc fc
Echinochloa stagnina Graminoid c
Eleusine indica Graminoid u
Elionurus muticus Graminoid r
Eustachys paspaloides Graminoid u
Harpachne schimperi Graminoid u
Harpochloa falx Graminoid fc
Heteropogon contortus Graminoid u u
Hyparrhenia filipendula Graminoid u
Hyparrhenia sp. Graminoid fc
Hyperthelia dissoluta Graminoid fc
Loudetia kagerensis Graminoid lc (pans)
Loudetia simplex Graminoid u
Melinis repens Graminoid u u

Microchloa kunthii Graminoid fc

Miscanthus violaceus Graminoid lc (pans)
Oplismenus cf. undulatifolius Graminoid fc
Panicum atrosanguineum Graminoid u
Panicum hirtum Graminoid u
Panicum maximum Graminoid fc fc fc fc
Perotis patens Graminoid fc
Setaria cf. kagerensis Graminoid fc fc
Setaria lindenbergiana Graminoid fc fc fc (edge) c
Setaria sphacelata Graminoid u
Setaria verticillata Graminoid lc
Sporobolus africanus Graminoid fc c
Sporobolus pyramidalis Graminoid lc (pans) u
Themeda triandra Graminoid u fc
Unknown genus 5 (photos) Forb u (pans)
Urochloa cf. panicoides Graminoid fc
Vossia cuspidata Graminoid c
Family Pontederiaceae
Eichhornia crassipes* Hydrophyte c c
TOTAL 425 203 92 31 69 68 91 67 11 49 23
Abundance classes
d = dominant (the most abundant and/or frequently encountered species in the habitat)
c = common (likely to be encountered wherever the habitat is present)
fc = fairly common (encountered at 26-50% of the sites where the habitat is present)
lc = locally common (common, but only at a few localities)
u = uncommon (encountered at 5-25% of sites in a particular habitat)
r = rare (encountered at less than 5% of sites in a particular habitat)

Annex 5-14 – Bird List

English Name Scientific Name Red Data Forest/ Floodplain Woodland Wetland Aquatic/ Agriculture Towns /Dwellings Minziro
Thicket Forest Vegetation Open Water
ORDER: ANSERIFORMES
Family Anatidae
Yellow-billed duck Anas undulata U
White-faced whistling duck Dendrocygna viduata U
Spur-winged goose Plectropterus gambensis R
ORDER GALLIFORMES
Family Numididae
Helmeted guineafowl Numida meleagris F R
Family Phasianidae
Crested francolin Dendroperdix sephaena C
Coqui francolin Peliperdix coqui U
Red-necked spurfowl Pternistis afer R R F R X
Hildebrandt's spurfowl Pternistis hildebrandti R R U
ORDER CICONIIFORMES
Family Ciconiidae
African openbill Anastomus lamelligerus R
Abdim's stork Ciconia abdimii U U
Woolly-necked stork Ciconia episcopus U U
Saddle-billed stork Ephippiorhynchus senegalensis R
Marabou stork Leptoptilos crumenifer U R R
Yellow-billed stork Mycteria ibis R
ORDER PELECANIFORMES
Family Ardeidae
Great egret Ardea alba R
Grey heron Ardea cinerea R
Black-headed heron Ardea melanocephala U F
Purple heron Ardea purpurea U
Squacco heron Ardeola ralloides R
Rufous-bellied heron Ardeola rufiventris R
Western cattle egret Bubulcus ibis R R R R
Striated heron Butorides striata F
Little egret Egretta garzetta U
Little bittern Ixobrychus minutus R

Family Threskiornithidae
Hadada ibis Bostrychia hagedash U U F U R X
Glossy ibis Plegadis falcinellus R
African sacred ibis Threskiornis aethiopicus R R
Family Scopidae
Hamerkop Scopus umbretta C R R X
ORDER: SULIFORMES
Family Phalacrocoracidae
Reed cormorant Microcarbo africanus F
ORDER ACCIPITRIFORMES
Family Accipitridae
Shikra Accipiter badius R
Little sparrowhawk Accipiter minullus R X
African goshawk Accipiter tachiro R R
Steppe eagle Aquila nipalensis EN R
African hawk eagle Aquila spilogaster R
Common buzzard Buteo buteo F R X
Western banded snake eagle Circaetus cinerascens U R X
Brown snake eagle Circaetus cinereus U
Black-chested snake eagle Circaetus pectoralis R
Western marsh harrier Circus aeruginosus R
African marsh harrier Circus ranivorus R
Lesser spotted eagle Clanga pomarina U
Black-winged kite Elanus caeruleus U U R X
Palm-nut vulture Gypohierax angolensis R U R X
African fish eagle Haliaeetus vocifer R F
Ayres's hawk eagle Hieraaetus ayresii X
Wahlberg's eagle Hieraaetus wahlbergi F R
Lizard buzzard Kaupifalco monogrammicus F
Long-crested eagle Lophaetus occipitalis R U R X
Gabar goshawk Micronisus gabar R
Hooded vulture Necrosyrtes monachus CR R
European honey buzzard Pernis apivorus R X
African harrier hawk Polyboroides typus R U R
Bateleur Terathopius ecaudatus EN R
Lappet-faced vulture Torgos tracheliotos EN R
ORDER: OTIDIFORMES
Family Otididae

Black-bellied bustard Lissotis melanogaster U

ORDER: GRUIFORMES
Family Sarothruridae
Buff-spotted flufftail Sarothrura elegans R
White-spotted flufftail Sarothrura pulchra X
Family Rallidae
Black crake Amaurornis flavirostra F
Common moorhen Gallinula chloropus R
Family Gruidae
Grey-crowned crane Balearica regulorum EN R R R R X
ORDER: CHARADRIIFORMES
Family Turnicidae
Black-rumped buttonquail Turnix nanus R
Family Burhinidae
Water thick-knee Burhinus vermiculatus U
Family Charadriidae
Three-banded plover Charadrius tricollaris R
Senegal lapwing Vanellus lugubris R R
African wattled lapwing Vanellus senegallus F R U R
Spur-winged lapwing Vanellus spinosus R R R
Family Jacanidae
African jacana Actophilornis africanus F
Family Scolopacidae
Common sandpiper Actitis hypoleucos U
Wood sandpiper Tringa glareola U
Common greenshank Tringa nebularia R
Green sandpiper Tringa ochropus R
ORDER COLUMBIFORMES
Family Columbidae
Speckled pigeon Columba guinea U
Rock dove Columba livia R
Afep pigeon Columba unicincta X
Laughing dove Spilopelia senegalensis U F R X
Ring-necked dove Streptopelia capicola A U R
Red-eyed dove Streptopelia semitorquata F F F F R X
African green pigeon Treron calvus R U U R X
Blue-spotted wood dove Turtur afer R R X
Emerald-spotted wood dove Turtur chalcospilos U A R

Tambourine dove Turtur tympanistria F U X

ORDER: MUSOPHAGIFORMES
Family Musophagidae
Bare-faced go-away-bird Corythaixoides personatus F
Eastern plantain-eater Crinifer zonurus R R R U X
Ross's turaco Musophaga rossae R R X
Purple-crested turaco Tauraco porphyreolophus F F R X
Black-billed turaco Tauraco schuettii U R X
ORDER: CUCULIFORMES
Family Cuculidae
Blue-headed Coucal Centropus monachus R F X
White-browed coucal Centropus superciliosus C U F R X
Blue malkoha Ceuthmochares aereus R R X
Diederik cuckoo Chrysococcyx caprius U U R R
African emerald cuckoo Chrysococcyx cupreus R X
Klaas's cuckoo Chrysococcyx klaas U R X
Levaillant's cuckoo Clamator levaillantii U
Black cuckoo Cuculus clamosus R U
African cuckoo Cuculus gularis U
Red-chested cuckoo Cuculus solitarius F F U X
Thick-billed cuckoo Pachycoccyx audeberti R R R
ORDER STRIGIFORMES
Family Strigidae
African barred owlet Glaucidium capense R R
ORDER: CAPRIMULGIFORMES
Family Caprimulgidae
European nightjar Caprimulgus europaeus R
Square-tailed nightjar Caprimulgus fossii R
Freckled nightjar Caprimulgus tristigma R
ORDER APODIFORMES
Family Apodidae
Little swift Apus affinis U R R X
Common swift Apus apus R X
White-rumped swift Apus caffer R U R
Horus swift Apus horus R
African palm swift Cypsiurus parvus R
ORDER: COLIIFORMES

Family Coliidae
Speckled mousebird Colius striatus U F F U R X
Blue-naped mousebird Urocolius macrourus F
ORDER: TROGONIFORMES
Family Trogonidae
Narina trogon Apaloderma narina R X
ORDER: CORACIIFORMES
Family Coraciidae
Lilac-breasted roller Coracias caudatus U U X
European roller Coracias garrulus X
Broad-billed roller Eurystomus glaucurus F R
Family Alcedinidae
Pied kingfisher Ceryle rudis F
Malachite kingfisher Corythornis cristatus F
Striped kingfisher Halcyon chelicuti F
Grey-headed kingfisher Halcyon leucocephala R
Blue-breasted kingfisher Halcyon malimbica U R X
Woodland kingfisher Halcyon senegalensis R C U R R
African pygmy kingfisher Ispidina picta R R
Giant kingfisher Megaceryle maxima R
Family Meropidae
White-throated bee-eater Merops albicollis X
European bee-eater Merops apiaster R F R R X
Blue-cheeked bee-eater Merops persicus U X
Little bee-eater Merops pusillus F R X
Blue-breasted bee-eater Merops variegatus X
ORDER BUCEROTIFORMES
Family Upupidae
African hoopoe Upupa africana R
Family Phoeniculidae
Common scimitarbill Rhinopomastus cyanomelas R F
Family Bucerotidae
Black-and-white-casqued hornbill Bycanistes subcylindricus X
Crowned hornbill Lophoceros alboterminatus U U X
African grey hornbill Lophoceros nasutus F
Family Bucorvidae
Southern ground hornbill Bucorvus leadbeateri VU R
ORDER: PICIFORMES

Family Lybiidae
White-headed barbet Lybius leucocephalus R
Black-collared barbet Lybius torquatus U
Yellow-rumped tinkerbird Pogoniulus bilineatus F F X
Yellow-fronted tinkerbird Pogoniulus chrysoconus A
Crested barbet Trachyphonus vaillantii U
Hairy-breasted barbet Tricholaema hirsuta X
Spot-flanked barbet Tricholaema lacrymosa C
Family Indicatoridae
Greater honeyguide Indicator indicator F
Lesser honeyguide Indicator minor U R U
Scaly-throated honeyguide Indicator variegatus R
Brown-backed honeybird Prodotiscus regulus U
Family Picidae
Golden-tailed woodpecker Campethera abingoni R R
Green-backed woodpecker Campethera cailliautii U R
Bearded woodpecker Chloropicus namaquus U
Yellow-crested woodpecker Chloropicus xantholophus X
Cardinal woodpecker Dendropicos fuscescens R U R
ORDER FALCONIFORMES
Family Falconidae
Grey kestrel Falco ardosiaceus U R X
Eurasian hobby Falco subbuteo F R R
ORDER: PSITTACIFORMES
Family Psittacidae
Red-headed lovebird Agapornis pullarius R
Meyer's parrot Poicephalus meyeri R F F R
ORDER PASSERIFORMES
Family Platysteiridae
Chinspot batis Batis molitor F X
Brown-throated wattle-eye Platysteira cyanea F F R
Family Prionopidae
White-crested helmetshrike Prionops plumatus R
Family Malaconotidae
Marsh tchagra Bocagia minuta R
Orange-breasted bushshrike Chlorophoneus sulfureopectus R C X
Black-backed puffback Dryoscopus cubla R U
Black-headed gonolek Laniarius erythrogaster R U U

Slate-colored boubou Laniarius funebris U

Tropical boubou Laniarius major C F R X
Papyrus gonolek Laniarius mufumbiri NT U R
Grey-headed bushshrike Malaconotus blanchoti R U X
Brubru Nilaus afer F
Brown-crowned tchagra Tchagra australis U
Black-crowned tchagra Tchagra senegalus C
Family Campephagidae
Black cuckooshrike Campephaga flava F
Purple-throated cuckooshrike Campephaga quiscalina X
Family Laniidae
Red-backed shrike Lanius collurio U
Grey-backed fiscal Lanius excubitoroides U F U
Family Oriolidae
Black-headed oriole Oriolus larvatus R U F X
Eurasian golden oriole Oriolus oriolus R U
Family Dicruridae
Fork-tailed drongo Dicrurus adsimilis R C U R
Family Monarchidae
Red-bellied paradise flycatcher Terpsiphone rufiventer X
African paradise flycatcher Terpsiphone viridis F U R X
Blue-mantled crested flycatcher Trochocercus cyanomelas R
Family Corvidae
Pied crow Corvus albus R R U
Family Paridae
White-winged black tit Melaniparus leucomelas U
Family Remizidae
Grey penduline tit Anthoscopus caroli R X
Family Alaudidae
Rufous-naped lark Mirafra africana R
Flappet lark Mirafra rufocinnamomea F R
Family Pycnonotidae
Yellow-throated leaflove Atimastillas flavicollis F
Little grey greenbul Eurillas gracilis X
Yellow-whiskered greenbul Eurillas latirostris F R X
Little greenbul Eurillas virens X
Spotted greenbul Ixonotus guttatus X
Toro olive greenbul Phyllastrephus hypochloris X

Dark-capped bulbul Pycnonotus tricolor F A A R U U X

Family Hirundinidae
Lesser striped swallow Cecropis abyssinica F F U R X
Red-rumped swallow Cecropis daurica R U R X
Red-breasted swallow Cecropis semirufa R
Mosque swallow Cecropis senegalensis R R R
Angolan swallow Hirundo angolensis R R
Barn swallow Hirundo rustica A U F R X
Wire-tailed swallow Hirundo smithii R
White-headed saw-wing Psalidoprocne albiceps R F U X
Black saw-wing Psalidoprocne pristoptera R U R X
Grey-rumped swallow Pseudhirundo griseopyga R R
Rock martin Ptyonoprogne fuligula R
Brown-throated martin Riparia paludicola R R
Sand martin Riparia riparia R X
Family Macrosphenidae
Moustached grass warbler Melocichla mentalis F U X
Northern crombec Sylvietta brachyura R
Green crombec Sylvietta virens U R X
Red-faced crombec Sylvietta whytii U
Family Hyliidae
Green hylia Hylia prasina X
Family Phylloscopidae
Willow warbler Phylloscopus trochilus R R U
Family Acrocephalidae
African reed warbler Acrocephalus baeticatus R
Greater swamp warbler Acrocephalus rufescens F
Icterine warbler Hippolais icterina R R
African yellow warbler Iduna natalensis R R X
Family Locustellidae
White-winged swamp warbler Bradypterus carpalis F
Fan-tailed grassbird Schoenicola brevirostris X
Family Cisticolidae
Grey apalis Apalis cinerea U R X
Yellow-breasted apalis Apalis flavida F U
Black-throated apalis Apalis jacksoni X
Buff-throated apalis Apalis rufogularis X
Grey-backed camaroptera Camaroptera brevicaudata A A R X

Long-tailed cisticola Cisticola angusticauda U

Short-winged cisticola Cisticola brachypterus R R X
Singing Cisticola Cisticola cantans R
Red-faced Cisticola Cisticola erythrops R U C X
Zitting Cisticola Cisticola juncidis R
Winding Cisticola Cisticola marginatus U X
Croaking Cisticola Cisticola natalensis R R X
Trilling Cisticola Cisticola woosnami A X
Grey-capped warbler Eminia lepida R F R
Yellow-bellied eremomela Eremomela icteropygialis R
Buff-bellied warbler Phyllolais pulchella R
Tawny-flanked prinia Prinia subflava R F R R X
White-chinned prinia Schistolais leucopogon F U X
Family Leiothrichidae
Arrow-marked babbler Turdoides jardineii U R R
Black-lored babbler Turdoides sharpei A U X
Family Sylviidae
Garden warbler Sylvia borin X
Family Zosteropidae
Northern yellow white-eye Zosterops senegalensis U R R
Family Hyliotidae
Yellow-bellied hyliota Hyliota flavigaster R
Family Sturnidae
Violet-backed starling Cinnyricinclus leucogaster F
Wattled starling Creatophora cinerea R
Greater blue-eared starling Lamprotornis chalybaeus U
Rüppell's starling Lamprotornis purpuroptera U A F U X
Splendid starling Lamprotornis splendidus U R U R X
Family Turdidae
African thrush Turdus pelios U U F R U X
Family Muscicapidae
Fire-crested alethe Alethe castanea X
White-browed scrub robin Cercotrichas leucophrys F
White-browed robin-chat Cossypha heuglini F F R R
Snowy-crowned robin-chat Cossypha niveicapilla U F
Grey-winged robin-chat Cossypha polioptera U
Pale flycatcher Melaenornis pallidus R
Southern black flycatcher Melaenornis pammelaina U

Swamp flycatcher Muscicapa aquatica R

Ashy flycatcher Muscicapa caerulescens U R
Spotted flycatcher Muscicapa striata F X
Grey-throated tit-flycatcher Myioparus griseigularis X
Grey tit-flycatcher Myioparus plumbeus R
Ruaha chat Myrmecocichla collaris R
Sooty chat Myrmecocichla nigra X
Familiar chat Oenanthe familiaris R
African stonechat Saxicola torquatus R R X
Family Nectariniidae
Green-throated sunbird Chalcomitra rubescens U
Scarlet-chested sunbird Chalcomitra senegalensis R R F
Purple-banded sunbird Cinnyris bifasciatus F F R X
Olive-bellied sunbird Cinnyris chloropygius X
Copper sunbird Cinnyris cupreus R R
Red-chested sunbird Cinnyris erythrocercus F
Marico sunbird Cinnyris mariquensis R R R
Olive sunbird Cyanomitra olivacea U X
Green-headed sunbird Cyanomitra verticalis X
Grey-headed sunbird Deleornis axillaris X
Collared sunbird Hedydipna collaris U U X
Family Passeridae
Northern grey-headed sparrow Passer griseus U R U
Family Ploceidae
Thick-billed weaver Amblyospiza albifrons R X
Red-headed weaver Anaplectes rubriceps R U
White-winged widowbird Euplectes albonotatus F R
Red-collared widowbird Euplectes ardens X
Fan-tailed widowbird Euplectes axillaris U R F X
Red-headed malimbe Malimbus rubricollis X
Baglafecht weaver Ploceus baglafecht R
Northern brown-throated weaver Ploceus castanops R
Village weaver Ploceus cucullatus R F U F X
Lesser masked weaver Ploceus intermedius R R
Golden-backed weaver Ploceus jacksoni R R
Little weaver Ploceus luteolus R
Black-necked weaver Ploceus nigricollis R U X
Spectacled weaver Ploceus ocularis R U R R

Slender-billed weaver Ploceus pelzelni R

Holub's golden weaver Ploceus xanthops R R U X
Cardinal quelea Quelea cardinalis R
Red-headed quelea Quelea erythrops R
Family Estrildidae
Orange-breasted waxbill Amandava subflava U R
Common waxbill Estrilda astrild U U R X
Black-crowned waxbill Estrilda nonnula R R R
Fawn-breasted waxbill Estrilda paludicola R U X
Crimson-rumped waxbill Estrilda rhodopyga U R
African firefinch Lagonosticta rubricata R R R X
Red-billed firefinch Lagonosticta senegala R F R
Black-and-white mannikin Lonchura bicolor R R R X
Bronze mannikin Lonchura cucullata R F R F R X
White-collared oliveback Nesocharis ansorgei R
Grey-headed nigrita Nigrita canicapillus X
Green-winged pytilia Pytilia melba R
Red-cheeked cordon-bleu Uraeginthus bengalus R F
Family Viduidae
Pin-tailed whydah Vidua macroura U U R R X
Family Motacillidae
African pipit Anthus cinnamomeus R
Striped pipit Anthus lineiventris U
Long-billed pipit Anthus similis R
Yellow-throated longclaw Macronyx croceus F U X
African pied wagtail Motacilla aguimp F U R
Western yellow wagtail Motacilla flava U U
Family Fringillidae
Black-throated canary Crithagra atrogularis 5 X
Western citril Crithagra frontalis X
Papyrus canary Crithagra koliensis R
Yellow-fronted canary Crithagra mozambica F R R
Brimstone canary Crithagra sulphurata X
Family Emberizidae
Golden-breasted bunting Emberiza flaviventris F
Cinnamon-breasted bunting Emberiza tahapisi R
TOTAL 314 7 69 90 187 44 37 66 45 117

A = Abundant (24 or more encounters) F = Fairly Common (8-16) encounters) U = Uncommon (4-7 encounters)
C = Common (17-23 encounters) R = Rare (1-3 encounters)

Annex 5-15 – MacKinnon Bird List Data
Overall Encounter Rate

Aquatic/Open Water
Wetland Vegetation
Floodplain Forest
Towns/Dwellings
Species
Forest/Thicket
Total Records
Agriculture
Woodland
Minziro
Dark-capped Bulbul 14 24 39 3 5 6 2 93 0.03333
Grey-backed Camaroptera 34 24 3 2 63 0.02258
Trilling Cisticola 52 1 53 0.01900
Red-eyed Dove 10 11 10 8 8 2 49 0.01756
Rüppell's Starling 6 27 9 4 1 47 0.01685
Barn Swallow 25 5 9 1 2 42 0.01505
Emerald-spotted Wood Dove 4 33 1 38 0.01362
Ring-necked Dove 30 6 2 38 0.01362
White-browed Coucal 20 5 9 1 2 37 0.01326
African Thrush 7 7 11 3 5 1 34 0.01219
Hadada Ibis 5 5 14 4 3 2 33 0.01183
Tropical Boubou 21 10 1 1 33 0.01183
Black-lored Babbler 27 4 1 32 0.01147
Speckled Mousebird 4 9 9 4 2 2 30 0.01075
Bronze Mannikin 3 12 3 8 2 1 29 0.01039
Lesser Striped Swallow 8 8 7 3 2 28 0.01004
Red-chested Cuckoo 12 11 4 1 28 0.01004
Hamerkop 23 1 1 1 26 0.00932
Purple-crested Turaco 10 13 2 1 26 0.00932
Village Weaver 2 8 5 10 1 26 0.00932
Orange-breasted Bushshrike 1 23 1 25 0.00896
Red-faced Cisticola 2 5 17 1 25 0.00896
Woodland Kingfisher 2 17 4 1 1 25 0.00896
Yellow-fronted Tinkerbird 24 24 0.00860
Fork-tailed Drongo 1 17 4 1 23 0.00824
Grey-backed Fiscal 6 12 4 22 0.00789
Meyer's Parrot 1 10 10 1 22 0.00789
Purple-banded Sunbird 11 8 2 1 22 0.00789
Red-necked Spurfowl 2 3 15 1 1 22 0.00789
White-browed Robin-Chat 14 6 1 1 22 0.00789
Yellow-rumped Tinkerbird 9 11 2 22 0.00789
African Paradise Flycatcher 13 5 1 2 21 0.00753
Black-crowned Tchagra 21 21 0.00753
Black-headed Heron 6 15 21 0.00753
Spot-flanked Barbet 21 21 0.00753
Black-headed Oriole 2 6 10 1 19 0.00681
Brown-throated Wattle-eye 10 8 1 19 0.00681
Crested Francolin 19 19 0.00681
Tawny-flanked Prinia 1 14 2 1 1 19 0.00681
Yellow-throated Longclaw 13 5 1 19 0.00681
African Wattled Lapwing 9 1 7 1 18 0.00645


Aquatic/Open Water
Wetland Vegetation
Floodplain Forest
Towns/Dwellings
Species
Forest/Thicket
Total Records
Agriculture
Woodland
Minziro
European Bee-eater 1 12 1 3 1 18 0.00645
Fan-tailed Widowbird 5 2 10 1 18 0.00645
Moustached Grass Warbler 12 5 1 18 0.00645
Yellow-fronted Canary 15 1 2 18 0.00645
African Pied Wagtail 10 4 3 17 0.00609
Flappet Lark 16 1 17 0.00609
African Grey Hornbill 16 16 0.00573
Helmeted Guineafowl 14 2 16 0.00573
White-browed Scrub Robin 16 16 0.00573
White-chinned Prinia 10 4 2 16 0.00573
White-headed Saw-wing 1 8 6 1 16 0.00573
Black Crake 15 15 0.00538
Common Scimitarbill 1 14 15 0.00538
Common Waxbill 6 5 3 1 15 0.00538
Laughing Dove 4 8 2 1 15 0.00538
Northern Grey-headed Sparrow 5 3 7 15 0.00538
Pied Kingfisher 15 15 0.00538
Red-cheeked Cordon-bleu 1 14 15 0.00538
Yellow-breasted Apalis 11 4 15 0.00538
Bare-faced Go-away-bird 14 14 0.00502
Collared Sunbird 7 5 2 14 0.00502
Greater Swamp Warbler 14 14 0.00502
Pin-tailed Whydah 5 5 2 1 1 14 0.00502
Snowy-crowned Robin-Chat 5 9 14 0.00502
Splendid Starling 4 2 6 1 1 14 0.00502
African Green Pigeon 1 4 6 1 1 13 0.00466
Broad-billed Roller 11 2 13 0.00466
Eurasian Hobby 9 1 3 13 0.00466
Grey-capped Warbler 1 10 2 13 0.00466
Palm-nut Vulture 2 7 3 1 13 0.00466
Reed Cormorant 13 13 0.00466
Tambourine Dove 8 4 1 13 0.00466
African Fish Eagle 1 11 12 0.00430
Black-winged Kite 6 4 1 1 12 0.00430
Blue-headed Coucal 2 9 1 12 0.00430
Chinspot Batis 11 1 12 0.00430
Common Buzzard 10 1 1 12 0.00430
Crowned Hornbill 6 5 1 12 0.00430
Holub's Golden Weaver 3 2 6 1 12 0.00430
Lesser Honeyguide 4 1 7 12 0.00430
Lilac-breasted Roller 7 4 1 12 0.00430
White-winged Widowbird 9 3 12 0.00430
Blue-naped Mousebird 11 11 0.00394
Diederik Cuckoo 5 4 1 1 11 0.00394
Little Swift 6 1 3 1 11 0.00394


Aquatic/Open Water
Wetland Vegetation
Floodplain Forest
Towns/Dwellings
Species
Forest/Thicket
Total Records
Agriculture
Woodland
Minziro
Red-billed Firefinch 1 8 2 11 0.00394
Scarlet-chested Sunbird 1 1 9 11 0.00394
Striated Heron 11 11 0.00394
Woolly-necked Stork 7 4 11 0.00394
Yellow-whiskered Greenbul 9 1 1 11 0.00394
Golden-breasted Bunting 10 10 0.00358
Little Bee-eater 8 1 1 10 0.00358
Long-crested Eagle 3 5 1 1 10 0.00358
Malachite Kingfisher 10 10 0.00358
Northern Yellow White-eye 5 2 3 10 0.00358
Spotted Flycatcher 9 1 10 0.00358
Striped Kingfisher 10 10 0.00358
Wahlberg's Eagle 9 1 10 0.00358
Abdim's Stork 4 5 9 0.00323
Black Cuckooshrike 9 9 0.00323
Black Saw-wing 2 4 2 1 9 0.00323
Black-backed Puffback 3 6 9 0.00323
Black-headed Gonolek 1 4 4 9 0.00323
Blue-breasted Kingfisher 5 3 1 9 0.00323
Brubru 9 9 0.00323
Eastern Plantain-eater 1 1 2 4 1 9 0.00323
Greater Honeyguide 9 9 0.00323
Green Crombec 6 1 2 9 0.00323
Grey Apalis 6 2 1 9 0.00323
Pied Crow 1 3 5 9 0.00323
Red-chested Sunbird 9 9 0.00323
Red-rumped Swallow 1 5 2 1 9 0.00323
Spectacled Weaver 3 4 1 1 9 0.00323
Western Yellow Wagtail 4 5 9 0.00323
Willow Warbler 1 2 6 9 0.00323
African Jacana 8 8 0.00287
Grey Kestrel 4 3 1 8 0.00287
Hildebrandt's Spurfowl 1 1 6 8 0.00287
Lizard Buzzard 8 8 0.00287
Marabou Stork 6 1 1 8 0.00287
Violet-backed Starling 8 8 0.00287
White-winged Swamp Warbler 8 8 0.00287
Winding Cisticola 7 1 8 0.00287
Yellow-throated Leaflove 8 8 0.00287
African Harrier-Hawk 1 4 2 7 0.00251
Arrow-marked Babbler 4 1 2 7 0.00251
Black-and-white Mannikin 1 3 1 2 7 0.00251
Black-billed Turaco 4 1 2 7 0.00251
Black-necked Weaver 1 5 1 7 0.00251
Blue-cheeked Bee-eater 6 1 7 0.00251


Aquatic/Open Water
Wetland Vegetation
Floodplain Forest
Towns/Dwellings
Species
Forest/Thicket
Total Records
Agriculture
Woodland
Minziro
Brown-crowned Tchagra 7 7 0.00251
Coqui Francolin 7 7 0.00251
Greater Blue-eared Starling 7 7 0.00251
Lesser Spotted Eagle 7 7 0.00251
Levaillant's Cuckoo 7 7 0.00251
Little Egret 7 7 0.00251
Orange-breasted Waxbill 6 1 7 0.00251
Papyrus Gonolek 4 3 7 0.00251
Red-backed Shrike 7 7 0.00251
Slate-colored Boubou 7 7 0.00251
Western Cattle Egret 1 1 3 2 7 0.00251
White-faced Whistling Duck 7 7 0.00251
White-rumped Swift 2 4 1 7 0.00251
Wood Sandpiper 7 7 0.00251
African Firefinch 1 2 2 1 6 0.00215
Bearded Woodpecker 6 6 0.00215
Black-throated Canary 5 1 6 0.00215
Brown Snake Eagle 6 6 0.00215
Brown-backed Honeybird 6 6 0.00215
Cardinal Woodpecker 1 4 1 6 0.00215
Fawn-breasted Waxbill 1 4 1 6 0.00215
Green-backed Woodpecker 4 2 6 0.00215
Grey Crowned Crane 2 1 1 1 1 6 0.00215
Grey-headed Bushshrike 1 4 1 6 0.00215
Grey-winged Robin-Chat 6 6 0.00215
Klaas's Cuckoo 4 1 1 6 0.00215
Red-headed Weaver 1 5 6 0.00215
Western Banded Snake Eagle 4 1 1 6 0.00215
Black Cuckoo 1 4 5 0.00179
Blue Malkoha 3 1 1 5 0.00179
Blue-spotted Wood Dove 1 2 2 5 0.00179
Common Sandpiper 5 5 0.00179
Crimson-rumped Waxbill 4 1 5 0.00179
Croaking Cisticola 3 1 1 5 0.00179
Eurasian Golden Oriole 1 4 5 0.00179
Golden-tailed Woodpecker 2 3 5 0.00179
Olive Sunbird 4 1 5 0.00179
Purple Heron 5 5 0.00179
Ross's Turaco 3 1 1 5 0.00179
Striped Pipit 5 5 0.00179
White-winged Black Tit 5 5 0.00179
Yellow-billed Duck 5 5 0.00179
African Cuckoo 4 4 0.00143
African Stonechat 2 1 1 4 0.00143
African Yellow Warbler 2 1 1 4 0.00143


Aquatic/Open Water
Wetland Vegetation
Floodplain Forest
Towns/Dwellings
Species
Forest/Thicket
Total Records
Agriculture
Woodland
Minziro
Black-bellied Bustard 4 4 0.00143
Black-collared Barbet 4 4 0.00143
Crested Barbet 4 4 0.00143
Green-throated Sunbird 4 4 0.00143
Lesser Masked Weaver 3 1 4 0.00143
Long-tailed Cisticola 4 4 0.00143
Marico Sunbird 1 2 1 4 0.00143
Mosque Swallow 1 2 1 4 0.00143
Narina Trogon 3 1 4 0.00143
Red-faced Crombec 4 4 0.00143
Short-winged Cisticola 1 1 2 4 0.00143
Southern Black Flycatcher 4 4 0.00143
Speckled Pigeon 4 4 0.00143
Spur-winged Lapwing 1 2 1 4 0.00143
Water Thick-knee 4 4 0.00143
African Goshawk 2 1 3 0.00108
African Hoopoe 3 3 0.00108
African Pygmy Kingfisher 1 2 3 0.00108
Angolan Swallow 2 1 3 0.00108
Ashy Flycatcher 1 2 3 0.00108
Bateleur 3 3 0.00108
Black-crowned Waxbill 1 1 1 3 0.00108
Brown-throated Martin 1 2 3 0.00108
Cardinal Quelea 3 3 0.00108
Giant Kingfisher 3 3 0.00108
Golden-backed Weaver 2 1 3 0.00108
Grey Heron 3 3 0.00108
Grey Penduline Tit 2 1 3 0.00108
Grey-headed Kingfisher 3 3 0.00108
Icterine Warbler 1 2 3 0.00108
Rufous-naped Lark 3 3 0.00108
Slender-billed Weaver 3 3 0.00108
Swamp Flycatcher 3 3 0.00108
Thick-billed Cuckoo 1 1 1 3 0.00108
Thick-billed Weaver 2 1 3 0.00108
White-crested Helmetshrike 3 3 0.00108
African Barred Owlet 1 1 2 0.00072
African Emerald Cuckoo 1 1 2 0.00072
African Openbill 2 2 0.00072
African Sacred Ibis 1 1 2 0.00072
Black-and-white-casqued Hornbill 2 2 0.00072
Black-throated Apalis 2 2 0.00072
Cinnamon-breasted Bunting 2 2 0.00072
Common Swift 1 1 2 0.00072
Copper Sunbird 1 1 2 0.00072


Aquatic/Open Water
Wetland Vegetation
Floodplain Forest
Towns/Dwellings
Species
Forest/Thicket
Total Records
Agriculture
Woodland
Minziro
European Honey Buzzard 1 1 2 0.00072
Familiar Chat 2 2 0.00072
Fire-crested Alethe 2 2 0.00072
Glossy Ibis 2 2 0.00072
Green Sandpiper 2 2 0.00072
Green-winged Pytilia 2 2 0.00072
Grey-rumped Swallow 1 1 2 0.00072
Little Bittern 2 2 0.00072
Little Greenbul 2 2 0.00072
Little Sparrowhawk 1 1 2 0.00072
Northern Crombec 2 2 0.00072
Olive-bellied Sunbird 2 2 0.00072
Pale Flycatcher 2 2 0.00072
Red-headed Lovebird 2 2 0.00072
Ruaha Chat 2 2 0.00072
Saddle-billed Stork 2 2 0.00072
Sand Martin 1 1 2 0.00072
Senegal Lapwing 1 1 2 0.00072
Squacco Heron 2 2 0.00072
Square-tailed Nightjar 2 2 0.00072
White-headed Barbet 2 2 0.00072
White-spotted Flufftail 2 2 0.00072
White-throated Bee-eater 2 2 0.00072
Wire-tailed Swallow 2 2 0.00072
Yellow-bellied Eremomela 2 2 0.00072
Afep Pigeon 2 1 0.00036
African Hawk-Eagle 1 1 0.00036
African Marsh Harrier 1 1 0.00036
African Palm Swift 1 1 0.00036
African Pipit 1 1 0.00036
African Reed Warbler 1 1 0.00036
Ayres's Hawk-Eagle 1 1 0.00036
Baglafecht Weaver 1 1 0.00036
Black-chested Snake Eagle 1 1 0.00036
Black-rumped Buttonquail 1 1 0.00036
Blue-breasted Bee-eater 1 1 0.00036
Blue-mantled Crested Flycatcher 1 1 0.00036
Brimstone Canary 1 1 0.00036
Buff-bellied Warbler 1 1 0.00036
Buff-spotted Flufftail 1 1 0.00036
Buff-throated Apalis 1 1 0.00036
Common Greenshank 1 1 0.00036
Common Moorhen 1 1 0.00036
European Nightjar 1 1 0.00036
European Roller 1 1 0.00036


Aquatic/Open Water
Wetland Vegetation
Floodplain Forest
Towns/Dwellings
Species
Forest/Thicket
Total Records
Agriculture
Woodland
Minziro
Fan-tailed Grassbird 1 1 0.00036
Freckled Nightjar 1 1 0.00036
Gabar Goshawk 1 1 0.00036
Garden Warbler 1 1 0.00036
Great Egret 1 1 0.00036
Green Hylia 1 1 0.00036
Green-headed Sunbird 1 1 0.00036
Grey Tit-Flycatcher 1 1 0.00036
Grey-headed Nigrita 1 1 0.00036
Grey-headed Sunbird 1 1 0.00036
Grey-throated Tit-Flycatcher 1 1 0.00036
Hairy-breasted Barbet 1 1 0.00036
Hooded Vulture 1 1 0.00036
Horus Swift 1 1 0.00036
Lappet-faced Vulture 1 1 0.00036
Little Grey Greenbul 1 1 0.00036
Little Weaver 1 1 0.00036
Long-billed Pipit 1 1 0.00036
Marsh Tchagra 1 1 0.00036
Northern Brown-throated Weaver 1 1 0.00036
Papyrus Canary 1 1 0.00036
Purple-throated Cuckooshrike 1 1 0.00036
Red-bellied Paradise Flycatcher 1 1 0.00036
Red-breasted Swallow 1 1 0.00036
Red-collared Widowbird 1 1 0.00036
Red-headed Malimbe 1 1 0.00036
Red-headed Quelea 1 1 0.00036
Rock Dove 1 1 0.00036
Rock Martin 1 1 0.00036
Rufous-bellied Heron 1 1 0.00036
Scaly-throated Honeyguide 1 1 0.00036
Shikra 1 1 0.00036
Singing Cisticola 1 1 0.00036
Sooty Chat 1 1 0.00036
Southern Ground Hornbill 1 1 0.00036
Spotted Greenbul 1 1 0.00036
Spur-winged Goose 1 1 0.00036
Steppe Eagle 1 1 0.00036
Three-banded Plover 1 1 0.00036
Toro Olive Greenbul 1 1 0.00036
Wattled Starling 1 1 0.00036
Western Citril 1 1 0.00036
Western Marsh Harrier 1 1 0.00036
White-collared Oliveback 1 1 0.00036
Yellow-bellied Hyliota 1 1 0.00036


Aquatic/Open Water
Wetland Vegetation
Floodplain Forest
Towns/Dwellings
Species
Forest/Thicket
Total Records
Agriculture
Woodland
Minziro
Yellow-billed Stork 1 1 0.00036
Yellow-crested Woodpecker 1 1 0.00036
Zitting Cisticola 1 1 0.00036
Total: 314 69 90 187 44 37 66 45 117 2795

Annex 5-16 – Persons Met during Social

Surveys
Date Location Gender Name/Surname Role/ Type of meeting
responsibilities
Social field survey undertaken from the 24 of February to the 6 of March 2020
28/02/2020 Bubale Village Man Sweetbert Nicholaus NEO Interview
28/02/2020 Bubale Village Man Joseph William Chairman of Bubale Interview
28/02/2020 Bubale Village Man Deusdediti Simon Bubale School Interview
28/02/2020 Bubale Village Man Isaack Mafembu In charge of Health Dispensary Interview
28/02/2020 Bubale Village Man Mathias Kente Farmer Interview
28/02/2020 Bubale Village Man Bawbunazi Grwamroc Mwenyekiti WA Livestock Keeper Interview
29/02/2020 Mushabaiguru Village Man Projestios M Donatus Chairman Interview
29/02/2020 Mushabaiguru Village Man Baigana Geoffroy Pastor Interview
29/02/2020 Mushabaiguru Village Woman Pins Bosme Livestock keeper Focus group
Woman Aines Respikias Mwanaduji
Woman Deburafted Livestock keeper
29/02/2020 Mushabaiguru Village Man DeusFelesian mwanafunzi Interview
29/02/2020 Mugaba Village Woman PhionaFred Farmer legal migrant Interview
02/03/2020 Kyerwa District Man Rashid M Mwaimu DC Kyerwa Interview
02/03/2020 Kyerwa District Man Si Benjamin R DAS Interview
Mwirasyere
02/03/2020 Kyerwa District Man Zacharia Kibukwiu DC Office Interview
02/03/2020 Kyerwa District Man Mayila K Pesa Police OCD Interview
02/03/2020 Kyerwa District Man Si Mboka Mwakanosya District immigration officer Interview
02/03/2020 Kyerwa District Man Ltn Muchunguzi DET Commander Interview
02/03/2020 Kyerwa District Man LucasSanya PCCB Interview
02/03/2020 Kyerwa District Man Capt AD Ndelwr DRFA Interview
02/03/2020 Kyerwa District Man Thomas Amahenge AS DED Interview
03/03/2020 Missenyi District Man Francis Lubandi Head of HR / Admin and Social at Kagera Interview
Sugar Company
03/03/2020 Missenyi District Man Theukhieu Lyo HG Chief Medical Officer at kagera Sugar Focus group
Hospital
Woman Theonestina Musilimini In charge of General Ward at kagera Sugar
Hospital
Woman Denaster Issaya In charge of Operating Theatre at kagera
Sugar Hospital
Man Melanie Danug I/C of male ward at kagera Sugar Hospital
Man Emmanuel Bweombe I/C of outpatient at kagera Sugar Hospital
Man Sunday Samweli Lab power at kagera Sugar Hospital
Nyonyi
Man Tubert J Matiku Hospital Pharmacist at kagera Sugar
Hospital
Woman Emily Lubandi HR Admin Officer at kagera Sugar Hospital
Woman Anna Seico Hospital Matrom at kagera Sugar Hospital
02/03/2020 Kyaka Man Abdallah Kaseiwa VEO Kyaka Interview
02/03/2020 Kyaka Man Hakikiu Issack Chairman Interview
02/03/2020 Kyaka Man Abbakary Hashmi Farmer Interview
02/03/2020 Kyaka Man Awasi Sabibi Farmer Interview
02/03/2020 Kyaka Man Ismail Ramadhan Farmer Interview
02/03/2020 Kyaka Man Musa Abdelah Farmer Interview
28/02/2020 Mushabaiguru Village Woman Eda M Vicent VEO Mushabaiguru Interview
28/02/2020 Mushabaiguru Village Man Projesius M Donaios Chairman Interview
28/02/2020 Mushabaiguru Village Woman Georgina Festo legal migrant farmer Focus group
28/02/2020 Mushabaiguru Village Woman Salome Godwin legal migrant farmer
28/02/2020 Mushabaiguru Village Woman Judith Bau legal migrant farmer
28/02/2020 Mushabaiguru Village Woman Eda M Vicent VEO Interview
28/02/2020 Mushabaiguru Village Man Projesius M Donaios Chairman interview
28/02/2020 Mushabaiguru Village Man Wilisoni William Farmer Interview
28/02/2020 Mushabaiguru Village Man Enoki Benedikto Farmer Interview
28/02/2020 Mushabaiguru Village Man Apias T Daniel Livestock keeper Focus group
Man Shelere Revelnan Livestock keeper
Man Feleslani Maudesti Livestock keeper
Man Edwini Leopodi Livestock keeper
28/02/2020 Mushabaiguru Village Man Agustini Mulia Farmer Focus group
Woman Joyce Jownesi Farmer


responsibilities
Man Jasiboni Wiliam Farmer
Man Anord Kmukulma Farmer
28/02/2020 Mushabaiguru Village Man Emmanuel Jovini Sub Chairman Interview
28/02/2020 Mushabaiguru Village Woman Melissa Katesguja Farmer Interview
28/02/2020 Mushabaiguru Village Man Jowanseni Mkulima Farmer Interview
04/03/2020 Kitengule Ranch Man Lebahati Emmanuel Ranch Manager Interview
Levoy
04/03/2020 Kitengule Ranch Man Dioniwi Cosmas Ranch Foreman Interview
Tumusime
02/03/2020 Bugara Village Man Yoweli T Barturumbe WEO Interview
02/03/2020 Bugara Village Man Eurister Jeremiah Chairman Interview
02/03/2020 Bugara Village Man Bah K Pius Village Ex Officer Interview
02/03/2020 Bugara Village Man Gaspar Gabriel Ward Concilor Interview
02/03/2020 Bugara Village Man Yezu January Farmer Interview
02/03/2020 Bugara Village Man Levokatus Lauriam Farmer Interview
02/03/2020 Bugara Village Man Richard Erizeus Fisherman Interview
02/03/2020 Bugara Village Man Faustin Mondesti Livestock keeper Interview
02/03/2020 Bugara Village Man Riverian Majune Livestock keeper Interview
02/03/2020 Bugara Village Woman Evanli Macklina Farmer Interview
02/03/2020 Bugara Village Woman Renta Daudi Farmer Interview
05/03/2020 Businde Village Man Kas Hhaj Ferryman Interview
05/03/2020 Businde Village Man James Rwabukoba Livestock keeper Focus group
Man Joseph Salvatory Livestock keeper
Man Anselimi Gozibert Livestock keeper
05/03/2020 Businde Village Man Barnabas Bugonero Chairman Interview
04/03/2020 Mugaba Village Man Philbert B Andrea Men representative Interview
04/03/2020 Mugaba Village Man Jussiniani K Clemence Chairman Interview
04/03/2020 Mugaba Village Man Simon B Beebwa Chairman of the ruling planty CCM Interview
04/03/2020 Mugaba Village Woman Anatolia Chilistopha Woman representative Focus group
Woman Leontina Lauriak Women representative
Woman Theonestina Katom Women representative
04/03/2020 Mugaba Village Man Chcriai Chlikanti livestock keeper Interview
04/03/2020 Mugaba Village Man Elizeus Fidel Sub village chairman Interview
04/03/2020 Mugaba Village Man Posenti Chrizanti Livestock keeper Interview
04/03/2020 Mugaba Village Man ChirispiniChrizati Livestock keeper Interview
04/03/2020 Mugaba Village Woman Silivia James Livestock keeper Interview
05/03/2020 Businde Village Man Dickson M Mukasa VEO Businde Interview
05/03/2020 Businde Village Man Bwenke F Kapere Sub village chairman Interview
05/03/2020 Businde Village Man Silivanus Leopold Livestock keeper Interview
05/03/2020 Businde Village Man Vincenti Domitah Livestock keeper Interview
05/03/2020 Businde Village Man Evarisia Kamihanda Livestock keeper Focus group
05/03/2020 Businde Village Woman Devotha Emmanei Women representative
05/03/2020 Businde Village Woman Furaha Frednandi Women representative
05/03/2020 Businde Village Woman Winifrida Gerald Women representative
05/03/2020 Businde Village Man Verianus Gordian Farmer Focus group
05/03/2020 Businde Village Man Jonas Renatus Farmer
05/03/2020 Businde Village Man Nestoryi Ziyeuga Farmer
05/03/2020 Businde Village Woman Donatilia Emmanuel Farmer
05/03/2020 Businde Village Woman Renatha M Eusiace Farmer
05/03/2020 Businde Village Woman Juster Sylvester I/C of Health center Interview
05/03/2020 Businde Village Man Podio Damian worker for the Health Center Interview
05/03/2020 Businde Village Man Piason Pius worker for the Health Center Interview
04/03/2020 Missenyi District Man Emmanuel Mkaka I/C of Kagera Sugar Camp 4 Interview
29/02/2020 Missenyi District Man Bahati John Gregory I/C of Kagera Sugar Camp No 2 Interview
03/03/2020 Missenyi District Man Potentine Nshombo E.Health Officer Interview
03/03/2020 Missenyi District Man Akiba Nyamweru Workers Kagera Focus group
Man Issaya Sumayani Sugar camp Kifaro
Man Papianus Paschal
Man Aseribertus
Rwehumbra
Woman Sikitu A Byarufu
Man Robert C Sebastian
Man Phares Konga
Man Eswine Christian
Man George
Man Maico Sanga
Man Lucian Kayuli
Man Baraka A Gideon
Man Keloin Mouel


responsibilities
Man Tommy A Joyce
Man Emmanuel Hema
Man Karim Athumani
Man Yoramu Andrea
Man Nickson Godfrey
Man Hamza Mustafa
Man Kuwa Faustine
Man Fabian
Man Phinias Nicholaus
Man Pelesia Alfred
03/03/2020 Missenyi District Woman Dorothea Petro Workers Kagera Sugar Camp Kifaro Focus group
Woman Jasmina Onjesi
Woman Mileleza Emiline
Woman Claudia Kajuna
Woman Makilina William
03/03/2020 Missenyi District Man Sikola Misigaro Worker Kagera Sugar Camp Kifaro Interview
03/03/2020 Missenyi District Man Elidesa Kanani Worker Kagera Sugar Camp Kifaro Interview
03/03/2020 Missenyi District Man Ilambona Emeline Worker Kagera Sugar Camp Kifaro Interview
02/03/2020 Kyaka Village Woman Nasila Abbakdi Farmers Focus group
Woman J Eneroza Petro
Woman Esta Matias
Woman Anchila Ali
Woman Ashirath Sebastian
27/02/2020 Bunazi / Kyaka Man Pr Hamis Abdallah District Medical Officer Interview
27/02/2020 Bunazi / Kyaka Man Adolf E Ngaiza Coordinator of services provide in District Interview
27/02/2020 Bunazi / Kyaka Man Dr Jamily Yahuya Health facility Bunazi Interview
27/02/2020 Bunazi / Kyaka Man Viator Faustine Clinical officer / Focal Person / Chair Person Interview
Rutechura
27/02/2020 Bunazi / Kyaka Woman Ammassose Swai HF incharge Interview
Makisa
04/03/2020 Missenyi District Man Yusuph Rushanda Workers Kagera Sugar Camp 5 Focus group
Woman Georgina Jonathan
Man Sodo Sadi
Woman Ofnicia Elivius
Woman Eldina Samsom
Woman Flata Juma
Man Isaka A
Man Bles Gr
Man Silaji J Ally
Man Choitunghe Oscar
03/03/2020 Missenyi District Man Msafiri Hezroni Supervisor Kagera Sugar Camp 10 Focus group
Woman Aisha Matunga Utawala Kagera Sugar Camp 10
Man Makondo Nyamgora Ulinzi Kagera Sugar Camp 10
Man Amani Fabiani Morice Kagera Sugar Camp 10
Woman Vedia Thobias Mwalimu Kagera Sugar Camp 10
Man Eradius Festo Worker Kagera Sugar Camp 10
Man Edius Phlero Worker Kagera Sugar Camp 10
Man Livinius Athanase Worker Kagera Sugar Camp 10
Man Stanslaus Bakulu Worker Kagera Sugar Camp 10
Woman Fatumala Bashr Worker Kagera Sugar Camp 10
Woman Anhha Kashangaki Worker Kagera Sugar Camp 10
26/02/2020 Karagwe District Man Godfrey Mhelika DC Karagwe Interview
26/02/2020 Karagwe District Man P Rweyendera District Ex Director Interview
26/02/2020 Karagwe District Woman Nyangele Malanerge Acting District Admin Secretary Interview
26/02/2020 Karagwe District Man Benson K Abel District land officer Interview
26/02/2020 Karagwe District Man Henry B Makwasa OCD Karagwe Interview
26/02/2020 Karagwe District Man C Barongo Kny DSO Karakwe Interview
26/02/2020 Missenyi District Man Col Denis F Mwila DC Missenyi Interview
27/02/2020 Kitengule Prison Man Insp Joseph M Ywa Procurment Officer Interview
27/02/2020 Kitengule Prison Man Alinaf Andrew B Phillip Prison Doctor Interview
27/02/2020 Kitengule Prison Man SP Hadari L Yuda In charge of AG office Interview
28/02/2020 Missenyi District Man Victor Laurean Project Engineer Camp 9 / Kagera Sugar Interview
Comp
28/02/2020 Missenyi District Woman Antha Sadik Worker Camp 9 / Kagera Sugar Comp Interview
28/02/2020 Missenyi District Man Waris Rutaryamreun in charge of the Camp 9 / Kagera Sugar Interview
Comp
28/02/2020 Missenyi District Man Julian Salvatory Worker at Camp 9 / Kagera Sugar Comp Interview
26/02/2020 Missenyi Ranch Man Oscar Mengele Ranch manager Interview
28/02/2020 Mushabaiguru Village Woman Jovitha Kalory Farmer Focus group


responsibilities
Woman Angela Andlea Farmer
Woman Aponia Deus Farmer
Woman Jovanis Agustini Farmer
25/02/2020 Bukoba Man Prof Faustin Kamuzora RAS Kagera Interview
25/02/2020 Bukoba Man Haji Y Kuselu Environmental Advisor Interview
25/02/2020 Bukoba Man Mberwa Olengeille Sbwo Bukoba Interview
25/02/2020 Bukoba Man Mario K Vitia Quality Lab Manager Interview
Social field survey undertaken from 21 of July to 05 of August 2020
24/07/2020 Kyaka Man Abdallah Kaseiwa Chairman Introductory
meeting
24/07/2020 Kyaka Man Hakimu Issack Village sub-chairman Introductory
meeting
24/07/2020 Kyaka Man Abdallah Kaseiwa VEO Kyaka Introductory
meeting
24/07/2020 Kyaka Man Clemence Kajubi Village sub-chairman Introductory
meeting
24/07/2020 Kyaka Man Marichade Fosto Village sub-chairman Introductory
meeting
24/07/2020 Kyaka Man Samson Emmanuel Government chief valuer Introductory
meeting
27/07/2020 Kyaka Man Silaji Abubbakari Farmer Interview
27/07/2020 Kyaka Woman Anuma Ismail Mwaga Farmer Interview
27/07/2020 Kyaka Man Peater Munyaraga Farmer Interview
27/07/2020 Kyaka Man Hussein Kamanzi Farmer Interview
Rweikiza
27/07/2020 Kyaka Man Adam Twaha Abdallah Farmer Interview
27/07/2020 Kyaka Man Mudy Adam Farmer Interview
27/07/2020 Kyaka Man Bernard Martin Farmer Interview
Kashaija
27/07/2020 Kyaka Woman Leonida Rwechungura Farmer Interview
27/07/2020 Kyaka Man Seleman Karoli Farmer Interview
27/07/2020 Kyaka Woman Royce Ibrahim Farmer Interview
Ntungwa
28/07/2020 Kyaka Man Livingstone Ntungwa Farmer Interview
28/07/2020 Kyaka Man Abdul Ismail Kajiwe Farmer Interview
01/01/2019 Kyaka Woman Naima Said Farmer Interview
28/07/2020 Kyaka Woman Arizik Ramadhan Farmer Interview
28/07/2020 Kyaka Man Moses Ngemela Kaiza Farmer Interview
01/01/2019 Kyaka Man Leonard Philimon Farmer Interview
28/07/2020 Kyaka Woman Frorida Kokumanya Farmer Interview
Kashangaki
01/01/2019 Kyaka Woman Yustina Ferdinand Farmer Interview
29/07/2020 Kyaka Man James Rutamulwa Farmer Interview
Nyanda
29/07/2020 Kyaka Man Abubakari Ramadhani Farmer Interview
Ismaily
29/07/2020 Kyaka Man Ramadhan Bashir Njiro Farmer Interview
29/07/2020 Kyaka Woman Judith Kyaruzi Farmer Interview
Leverian
29/07/2020 Kyaka Woman Vaileth Sebastian Farmer Interview
Kemilembe
29/07/2020 Kyaka Woman Severina Stanslaus Farmer Interview
Nyamwiyula
29/07/2020 Kyaka Man Edwine Edward Farmer Interview
Bubegwa
29/07/2020 Kyaka Man Hamidu Mohamedi Farmer Interview
Mishale
29/07/2020 Kyaka Man Projectus Tegamaisho Farmer Interview
29/07/2020 Kyaka Man Adam Azil Majura Farmer Interview
29/07/2020 Kyaka Woman Anna Grace Farmer Interview
Kokwongeza
29/07/2020 Kyaka Man Emmanuel Nalaye Farmer Interview
Makumba
29/07/2020 Kyaka Woman Zakia Elisa Michael Farmer Interview
30/07/2020 Kyaka Woman Mariam Saidi Kashasha Farmer Interview
30/07/2020 Kyaka Woman Winifrida Theonest Farmer Interview
Kahwa
30/07/2020 Kyaka Man Anthony Rwebogora Farmer Interview
Kahwa


responsibilities
30/07/2020 Kyaka Man Deogratias Binamungu Farmer Interview
Rwakikamba
30/07/2020 Kyaka Man Aliyu Mzee Jafari Farmer Interview
30/07/2020 Kyaka Man Tedomidius Didas Farmer Interview
Rutta
30/07/2020 Kyaka Man James Kato Kabulemu Farmer Interview
31/07/2020 Kyaka Man Deus Machweshi Farmer Interview
30/07/2020 Kyaka Man Yassin Hassan Idd Farmer Interview
31/07/2020 Kyaka Man selestine Simeo Farmer Interview
bachubila
30/07/2020 Kyaka Woman Diana Abdul Kibra Farmer Interview
30/07/2020 Kyaka Man Seleman Abdul Idd Farmer Interview
31/07/2020 Kyaka Man Shamsi Hilali Khamis Farmer Interview
Rutta
31/07/2020 Kyaka Woman Latifa Abdu kasimu Farmer Interview
31/07/2020 Kyaka Woman Demetrida David Farmer Interview
Martin
31/07/2020 Kyaka Woman Anitha Antony Farmer Interview
31/07/2020 Kyaka Man Emmanuel Mutalemwa Farmer Interview
William
31/07/2020 Kyaka Man Renatus Agustin Farmer Interview
31/07/2020 Kyaka Man Joshua Kyaruzi Mayoro Farmer Interview
01/08/2020 Kyaka Woman Winifrida Agustine Farmer Interview
01/08/2020 Kyaka Man Theojenes Emil kaijage Farmer Interview
01/08/2020 Kyaka Woman Shakila Abdul Kazinja Farmer Interview
01/08/2020 Kyaka Man Abubakar Abdul Farmer Interview
Kazinja
01/08/2020 Kyaka Woman Mysara Said Farmer Interview
01/08/2020 Kyaka Man Swidicka Abdallah Farmer Interview
Kassim
01/08/2020 Kyaka Man Domician Rugakingira Farmer Interview
Baitani
01/08/2020 Kyaka Woman Helena Petro Kalekezi Farmer Interview
03/08/2020 Kyaka Man Hassan Abed Kalekezi Farmer Interview
01/08/2020 Kyaka Man Idd Ismail Farmer Interview
01/08/2020 Kyaka Woman Faidha Annas Farmer Interview
03/08/2020 Kyaka Man Juma Dauda Farmer Interview
Katwekake
03/08/2020 Kyaka Man Johanes George Farmer Interview
Mtanda
03/08/2020 Kyaka Woman Eveleni Kokutangilila Farmer Interview
Gidion
03/08/2020 Kyaka Man Alfred Alphonce Kaz Farmer Interview
03/08/2020 Kyaka Man Baraka Yustace Farmer Interview
Korosperi
29/07/2020 Kyaka Man Sigifridius Theophil Farmer Interview
Alimeli
25/07/2020 Mugaba Man Stephano Ndendeye Farmer Interview
Ndamage
25/07/2020 Bugara Woman Eugenia Rwabidodo Farmer Interview
25/07/2020 Bugara Man Kazora Isidore Farmer Interview
27/07/2020 Kyaka Man Mohamad Ramadhan Farmer Interview
27/07/2020 Kyaka Man Yassin Hamad Farmer Interview
01/01/2019 Kyaka Woman Leah Rudovick Farmer Interview
30/07/2020 Kyaka Man Mugisha Allan Bailile Farmer Interview
30/07/2020 Kyaka Man Deus Paulo Farmer Interview
Machwamesh
31/07/2020 Kyaka Man Juma Omary Ally Farmer Interview
28/07/2020 Kyaka Woman Nyamwiza Julius Jacob Farmer Interview
31/07/2020 Kyaka Man Mohammad Mahmood Farmer Interview
Kibra
31/07/2020 Kyaka Man Haruna Issa Mazingo Farmer Interview
31/07/2020 Kyaka Man Clemence Kajubi Farmer Interview
25/07/2020 Mugaba Man Thomas Baitubake Farmer Interview
Rwebiita
25/07/2020 Mugaba Woman Jovanius Kasande Farmer Interview
wilson
25/07/2020 Bugara Man Yustinian Kabeizi Farmer Interview
Kajara


responsibilities
Social field survey undertaken from 18 of October to 05 of November 2020
19/10/2020 Omundongo Man Anastasius Tushabe Chairman Interview
19/10/2020 Omundongo Woman Teopista Richard Farmer Interview
20/10/2020 Omundongo Man Shabani Hussein Farmer Interview
Buberwa
20/10/2020 Omundongo Man Sadat Issa Farmer Interview
20/10/2020 Omundongo Woman Mariam Abdallah Farmer Interview
20/10/2020 Omundongo Man Twaha Abdallah Farmer Interview
20/10/2020 Omundongo Man Paschal Ludovick Farmer Interview
19/10/2020 Omundongo Man Jonathan Albert Farmer Interview
21/10/2020 Omundongo Woman Mesiliath Jonathan Farmer Interview
21/10/2020 Camp n°3 KSC Man Charles Chose In charge of camp n°3 KSC Interview
21/10/2020 Omundongo Man Wilson Husein Farmer Interview
21/10/2020 Omundongo Woman Afisa Issa Farmer Interview
21/10/2020 Camp N°4 KSC Man Yassin Simba In charge of camp n°4 KSC Interview
21/10/2020 Omundongo Man Jonathan Maganga Farmer Interview
21/10/2020 Camp n°5 KSC Man Yusuph Rushanna In charge of camp n°5 KSC Interview
21/10/2020 Camp n°2 KSC Man Daud Bulango In charge of camp n2 Interview
21/10/2020 Omundongo Woman Adia Issa Farmer Interview
21/10/2020 Omundongo Man Issa Juma Farmer Interview
21/10/2020 Omundongo Man Abdulrazaki Buruani Farmer Interview
21/10/2020 Omundongo Woman Sofia Marius Farmer Interview
21/10/2020 Omundongo Man Siriyakusi Daudi Farmer Interview
22/10/2020 Omundongo Man Deus Leonard Josia Farmer Interview
22/10/2020 Omundongo Man Marcel Petro Farmer Interview
22/10/2020 Omundongo Man Richard John Farmer Interview
22/10/2020 Omundongo Man Radislaus Mathias Farmer Interview
22/10/2020 Omundongo Woman Consolatha Leonard Farmer Interview
22/10/2020 Omundongo Man Leopord Bandola Farmer Interview
22/10/2020 Omundongo Man Mosses Kanoti Farmer Interview
22/10/2020 Omundongo Man Deus Simeo Farmer Interview
22/10/2020 Fishers island Man Respickius Msinzgara Cook at KSC Interview
22/10/2020 Camp n°6 KSC Man Peter Magoma In charge of camp n°6 KSC Interview
23/10/2020 Kyaka Man Jaston Andrea Farmer Interview
23/10/2020 Kyaka Man Michael Binomugisha Farmer Interview
24/10/2020 Kyaka Woman Joelia Abdul Farmer Interview
24/10/2020 Kyaka Woman Nura Sadi Farmer Interview
24/10/2020 Kyaka Woman Anastella Emmanuel Farmer Interview
24/10/2020 Kyaka Woman Asina Hamada Farmer Interview
24/10/2020 Kyaka Woman Anusiatha Peter Farmer Interview
24/10/2020 Kyaka Man Michael Mugisha Farmer Interview
24/10/2020 Kyaka Woman Jeniva Rweyemamu Farmer Interview
23/10/2020 Kyaka Man Bernard Martin farmer Interview
Kashaija
24/10/2020 Kyaka Man Mohamed Abdallah Farmer Interview
24/10/2020 Kyaka Man Renatus John Farmer Interview
24/10/2020 Kyaka Woman Sofia Ahmada Farmer Interview
24/10/2020 Kyaka Man Mohamed Twairi Farmer Interview
24/10/2020 Kyaka Woman Rehema Ibrahim Farmer Interview
24/10/2020 Kyaka Woman Asnathi Adam Farmer Interview
24/10/2020 Kyaka Man Abubakari Nuru Farmer Interview
Mushema
23/10/2020 Kyaka Man Isya Stephano Chairman Interview
24/10/2020 Near Camp N°6 KSC Woman Ashura Yusuph Worker at KSC Interview
24/10/2020 Near Camp N°6 KSC Man Jamali Haruna Worker at KSC Interview
24/10/2020 Near Camp N°6 KSC Man Bahati Martine Worker at KSC Interview
25/10/2020 Kyaka Woman Magreth Ezron Farmer Interview
25/10/2020 Kyaka Man Josephat Joseph Farmer Interview
25/10/2020 Kyaka Man Mohammed Hassan Farmer Interview
25/10/2020 Kyaka Man Hamada Bosa Farmer Interview
25/10/2020 Kyaka Man Mzamiru Zuberi Farmer Interview
24/10/2020 Camp n°9 KSC Man Osward Rutakyamilwa In charge of camp n°9 KSC Interview
Adoloph
25/10/2020 Kyaka Man Haji Idrisa Ahmada Farmer Interview
25/10/2020 Kyaka Man Rashidi Hassan Farmer Interview
24/10/2020 Camp n°10 KSC Man Alexandar Petro In charge camp n°10 KSC Interview
25/10/2020 Kyaka Woman Taki Hassan Farmer Interview
25/10/2020 Kyaka Man Gozibert Augustine Farmer Interview
25/10/2020 Kyaka Man Zubairi Kassim Kagaju Farmer Interview


responsibilities
25/10/2020 Kyaka Man Mdashiru Zubeiri Farmer Interview
25/10/2020 Bulifani Man Plasidius Chairman Interview
26/10/2020 Nyabihanga Man Bashiru Dauda Farmer Interview
26/10/2020 Nyabihanga Man Hamza Twaha Farmer Interview
26/10/2020 Nyabihanga Man Kashangaki Paul Farmer Interview
26/10/2020 Nyabihanga Woman Jasintha Justinian Farmer Interview
26/10/2020 Nyabihanga Man Jovinary John Mapera Farmer Interview
26/10/2020 Nyabihanga Man Thomas Zakaria Farmer Interview
Zakaria Zakaria
26/10/2020 Nyabihanga Man Deogratias John Farmer Interview
Mapera John Mapera
26/10/2020 Nyabihanga Woman Bernadetha Ibrahimu Farmer Interview
Ibrahimu
26/10/2020 Kyaka Man Apolofilius Daudi Farmer Interview
26/10/2020 Kyaka Man Mussa Daudi Mzaire Farmer Interview
26/10/2020 Nyabihanga Man Constantine Boniface Farmer Interview
26/10/2020 Nyabihanga Woman Sylivia Simon Farmer Interview
26/10/2020 Nyabihanga Man Rashidi Mohamed Iddi Farmer Interview
26/10/2020 Nyabihanga Man Atwibu Twaha Farmer Interview
26/10/2020 Nyabihanga Woman Justa Jovin Farmer Interview
26/10/2020 Nyabihanga Man Majidi Twaha Farmer Interview
26/10/2020 Nyabihanga Man Revocatus Daudi Farmer Interview
26/10/2020 Nyabihanga Woman Devotha Benedicto Farmer Interview
26/10/2020 Nyabihanga Man Antidius Aniceti Farmer Interview
26/10/2020 Nyabihanga Woman Jacklina Gerald Farmer Interview
26/10/2020 Nyabihanga Man Ladislaus Joseph Farmer Interview
25/10/2020 Mushasha Man Julius Mfuka Sub-village chairman Interview
27/10/2020 Nyabihanga Man Anthony Nzigula Farmer Interview
27/10/2020 Nyabihanga Woman Jerimina Projestus Farmer Interview
27/10/2020 Nyabihanga Man Amadi Ramadhan Farmer Interview
29/10/2020 Bulifani Woman Hadija Suleiman Farmer Interview
29/10/2020 Bulifani Man Sharifu Bablia Farmer Interview
29/10/2020 Bulifani Man Shabridin Bablia Farmer Interview
29/10/2020 Bulifani Woman Yudes Karoli Farmer Interview
29/10/2020 Bulifani Man Abdusammadu Farmer Interview
Mohammed
28/10/2020 Kitengule prison area Woman Magdalena Anthony Business woman Interview
Gordian
28/10/2020 Kitengule prison area Man Pancras Fulgens Prison officer Interview
28/10/2020 KSC territory right bank Woman Francesca Gabriel Farmer Interview
28/10/2020 Camp n°6 KSC right Man Evelius Christopher Camp in charge KSC Interview
bank
28/10/2020 KSC territory right bank Woman Airini Christopha Farmer and fisher Interview
28/10/2020 KSC territory right bank Woman Erica Emmanuel Farmer and fisher Interview
29/10/2020 Bulifani Man Darius Daud Farmer Interview
29/10/2020 Bulifani Man Ladislaus Senforian Farmer Interview
29/10/2020 Bulifani Woman Peragia Jonathan Farmer Interview
27/10/2020 Nyabihanga Man Martin Marko Farmer Interview
27/10/2020 Nyabihanga Man Ramadhani Juma Farmer Interview
27/10/2020 Nyabihanga Woman Leonida Charles Farmer Interview
28/10/2020 KSC territory right bank Woman Erica Kokushubira Farmer Interview
Emmanuel
29/10/2020 Bulifani Woman Zamda Ramadhani Farmer Interview
Salim
29/10/2020 Bulifani Woman Josephina Kakwama Business women Interview
Leonard
29/10/2020 Bulifani Man Juma Clashani Pascal Farmer Interview
29/10/2020 Bulifani Woman Eva Potazi Student Interview
29/10/2020 Bulifani Man Barnabas Valentine Student Interview
29/10/2020 Bulifani Man Selemani Mussa Farming and livestock keeping Interview
Rutashobya
29/10/2020 Bulifani Man Angelo Filbert Katele Farmer Interview
30/10/2020 Bulifani Man Afidhu Juma Interprenur Interview
30/10/2020 Bulifani Man Ramadhan Bashiru Farmer Interview
30/10/2020 Bulifani Man Siku Deogratius Farmer Interview
Makamba
05/11/2020 Gabulanga Man Pastory Laurian Village sub- chairman Interview
02/11/2020 Gabulanga Man Elia Ernest Chairman Interview
30/10/2020 Kassambya Man Sebastian Kasigara Chairman Interview

Annex 5-17 – Ecosystem Services Scoping

Process
The tables below identify the potential impacts caused by a run-of river hydraulic model that may affected
the provision of services by ecosystem (direct impacts) and/or the impacts that may prevent the
beneficiaries from obtaining/accessing the services provided by the ecosystems. For each potential impact,
the beneficiaries are identified. When a potential impact is linked to a beneficiary, then the ecosystem
service is scoped in. When there is a potential impact on an ecosystem service but no beneficiary, that
ecosystem service is scoped out and will not be assessed further.
Table 1 – Identification of beneficiaries of potentially impacted ecosystem services provided by Lotic ecosystem
Ecosystem services Beneficiaries Project’s potential impact Scoped in or
scoped out
Fishing > Fishers The project could have an impact on fish Scoped in
> There are limited fishing abundance.
activities in the Kagera River in
the Kakono study area.
Freshwater (Water for > The Kakono river is used by The project could prevent locals from Scoped in
domestic purposes, some local communities to accessing the river for domestic purposes
industrial purposes have access to water for but also to transport people.
and transportation of domestic purposes.
goods and people) > The Kagera Sugar Company is KSC pumping stations could stop
abstracting water from the functioning or encounter dysfunctionality.
River to produce sugar cane.
> Livestock farmers also water
their cattle at the river.
> The river is also used to
transport goods and persons.
Cultural services
Traditional practices > Local communities > The reservoir impoundment will flood the Scoped in
> One sacrifice site was identified sacrifice site
near the riverbank. Site is used
to call for the rain. Must be
located near the river.
Aesthetic Value > Local communities > The project could impact on the Scoped in
> There is no tourism in the area landscape composed of the Kagera River
Intrinsic value of > Scientific community > The project could impact on the presence Scoped in
biodiversity > High value (scientific) for and abundance of fish species.
number of fish species
depending on this habitat
Regulating services
Climate regulation: > Local communities > The Project will not impact on any climate Scoped out
local regional and regulation role played by the river
global
Regulation of water > Local communities > The Project under run-of-river operation Scoped out
timing and flows will not impact on the timing and
magnitude of water runoff, flooding, and
aquifer recharge
Erosion regulation > Local communities farming > The Project is predicted to increase Scoped in
near the riverbanks or in the riverbank and bed erosion through
floodplain sediment trapping in the reservoir. Over
time, farmers will lose part of their arable
land along the riverbanks.
Natural hazards > Local communities > The Project will not impact normal flood Scoped out
regulation variability.


scoped out
Disease and pest > Local communities > The Project could lead to an Scoped in
regulation accumulation of water hyacinth in the
reservoir due to reduction in flow and
trapping where it could create suitable
conditions for waterborne diseases.
Supporting services
Nutrient cycling > Local communities especially > The Project is predicted to reduce the Scoped in
fishers and farmers contribution of nutrients in suspended
sediment downstream, with effects on
fisheries productivity and floodplain
farming downstream of the dam
Water cycling > Local communities > The Project will not impact water cycles Scoped out
to downstream river
Soil formation > Local communities especially > The Project will trap sediments in the Scoped in
farmers and fishers reservoir and reduce sediment delivery to
the downstream river reaches where it
would reduce deposition on floodplains
affecting fishers and farmers.
Habitat Provision > Local communities especially > The Project (under run-of-river) will Scoped in
fishers largely maintain the aquatic ecosystems
including fisheries that are important for
local communities.
Table 2 - Identification of beneficiaries of potentially impacted ecosystem services provided by Floodplain

Ecosystems
Ecosystem services Beneficiaries Project’s potential impact Scoped
in/scoped out
Game meat > No beneficiaries > Project could reduce the number of wild Scoped out
> Interviews highlighted that animals hunted by locals.
villagers do not consume wild
meat from hunting. Elephants,
hippos and crocodiles are the
main wild animals mentioned
during the interviews, but none
of them are being hunted for
their meat.
Medicinal plants, > Some locals are collecting > Project could flood the medicinal plants Scoped in
natural medicines medicinal plants on the used by locals located in the floodplain
floodplain
Cultivated crops > Local communities especially > Project could flood the cultivated plots Scoped in
farmers cultivating in the located in the floodplain as farmers
floodplain practice flood recession farming
Livestock farming > Local communities > Some locals use the floodplain as Scoped in
> Cattle grazing land and the project could flood
grazing areas
Fishing > Fishers > Project could have an impact on the Scoped in
floodplain and reduce fish abundance.
Freshwater (Water for > The Kakono river is used by > Project will not prevent communities to Scoped out
domestic purposes, some local communities to fetch water
industrial purposes have access to water for
and transportation of domestic purposes.
goods and people) > Livestock farmers also water
their cattle at the river.
Biomass fuel > Some few locals collect small > Project could flood the floodplain and Scoped in
piece of wood used as biomass prevent locals from collecting biomass
fuel for cooking fuel
> Some local are producing
charcoal near the riverbanks
Cultural services
Intrinsic value of > Scientific community > Project will not have an impact on bird Scoped out
biodiversity species depending on the floodplain
Regulating services

Ecosystem services Beneficiaries Project’s potential impact Scoped

in/scoped out
Climate regulation: > Local communities > The Project will have limited effect on Scoped out
local regional and climate regulation through flooding of
global floodplain vegetation and its role in
carbon storage
Regulation of water > Local communities > The project will not impact on the role Scoped out
timing and flows played by the floodplain to attenuate
floods
Erosion regulation > Local communities > The floodplain woodland that stabilises Scoped in
> Locals are cultivating in the riverbanks against natural flooding
floodplain could become eroded by sediment
trapping in the dam
Pollination > Local communities especially > The Project will not prevent the Scoped out
farmers seasonally flooded floodplain
vegetation to host incest pollinators
Natural hazards > Local communities > The Project will not affect the floodplain Scoped out
regulation > Floodplain has a high value for vegetation by preventing water rushing
Flood regulation. Papyrus and
hippo grass prevent water
rushing down the floodplain
which make it less dangerous
for people
Supporting services
Water cycling > Local communities > The project will not prevent the Scoped out
floodplain vegetation to play a filter role
by removing contaminants
Nutrient cycling > Local communities especially > The Project will not prevent floodplain Scoped out
fishers wetland vegetation to capture nutrients
from upstream and from the sugar cane
plantations that support fisheries
Soil formation > Local communities > The Project will impact on soil formation Scoped in
through capturing sediment in the
reservoir resulting in erosion of
riverbank and fringing floodplain
vegetation.
Habitat Provision > Local communities especially > The Project will flood wetland bird Scoped in
fishers habitat although there will be minimal
impact on endemic and threatened
birds under run of river downstream.
Table 3 - Identification of beneficiaries of potentially impacted ecosystem services provided by Forest Ecosystem
scoped out
Game meat > No beneficiaries > Project will not impact forest so it will Scoped out
> Interviews highlighted that not impact on game meat
villagers do not consume wild
meat from hunting. Elephants,
hippos and crocodiles are the
main wild animals mentioned
during the interviews, but none
of them are being hunted for
their meat.
Honey, fruits and > Local communities > Project will not impact forest so it will Scoped out
mushrooms > Interviews highlighted that not impact on honey , fruits and
people do not regularly collect mushrooms
honey, fruits or mushrooms in
the forest. It is mostly
inadvertently found on the way
back when collecting wood.
Medicinal plants, > Local communities > Project will not impact forest so it will Scoped out
natural medicines > Interviews highlighted that not prevent local from collecting
some people are used to medicinal plants
collect medicinal plants in
forest.


scoped out
Livestock farming > No beneficiaries as Cattle do > Project will not impact forest Scoped out
not graze in the forest.
Timber and wood > Local communities. Locals are > Project will not impact forest so it will Scoped out
products using wood for building their not prevent locals from cutting wood
house as well as different
equipment such as shelters or
fences.
Biomass fuel > Local communities. Locals and > Project will not impact forest sot it will Scoped out
workers from KSC are using not prevent locals from using biomass
biomass fuel for domestic fuel
purposes as cooking
Cultural services
Intrinsic value of > Scientific community > Project will not have an impact on forest Scoped out
biodiversity so it will not affect forest value of
biodiversity
Regulating services
Regulation of air > Local communities > Project will have minimal impact on air Scoped out
quality quality regulation as small amount of
riparian forest will be flooded by the
reservoir.
Climate regulation: > Local communities > Project will have minimal impact on Scoped out
local regional and forest so it will not affect forest
global contribution on climate regulation
Regulation of water > Local communities especially > Project will have minimal impact on Scoped out
timing and flows fishers forest which play a negligible role in
flow regulation.
Erosion regulation > Local communities > Project will not impact forest Scoped out
Pollination > Local communities > Project will not impact forest Scoped out
Natural hazards > Local communities > Project will not impact forest Scoped out
regulation
Pest regulation > Local communities > Project will not impact forest Scoped out
Disease regulation > Local communities > Project will not impact forest Scoped out
Supporting services
Nutrient cycling > Local communities > Project will not impact forest Scoped out
Water cycling > Local communities > Project will not impact forest Scoped out
Soil formation > Local communities > Project will not impact forest Scoped out
Habitat Provision > Local communities > Project will not impact forest Scoped out
The project will not directly or indirectly impact forest. Therefore, this ecosystem is not impacted and the services this
ecosystem is providing to locals will not be affected.
Table 4 - Identification of beneficiaries of potentially impacted ecosystem services provided by Woodlands /

Grasslands ecosystem
Ecosystem services Beneficiaries Project potential impacts Scoped in or
scoped out
Honey, fruits and > Local communities. People do > Project will impact woodland/grassland Scoped in
mushrooms not regularly collect honey, and may reduce or restrict access for
fruits or mushrooms in people to collect honey, fruits and
woodland. It is mostly mushrooms
inadvertently found on the way
back when collecting wood.
Medicinal plants, > Local communities. Some > Project will impact woodland/grassland Scoped in
natural medicines locals are collecting medicinal area. It could prevent people from
plants in woodland/grassland collecting medicinal plant.
Livestock farming > Local communities, especially > Project will impact woodland/grassland Scoped in
cattle keepers area. It could reduce the grazing land
area for cattle keepers
Timber and wood > Local communities > Project will impact woodland/grassland Scoped in
products area. It could prevent some people to
have access to woody areas

Ecosystem services Beneficiaries Project potential impacts Scoped in or

scoped out
Biomass fuel > Local communities > Project will impact woodland/grassland Scoped in
area. It could prevent some people to
have access to woody areas
Cultural services
Intrinsic value of > Scientific community > Project will impact woodland/grassland Scoped out
biodiversity area. However, it will not impact on
species of high value.
Regulating services
Regulation of air > Local communities > The Project will impact some woodland Scoped out
quality, and climate but it will not have consequence on air
quality regulation
Climate regulation: > Local communities > The Project will impact some woodland Scoped out
local regional and but it will not have consequence on
global carbon storage
Regulation of water > Local communities especially > The Project will impact some woodland Scoped out
timing and flows fishers but it will not prevent the minor role
woodland played in regulating water
flows
Erosion regulation > Local communities especially > The Project will impact some woodland Scoped out
farmers but it will not prevent the global role
woodland played in protecting erosion
Pollination > Local communities especially > The Project will impact some woodland Scoped out
farmers but it will not prevent pollination on a
broader scale
Natural hazards > Local communities > The Project will impact some woodland Scoped out
regulation but it will not prevent its stabiliser role
on a broader scale
Pest regulation > Local communities > The Project will impact some woodland Scoped out
but will not prevent its role on pest
regulation on a broader scale
Supporting services
Nutrient cycling > Local communities > The Project will impact some woodland Scoped out
but the grassland nutrient could be
found in other woody area
Water cycling > Local communities especially > The Project will impact some woodland Scoped out
fishers but it will still contribute to water cycling
on a broader scale
Soil formation > Local communities > The Project will impact some woodland Scoped out
but it will still contribute to soil
formation a broader scale
Habitat Provision > Local communities especially > The Project will impact some woodland Scoped out
fishers but it will not impact on the diversity of
plants and birds and animals
Table 5 - Identification of beneficiaries of potentially impacted ecosystem services provided by Anthropized

ecosystem
Ecosystem services Beneficiaries Project potential impact Scoped in
or scoped
out
Honey, fruits and > Local communities from > Project will impact community land near the Scoped out
mushrooms villages where there is transmission line but no locals have reported
communal land. collecting these provisioning services there.
Cultivated crops > Local communities > Project will impact agricultural land. It could Scoped in
especially farmers impact people livelihood
Regulating services
Climate regulation: > Local communities > The Project will impact some residential and Scoped out
local regional and agricultural land but it will not have consequence
global on climate regulation
Pollination > Local communities > The Project will impact some agricultural plots Scoped out
especially farmers that contribute to pollination, but it will not
impact pollination process on a broader scale

Ecosystem services Beneficiaries Project potential impact Scoped in

or scoped
out
Supporting services
Nutrient cycling > Local communities > The Project will impact some agricultural land Scoped out
located in the floodplain but it will not prevent
floodplain to contribute to nutrient cycling
Habitat Provision > Local communities > The Project will impact some impact some Scoped out
residential and agricultural land but it will not
impact on the diversity of plants and birds and
animals

End of this Section
6 Stakeholder Engagement
Contents
6.1 Introduction............................................................................. 6-1
6.2 Stakeholders Identification & Analysis ................................. 6-1
6.3 Documented Record of Stakeholder Engagement ............. 6-1

Disclosure of the 2016 ESIA Findings ......................................................................................................................... 6-1
Social Surveys in 2020 as Part of the 2022 ESIA Preparation ................................................................................ 6-7
Disclosure of the 2022 ESIA Findings ....................................................................................................................... 6-10
6.4 Feedback Received in February 2022 and How it Was Taken

into Account into the 2022 ESIA/RAP ................................ 6-13
Feedback Received ..................................................................................................................................................... 6-13
How the Feedback was Taken into Account ............................................................................................................ 6-15
ANNEXES ........................................................................................ 6-18

Annex 6-2 – Record of Issues Raised by Stakeholders during 2016 ESIA Process
Annex 6-3 – Persons Interviewed during the 2020 Social Surveys with Attendance Sheets
Annex 6-4 – Record of Issues Raised by Stakeholders during the 2020 Social Surveys
Annex 6-5 – TANESCO Invitation Letter for Public Consultations in Feb. 2022
Annex 6-6 – PowerPoint Presentations Used for Public Consultations in Feb. 2022
Annex 6-7 – ESIA Summary Distributed to Village Councils & District Councils Ahead of Public Consultations in Feb. 2022
Annex 6-8 – Record of Issues Raised by Stakeholders in Consultations Held in February 2022
DISCLOSURE AUTHORIZED - Kakono HPP_ESIA_Section 6_STAKEHOLDER_June 2022 Page a

List of Tables
Table 6-1 – Stakeholder Analysis ................................................................................................................................................ 6-3
Table 6-2 – Consultation Meetings Undertaken in 2013 ......................................................................................................... 6-5
Table 6-3 - Consultation Meetings Undertaken in 2017 .......................................................................................................... 6-6
Table 6-4 - Stakeholders Consulted 2019 and 2020 for the 2022 ESIA Preparation ......................................................... 6-8
Table 6-5 – Stakeholders Consulted in February 2022 ......................................................................................................... 6-11
Table 6-6 – Persons Interviewed during the 2020 Social Surveys ............................................................................................. 4
Table 6-7 –Concerns from other Stakeholders Collected During 2020 Qualitative Field Surveys ......................................... 1
List of Figures
Figure 6-1 - Location of Public Meetings and Other Forms of Stakeholder Engagement From 2013 to 2022 ............... 6-2
Figure 6-2 - Photos of Stakeholder Engagement Undertaken as part of the Social Surveys in 2020 .............................. 6-9
Figure 6-3 - Photos of Stakeholder Engagement Undertaken for the Disclosure of the 2022 ESIA Findings ............... 6-12
DISCLOSURE AUTHORIZED - Kakono HPP_ESIA_Section 6_STAKEHOLDER_June 2022 Page b

6.1 Introduction
Stakeholder engagement is an inclusive process conducted throughout the project life cycle. This Chapter
documents the meaningful consultations undertaken with stakeholders up to February 2022, at the time
of writing. Future engagement activities will be implemented as per the program described in the
Stakeholder Engagement Plan presented in Chapter 11 - ESMMP.
The Project’s consultations with stakeholder have been organized in three stages:
• In 2013, and then 2017, as part of the 2016 ESIA process;
• In 2020, during the preparation of the 2022 ESIA; and
• In 2022, for the disclosure of the 2022 ESIA and RAP findings.
6.2 Stakeholders Identification & Analysis
Stakeholders are individuals or groups who: (i) are affected or likely to be affected by the Project (project-
affected parties); and (ii) may have an interest in the Project (other interested parties). Stakeholders were
identified through the 2016 ESIA process, and further confirmed through the preparation of the 2022 ESIA.
Figure 6-1 below describes the stakeholders identified as relevant for the Kakono Project and provides an
analysis of the parties’ interest in the Project.
6.3 Documented Record of Stakeholder Engagement
The location of the public meetings and other forms of stakeholder engagement undertaken from 2013 to
2016 by the Kakono Project is illustrated on Figure 6-1 next page.
Disclosure of the 2016 ESIA Findings
The 2016 ESIA has been prepared by NORPLAN in 2013. As part of the preparation of the 2016 ESIA, several
meetings with communities and institutions have been organized. Methodology, commutation support,
attendance sheets and minutes of meeting are documented in the annexes of the 2016 ESIA Study
(Norplan, 2016a).
In July 2017, as part of TANESCO update of the 2016 ESIA, another round of public consultations was
undertaken. The objective was to update the local authorities and the local communities on the project
development, four years after the 2013 consultations organized by NORPLAN. Attendance sheets and
minutes of meeting are documented in the appendices of the 2017 ESIA Study (TANESCO, 2017a).
In 2013 and then 2017, the main concerns raised by the consulted persons were related to:
• Land acquisition and compensation;
• Employment opportunities for local people;
• Project interaction with existing and planned irrigation schemes;
• Access to electricity for local villages; and
• HIV/AIDS prevention campaigns.
Annex 6-2 provides a summary of issues raised by stakeholders during the 2016 ESIA process (meetings in
2013 and 2017). Table 6-2 and Table 6-3 provide a summary of the stakeholders met during the 2016 ESIA
process.
DISCLOSURE AUTHORIZED - Kakono HPP_ESIA_Section 6_STAKEHOLDER_June 2022 Page 6-1

Figure 6-1 - Location of Public Meetings and Other Forms of Stakeholder Engagement From 2013 to 2022

Table 6-1 – Stakeholder Analysis

Stakeholder groups Interest in the Project
A. Project-affected parties
A1. Persons
8 households, living in Kyaka, • Involuntary physical displacement: Affected by loss of house due to the Transmission Line wayleave.
physically displaced • Risk of loss of sources of income and/or means of livelihoods.
• Entitled to compensation and livelihood restoration.
• Vulnerable households will require specific engagement and potentially specific assistance
84 Households (including the 8 • Affected by loss of land, or access to land, due to:
households physically > Transmission line wayleave (78 households living in Kyaka Village) or
displaced) losing land or access > Reservoir footprint (3 households in Mugaba, 3 households in Bugara).
to land (~ 44ha) • Risk of loss of sources of income and/or means of livelihoods.
• Entitled to compensation and livelihood restoration.
A2. Communities
Bugara Village • Affected by loss of land due to the reservoir footprint (~215ha). Entitled to compensation.
• Problems with Elephants as the sugar cane plantation expands, combined with the creation of the Kakono reservoir, which could result in persecution of problem animals.
• During construction, risk of project-induced in-migration within the Bugara Community.
• Community close to the future reservoir, potentially exposed to vector-borne diseases associated with water during operation.
Mugaba Village • Affected by loss of land due to the reservoir footprint (~7ha). Entitled to compensation.
• During construction, risk of project-induced in-migration within the Mugaba Community.
Businde Village • Affected by loss of land due to the reservoir footprint (~137ha). Entitled to compensation.
Mushabaiguru Village • During construction, risk of project-induced in-migration within the Mushabaiguru Community.
KSC workers Kifaru Camp • Community close to the future reservoir, potentially exposed to vector-borne diseases associated with water.
(reservoir) and Camp n°10
(downstream of the dam)
Kyaka Village • Affected by loss of land due to the transmission line wayleave and Kyaka substation extension (~1ha). Entitled to compensation.
• Downstream limit (right bank) for (i) reduction in river water quality in first years of operation and (ii) riverbed erosion in the first 20 years of operation.
Omundongo Village • Downstream limit (left bank) for (i) reduction in river water quality in first years of operation and (ii) riverbed erosion in the first 20 years of operation.
A3. Private firms
Kagera Sugar Company (KSC) • Affected by loss of land due to the reservoir footprint and the transmission line wayleave (~879ha). Entitled to compensation.
• Pumping station presently within the proposed reservoir footprint
• After reservoir filling, elephants may be able to cross the reservoir to access the ranching land and sugar cane plantations on the left bank and cause conflicts.

Stakeholder groups Interest in the Project

• Water hyacinth (future reservoir), reservoir filling and progressive riverbed erosion (downstream reach) could interfere with downstream pumping station operation.
NARCO and sub-leasers • Affected by loss of land due to the reservoir and dam facilities footprint as well as the dam access road (~ 674ha). Entitled to compensation.
• Sub-leasers (9 companies) leasing NARCO land, affected by loss of pasture and associated loss of income. Entitled to compensation.
A4. Institutions
Kitengule Prison • Affected by loss of land due to the transmission line wayleave (~879ha).
• Entitled to compensation.
B. Other Interested Parties
B1. Regional and District Authorities
Regional authority (Kagera • Regional authorities must be aware of all projects under development in the Kagera region.
Government regional office)
District Authorities (Missenyi, • Protect the rights of the inhabitants in districts where the project facilities are located.
Karagwe and Kyerwa Districts) • Enforce locally the national laws and regulations. Would play a key role in controlling project-induced in-migration during the Kakono project construction period.
• Manage the land acquisition process on behalf of TANESCO. For the Kakono Project, the Missenyi District Valuer acts on behalf of the three districts for the valuation work.
B2. Governmental Agencies
National Environment • Undertake environmental enforcement, compliance, review and monitor environmental impact statements, research and awareness raising.
Management Council (NEMC) • NEMC will review updated E&S documentation on the Kakono HPP and will decide if the validity of the 2016 environmental permit can be extended.
Tanzania Fisheries Research • Promote, conduct, and co-ordinate fisheries research in Tanzania, including how human and natural processes have an impact on sustainability of aquatic ecosystems and what mitigation
Institute (TAFIRI) measures could be implemented.
• The Kakono dam may have impact on fish migration in the Kagera River, and fisheries would need to be managed in the reservoir. TAFIRI would play a key role in advising TANESCO for the
ESMMP measures implementation.
Tanzania Wildlife Research • Advise and provide scientific information on wildlife conservation and management.
Institute (TAWIRI) • TAWIRI manages research programs on Human Elephant Conflict. The combined effects of the sugar cane expansion and the creation of the Kakono reservoir could result in persecution of
problem animals. TAWIRI would play a key role in advising TANESCO for the ESMMP measures implementation.
Lake Victoria Basin Water Board • The Kagera River is a sub-basin of Tanzania’s Lake Victoria Basin and is administered by the LVBWB. There are three main LVBWB Functions: Water Resources Assessment and Monitoring,
(LVBWB) Water Resources Allocation, and Water sources protection and pollution control.
• LVBWB will collect the water allocation rights to be paid by TANESCO.
• Kakono HPP construction and operation would require water monitoring (quality and hydrology). LVBWB would play a key role in advising TANESCO for the ESMMP measures implementation.
B3. Non-Tanzanian Parties with shared interest along the Kagera River
Lake Victoria Basin Commission • The LVBC -based in Kenya- is an institution from the East African Community. It is responsible for the coordination of stakeholder participation in sustainable development of the natural
(LVBC) and Uganda resources of the Lake Victoria Basin, and the harmonization of polices, laws, regulations and standards concerning the Lake Victoria Basin (EAC, 2019).
• The Kakono HPP is a planned activity in Tanzania that may have adverse effects on the lower Kagera river downstream of the dam, hence in Uganda. Technical data as well as the 2022 ESIA
may have to be provided to Uganda and the Secretariat of the LBVC for comments.
Rusumo Falls HPP and Kikagati- • The 2 hydropower schemes dam the Kagera River upstream of the proposed Kakono Reservoir.
Murongo HPP • Coordination will be required between the 2 operators and TANESCO for sediment management, fishway management, flood management and emergency response.
Nile Basin Initiative (NBI) - Nile • Kagera river within the Nile Basin and within NELSAP jurisdiction.
Equatorial Lakes Subsidiary • 2015 MoU on Integrated Management and Development of the transboundary water resources of the Kagera Basin.
Action Program (NELSAP).

Table 6-2 – Consultation Meetings Undertaken in 2013

Stakeholder groups Date and Place of Consultation
A1. Communities
Kyaka village Public meeting, Kyaka, 28 June 2013
Businde village Public meeting, Businde, 27 November 2013
Bugara village Public meeting, Bugara, 27 November 2013
A2. Private firms
Kitengule Ranch (NARCO) General Manager, Kitengule, 26 June 2013
National Ranching Company (NARCO) General Manager, Dar El Salam, 10 July 2013
Kagera Sugar Co. Ltd. General manager, Dar El Salaam, 13 July 2013
Head office, Kitengule, 30 August 2013
NARCO and block leaseholders Manager and leasers, Kitengule, 30 November 2013
A3. Institutions
Kitengule Prison Prison director, Kitengule, 26 June 2013
Mwisa Prison Prison director, Mwisa, 27 November 2013
Karagwe District Authority District Council, Kayanga, 26 June 2013
Missenyi District Authority District Council, Missenyi, 27 June 2013
Land officer, 24 November 2013
Missenyi District Government Valuer, Missenyi, 27June 2013
Karagwe District Government Valuer, Karagwe, 27 June 2013
Regional Prison Office Director, Bukoba, 1 July 2013
Kagera Regional Government Government members, Bukoba, 1 July 2013
Bukoba Municipality Government Municipal Valuer, Bukoba, 25 November 2013
Kyaka Village Council Village Council, Kyaka, 26 November 2013
Ministry of Lands, Housing and Human Settlements Development Head of Department, Dar El Salaam, 23 June 2013
Lake Victoria Basin Authority, Sub-Basin Kagera Head of Department, Bukoba, 1 July 2013
Tanzania Forest Service Head of Department, Dar El Salaam, 15 July 2013

Table 6-3 - Consultation Meetings Undertaken in 2017

A1. Persons
77 PAPs along the proposed TL near Kyaka Interviews, Kyaka, July 2017
Kyaka village government leader Focus group, Kyaka, July 2017
Kibwela village government leader Focus group, Kibwela, July 2017
Businde village government leader Focus group, Businde, July 2017
Bugara village government leader Focus group, Bugara, July 2017
Mushabaiguru village government leader Focus group, Mushabaiguru, July 2017
A2. Communities
Kyaka village Public meeting, Kyaka, July 2017
Mushabaiguru Village Public meeting, Mushabaiguru, July 2017
Mugaba Village Public meeting, Mugaba, July 2017
Businde Village Public meeting, Businde, July 2017
Bugara village Public meeting, Bugara, July 2017
A3. Private firms
Kagera Sugar Co. Limited Manager, Kitengule, July 2017
NARCO Manager, Kitengule, July 2017
A3. Institutions
Kagera Regional Prison Director, Bukoba, July 2017
Kitengule prison Director, Kitengule, July 2017
Mwisa Separation Facility Director, Mwisa, July 2017
Kagera Regional Government Regional Commissioner, Bukoba, July 2017
Kyerwa District Government Administrative Secretary, Kyerwa, July 2017
Karagwe District Government Administrative Secretary, Karagwe, July 2017; District Commissioner, Karagwe ,July 2017
Missenyi District Government Executive Director, Missenyi ,July 2017; District Commissioner, Missenyi, July 2017
Kyerwa District Government Executive Director, Kyerwa ,July 2017; District Commissioner, Kyerwa ,July 2017

Social Surveys in 2020 as Part of the 2022 ESIA Preparation
Context and Methodology
During the preparation of the 2022 ESIA study, many interviews and meetings (see Table 6-4) were
organized with individuals or groups as part of the social surveys required to inform the baseline situation
and to collect the concerns of the affected persons or institutions with respect to the Project activities.
Unlike the disclosure meetings organized in February 2022, these engagement activities were not recorded
through formal minutes of meeting, but (i) attendance sheets were established (see Annex 6-3), and (ii) a
summary of the main issues raised by consulted persons was prepared (See Annex 6-4). As an introduction
to each meeting, the Project activities were presented. The discussion was then focused on the social
organization of the affected individuals or groups and their access to resources (land and water) both
upstream and downstream of the proposed Kakono dam and along the transmission line corridor, and how
that could be affected by the Project activities. See Section 5.4.1 in Chapter 5 of the 2022 ESIA Study for
more details on the methodology and feedback received from stakeholders.
Summary of the Feedback Received in 2020
Stakeholder Engagement undertaken in 2020 (see Figure 6-2) showed that most of the individuals, groups
or institutions from Businde down to Kyaka village were aware of Kakono HPP Project. Only the KSC workers
living in camps along the Kagera river had not been directly consulted in the 2016 ESIA process. Likewise,
most of the villages located downstream of Kyaka village were not aware of the Project activities as they
had not been consulted in 2013 or 2017.
Interviewees confirmed that, in the villages located upstream of the proposed dam and in Kyaka village,
special meetings took place in 2013 and 2017 to provide them with general information and to gather their
opinions and concerns about the Project.
Between 2017 and December 2019, no meeting was held. As a result, many stakeholders thought that the
Project had been postponed or abandoned. Interactions with women have shown that they were usually
less familiar with the Project than men. At village level, most of the people interviewed as part of the 2020
social surveys did not know who the Project Owner was and did not know the potential environmental and
social impacts that could be caused by the Project.
In 2020, consultations made at village level or with Government officials level showed that the Project is
generally positively perceived. Many stakeholders mentioned the dependence on Uganda for the energy
supply of the Kagera region as one of the main causes of poverty. As shown in Annex 6-4, the Kakono HPP
Project has often been described as a way to break free from this dependence, and to develop the region
by increasing employment opportunities.
Discussions held in 2020 with people of villages located near the proposed Project area, and with
institutions such as NARCO, showed that some stakeholders were concerned about the compensation
process. For instance, livestock keepers are mostly concerned about the size of the communal grazing land
that will be left once the reservoir is created, but also about the compensation process for the small
structures that could be impacted. In all the villages located upstream of the proposed dam, women have
stressed that the communal grazing land down the Chabadaki hill is also used to collect firewood and
medicinal plants. Therefore, they are concerned that the Project would prevent them from having access to
these resources. Overall, in the 2020 meetings, all stakeholders who are using the Kagera water hoped that
their access to the river would not be jeopardized by the Project. Annex 6-4 presents a summary of the
comments and concerns of the interviewed stakeholders during the three social field surveys undertaken
in 2020.

Table 6-4 - Stakeholders Consulted 2019 and 2020 for the 2022 ESIA Preparation
A1. Persons
All PAPs and local authorities Public meeting, Bugara and Mugaba village, 25 July 2020
82 PAPs impacted by the Transmission Line and local authorities Public meeting, Kyaka Village, 27-31 July 2020
People living within or on the edge of the future reservoir area Interviews, edge of the future flooded area, 14 December 2019; Interviews, edge of the future flooded area, 6 March 2020
Temporarily settled fishers Meeting, Kitengule prison land on the left bank of the Kagera River, 28 October 2020; Meeting, KSC territory on the right bank of the river, 28 October 2020
A2. Communities
Bubale village Public meeting, Bubale, 28 February 2020
Mushabaiguru village Public meeting, Mushabaiguru, 29 and 28 February 2020
Kyaka village Public meeting, Kyaka, 2 March 2020
Bugara village Public meeting, Bugara, 2 March 2020
Mugaba village Public meeting, Mugaba, 4 March 2020
Businde village Public meeting, Businde, 5 March 2020
Kihanga village Public meeting, Businde, 5 March 2020
Local authorities and the Government Chief Valuer Introductory meeting, Kyaka Village, 24 July 2020
Local authorities and the residents cultivating in the floodplain: Public meeting, Kyaka village, 24 October 2020; Public meeting, Niabihanga village, 26 October 2020; Public meeting, Bulifani village, 29 October 2020;
Public meeting, Mushasha village, 25 October 2020; Public meeting, Omundongo village, 20-22 October 2020; Public meeting, Kassambya village, 30
October 2020; Public meeting, Gabulanga village, 02 and 05 November 2020
A3. Private firms
Kagera Sugar Co. Limited in Kitengule KSC Management (14 Dec. 2019); Human Resources (3 Mar. 2020); Chief Medical Officer and HSE Officer at KSC Hospital (3 March 2020)
Missenyi Ranch Manager, Missenyi, 26 February 2020
Residents of KSC Camp n°9; KSC Camp n°2 Workers, Missenyi, 28 February 2020 (Camp 9); Workers, Missenyi, 29 February 2020 (Camp 2)
Residents of KSC Camp n°10; Residents of KSC Kifaru Camp Workers, Missenyi, 3 March 2020
Residents of KSC Camp n°5; Residents of KSC Camp n°4 Workers, Missenyi, 4 March 2020
Manager of KSC Camp N°10; Manager of KSC Camp N° 9 Meeting, KSC Camp n°10, 24 October 2020
Manager of KSC Camp N° 6 Meeting, KSC Camp n°6, 22 October 2020
Managers of: KSC Camp N° 5; Camp N° 4; Camp N° 3; Camp N° 2 Meeting, KSC Camp n°5, 21 October 2020
A3. Institutions
Missenyi District Health Center District Medical Officer, Bunazi, 27 February 2020
Dispensary of: Kyaka village; Bubale village Dispensary officer, Kyaka, 27 February 2020; Dispensary officer, Bubale, 28 February 2020
Kitengule prison Director, Kitengule, 27 February 2020
Missenyi District Government District Commissioner (15 Dec. 2019); District Executive Director (15 Dec. 2019); District Commissioner, (26 Feb. 2020).
Karagwe District Government District Commissioner, Karagwe, 15 December 2019; District Commissioner, Karagwe, 26 February 2020
Kagera Regional Government Regional Administrative Secretary, Bukoba, 25 February 2020
Kyerwa District Government District Commissioner, Kyerwa, 02 March 2020
Lake Victoria Basin Water Board Board Officers, Bukoba, 25 February 2020

Figure 6-2 - Photos of Stakeholder Engagement Undertaken as part of the Social Surveys in 2020

Disclosure of the 2022 ESIA Findings
Stakeholder Consulted
The draft version of the 2022 ESIA, including the draft Resettlement Action Plan (RAP), was disclosed on
TANESCO website on 13 December 2021. The presentation of the findings of the 2022 ESIA and the
associated RAP, to the project-affected parties and the other interested parties has been undertaken in
February 2022. Table 6-5 below lists the stakeholders, with venue and date, consulted in February 2022.
Figure 6-3 shows photos of the meetings held in February 2022.
Method and Record of Consultations
The method used by the Project Team to present the findings of the 2022 ESIA and RAP, and collect the
feedback from the participants, was as follows:
• Stakeholders consulted were interested parties for both the Kakono Hydropower component and
the Transmission Line component.
• TANESCO mobilized three teams of specialists to conduct the consultation meetings:
- ESIA Team, to present the findings of the 2022 ESIA to the Regional Government, District
Councils and Community Councils.
- RAP Team, to discuss the proposed compensation process and livelihood restoration
measures with households (Kyaka, Mugaba, Bugara), companies (KSC, NARCO and sub-
leasers) and institutions (Kitengule Prison) affected by the land take process. The Missenyi
District Valuer was part of the RAP Team, to explain the compensation process and the need
to update the valuation undertaken in 2018; and
- Biodiversity Team to engage TAFIRI, TAWIRI and the Lake Victoria Basin Water Board.
• Ahead of the consultation meetings: (i) heads of consulted Village Councils, District Councils,
Private Companies, Institutions and Governmental Agencies were sent an invitation letter from
TANESCO (Annex 6-5), together with a copy of the ESIA Summary in English and in Swahili (see
Annex 6-7); (ii) Consulted Village Councils and District Councils were delivered by hand a hardcopy
of the ESIA Summary; (iii) the Project Team reconfirmed the appointments by physically visiting
their contact persons at the Village and District Councils level, at least two days prior to the
meeting to verify whether the proposed schedule was still valid for the expected audience; and (iv)
persons affected by the land take persons were called on the phone to confirm availability, using
contact details obtained during the 2020 Social Surveys.
• Communication tools:
- Presentations were done in Swahili, using PowerPoint slides in Swahili (See Annex 6-6). In
villages without electricity, an electro-generator was used by the Project Team.
- In support to the PowerPoint presentations, A3 maps were shared with participants, for a
better understanding of where are the project layout compared to the villages.
- A hard-copy of the PowerPoint presentation was left to all participants, as a record of what
the Project Team presented during the meeting.
• Record of Questions and Answers:

- Each meeting lasted about 2 hours. After a presentation of the Project activities, impacts and
proposed mitigation measures of about one hour, the participants raised questions to either
TANESCO representatives, to the 2022 ESIA Consultant or to the Missenyi District Valuer.
- Questions and answers were recorded two ways: (i) by the Village secretary and (ii) by the
2022 ESIA Consultant. Both documents are attached to this Chapter (see Annex 6-8).

Table 6-5 – Stakeholders Consulted in February 2022

A1. Persons
8 households, living in Kyaka, physically displaced • Kyaka, 09 February 2022
84 Households (including the 8 households physically displaced) losing land or access to land (~ 44ha) • Kyaka, 10 February 2022
A2. Communities
Bugara Village • Village Council, Bugara, 11 February 2022
Mugaba Village • Village Council, Mugaba, 11 February 2022
Businde Village • Village Council, Businde, 11 February 2022
Mushabaiguru Village • Village Council, Mushabaiguru, 9 February 2022
Kyaka Village • Village Council, Kyaka, 8 February 2022
Omundongo Village • Village Council, Omundongo, 8 February 2022
A3. Private firms
Kagera Sugar Company (KSC) • KSC Office in Bunazi, 7 February 2022
NARCO and sub-leasers • NARCO Office in Kitengule Ranch, 9 February 2022
• Kiteto Agrobusinness (sub-leaser of block 288.1)
A4. Institutions
Kitengule Prison • Kitengule Prison, 10 February 2022
Regional authority (Kagera Government regional office) • Bukoba Regional Commissioner, 07 Feb. 2022
District Authorities (Missenyi, Karagwe and Kyerwa Districts) • Missenyi District Council, 07 February 2022
• Karagwe District Council, 09 February 2022
• Kyerwa District Council, 10 February 2022
Tanzania Fisheries Research Institute (TAFIRI) • TAFIRI office, Mwanza Research Centre, 11 February 2022
Tanzania Wildlife Research Institute (TAWIRI) • Meeting at distance, 02 March 2022
Lake Victoria Basin Water Board (LVBWB) • LVBWB office, Mwanza, 11 February 2022

Figure 6-3 - Photos of Stakeholder Engagement Undertaken for the Disclosure of the 2022 ESIA Findings

6.4 Feedback Received in February 2022 and How it Was

Taken into Account into the 2022 ESIA/RAP
Feedback Received
Overall
During the public consultation meetings held in February 2022, the following observations have been made:
• There is a broad community consent in favour of the Project's implementation.
• Persons affected by loss of land and/or loss of houses are aware of the Kakono Project and are
knowledgeable about the legal compensation process for land acquisition. Delays in payment since
the 2018 valuation has been the main issue raised by affected persons.
• Most issues that were raised during the meetings in February 2022 have already been assessed in
the draft ESIA & RAP reports presented to the stakeholders. However, areas of improvements have
been identified. They have been addressed post-consultations in the final ESIA documentation, in
the ESMMP measures, including the RAP (See Section 6.4.2 below).
Issues Raised by the participants
The paragraphs below summarize the questions raised by the participants in February 2022. Annex 6-8
provide the detailed questions and what were the Project’s answers.
A At District & Village Levels
• Compensations for loss of land and/or houses:

- Complains about delays in payment since the 2018 Valuation and the associated requirement
to not develop the affected land;
- Would there be an update of the 2018 Valuation Report, and when;
- Timing for the payment of compensations;
- Form of compensation for village land;
- Cash compensation for loss of pasture land in village land (Businde, Bugara, Mugaba) taken
by the future reservoir may not help to find alternative pasture land outside of the reservoir
boundaries.
• Jobs during construction:

- Job opportunities for local villagers during construction and operation;
- Priority given to RAP-affected persons for construction jobs;
- Local recruitment process and how it would maximize the chances for local villagers to be
employed;
- Supply chain during construction and opportunities for local businesses.
• Community Investment Plan:

- What facilities or initiatives would be financed through the Community Investment Plan;
- How would be allocated the Community Investment Plan budget between the various
affected communities;
- Timing for needs assessment and implementation.
• Human-Elephant conflicts:
- Cumulative effect with sugar cane plantation extension;
- Mitigation measures taken by the Project.

• Project-induced in-migration:
- Proposed strategy to reduce influx of job seeker;
- Support of community health facilities;
- Electrification of affected villages, Improvement of roads.
• Village councils role:

- primary forum for Grievance Redress Mechanism;
- Community liaison officers;
- List of candidates for construction jobs and list of construction jobs established by
Contractor(s).
B At RAP-Affected Persons Level
• Delay between 2018 valuation and start of the Project: compensation claimed for loss of
development opportunities since 2018.
• The 8 physically displaced households (all in Kyaka, along the future Transmission Line) are
satisfied with the measures proposed for the resettlement assistance (search of a replacement
plot + self-building assistance). The Village Chairman confirmed that land should be locally
available for purchase by the eight physically displaced families.
• Confusion between Kakono land-take process and Benako/Kyaka transmission line Project land-
take process (TANESCO). Some project-affected persons expressed their concerns that they could
be impacted by both Projects.
• The six project-affected persons in Bugara and Mugaba (future reservoir) explained that other
alternative agricultural land may not be available near their impacted plots.
• Proposed Livelihood Restoration measures received positively by the project-affected persons
(support to: livestock production, agriculture and irrigation; small business development like
motor-taxi, crops packaging, crops shops, mill, motor/car repair shop, food business).
• Some of the project-affected persons are not interested in receiving this support as they prefer to
continue farming and livestock production.
• Transitional assistance: Cooking oil and salt suggested to be provided in addition to bags of rice.
C At NARCO/Sub-leaser Level
• NARCO, including Missenyi and Kitengule ranches, have no concerns regarding the Project land
acquisition.
• There could be an issue with the sub-leaser of Block 288/1 (Kiteto Agrobusiness) who would (i)
lose ~70% of the land presently leased to NARCO, (ii) reportedly employs 20+ persons on this block
at present, and (iii) have financed the sub-lease with a mortgage loan.
D At Kagera Sugar Level
• TANESCO unequivocal commitment to not operate the Kakono HPP as a peaking power plant or
with any sorts of sub-daily regulation most welcome;
• Risk of KSC workers poaching by the Contractor(s) during the construction period;
• KSC will remove the pumping station presently operating in the future reservoir before reservoir
filling;
• Coordination with TANESCO for reservoir filling and sediment flushing would be needed;
• Payment of compensation for land acquisition process required prior to start of construction
activities;
• Management of elephants attracted by sugar cane plantations (and which could cross the reservoir
to reach the left bank).
E Kitengule Prison Level
• Suggest that prisoners should be employed by the Project construction company to build the
Transmission Line towers on the Prison’s lands;

• Suggest that construction material/equipment could be stored in the Prison area under the watch
of Prison officers.
F At LVBWB, TAFIRI and TAWIRI Levels:
• Lale Victoria Basin Water Board (LVBWB):

- Implementation of Kagera River flow monitoring station using telemetry system;
- Need for coordination between TANESCO & LVBWB on minimum flow releases and monitoring
of sediment and flow;
- Water hyacinth has been a big problem on Owen Falls Dam. The Plant Protection Department
(Ministry of Agriculture) should be contacted about the control of hyacinth and options for
reuse. Important to manage its spread during harvesting from reservoir;
- Engagement of neighbouring countries.
• Tanzania Fisheries Research Institute (TAFIRI):

- Critical habitat for various specified fish and risks of the project and how it will be viewed by
lenders;
- How the proposed fish pass on a natural stream compares with a fish ladder in terms of
efficiency;
- Collaboration between TAFIRI and NAFIRI for monitoring. How will this be supported and
coordinated;
- Reservoir fisheries management – TAFIRI can assist. Need to confirm mechanism for
collaboration and financing with TANESCO;
- Livelihood alternatives through aquaculture is a good idea. TAFIRI can assist with advising
what kind of fish can be used and harvested. No exotic fish should be introduced;
- In terms of management of elephants, crocodiles and hippos, TAWA should also be involved,
not only TAWIRI.
• Tanzania Wildlife Research Institute (TAWIRI):

- Evidence that there are elephants crossing the dam area;
- Camera trapping undertaken during the baseline surveys;
- Approach with respect to wildlife management proposed by the Project;
- Monitoring before construction of the Project;
- Role of TAWIRI to do the monitoring and liaison with TANAPA, TFS and other stakeholders;
- TAWIRI interface with TANESCO on other projects for monitoring of elephants.
How the Feedback was Taken into Account
The present 2022 ESIA report has been revised after the 2022 February public disclosure meetings, in order
to take into account the feedback received from stakeholders, as follows:
Impact Assessment:
• A table which summarizes the potential adverse environmental and social effects by community
was added into Chapter 7 ‘Environmental and Social Impacts & Mitigation Measures’.
• Within Chapter 11 ‘ ESMMP’, additional measures under the responsibility of the EPC Contractor
were added to:
- Protect the areas adjacent to the construction sites, including the ranch areas, the Kakono
stream as the proposed fishway, and the sugar cane plantations.
- Include several water points along the future reservoir boundaries.
Stakeholder Engagement:
• The dam and the reservoir area are located far from the District administrative seats. It is not easy
for District officers to realize where exactly would be located the project facilities. A site visit to be
organized by TANESOC prior to the start of construction activities, has been added in the

Chapter 11 ‘ESMMP’ as an additional measure of the Stakeholder Engagement Program. Likewise,

some members of the Village Councils of each affected community (Kyaka, Mushabaiguru, Mugaba,
Bugara, Businde, Omundongo) will be invited to visit the proposed dam site. Of note, there is less
issue with the transmission line corridor: KSC already organized their recent sugar plantations on
the right bank around the proposed transmission line corridor, which is therefore highly visible, and
the existing Kyaka substation makes the eastern section of the transmission line route clear for
households affected by loss of land in Kyaka.
• Village councils will be the Project’s primary stakeholder engagement partner for issues regarding
communities (e.g., grievance redress mechanism, influx management, village land acquisition,
information construction jobs). In the previous versions of the ESIA and RAP reports, the concept of
Consultation Committee Councils had been introduced for the liaison between the Project E&S
Team and communities. This concept has been dropped, as village councils are (i) existing
institutions, (ii) effective in terms of representing the rest of the village population, (iii) the most
efficient way for spreading the information amongst the community members.
• A toll-free number and a project-specific email address, both being advertised in each of the three
TANESCO District Offices (Missenyi, Kyerwa, Karagwe), in the Village Office of the five communities
affected by the Project (Kyaka, Mushabaiguru, Mugaba, Bugara, Businde, Omundongo), and during
construction, at each construction sites, including the transmission line itinerary sites.
• The TANESCO District offices will accommodate the Kakono Project Information Centres. In the
previous versions of the ESIA report, Public Information Centres were planned to be opened in two
communities, but far from existing TANESCO facilities which proved to not be efficient. The
TANESCO District offices are (i) existing, (ii) well identified by most community members and (iii) are
already resourced to play a liaison role with the TANESCO Project development teams.
• Monthly meetings with Village Councils will be organized during the construction periods with the
TANESCO social teams, to discuss the project development and any issues relating to the
construction activities, including construction jobs and opportunities for local businesses.
Local Skills Development Plan:

• The Local Skills Development Plan included in Chapter 11 - ESMMP has been expanded to include
(i) more requirements from the EPC Contractor in terms of commitments, actions, and reporting
and (ii) better coordination with TANESCO Social Team who will liaise with the Village Councils to
advert the construction jobs.
• The undertaking of a Local Capacities Study ahead of construction has been added into the Chapter
11 - ESMMP. The objectives will be assist in maximizing the creation of opportunities for the
villagers and small businesses of the project area, through identification of (i) unskilled and skilled
villagers who would like to work for the Project, their skills and social features, (ii) existing local
capacities to provide services to the work, through existing or potential local companies or
associations, and (iii) local, regional and national actors that the project can successfully mobilize in
capacity building, technical training and trade facilitation, including the Validation of Acquired
Experience through the Vocational Education and Training Authority (VETA) to recognize
experience, knowledge, skills and competences acquired through work and life.
Community investment Plan :

• Omundongo village has been added into the group of communities benefiting from the Community
Investment Plan, in the Chapter 11 ESMMP, which are now: Businde, Bugara, Mugaba,
Mushabaiguru, Kyaka and Omundongo.
• Funds made available by TANESCO through the Community Investment Plan will be fairly allocated
among the affected communities.
Land Acquisition & Resettlement:

• The livelihood restoration measures included in the Resettlement Action Plan have been fine-tuned
and made more relevant to the need and expectations of the households affected by the loss of
land and/or houses due to the Project’s land take process.
• The requirement for the physical delineation on the ground of the reservoir prior to reservoir filling
has been strengthened, especially on the right bank where villagers still have difficulties to realize
where the proposed reservoir would be. On the left bank, the situation is different: the sugar cane
plantations areas developed by KSC have already factored in the limit of the future reservoir.

• The district valuer will be accompanied by village council members during the update of the 2018
Valuation Report.
Community
• The KSC workers camp located on the left bank, close to the future reservoir (Kifaru Camp) will be
included in the Community Waterborne Disease Strategy developed by The Project.
Ecology:
• The Plant Protection Department (Ministry of Agriculture) will be contacted about the control of
hyacinth and options for reuse.

ANNEXES


November.
TANESCO. (2017b). Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) - Draft Report for the Proposed Kakono Hydropower Plant and the 132kV
Transmission Line Project (38.5km).
DISCLOSURE AUTHORIZED - Kakono HPP_ESIA_Section 6_STAKEHOLDER_June 2022

Annex 6-2 – Record of Issues Raised by

Stakeholders during 2016 ESIA Process

Feedback from stakeholders during public
consultation meetings on the Kakono ESIA in
2013
TANESCO Final ESIA
Kakono Hydropower Project Page 227
Stakeholder/Institution Stakeholder Concerns and Questions Response

Karagwe District Kitengule Agricultural Prison
(26 June 2013) • The stakeholders are concerned that the proposed transmission • Consultant will assess the impact to the two institu-
line will cut across the prison possibly affecting a primary school tions and advise accordingly.
as well as crops.
Kagera Sugar
• The stakeholders indicated that the proposed transmission line • Consultant will follow up on this issue with Kagera
will cut across the sugar cane plantation owned by Kagera Sugar Co. Ltd.
Sugar Co. Ltd. • Issues regarding land tenure and boundaries will be
• They recommended looking into unsettled land boundaries be- given special attention, particularly during resettlement
tween residents of Kihanga ward and Kagera Sugar. planning.
Rural electrification demand
• Of the 40 wards in Karagwe district, only Kayanga and Mrusha- • Issue noted and will be communicated to TANESCO
ka have electricity. There are big business centres in this district and all other stakeholders involved in the planning for
which have no electricity. The stakeholders asserted the need the development of this project
for electricity in the district.
Compensations
• Stakeholders were of the opinion that it is important to have a • Consultant will ensure that participatory methodologies
participatory valuation/compensation process. From a recent are adopted during project development.
experience with TANROADS on a road construction project, lo- • Arrangements for involvement of local authorities and
cal residents were not satisfied with the way the valuation was directly affected communities will also be explored and
done. They felt it was unfair. Unfair valuation and compensa- incorporated in the project implementation strategy.
tions may cause disputes in the community. • In regard to estimation of value of affected crops, the
• It was recommended that during valuation the district and local Consultant highlighted to the participants that there
authorities should be involved in every step. are rules and regulations that govern the valuation
• It was recommended that the district valuer of the affected area process and the project is obliged to comply by those
should be used. rules which might not be in line with the communities’
• The stakeholders felt that valuation should consider the value of proposal.
the tree at that time, example coffee tree, they do not have to • The project will use professional valuers who will work
count on how many trees but how many years did that plant in close consultation with the affected households and
have. responsible authorities.
• Stakeholders asked: How will Kakono project ensure there is
fair and participatory valuation and compensation process that
adhere to existing valuation policies?
Grievance
• Use of ten cell units is recommended to handle grievance pro- • Noted and will be adopted in the project stakeholder
cess. Grievances to be logged from the ten-cell unit going up- engagement strategy including grievance mechanism.
wards to the district level. Why this is recommended is because
NORPLAN AS
TANESCO Final ESIA

some land is inherited, hence to know exactly who is the legally
entitled heir during land disputes resolution, traditional leaders
can provide reliable information. Traditional leaders (viongozi
wa jadi) in most cases are the ones who know who is the legal
heir.
Multipurpose dam
• A suggestion was made by the stakeholders to make the dam • The project is planned as a run-of-river hydropower
serve as both hydropower and irrigation scheme if the water is plant, but possibility of irrigation will be explored and
also expected to be used for irrigation by the community. feedback will be shared with the local authorities.
Ecology
• Invasive species, i.e. growth of water hyacinth accumulation in • The ESIA team will include these issues on the list of
the reservoir due to standing water. parameters to be studied further.
• Water from Rwanda will come and stand.
River volume, flow and water transportation
• Dam will reduce water volume downstream, consequently de- • These issues will be studied further during the detailed
creasing the speed of the flow of the river. studies by the ESIA team.
• Even the flow to the Nile basin will be affected because of
evaporation. For example, Jinja hydropower reduced the natu-
ral flow of water and this is an impact because 35% of Lake
Victoria water depends on the Kagera River.
• River transportation will be affected due to affected river flow,
hence affect those using canoes to cross the river.
Dam construction materials remnants
• There is a tendency to leave broken machinery after construc- • ESIA team to look into the issue and recommend good
tion within project area, e.g. rollers, excavators. These have practices.
environmental impact because that area was supposed to be
restored.
Decrease of silt
• There is some material called silt used as manure for rice plan- • ESIA team will explore the issue further.
tation. By blocking the water flow in a long run this will reduce
silt downstream.
Flooding
• The dam acts as a flood control mechanism but at the same • The dam design will put earthquake risks into consid-
time it might cause a big flooding if an earthquake happens or eration.
any technical problem because the dam was constructed by
human beings.
NORPLAN AS
TANESCO Final ESIA

Availability of land / resettlement
• Will there be enough land to accommodate the people and live- • The project will explore all possibilities for replacement
stock who may need to be moved? land within and around the project area.
Socio-economic impacts:
• If the camps/ buildings are permanent structures the community • Noted and will be explored further in the ESIA study.
can later use them.
• Apart from hydropower, a touristic environment can be created
alongside. For instance, create artificial ways of keeping fish,
crocodile, and hippos. Just like Kihansi, the toads are now a
touristic attraction.
Kitengule Ranch • The project will pass along Kitengule ranch which is now largely • Noted. Team to follow up with Kagera Sugar Co. Ltd.
(26 June 2013) privately owned by Kagera Sugar Co. Ltd. and no longer entire-
ly under the National Ranching Company (NARCO).
• Officers at the ranch advised the project proponents to consult
with Kagera Sugar Co. Ltd.
Kitengule Prison • It was recommended that Kagera Regional Prisons officer in • Noted. Team to share information with Kagera Re-
(26 June 2013) Bukoba be informed of the proposed Kakono project and poten- gional Prisons Officer in Bukoba.
tial impact of the transmission lines passing through the prison
area.
Missenyi District Land and ownership by local population
(27 June 2013) • The part of Missenyi district which will be affected is the Kyaka • Alternatives for avoiding displacement will be ex-
village in Kyaka ward within the Mwisa ten cell unit (kitongoji). plored. Where displacement is unavoidable, PAPs will
The transmission line will pass across parts of Kyaka village be identified and compensated or resettled.
and connect to the Kyaka sub-station. The substation is in Ky-
aka centre. This will cause displacement and loss of land.
• For the few people who live and use Mwisa River which enters
water into Kagera River and those who live near this area will
be affected.
Alternative:
• To avoid compensation cost, people suggested examining if the • Alternative will be forwarded to the design team.
transmission lines can be put further away from settlements,
especially Mwisa ten cell unit (kitongoji). For instance, along-
side the road.
Private blocks near Missenyi ranch
• Stakeholders acknowledged that Missenyi ranch is near the • Noted. ESIA team will follow up with NARCO and the
area where the dam will be built. It is known by stakeholders private livestock farmers.
that some blocks for private livestock farmers’ boarder this
NORPLAN AS
TANESCO Final ESIA

ranch. Hence, they suggested that the Kakono project, in coop-
eration with district officials, use correct measurements (coordi-
nates) to locate if these private blocks will be affected.
Elephant route
• Wildlife officer raised concern over an elephant route, which is • ESIA team to follow up on this issue to confirm if the
said to exist in the middle of the Kitengule ranch. Elephants elephant route is within the project area.
seasonally pass and according to their nature they use the
same route even after ten years.
• The officer asked: How will the project ensure they do not tam- • Project will also explore mitigation measures or alter-
per with that route? natives to avoid the elephant route if confirmed affect-
ed.
• Stakeholders confirmed the existing need for electricity. They • The issue will be forwarded to the project developers
said that only few wards have electricity, i.e. Kyaka, Kasambya for further discussions. Possibilities for electrification
and Mshasha, and its only parts and not the entire wards. will also be explored by the engineers.
• The stakeholders asked: Will this project give Kyaka a priority in
getting electricity, since they are going to be affected? The for-
mer transmission lines (Uganda power) passes through Kyaka
village while the village does not have power.
Cultural properties (graves)
• People prefer their graves to be moved to where they will be • Due consideration will be given to this issue.
resettled.
Proposed dam at Mabare ranch
• Stakeholders revealed that there is an investor who plans to • Investor will be followed up if his investments will be
build a dam at the Mabare ranch by using water from Mwisa impacted by the project or will have an influence on
River. They hence suggested that care should be taken that the project.
these two projects do not conflict.
Livestock pathway for taking animals to drink water at Kagera
River
• Stakeholders revealed that according to district maps, there are • Project will ensure that accessibility to the river or res-
livestock famers at Bugango village outside the project area ervoir will not be blocked.
who take their animals to drink water in the Kagera River. Cur-
rently, the District Commissioner wants to talk to Kagera Sugar
Co. Ltd. management to give access road/pathway for shep-
herding the animals when taking them to drink water.
• Stakeholders recommend that Kakono project works together
with the district and Kagera Sugar management to ensure they
NORPLAN AS
TANESCO Final ESIA

are all on the same page as to the location of the livestock
pathway to the Kagera River.
Socio-cultural impacts
• Increase of theft. • Project team will work closely with the local authorities
• Citizens to be moved from their original places to live in new to manage and monitor these issues.
places.
• Population influx causing mixture/conflict of traditions that has
positive and negative effects to the community.
Missenyi and Karagwe Land and ownership
District Valuer • It was the valuer’s opinion that land is very complicated in Ka- • Noted
(27 June 2013) gera, since much of the land exists in the form of feudal land
and this has implication on compensation or resettlement pro-
cess.
Compensation
• From experience it is the valuer’s opinion that the best ap- • Noted. The recommendation will be considered in the
proach is participatory valuation. Without this, the valuer states Resettlement Policy Framework.
many court cases can arise after compensation, which could
lead to project stop orders.
• The valuer recommends prompt and fair payment to be ad-
hered.
Compensation of ranches
• Ranches are subleased for 33 up to 90 years. According to the • Noted. TANESCO will be advised accordingly.
valuer, the best ways to approach compensation for them is
negotiation and meet in the middle.
Land for resettlement
• It is the valuer’s opinion that since land resettlement is difficult • Possibilities to be explored.
because of lack of public land, compensation should be used
instead.
Kyaka Village Bio-physical impacts
(28 June 2013) • Accidents resulting from worn out transmission posts, falling • Project to ensure there is a toll free hotline to be used
and lying on the ground. Human beings and wildlife could touch by communities to inform on such issues to avoid fatal
them and this can cause death. accidents.
Socio-economic impacts and benefits
• Not benefitting from the electrical power that passes along their • Issues to be forwarded to the project developer and
area. incorporated in the ESIA study.
• Not benefitting from employment generated by the project.
• Employment: Ensure that labourers are taken from the affected
NORPLAN AS
TANESCO Final ESIA

areas i.e. where the transmission line will pass and not outside
the project area. This will make this project beneficial to affect-
ed population.
Compensation
• Local residents claimed that experience showed the district val- • Project to explore means through which to achieve
uer is not part of the compensation process. Projects come with meaningful involvement of affected stakeholders and
their own valuers, which cause unfairness. the local authorities including district valuers.
• Local residents lamented that no adequate participatory ap-
proach to compensation and valuation was present in the past
projects. Local population was not involved, only leaders.
• Local residents vented dissatisfaction with compensation from
on-going road project along Kyaka.
• Local residents suggested including the same group that came
for community consultation meetings during the compensation/
valuation exercise. The project proponents should not bring en-
tirely new faces because there won’t be a reference point.
• Local residents asked:
 Will there really be compensation for those affected or will
it be the same experience like past projects?
 Rather than face unfair compensation, can the transmis-
sion lines pass along the same corridor the Uganda
transmission lines pass?
Uganda electricity versus Kakono electricity
• Local residents asked: • Question to be forwarded to TANESCO.
 After the completion of Kakono hydropower plant, will the
government halt the electrical power from Uganda or will
they coexist?
 Currently, the Uganda power is very expensive. Will the
Kakono power be affordable for local population to bene-
fit?
 Will the Kakono electricity be just like the usual TANESCO
electricity with load shedding?
• Local residents were very concerned if Kakono power will bene- • Electrification possibilities to be explored.
fit the locals of Kyaka. They narrated that in the past they expe-
rienced environmental and social impacts when they were put-
ting the Uganda transmission lines. People lost crops and land,
NORPLAN AS
TANESCO Final ESIA

some without compensation, yet they do not have electricity to
date, but other villages and districts elsewhere got power in
spite of the fact that the substation is located in Kyaka village
and the transmission lines pass through Kyaka.
• Local residents asked: How will the Kakono project ensure Ky-
aka gets electricity this time round?
Kagera Sugar Co. Ltd. - • The stakeholder revealed new developments at Kagera Sugar: • Agreed to have another meeting with Kagera Sugar
Missenyi  A new stretch of sugar cane plantation in Missenyi ranch. Co. Ltd. to discuss the interface between the Kakono
(28 June 2013)  Plans for a proposed new Kagera Sugar plant industry to project and Kagera Sugar.
be built within Missenyi ranch.
 Preparations of a new bridge to be constructed between
the old industry and new Missenyi and Kitengule sugar
cane farms.
• Officers at Kagera Sugar Co. Ltd. field office suggested project
proponents seek another consultation with Kagera Sugar Co.
Ltd. preferably at the head office in Dar es Salaam to confirm if
these new developments are within the Kakono project area
due to absence of an authorized person to show maps during
initial consultation.
Regional Prison Office, • It was recommended by the stakeholder to write an official letter • Noted. Recommendation to be forwarded to the pro-
Bukoba to head office of prisons in Dar es Salaam, informing them of ject developer.
(1 July 2013) the Kakono project and potential impact of transmission lines
crossing the prison area. The stakeholder also affirmed that
since this is a government institution compensation is not appli-
cable but the two parties will agree on how to work together.
Kagera Regional Office Mwambani Port and Railway Corridor Company
(1 July 2013) • It was recommended to find out the exact location of the railway • Noted and will be followed up in the ESIA study.
project in order to identify if it is coinciding within the proposed
Kakono project area.
Lake Victoria Basin Kagera Sugar Co. Ltd.
Authority, Sub-Basin • It was the stakeholder’s understanding that for now the main • Noted
Kagera consumer of water from the Kagera River is Kagera Sugar Co.
(1 June 2013) Ltd. But the stakeholder nonetheless advised the project pro-
ponents to consult the National Ranching Company (NARCO)
in Dar es Salaam in order to compare the information given
from different parties.
NORPLAN AS
TANESCO Final ESIA

Other proposed upstream dams
• The stakeholder explained that there are other upstream dams, • Noted and to be followed up during the detailed study
which are about to be developed at Nsongezi, Rusumo and phase.
Kikagati. Kakono proponents were cautioned to know where
and at what level of development these projects are.
• The stakeholder suggested the Kakono proponents to take into
consideration the following questions:
 Will there be greater environmental impact if all these
dams are built?
 Could Kakono possibly be impacted with the flow which
will be disturbed by the construction of the other dams?
Elephants moving from Burigi game reserve along Kitengule ranch
• The stakeholder informed the Kakono project proponents that • Issue to be explored further during the detailed study
there tend to be elephant movements in the Karagwe area. phase
They are coming from Burigi game reserve. This happens even
after three years. This game reserve partly covers the districts
of Karagwe, Biharamulo, Ngara and Muleba. However, the ex-
act route was unknown to the stakeholder.
• The stakeholder was concerned over how the Kakono project
will avoid disturbing this movement.
National Ranching • The stakeholder revealed that the government has partly • Raised issues noted and agreed to have a meeting
Company (NARCO) leased, given out to villagers and sold the land, which was for- with the private block owners.
- Dar es Salaam merly Kitengule and Missenyi ranches. The land sub leased is
(10 July 2013) between 33–90 years renewable contract. Formerly under
NARCO, Kitengule and Missenyi ranches occupied an area of
approximately 44,688 ha and 60,000 ha, respectively. Below is
the current allocation:
o Kitengule ranch:
 Approximately 28,688 ha sold to Kagera Sugar
Limited
 Approximately 14,062 ha retained by NARCO
but all sub-leased as private blocks (a block is
from 250–4000 acres)
 Approximately 2,000 ha within Mramba, Ki-
hanga, Katanda and Kibwela villages were given
to villagers
NORPLAN AS
TANESCO Final ESIA

o Missenyi Ranch
 Approximately 15,000 ha sold to Kagera Sugar
Limited.
 Approximately 23,998 ha retained by NARCO
fully owned by government with approx. 3,500
animal population (cattle, sheep and goats)
 Approximately 22,000 ha containing 21 blocks.
12 blocks sub-leased as private blocks by NAR-
CO and 9 blocks given to villagers.
• The stakeholder also pointed out the existence of other private
blocks bordering Missenyi Ranch, in Kakunyu, Kagoma and
Mabare villages.
• In light of the land and ownership facts pertaining to the two
ranches, which may be affected by the Kakono hydropower pro-
ject, the stakeholder recommends involving NARCO in all nego-
tiations that may be required with private block owners with re-
gard to any need for compensation. The stakeholder advises
the project proponents not to overlook including NARCO and
private block owners in compensation talks.
• Except for their own farm, NARCO does not know all that is
being done in the private blocks and in Kagera Sugar farm.
Kagera Sugar Co. Ltd. Land and ownership
- Dar es Salaam • The stakeholder confirmed that Kagera Sugar Co. Ltd. owns • Noted
(13 July 2013) approximately 43,000 ha of land within Kitengule and Missenyi
ranches:
 Kitengule ranch: 28,000 ha of plain land not yet developed
 Missenyi ranch: 15,000 ha of improved land with irrigation
pivots run by electricity
• The stakeholder told the project proponents that the two pieces
of land are not identified by any administrative location but as
Kagera Sugar Farm land. This is how the map reads.
• The stakeholder who is the General Manager of Kagera Sugar
Co. Ltd. advised the team of project proponents to get the map
of the Kagera Sugar farm from the Assistant General Manager
at the field office who was on an over-sea trip when the team
visited the field offices.
NORPLAN AS
TANESCO Final ESIA

The reservoir
• The stakeholder expressed concern over the land which may • Noted
be affected due to the width of the dam reservoir, that this will
eat their sugar cane plantations in Missenyi.
• The stakeholder advised to establish how much sugar cane is
grown and how many animals are reared from the Assistant
General Manager at the field office.
The transmission line
• The stakeholder is very concerned over the possible land that • Issue noted and will be forwarded to the engineers
will be affected following the passage of the transmission lines designing the transmission line.
across the Kitengule ranch. Even though this part of the Kagera
Sugar farm has not yet been developed, therefore only land
may need to be compensated; the stakeholder noted that al-
ready the Karagwe road has eaten much of the Kitengule ranch
land owned by Kagera Sugar. The stakeholder suggested mak-
ing the transmission lines pass along the Karagwe road to avoid
eating more of Kagera Sugar farm.
Demand for electricity
• The stakeholder confirmed that Kagera Sugar does need power • Noted
from TANESCO because it currently uses most of its power
from the Uganda power with only 5 MW capacity from its own
biomass power.
Compensation
• The stakeholder assured the project proponents that there will • Noted
be no problem in negotiation for compensation when the project
proponents have established what is to be affected, and the
discussion can take place with the General Manager of Kagera
Sugar.
• Among issues the stakeholder pointed out which may need to • Agreed that Kagera Sugar Co. Ltd. takes into consid-
be discussed is the already placed irrigation pivots on the farms eration the routing of the transmission line when plan-
which run by power. These are not supposed to have a trans- ning the pivot irrigation system, while Kakono project
mission line pass above them. There are already such pivots in will also put the irrigation scheme into consideration
Missenyi but so far none in Kitengule. when routing the transmission line.
• The stakeholder affirmed that they bought all their land from the
government and not NARCO.
Tanzania Forest Services • The stakeholder confirmed it is true that the elephants cross the • Issue will be followed up in the ESIA study.
Agency Kagera River but advised to get accurate data about the route
NORPLAN AS
TANESCO Final ESIA

(26 July 2013) and timing from Tanzania National Parks in Arusha. This can
also be further investigated during detailed ESIA fieldwork.
Kagera Sugar Co. Ltd • A proposal was made to align the proposed transmission line • The line routing will put into consideration the location
- Dar es Salaam close to the existing line route for the power line from Uganda. of the irrigation pivot systems.
(30 August 2013) • It was pointed out the company was in the process of planning
for the extension of their irrigation system. It was therefore em-
phasised to the project team to ensure that the transmission
line does not affect the irrigation systems in any way.
• A suggestion was made towards considering reduced power
tariffs to Kagera Sugar Co. Ltd. as an offset for their land con-
tribution towards the proposed project.
Missenyi District Land • District Valuer can be informed about the valuation exercise but • Noted. Team agreed to have a follow up discussion
Officer it is not mandatory that he should undertake the valuation him- with the Municipal Valuer.
(24 November 2013) self. He informed that any competent Valuer in Tanzania can
undertake the valuation exercise but in close collaboration with
the District Valuer.
• In regard to updated valuation rates, he said that Missenyi dis-
trict did not have but rates from neighbouring districts can be
adopted. At that point he advised the team to seek the guidance
of the Bukoba Municipal Valuer.
• In regard to availability of village or communal land which could
possibly be reallocated to the physically displaced households,
the land officer informed that land in Kyaka and the district in
general was all privately owned and that land could only be ac-
quired through direct purchases.
• In terms of valuation capacity, the land officer informed that the
district had a Valuer who had unfortunately been involved in an
accident and was therefore not accessible at the time of the
consultation meeting.
Bukoba Municipal Valuer • He informed about the ongoing exercise of getting updated • Noted
(25 November 2013) compensation rates for the region (Lake Zone) of which Kagera
is part. He said the process was ongoing and the draft rates
had been forwarded to the Chief Government Valuer for ap-
proval.
• He guided the team by informing about the construction costs • Noted, but team agreed that it is probably lower in ru-
per square meter which was estimated to range between TShs. ral areas where most structures are temporary in na-
100,000 – 250,000 and varies with several parameters includ- ture.
NORPLAN AS
TANESCO Final ESIA

ing material specifications.
• He proposed that its best to undertake the valuation exercise • Noted and team to consider this approach.
using a highly participatory methodology were PAPs are mean-
ingfully involved and consulted on issues that directly affect
them. That way acceptable compensation packages are devel-
oped and minimal complaints or court cases come up in future.
• He pledged to offer assistance to the project whenever needed
and requested.
Kyaka Village Council • In regard to land use and ownership, the ESIA team was in- • All issues noted and the electrification request to be
(26 November 2013) formed that land is owned individually and used as per the indi- forwarded to TANESCO.
vidual requirements and capacity. The village council informed
that in case of physical displacement, the council had no avail-
able land to be allocated to the households likely to be dis-
placed.
• It was highlighted that the main land use along the proposed
line route corridor is agriculture for mainly food crops and a few
cash crops like coffee and bananas.
• Fair and adequate compensation was strongly advocated for,
with a recommendation to at least compensate for land at the
prevailing market value, which they recommended to be com-
puted based on comparative sales in the area. An example of a
3.5 acre piece of land, which was up for sale at an asking price
of TShs. 3.5 million was given to illustrate the prevailing market
prices. It was also pointed out that the price varies with location,
potential use and accessibility.
• The meeting confirmed that at the time of the study there were
no culturally significant assets within the direct impact zone for
that section of the transmission line
• A request to extend electricity to the rural parts of the village
was submitted for the project planners’ consideration.
Bugara and Businde • Land owned individually and not communally • All issues noted and will be given due consideration
Village • Village council has no available land for relocation in case of when preparing the Resettlement Policy Framework.
(27 November 2013) physically displaced persons • Electrification request to be forwarded to TANESCO
• Compensation for commercial crops should put lost income into for further processing and consideration.
consideration
• Compensation for land should factor in the additional extra
costs charged by the local authorities and costs for land prepa-
NORPLAN AS
TANESCO Final ESIA

ration
• Compensation should at the minimum be based at the prevail-
ing market values
• A request to extend electricity to the rural parts of the village
was submitted for the project planners’ consideration.
• Request for employment
• Request for more information sharing sessions about project
progress
• Assurance that the communities will continue to have access to
the river for purposes of collecting water for their livestock.
Mwisa Prison • Discussions with the commanding officer revealed that Mwisa • Noted
(27 November 2013) prison is administered and managed by the Kitengule prison
which also serves as the prison headquarters.
• The team was also advised that in future all communications to
the prison should be sent directly to the prison headquarters.
• The prison commanding officer also advised that the prisons
should be informed in advance prior to undertaking any activity
within the prison premises.
National Ranching • Leaseholders requested for compensation and electricity supply • Compensation will be considered whenever avoidance
Company (NARCO) and in their blocks. will not be possible.
block leaseholders • Construction companies should employ local labour. • Electrification requests will be forwarded to TANESCO
(30 November 2013) • Cattle diseases will be accelerated by construction process as and its feasibility will be explored.
there will be more production of dust and noises which may • Project impact on cattle rearing will be explored fur-
cause cattle to abort. ther.
• There was concern that cattle will be denied access to the Ka- • It is expected that cattle can still use the river/reservoir
gera River for water. for watering.
• The NARCO representative cautioned that all decisions in • Communication protocols noted.
NARCO are made by Board of Directors and hence formal
communications are vital.
• The participants requested that all future meetings on the issue
should be held from Missenyi and not Dar es Salaam.
Kagera Sugar Co. Ltd. • Team was informed of Kagera Sugar’s intention to expand their • All issues raised were noted and will be given due
- General Manager crop production area by 1,500 hectares of sugar cane in the consideration during project planning.
(5 December 2013) near future within the same area that is likely to be submerged • The team will advise TANESCO to arrange further
by the proposed project. consultation meetings with Kagera Sugar Co. Ltd.
• The team was informed of Kagera Sugar’s infrastructural devel-
opment plans which included installation of two mobile water
NORPLAN AS
TANESCO Final ESIA

pumps and later construction of two permanent water pumps
within the proposed reservoir area.
• The team was given an indication of the costs involved in in the
production of a hectare of sugar cane
• The General Manger pledged the company’s willingness to co-
operate with TANESCO in the planning and development of the
said project
• Team was informed of Kagera Sugar’s plan to request for a
permit to extract up to 700,000 cubic metres per hour in the
long run due to the expansion project.
Rumanyika and Ibanda • The animals rarely move as far as Kagera River, and they do • Noted
Game Reserve (2 March not cross the river
2016) • Damming the river will not affect animals from the game re-
serves. The distance to the watering points will even be shorter
with the impoundment of the river.
NORPLAN AS
Feedback from stakeholders during public
consultation meetings on the Kakono ESIA in
2017
5.2. Identified Issues of Concern during Meetings with Stakeholders
Consultation meetings with district authorities pointed out specific issues that need to be taken
into consideration during the survey of the transmission line and to guide decision of the
transmission route.
Most of the consulted District officials highlighted the importance of the proposed development
project to the Nation, Districts and local communities. For instance some officials at Misenyi and
Karagwe District support the project with an expectation that it will increase of electricity supply
with sustainable power supply. The Involvement of the communities like in employment
opportunities is also a very important matter to be considered.
Furthermore the District Administrative Secretary of Karagwe and District Commissioner of

Misenyi highlighted the importance of the proposed development project to the Nation, Districts
and local communities but they emphasized on compensation issues, that it should be done
before the commencement of the project.
Discussions from the village and street level that are nearby the proposed project accept the
project but show their concern on how developer is going to consider youths and women
employment and compensation issue during the implementation of the project. They also believe
that they will be compensated very well for those who will be affected by the project.
Issues and concerns raised by different stakeholders and public meetings and focus group
discussion held as part of the ESIA and RAP Process are shown in table 13 below. List of
stakeholders consulted and minutes taken during consultation meetings are shown in appendix
14 and 15 respectively.
Table 13: Consulted Stakeholders and their issues raised during consultation meetings
S/N CONSULTED COMMENTS/CONCERN RESPONSES
OFFICES
1 RC Kagera  He welcomes the project and appreciates  Noted

being involved during this preliminary  All attendances will be
stage of the project taken during the meetings
 There should be attendance sheet for all and all consultations which
the meetings which will be conducted for will be made
evidence matters.  Noted
 He also appreciates the fast tracking of  Noted
the project.  Pictures are always taken
 The community should be informed for evidence during the
/involved about what the project is all RAP study
122
about and how their concerns will be
addressed in the project planning.
 Public involvement is also among the key
issues that should be taken into
consideration
 Land acquisition is also a problem within
this area, hence when you find anything
on the way leave make sure to take
pictures

2 DC Misenyi  They have no objection regarding this Noted
project Noted
DED Misenyi  Sensitization should be done in all levels; Compensation will do where
For instance in case of any evaluation and required as per national land
DAS Misenyi
compensations issues; they should use laws
experts from respective affected districts 
 The project proponent should provide fair
and prompt compensation to identified
PAPs.
 PAPs should be involved from the initial
stage to avoid any contradictions;
whereby this will avoid bad outcome of the
project
 Employment opportunities should be
provide to the youths around the project
area
3 Kagera Regional  They are aware of this proposed project Noted

Prison Office, as they have received letter from
Kitengule prison Commissioner of Prison for this project Noted
and regarding land issues.
Mwisa Separation  The project is good since it will increase The project will start as soon
Facility stability of electricity and all Tanzanians as all procedures are done
will benefit from this project including the ESIA, RAP and
 They accept the project and would like to land acquisition
know when is it starting? And his office is EIA was done in 2014 and
ready to provide any support and certificate was issued by
cooperation when needed. NEMC,
123
 A big challenge which we normally face in TANESCO isnow updating
development projects is the issue of previous EIA so as to meet
compensations; How are you going to AfDB and national
deal with compensation issues especially requirements.
in government institution? A map of the area showing
 Have you done EIA for this project? your plan should be shared
 Kitengule Prison has an irrigation scheme to TANESCO for
in planning, hence it should be checked crosschecking and reach
into before the implementation of the conclusion on how to
project so that it will not interfere. implement this TL project
 and proposed irrigation
 Corporate Social Responsibility; how do scheme..
you plan to implement that? To give subsidized electricity
 to the citizens and provide
employment to the locals
around the project area for
example; protecting our
poles against theft, after
building of the pond they can
still do fishing from it
4 DC, DED and  They appreciate the coming of the project Noted
DAS Karagwe to Kagera region since it will boost
electricity availability; they wish to be fully
involved from the beginning Noted
 Development issues cannot be prohibited Noted
 A big area is within the government land Noted and will be taken into
hence they believe compensation will not
consideration during
be a problem to hinder this development. valuation of the properties to
 Before the beginning of the project people avoid those problems.
should be provided with education Noted, awareness will be
especially around the villages where this provided during this study
project will pass through. and it will be a continuous
process.
5 DC, DED and  They have no objection regarding this Noted

DAS at project Noted and will be taken into
Missenyi District  Sensitization should be done at all levels; consideration during
For instance in case of valuation and valuation of the properties to
124
compensations issues; they should use avoid those problems. We
experts from respective affected districts believe Missenyi District
 The project proponent should provide fair experts who are in charge of
and prompt compensation to identified valuation exercise will do as
PAPs to avoid complains. per national land laws
 PAPs should be involved from the initial requirements.
stage to avoid any contradictions; this will Noted, awareness will be
avoid bad outcome of the project provided during this study
 Employment opportunities should be and it will be a continuous
provide to the youths around the project process. Noted, contractors
area will be advised to give
priorities in securing
employment to the affected
villages (unskilled and semi
skilled labors).
5 DAS and DED  They want to know on the compensation  The proponent will
Kyerwa issues for those areas which will be compensate all people
affected by the project affected by the project

6 Kagera Sugar  Land that will be taken by TANESCO for Noted and we believe all
development of Kakono HPP project was raised issues will be solved
planned for development of irrigation and and agreed together between
sugarcane plantations and we have already technical experts of
started preparing the site for our future TANESCO and Kagera
development but we have been told to stop Sugar Co. Limited in order to
by TANESCO. allow the implementation of
 Land taken by Kakono HPP project is very this proposed project without
potential for sugarcane plantations. high impacts to Kagera Sugar
 For proposed TL area no big impacts development plans.
although we have a plan also for
development of irrigation and sugarcane
plantations but it easy to adjust with
proposed TL owned by TANESCO the main
issue will be type of irrigation since we plan
for pivot irrigation.
 We believe this Kakono HPP project will
have impacts to us especially flooding to our
125
plantations and also reallocation of our
proposed pumping station.
 The main challenge is we don’t know yet
when exactly is this project going to start so
as to adjust our plans.
 It is important to make sure discharge (flow)
is sufficiently for other developments
downstream Kakono (Environment Flow).
7 Kyaka village in  They welcomed the project and accepted it. Noted
Missenyi District  They are aware of this proposed project Noted, now we believe this
since they have been involved by project will be implemented
TANESCO since 2014 but they wonder why soon after all procedures are
project is delaying since that year no done including the EIA and
activity. They appreciated the education land acquisition and getting
which they have received from TANESCO financial assistance from
regarding this project from initials stage. AfDB.
 They believe that all PAPs will be Noted and compensation will
compensated fully, since TANESCO be paid as per national land
projects do not cause problems when it law and AfDB guidelines
comes to compensation, They compare to Noted and we willpresent
other TANESCO project such as Uganda- concerns to our
Kyaka-Bukoba TL whereby PAP’s were management.
fully compensation.
 Electricity is very important for sustainable TANESCO will acquire land

development. But we do not have clean and by following legal procedures
safe water, if we can be assisted with that it as per national land laws
will be good news to us. where by land and all
 On the side of valuation, you did not explain properties on the land will be
well on how you are going to pay the compensated such as
uncultivated land? building, permanently crops
etc.
 Are graves going to be compensated? Graves will be reallocated
and compensated as per
Grave Removal Act, 1969
 Kyaka village does not have electricity, are Noted and we will represent
you going to provide us with electricity? concerns to our management
to see how this can be
accommodate but nowadays
126
 Are you going to pay for seasonal crops? TANESCO have introduced
rural electrification project to
those areas where TL
passes.
TANESCO will acquire land
by following legal procedures
as per national land laws
where by land and all
properties on the land will be
compensated such as
building, permanently crops
etc, not seasonal crops
because it is easy to harvest
before implementation of the
project.
8 Focus Group  There will be an increase in employment Noted

Discussion with opportunities; when our husbands get
women at Kyaka employed we also benefit. Noted
Village  During all phases of this
 Women are also going to benefit by selling project, there will HIV/AIDS
food to the workers hence this will increase campaigns and awareness to
their incomes. educate communities on risks
of HIV/AIDS. Those
 They asked if their children could be
awareness will be conducted
provided with education; about HIV/AIDS
by
issues and how to take care of themselves
Contractors during
during project implementation. construction and TANESCO
 They also believe that; after getting during operation phase.
electricity they can do different businesses
like selling of cold drinks, juice, icecream etc Noted

 They wanted to know which types of Various types of employment
employments are going to be available? such as food vendors,
 clearing of RoW, It depends
 They also have HIV/AIDS programmes with on what type of job is
World Vision, AMAREF etc. The advertised such as unskilled
programmes would always involve and semi skilled labors.
educating them on how to take care of 
themselves with regards to this disease Noted, it is good for
community to have those HIV
127
 The decision maker within the family is a programmes. Some of them
man while the woman is the one who does might be used by the
a lot of responsibilities including taking care contractor
of children school needs like books.
Noted
9 Mshabaigulu  They appreciate the education which they Noted

Villages in have received from TANESCO regarding We will advises contractor
Karagwe District this project that community will be
 Employment opportunities should be given considered first in regards to
to local people employment on activities in
 What qualities must someone possess in which they are capable to
order to be employed in this project? carry out (unskilled and semi
 The villagers wanted to know as to when the skilled labours).
project will start? This project will be
 implemented soon after all
 They accepted the project and want to know procedures are done
when the project will be completed. including the EIA and land
acquisition and getting
financial assistance from
AfDB.
Project construction phase is
about 3-4years for all project
components (Dam, HPP and
TL).
10 Businde, Bugara  We are happy with these project as it will  Noted

& Bugaba Villages increase employment opportunities  Noted
 We are requesting TANESCO to supply  No villagers will be required
In Kyerwa District electricity in our villages as most of the to pay some amount of
PAP’s are not connected money (This will be under
 Are you going to supply electricity for free rural electrification projects.
 We are requesting TANESCO to provide  Noted and that will be done
 HIV/AIDS training during implementation of
the project
128
Annex 6-3 – Persons Interviewed during the

2020 Social Surveys with Attendance Sheets

Table 6-6 – Persons Interviewed during the 2020 Social Surveys

responsibilities
Social field survey undertaken from the 24 of February to the 6 of March 2020
28/02/2020 Bubale Village Man Sweetbert Nicholaus NEO Interview
28/02/2020 Bubale Village Man Joseph William Chairman of Bubale Interview
28/02/2020 Bubale Village Man Deusdediti Simon Bubale School Interview
28/02/2020 Bubale Village Man Isaack Mafembu In charge of Health Dispensary Interview
28/02/2020 Bubale Village Man Mathias Kente Farmer Interview
28/02/2020 Bubale Village Man Bawbunazi Grwamroc Mwenyekiti WA Livestock Keeper Interview
29/02/2020 Mushabaiguru Village Man Projestios M Donatus Chairman Interview
29/02/2020 Mushabaiguru Village Man Baigana Geoffroy Pastor Interview
29/02/2020 Mushabaiguru Village Woman Pins Bosme Livestock keeper Focus group
Woman Aines Respikias Mwanaduji
Woman Deburafted Livestock keeper
29/02/2020 Mushabaiguru Village Man DeusFelesian mwanafunzi Interview
29/02/2020 Mugaba Village Woman PhionaFred Farmer legal migrant Interview
02/03/2020 Kyerwa District Man Rashid M Mwaimu DC Kyerwa Interview
02/03/2020 Kyerwa District Man Si Benjamin R DAS Interview
Mwirasyere
02/03/2020 Kyerwa District Man Zacharia Kibukwiu DC Office Interview
02/03/2020 Kyerwa District Man Mayila K Pesa Police OCD Interview
02/03/2020 Kyerwa District Man Si Mboka Mwakanosya District immigration officer Interview
02/03/2020 Kyerwa District Man Ltn Muchunguzi DET Commander Interview
02/03/2020 Kyerwa District Man LucasSanya PCCB Interview
02/03/2020 Kyerwa District Man Capt AD Ndelwr DRFA Interview
02/03/2020 Kyerwa District Man Thomas Amahenge AS DED Interview
03/03/2020 Missenyi District Man Francis Lubandi Head of HR / Admin and Social at Kagera Interview
Sugar Company
03/03/2020 Missenyi District Man Theukhieu Lyo HG Chief Medical Officer at kagera Sugar Focus group
Hospital
Woman Theonestina Musilimini In charge of General Ward at kagera Sugar
Hospital
Woman Denaster Issaya In charge of Operating Theatre at kagera
Sugar Hospital
Man Melanie Danug I/C of male ward at kagera Sugar Hospital
Man Emmanuel Bweombe I/C of outpatient at kagera Sugar Hospital
Man Sunday Samweli Lab power at kagera Sugar Hospital
Nyonyi
Man Tubert J Matiku Hospital Pharmacist at kagera Sugar
Hospital
Woman Emily Lubandi HR Admin Officer at kagera Sugar Hospital
Woman Anna Seico Hospital Matrom at kagera Sugar Hospital
02/03/2020 Kyaka Man Abdallah Kaseiwa VEO Kyaka Interview
02/03/2020 Kyaka Man Hakikiu Issack Chairman Interview
02/03/2020 Kyaka Man Abbakary Hashmi Farmer Interview
02/03/2020 Kyaka Man Awasi Sabibi Farmer Interview
02/03/2020 Kyaka Man Ismail Ramadhan Farmer Interview
02/03/2020 Kyaka Man Musa Abdelah Farmer Interview
28/02/2020 Mushabaiguru Village Woman Eda M Vicent VEO Mushabaiguru Interview
28/02/2020 Mushabaiguru Village Man Projesius M Donaios Chairman Interview
28/02/2020 Mushabaiguru Village Woman Georgina Festo legal migrant farmer Focus group
28/02/2020 Mushabaiguru Village Woman Salome Godwin legal migrant farmer
28/02/2020 Mushabaiguru Village Woman Judith Bau legal migrant farmer
28/02/2020 Mushabaiguru Village Woman Eda M Vicent VEO Interview
28/02/2020 Mushabaiguru Village Man Projesius M Donaios Chairman interview
28/02/2020 Mushabaiguru Village Man Wilisoni William Farmer Interview
28/02/2020 Mushabaiguru Village Man Enoki Benedikto Farmer Interview
28/02/2020 Mushabaiguru Village Man Apias T Daniel Livestock keeper Focus group
Man Shelere Revelnan Livestock keeper
Man Feleslani Maudesti Livestock keeper
Man Edwini Leopodi Livestock keeper
28/02/2020 Mushabaiguru Village Man Agustini Mulia Farmer Focus group
Woman Joyce Jownesi Farmer
Man Jasiboni Wiliam Farmer
Man Anord Kmukulma Farmer
28/02/2020 Mushabaiguru Village Man Emmanuel Jovini Sub Chairman Interview
28/02/2020 Mushabaiguru Village Woman Melissa Katesguja Farmer Interview
28/02/2020 Mushabaiguru Village Man Jowanseni Mkulima Farmer Interview
04/03/2020 Kitengule Ranch Man Lebahati Emmanuel Ranch Manager Interview
Levoy


responsibilities
04/03/2020 Kitengule Ranch Man Dioniwi Cosmas Ranch Foreman Interview
Tumusime
02/03/2020 Bugara Village Man Yoweli T Barturumbe WEO Interview
02/03/2020 Bugara Village Man Eurister Jeremiah Chairman Interview
02/03/2020 Bugara Village Man Bah K Pius Village Ex Officer Interview
02/03/2020 Bugara Village Man Gaspar Gabriel Ward Concilor Interview
02/03/2020 Bugara Village Man Yezu January Farmer Interview
02/03/2020 Bugara Village Man Levokatus Lauriam Farmer Interview
02/03/2020 Bugara Village Man Richard Erizeus Fisherman Interview
02/03/2020 Bugara Village Man Faustin Mondesti Livestock keeper Interview
02/03/2020 Bugara Village Man Riverian Majune Livestock keeper Interview
02/03/2020 Bugara Village Woman Evanli Macklina Farmer Interview
02/03/2020 Bugara Village Woman Renta Daudi Farmer Interview
05/03/2020 Businde Village Man Kas Hhaj Ferryman Interview
05/03/2020 Businde Village Man James Rwabukoba Livestock keeper Focus group
Man Joseph Salvatory Livestock keeper
Man Anselimi Gozibert Livestock keeper
05/03/2020 Businde Village Man Barnabas Bugonero Chairman Interview
04/03/2020 Mugaba Village Man Philbert B Andrea Men representative Interview
04/03/2020 Mugaba Village Man Jussiniani K Clemence Chairman Interview
04/03/2020 Mugaba Village Man Simon B Beebwa Chairman of the ruling planty CCM Interview
04/03/2020 Mugaba Village Woman Anatolia Chilistopha Woman representative Focus group
Woman Leontina Lauriak Women representative
Woman Theonestina Katom Women representative
04/03/2020 Mugaba Village Man Chcriai Chlikanti livestock keeper Interview
04/03/2020 Mugaba Village Man Elizeus Fidel Sub village chairman Interview
04/03/2020 Mugaba Village Man Posenti Chrizanti Livestock keeper Interview
04/03/2020 Mugaba Village Man ChirispiniChrizati Livestock keeper Interview
04/03/2020 Mugaba Village Woman Silivia James Livestock keeper Interview
05/03/2020 Businde Village Man Dickson M Mukasa VEO Businde Interview
05/03/2020 Businde Village Man Bwenke F Kapere Sub village chairman Interview
05/03/2020 Businde Village Man Silivanus Leopold Livestock keeper Interview
05/03/2020 Businde Village Man Vincenti Domitah Livestock keeper Interview
05/03/2020 Businde Village Man Evarisia Kamihanda Livestock keeper Focus group
05/03/2020 Businde Village Woman Devotha Emmanei Women representative
05/03/2020 Businde Village Woman Furaha Frednandi Women representative
05/03/2020 Businde Village Woman Winifrida Gerald Women representative
05/03/2020 Businde Village Man Verianus Gordian Farmer Focus group
05/03/2020 Businde Village Man Jonas Renatus Farmer
05/03/2020 Businde Village Man Nestoryi Ziyeuga Farmer
05/03/2020 Businde Village Woman Donatilia Emmanuel Farmer
05/03/2020 Businde Village Woman Renatha M Eusiace Farmer
05/03/2020 Businde Village Woman Juster Sylvester I/C of Health center Interview
05/03/2020 Businde Village Man Podio Damian worker for the Health Center Interview
05/03/2020 Businde Village Man Piason Pius worker for the Health Center Interview
04/03/2020 Missenyi District Man Emmanuel Mkaka I/C of Kagera Sugar Camp 4 Interview
29/02/2020 Missenyi District Man Bahati John Gregory I/C of Kagera Sugar Camp No 2 Interview
03/03/2020 Missenyi District Man Potentine Nshombo E.Health Officer Interview
03/03/2020 Missenyi District Man Akiba Nyamweru Workers Kagera Focus group
Man Issaya Sumayani Sugar camp Kifaro
Man Papianus Paschal
Man Aseribertus
Rwehumbra
Woman Sikitu A Byarufu
Man Robert C Sebastian
Man Phares Konga
Man Eswine Christian
Man George
Man Maico Sanga
Man Lucian Kayuli
Man Baraka A Gideon
Man Keloin Mouel
Man Tommy A Joyce
Man Emmanuel Hema
Man Karim Athumani
Man Yoramu Andrea
Man Nickson Godfrey
Man Hamza Mustafa
Man Kuwa Faustine


responsibilities
Man Fabian
Man Phinias Nicholaus
Man Pelesia Alfred
03/03/2020 Missenyi District Woman Dorothea Petro Workers Kagera Sugar Camp Kifaro Focus group
Woman Jasmina Onjesi
Woman Mileleza Emiline
Woman Claudia Kajuna
Woman Makilina William
03/03/2020 Missenyi District Man Sikola Misigaro Worker Kagera Sugar Camp Kifaro Interview
03/03/2020 Missenyi District Man Elidesa Kanani Worker Kagera Sugar Camp Kifaro Interview
03/03/2020 Missenyi District Man Ilambona Emeline Worker Kagera Sugar Camp Kifaro Interview
02/03/2020 Kyaka Village Woman Nasila Abbakdi Farmers Focus group
Woman J Eneroza Petro
Woman Esta Matias
Woman Anchila Ali
Woman Ashirath Sebastian
27/02/2020 Bunazi / Kyaka Man Pr Hamis Abdallah District Medical Officer Interview
27/02/2020 Bunazi / Kyaka Man Adolf E Ngaiza Coordinator of services provide in District Interview
27/02/2020 Bunazi / Kyaka Man Dr Jamily Yahuya Health facility Bunazi Interview
27/02/2020 Bunazi / Kyaka Man Viator Faustine Clinical officer / Focal Person / Chair Person Interview
Rutechura
27/02/2020 Bunazi / Kyaka Woman Ammassose Swai HF incharge Interview
Makisa
04/03/2020 Missenyi District Man Yusuph Rushanda Workers Kagera Sugar Camp 5 Focus group
Woman Georgina Jonathan
Man Sodo Sadi
Woman Ofnicia Elivius
Woman Eldina Samsom
Woman Flata Juma
Man Isaka A
Man Bles Gr
Man Silaji J Ally
Man Choitunghe Oscar
03/03/2020 Missenyi District Man Msafiri Hezroni Supervisor Kagera Sugar Camp 10 Focus group
Woman Aisha Matunga Utawala Kagera Sugar Camp 10
Man Makondo Nyamgora Ulinzi Kagera Sugar Camp 10
Man Amani Fabiani Morice Kagera Sugar Camp 10
Woman Vedia Thobias Mwalimu Kagera Sugar Camp 10
Man Eradius Festo Worker Kagera Sugar Camp 10
Man Edius Phlero Worker Kagera Sugar Camp 10
Man Livinius Athanase Worker Kagera Sugar Camp 10
Man Stanslaus Bakulu Worker Kagera Sugar Camp 10
Woman Fatumala Bashr Worker Kagera Sugar Camp 10
Woman Anhha Kashangaki Worker Kagera Sugar Camp 10
26/02/2020 Karagwe District Man Godfrey Mhelika DC Karagwe Interview
26/02/2020 Karagwe District Man P Rweyendera District Ex Director Interview
26/02/2020 Karagwe District Woman Nyangele Malanerge Acting District Admin Secretary Interview
26/02/2020 Karagwe District Man Benson K Abel District land officer Interview
26/02/2020 Karagwe District Man Henry B Makwasa OCD Karagwe Interview
26/02/2020 Karagwe District Man C Barongo Kny DSO Karakwe Interview
26/02/2020 Missenyi District Man Col Denis F Mwila DC Missenyi Interview
27/02/2020 Kitengule Prison Man Insp Joseph M Ywa Procurment Officer Interview
27/02/2020 Kitengule Prison Man Alinaf Andrew B Phillip Prison Doctor Interview
27/02/2020 Kitengule Prison Man SP Hadari L Yuda In charge of AG office Interview
28/02/2020 Missenyi District Man Victor Laurean Project Engineer Camp 9 / Kagera Sugar Interview
Comp
28/02/2020 Missenyi District Woman Antha Sadik Worker Camp 9 / Kagera Sugar Comp Interview
28/02/2020 Missenyi District Man Waris Rutaryamreun in charge of the Camp 9 / Kagera Sugar Interview
Comp
28/02/2020 Missenyi District Man Julian Salvatory Worker at Camp 9 / Kagera Sugar Comp Interview
26/02/2020 Missenyi Ranch Man Oscar Mengele Ranch manager Interview
28/02/2020 Mushabaiguru Village Woman Jovitha Kalory Farmer Focus group
Woman Angela Andlea Farmer
Woman Aponia Deus Farmer
Woman Jovanis Agustini Farmer
25/02/2020 Bukoba Man Prof Faustin Kamuzora RAS Kagera Interview
25/02/2020 Bukoba Man Haji Y Kuselu Environmental Advisor Interview
25/02/2020 Bukoba Man Mberwa Olengeille Sbwo Bukoba Interview
25/02/2020 Bukoba Man Mario K Vitia Quality Lab Manager Interview


responsibilities
Social field survey undertaken from 21 of July to 05 of August 2020
24/07/2020 Kyaka Man Abdallah Kaseiwa Chairman Introductory
meeting
24/07/2020 Kyaka Man Hakimu Issack Village sub-chairman Introductory
meeting
24/07/2020 Kyaka Man Abdallah Kaseiwa VEO Kyaka Introductory
meeting
24/07/2020 Kyaka Man Clemence Kajubi Village sub-chairman Introductory
meeting
24/07/2020 Kyaka Man Marichade Fosto Village sub-chairman Introductory
meeting
24/07/2020 Kyaka Man Samson Emmanuel Government chief valuer Introductory
meeting
27/07/2020 Kyaka Man Silaji Abubbakari Farmer Interview
27/07/2020 Kyaka Woman Anuma Ismail Mwaga Farmer Interview
27/07/2020 Kyaka Man Peater Munyaraga Farmer Interview
27/07/2020 Kyaka Man Hussein Kamanzi Farmer Interview
Rweikiza
27/07/2020 Kyaka Man Adam Twaha Abdallah Farmer Interview
27/07/2020 Kyaka Man Mudy Adam Farmer Interview
27/07/2020 Kyaka Man Bernard Martin Farmer Interview
Kashaija
27/07/2020 Kyaka Woman Leonida Rwechungura Farmer Interview
27/07/2020 Kyaka Man Seleman Karoli Farmer Interview
27/07/2020 Kyaka Woman Royce Ibrahim Farmer Interview
Ntungwa
28/07/2020 Kyaka Man Livingstone Ntungwa Farmer Interview
28/07/2020 Kyaka Man Abdul Ismail Kajiwe Farmer Interview
01/01/2019 Kyaka Woman Naima Said Farmer Interview
28/07/2020 Kyaka Woman Arizik Ramadhan Farmer Interview
28/07/2020 Kyaka Man Moses Ngemela Kaiza Farmer Interview
01/01/2019 Kyaka Man Leonard Philimon Farmer Interview
28/07/2020 Kyaka Woman Frorida Kokumanya Farmer Interview
Kashangaki
01/01/2019 Kyaka Woman Yustina Ferdinand Farmer Interview
29/07/2020 Kyaka Man James Rutamulwa Farmer Interview
Nyanda
29/07/2020 Kyaka Man Abubakari Ramadhani Farmer Interview
Ismaily
29/07/2020 Kyaka Man Ramadhan Bashir Njiro Farmer Interview
29/07/2020 Kyaka Woman Judith Kyaruzi Farmer Interview
Leverian
29/07/2020 Kyaka Woman Vaileth Sebastian Farmer Interview
Kemilembe
29/07/2020 Kyaka Woman Severina Stanslaus Farmer Interview
Nyamwiyula
29/07/2020 Kyaka Man Edwine Edward Farmer Interview
Bubegwa
29/07/2020 Kyaka Man Hamidu Mohamedi Farmer Interview
Mishale
29/07/2020 Kyaka Man Projectus Tegamaisho Farmer Interview
29/07/2020 Kyaka Man Adam Azil Majura Farmer Interview
29/07/2020 Kyaka Woman Anna Grace Farmer Interview
Kokwongeza
29/07/2020 Kyaka Man Emmanuel Nalaye Farmer Interview
Makumba
29/07/2020 Kyaka Woman Zakia Elisa Michael Farmer Interview
30/07/2020 Kyaka Woman Mariam Saidi Kashasha Farmer Interview
30/07/2020 Kyaka Woman Winifrida Theonest Farmer Interview
Kahwa
30/07/2020 Kyaka Man Anthony Rwebogora Farmer Interview
Kahwa
30/07/2020 Kyaka Man Deogratias Binamungu Farmer Interview
Rwakikamba
30/07/2020 Kyaka Man Aliyu Mzee Jafari Farmer Interview
Rutta
30/07/2020 Kyaka Man James Kato Kabulemu Farmer Interview
31/07/2020 Kyaka Man Deus Machweshi Farmer Interview
30/07/2020 Kyaka Man Yassin Hassan Idd Farmer Interview


responsibilities
31/07/2020 Kyaka Man selestine Simeo Farmer Interview
bachubila
30/07/2020 Kyaka Woman Diana Abdul Kibra Farmer Interview
30/07/2020 Kyaka Man Seleman Abdul Idd Farmer Interview
31/07/2020 Kyaka Man Shamsi Hilali Khamis Farmer Interview
Rutta
31/07/2020 Kyaka Woman Latifa Abdu kasimu Farmer Interview
31/07/2020 Kyaka Woman Demetrida David Farmer Interview
Martin
31/07/2020 Kyaka Woman Anitha Antony Farmer Interview
31/07/2020 Kyaka Man Emmanuel Mutalemwa Farmer Interview
William
31/07/2020 Kyaka Man Renatus Agustin Farmer Interview
31/07/2020 Kyaka Man Joshua Kyaruzi Mayoro Farmer Interview
01/08/2020 Kyaka Woman Winifrida Agustine Farmer Interview
01/08/2020 Kyaka Man Theojenes Emil kaijage Farmer Interview
01/08/2020 Kyaka Woman Shakila Abdul Kazinja Farmer Interview
01/08/2020 Kyaka Man Abubakar Abdul Farmer Interview
Kazinja
01/08/2020 Kyaka Woman Mysara Said Farmer Interview
01/08/2020 Kyaka Man Swidicka Abdallah Farmer Interview
Kassim
01/08/2020 Kyaka Man Domician Rugakingira Farmer Interview
Baitani
01/08/2020 Kyaka Woman Helena Petro Kalekezi Farmer Interview
03/08/2020 Kyaka Man Hassan Abed Kalekezi Farmer Interview
01/08/2020 Kyaka Man Idd Ismail Farmer Interview
01/08/2020 Kyaka Woman Faidha Annas Farmer Interview
03/08/2020 Kyaka Man Juma Dauda Farmer Interview
Katwekake
03/08/2020 Kyaka Man Johanes George Farmer Interview
Mtanda
03/08/2020 Kyaka Woman Eveleni Kokutangilila Farmer Interview
Gidion
03/08/2020 Kyaka Man Alfred Alphonce Kaz Farmer Interview
03/08/2020 Kyaka Man Baraka Yustace Farmer Interview
Korosperi
29/07/2020 Kyaka Man Sigifridius Theophil Farmer Interview
Alimeli
25/07/2020 Mugaba Man Stephano Ndendeye Farmer Interview
Ndamage
25/07/2020 Bugara Woman Eugenia Rwabidodo Farmer Interview
25/07/2020 Bugara Man Kazora Isidore Farmer Interview
27/07/2020 Kyaka Man Mohamad Ramadhan Farmer Interview
27/07/2020 Kyaka Man Yassin Hamad Farmer Interview
01/01/2019 Kyaka Woman Leah Rudovick Farmer Interview
30/07/2020 Kyaka Man Mugisha Allan Bailile Farmer Interview
30/07/2020 Kyaka Man Deus Paulo Farmer Interview
Machwamesh
31/07/2020 Kyaka Man Juma Omary Ally Farmer Interview
28/07/2020 Kyaka Woman Nyamwiza Julius Jacob Farmer Interview
31/07/2020 Kyaka Man Mohammad Mahmood Farmer Interview
Kibra
31/07/2020 Kyaka Man Haruna Issa Mazingo Farmer Interview
31/07/2020 Kyaka Man Clemence Kajubi Farmer Interview
25/07/2020 Mugaba Man Thomas Baitubake Farmer Interview
Rwebiita
25/07/2020 Mugaba Woman Jovanius Kasande Farmer Interview
wilson
25/07/2020 Bugara Man Yustinian Kabeizi Farmer Interview
Kajara
Social field survey undertaken from 18 of October to 05 of November 2020
19/10/2020 Omundongo Man Anastasius Tushabe Chairman Interview
19/10/2020 Omundongo Woman Teopista Richard Farmer Interview
20/10/2020 Omundongo Man Shabani Hussein Farmer Interview
Buberwa
20/10/2020 Omundongo Man Sadat Issa Farmer Interview
20/10/2020 Omundongo Woman Mariam Abdallah Farmer Interview
20/10/2020 Omundongo Man Twaha Abdallah Farmer Interview


responsibilities
20/10/2020 Omundongo Man Paschal Ludovick Farmer Interview
19/10/2020 Omundongo Man Jonathan Albert Farmer Interview
21/10/2020 Omundongo Woman Mesiliath Jonathan Farmer Interview
21/10/2020 Camp n°3 KSC Man Charles Chose In charge of camp n°3 KSC Interview
21/10/2020 Omundongo Man Wilson Husein Farmer Interview
21/10/2020 Omundongo Woman Afisa Issa Farmer Interview
21/10/2020 Camp N°4 KSC Man Yassin Simba In charge of camp n°4 KSC Interview
21/10/2020 Omundongo Man Jonathan Maganga Farmer Interview
21/10/2020 Camp n°5 KSC Man Yusuph Rushanna In charge of camp n°5 KSC Interview
21/10/2020 Camp n°2 KSC Man Daud Bulango In charge of camp n2 Interview
21/10/2020 Omundongo Woman Adia Issa Farmer Interview
21/10/2020 Omundongo Man Issa Juma Farmer Interview
21/10/2020 Omundongo Man Abdulrazaki Buruani Farmer Interview
21/10/2020 Omundongo Woman Sofia Marius Farmer Interview
21/10/2020 Omundongo Man Siriyakusi Daudi Farmer Interview
22/10/2020 Omundongo Man Deus Leonard Josia Farmer Interview
22/10/2020 Omundongo Man Marcel Petro Farmer Interview
22/10/2020 Omundongo Man Richard John Farmer Interview
22/10/2020 Omundongo Man Radislaus Mathias Farmer Interview
22/10/2020 Omundongo Woman Consolatha Leonard Farmer Interview
22/10/2020 Omundongo Man Leopord Bandola Farmer Interview
22/10/2020 Omundongo Man Mosses Kanoti Farmer Interview
22/10/2020 Omundongo Man Deus Simeo Farmer Interview
22/10/2020 Fishers island Man Respickius Msinzgara Cook at KSC Interview
22/10/2020 Camp n°6 KSC Man Peter Magoma In charge of camp n°6 KSC Interview
23/10/2020 Kyaka Man Jaston Andrea Farmer Interview
23/10/2020 Kyaka Man Michael Binomugisha Farmer Interview
24/10/2020 Kyaka Woman Joelia Abdul Farmer Interview
24/10/2020 Kyaka Woman Nura Sadi Farmer Interview
24/10/2020 Kyaka Woman Anastella Emmanuel Farmer Interview
24/10/2020 Kyaka Woman Asina Hamada Farmer Interview
24/10/2020 Kyaka Woman Anusiatha Peter Farmer Interview
24/10/2020 Kyaka Man Michael Mugisha Farmer Interview
24/10/2020 Kyaka Woman Jeniva Rweyemamu Farmer Interview
23/10/2020 Kyaka Man Bernard Martin farmer Interview
Kashaija
24/10/2020 Kyaka Man Mohamed Abdallah Farmer Interview
24/10/2020 Kyaka Woman Sofia Ahmada Farmer Interview
24/10/2020 Kyaka Man Mohamed Twairi Farmer Interview
24/10/2020 Kyaka Woman Rehema Ibrahim Farmer Interview
24/10/2020 Kyaka Woman Asnathi Adam Farmer Interview
24/10/2020 Kyaka Man Abubakari Nuru Farmer Interview
Mushema
23/10/2020 Kyaka Man Isya Stephano Chairman Interview
24/10/2020 Near Camp N°6 KSC Woman Ashura Yusuph Worker at KSC Interview
24/10/2020 Near Camp N°6 KSC Man Jamali Haruna Worker at KSC Interview
24/10/2020 Near Camp N°6 KSC Man Bahati Martine Worker at KSC Interview
25/10/2020 Kyaka Woman Magreth Ezron Farmer Interview
25/10/2020 Kyaka Man Josephat Joseph Farmer Interview
25/10/2020 Kyaka Man Mohammed Hassan Farmer Interview
25/10/2020 Kyaka Man Hamada Bosa Farmer Interview
25/10/2020 Kyaka Man Mzamiru Zuberi Farmer Interview
24/10/2020 Camp n°9 KSC Man Osward Rutakyamilwa In charge of camp n°9 KSC Interview
Adoloph
25/10/2020 Kyaka Man Haji Idrisa Ahmada Farmer Interview
25/10/2020 Kyaka Man Rashidi Hassan Farmer Interview
24/10/2020 Camp n°10 KSC Man Alexandar Petro In charge camp n°10 KSC Interview
25/10/2020 Kyaka Woman Taki Hassan Farmer Interview
25/10/2020 Kyaka Man Gozibert Augustine Farmer Interview
25/10/2020 Kyaka Man Zubairi Kassim Kagaju Farmer Interview
25/10/2020 Kyaka Man Mdashiru Zubeiri Farmer Interview
25/10/2020 Bulifani Man Plasidius Chairman Interview
26/10/2020 Nyabihanga Man Bashiru Dauda Farmer Interview
26/10/2020 Nyabihanga Man Hamza Twaha Farmer Interview
26/10/2020 Nyabihanga Man Kashangaki Paul Farmer Interview
26/10/2020 Nyabihanga Woman Jasintha Justinian Farmer Interview
26/10/2020 Nyabihanga Man Jovinary John Mapera Farmer Interview


responsibilities
26/10/2020 Nyabihanga Man Thomas Zakaria Farmer Interview
Zakaria Zakaria
26/10/2020 Nyabihanga Man Deogratias John Farmer Interview
Mapera John Mapera
26/10/2020 Nyabihanga Woman Bernadetha Ibrahimu Farmer Interview
Ibrahimu
26/10/2020 Kyaka Man Apolofilius Daudi Farmer Interview
26/10/2020 Kyaka Man Mussa Daudi Mzaire Farmer Interview
26/10/2020 Nyabihanga Man Constantine Boniface Farmer Interview
26/10/2020 Nyabihanga Woman Sylivia Simon Farmer Interview
26/10/2020 Nyabihanga Man Rashidi Mohamed Iddi Farmer Interview
26/10/2020 Nyabihanga Man Atwibu Twaha Farmer Interview
26/10/2020 Nyabihanga Woman Justa Jovin Farmer Interview
26/10/2020 Nyabihanga Man Majidi Twaha Farmer Interview
26/10/2020 Nyabihanga Man Revocatus Daudi Farmer Interview
26/10/2020 Nyabihanga Woman Devotha Benedicto Farmer Interview
26/10/2020 Nyabihanga Man Antidius Aniceti Farmer Interview
26/10/2020 Nyabihanga Woman Jacklina Gerald Farmer Interview
26/10/2020 Nyabihanga Man Ladislaus Joseph Farmer Interview
25/10/2020 Mushasha Man Julius Mfuka Sub-village chairman Interview
27/10/2020 Nyabihanga Man Anthony Nzigula Farmer Interview
27/10/2020 Nyabihanga Woman Jerimina Projestus Farmer Interview
27/10/2020 Nyabihanga Man Amadi Ramadhan Farmer Interview
29/10/2020 Bulifani Woman Hadija Suleiman Farmer Interview
29/10/2020 Bulifani Man Sharifu Bablia Farmer Interview
29/10/2020 Bulifani Man Shabridin Bablia Farmer Interview
29/10/2020 Bulifani Woman Yudes Karoli Farmer Interview
29/10/2020 Bulifani Man Abdusammadu Farmer Interview
Mohammed
28/10/2020 Kitengule prison area Woman Magdalena Anthony Business woman Interview
Gordian
28/10/2020 Kitengule prison area Man Pancras Fulgens Prison officer Interview
28/10/2020 KSC territory right bank Woman Francesca Gabriel Farmer Interview
28/10/2020 Camp n°6 KSC right Man Evelius Christopher Camp in charge KSC Interview
bank
28/10/2020 KSC territory right bank Woman Airini Christopha Farmer and fisher Interview
28/10/2020 KSC territory right bank Woman Erica Emmanuel Farmer and fisher Interview
29/10/2020 Bulifani Man Darius Daud Farmer Interview
29/10/2020 Bulifani Man Ladislaus Senforian Farmer Interview
29/10/2020 Bulifani Woman Peragia Jonathan Farmer Interview
27/10/2020 Nyabihanga Man Martin Marko Farmer Interview
27/10/2020 Nyabihanga Man Ramadhani Juma Farmer Interview
27/10/2020 Nyabihanga Woman Leonida Charles Farmer Interview
28/10/2020 KSC territory right bank Woman Erica Kokushubira Farmer Interview
Emmanuel
29/10/2020 Bulifani Woman Zamda Ramadhani Farmer Interview
Salim
29/10/2020 Bulifani Woman Josephina Kakwama Business women Interview
Leonard
29/10/2020 Bulifani Man Juma Clashani Pascal Farmer Interview
29/10/2020 Bulifani Woman Eva Potazi Student Interview
29/10/2020 Bulifani Man Barnabas Valentine Student Interview
29/10/2020 Bulifani Man Selemani Mussa Farming and livestock keeping Interview
Rutashobya
29/10/2020 Bulifani Man Angelo Filbert Katele Farmer Interview
30/10/2020 Bulifani Man Afidhu Juma Interprenur Interview
30/10/2020 Bulifani Man Ramadhan Bashiru Farmer Interview
30/10/2020 Bulifani Man Siku Deogratius Farmer Interview
Makamba
05/11/2020 Gabulanga Man Pastory Laurian Village sub- chairman Interview
02/11/2020 Gabulanga Man Elia Ernest Chairman Interview
30/10/2020 Kassambya Man Sebastian Kasigara Chairman Interview


Stakeholders during the 2020 Social Surveys

Table 6-7 –Concerns from other Stakeholders Collected During 2020 Qualitative Field Surveys
Location Stakeholders Comments/concerns
Comments and Concerns from the Local Authorities collected in March 2020
Bukoba Regional Administrative • The Project is seen positively as it will make power available for the whole region and increase employment opportunities.
Secretary of Kagera region • Negative impacts are few as the project area is sparsely populated.
Bukoba Lake Victoria Water Basin • The Project is seen positively as it will make power available for the whole region and increase employment opportunities.
Office • Lake Victoria management will need to be reinforced.
Missenyi District Missenyi District • The Project is seen positively as it will make power available for the whole region and increase employment opportunities.
Commissioner • He wishes that TANESCO allow fishermen to create fish dams that will increase fishing activities around the main dam.
• Negative impacts are few as the project area is sparsely populated. KSC will however be impacted as they are building new water pump stations in the footprint of the
proposed reservoir. Some of the land belonging to NARCO and Kitengule prison will also be impacted.
• The project should start as soon as possible and communication about the project should be reinforced.
Karagwa District Karagwe District • The Project is seen positively as it will make power available for the whole region and increase employment opportunities.
Commissioner • He does not see any negative impacts potentially caused by the Project.
• The project should start as soon as possible and communication about the project should be reinforced.
Kyerwa District Kyerwa District • The Project is seen positively as it will make power available for the whole region and increase employment opportunities.
Commissioner • The project should start as soon as possible and communication about the project should be reinforced.
Concerns from other Stakeholders Collected During 2020 Qualitative Field Surveys
Missenyi District Manager of Missenyi Ranch • The Project is seen positively as it will make power available for the whole region and increase employment opportunities.
• Missenyi ranch headquarter should get electricity and block n°12 belonging to NARCO will be impacted.
Head of Human resources • The Project is seen positively as it will make power available for the whole region and increase employment opportunities.
and social affairs at KSC • KSC will be impacted as they are building new water pump stations in the footprint of the proposed reservoir.
Acting Chief Medical Officer • If the flow of the river is slowed or disturbed, there is a risk that water will stagnate in some areas. It could therefore increase diseases as malaria or bilharzia;
at KSC Hospital
Missenyi District Medical • The Project is seen positively as it will make power available for the whole region and increase employment opportunities.
Officer • If the flow of the river is slowed or disturbed, there is a risk that water will stagnate in some areas. It could therefore increase diseases as malaria or bilharzia.
In charge of Bunazi Health • The Project is seen positively as it will make power available for the whole region and increase employment opportunities.
Centre • If the flow of the river is slowed or disturbed, there is a risk that water will stagnate in some areas. It could therefore increase diseases as malaria or bilharzia.
Kyaka village In charge of Kyaka village • The Project is seen positively as it will make power available for the whole region and increase employment opportunities.
dispensary • If the flow of the river is slowed or disturbed, there is a risk that water will stagnate in some areas. It could therefore increase diseases as malaria or bilharzia.
Bubale village In charge of Bubale village • If the flow of the river is slowed or disturbed, there is a risk that water will stagnate in some areas. It could therefore increase diseases as malaria or bilharzia.
dispensary
Missenyi District In charge of Kitengule • The Project is seen positively as it will make power available for the whole region and increase employment opportunities.
prison • The prison experiences some power cut so the Project will help to solve this problem.
• Negative impacts are few as the project area is sparsely populated. KSC will however be impacted as they are building new water pump stations in the footprint of the
proposed reservoir. Some of the land belonging to NARCO and kitengule prison will also be impacted.
Bubale village Livestock keepers of • They were not informed about the Project.
Bubale village • The Project is seen positively as it will make power available for the whole region and increase employment opportunities.
• They hope that the cattle water point they use will still be accessible to Bubale villagers once the dam will be built as it is the closest one from the village.

Missenyi District Camp n°9 in KSC • They have not been directly informed about the Project.
• They hope that Kifaru forest will not be impacted by the Project as it is the main place where they collect firewood.
• Kagera river is one of the main sources of water for the workers. They hope that the Project will not jeopardize their access to the river.
• The river is used to transport good and people. They hope that the Project will not prohibit people from crossing the river by boat.
Camp n°10 in KSC • They have not been directly informed about the Project.
Kifaru Camp in KSC • They have not been directly informed about the Project.
Leaser of Block n°1 in • He has not been directly informed about the Project. He is disappointed as it will be taking place close to his territory.
Kitengule ranch • He has been told that more than 211 acres of his land will be taken away from him for the Kakono project purposes. He is worried about how he will be compensated for
the loss of the land is currently leasing as there is available land close to this area.
Mushabaiguru Members of the village • The Project is seen positively as it will make power available for the whole region and increase employment opportunities.
village Council • The river is used to transport good and people. They hope that the Project will not prohibit people from crossing the river by boat.
• The growing number of elephants is a critical issue for the village. They hope that the Project will not get any closer to the village because of the Project.
Women from the village • The villagers harvest the wood and collect medicinal plants on the communal grazing land. They hope they will be able to continue as they do not have other places where
they could conduct these activities.
Livestock keepers • The village does not have so much communal grazing land. Some livestock keepers are already leasing some land to private businessman settled on Kitengule ranch land.
They are worried about what will be left after the dam and the reservoir will be built.
• Kagera river is one of the main sources of water for some cattle keepers who sometimes stay nearby the river. They hope that the Project will not jeopardize their access
to the river.
• There have several water cattle points along the river. They hope they will continue to have access to it.
Bugara village Members of the village • The Project is seen positively as it will make power available for the whole region and increase employment opportunities.
Council • The growing number of elephants is a critical issue for the village. The Project will take some of the communal land where elephants are located. They hope it will not
crowd the elephants together which would be more dangerous for the people going down the hill.
Livestock keepers and • They hope that the footprint of the reservoir will not take too much of the communal grazing land.
legal migrants • They are some people living close to the river, or some temporary structures. They hope people impacted by the project will be compensated.
• Kagera river is one of the main sources of water for some families and individuals living down the hill. They hope that the Project will not jeopardize their access to the
river.
• There have several water cattle points along the river. They hope they will continue to have access to it.

Mugaba village Members of the village • The Project is seen positively as it will make power available for the whole region and increase employment opportunities.
Livestock keepers and • They are some people living close to the river, or some temporary structures. They hope people impacted by the project will be compensated.
legal migrants • There have several water cattle points along the river. They hope they will continue to have access to it.
river.
Businde village Members of the village • The Project is seen positively as it will make power available for the whole region and increase employment opportunities.
Livestock keepers • They have a very large territory down the hill they used as communal grazing land. They are not worried about the Project.
• They are some people living close to the river, or some temporary structures. They hope people impacted by the project will be compensated.
river.
Omundongo Chairman and farmers of • The Project is seen positively as it will make power available for the whole region and increase employment opportunities.
village the village • Kagera river is one of the main sources of water for residents living near the river. They hope that the Project will not jeopardize their access to the river.
• Many residents are cultivating in the floodplain. For some locals, plots located in the floodplain is the only one they have. They hope they will keep access to those plots of
land.
Bulifani village Chairman and farmers of • The Project is seen positively as it will make power available for the whole region and increase employment opportunities.
the village • Kagera river is one of the main sources of water for residents living near the river. They hope that the Project will not jeopardize their access to the river.
land.
Mushasha village Chairman and farmers of • The Project is seen positively as it will make power available for the whole region and increase employment opportunities.
the village • Kagera river is one of the main sources of water for residents living near the river. They hope that the Project will not jeopardize their access to the river.
land.
• The village has three strips of land located in the floodplain and used for agricultural activities and grazing. They hope they will still be accessible.
Nyabihanga • The Project is seen positively as it will make power available for the whole region and increase employment opportunities.
village • Kagera river is one of the main sources of water for residents living near the river. They hope that the Project will not jeopardize their access to the river.
land.
• Some residents are using the floodplain as grazing land. They hope they continue to do so.
Kassambya village • The Project is seen positively as it will make power available for the whole region and increase employment opportunities.
• Kagera river is one of the main sources of water for residents living near the river. They hope that the Project will not jeopardize their access to the river.


• Some few residents are cultivating in the floodplain. For some locals, plots located in the floodplain is the only one they have. They hope they will keep access to those
plots of land.
Gabulanga village • The Project is seen positively as it will make power available for the whole region and increase employment opportunities.
• Kagera river is one of the main sources of water for residents living near the river. They hope that the Project will not jeopardize their access to the river.
land.
• Some private businessmen have installed local pumping systems. They hope they will still be able to use the Kagera river as they wish.

Annex 6-5 – TANESCO Invitation Letter for

Public Consultations in Feb. 2022

Annex 6-6 – PowerPoint Presentations Used

for Public Consultations in Feb. 2022

15/04/2022
Mradi wa Uzalishaji Umeme wa

nguvu ya maji wa Kakono mto
Kagera
Mikutano na Wadau
February 2022
ESIA for Kakono HPP – Public Consultation Meetings – February 2022 – Slide 1
MADHUMUNI YA MKUTANO HUU

• Muktadha:
› Tathmini ya athari za kimazingira & Kijamii kwa ajili ya mradi wa uzalishaji umeme wa Kakono ambayo
iliandaliwa mwaka 2016.
› Cheti cha Mazingira kilichotolewa Desemba 2016. Chenye uhalali wa miaka 3 ambayo imeshapita
› Tathmini za kimazingira zilizohuishwa mwaka 2020-2021 ili kukidhi matakwa ya viwango vya wafadhili wa
kimataifa
• Sisi ni kina nani?:

› Mmiliki wa mradi:
› Washauri elekezi wa masuala ya mazingira:
• Mradi utazingatia viwango vya kimataifa vya wafadhili wa mradi:
• Tuko hapa kwa ajili ya:

› Kuwasilisha mpango wa maendeleo ya mradi na kuhuisha masuala ya kimazingira na kijamii.
› Kusikia maoni yenu kuhusiana na mradi pamoja na mapendekezo yenu kwa ajili ya maendeleo chanya ya
kiuchumi
2
15/04/2022
KWANINI MRADI HUU?

• Mkakati wa Kitaifa:
› Kuwa na uhakika wa Nishati katika nnchi
› Kuwa na nishati mbadala ya bei nafuu
› Uthabiti wa usambazaji wa umeme kaskazini magharibi mwa Tanzania
• Ushirikiano na jamii kwa ajili ya maendeleo ya kiuchumi:

› Ahadi ya mradi ni: Watu watakuwa na maisha bora zaidi kutokana na Mradi kuliko
kutokuwa na mradi huu
› Ajira
› Uwekezaji katika jamii na miundombinu
4
15/04/2022
Businde
Mugaba &
Bugara
Missenyi Ranch
Mushabaiguru
Sugar cane
Reservoir
Dam
Sugar cane
Kitengule Ranch
Transmission Line
6
15/04/2022
Bunazi Kyaka
Kitengule Prison
KSC Camp 6
Transmission Line
Sugar cane
Kagera
River
Kitengule Ranch
KSC Camp 10
Dam
Reservoir
TAARIFA ZA MRADI
• Sehemu ya Umeme wa Maji (Hydropower component):
› Bwawa la urefu wa mita 60, lenye kuunda ziwa lenye ukubwa wa 17 km² (urefu wa kilomita
36).
› Uzalishaji wa ~ 524 GWh nishati safi kwa mwaka (~ watu 528,000)
› Bwawa – Kutakuwa na kingo kwa ajili ya kuzuia maji na kutoa maji (Kujaza maji itachukua
miezi 0.5 hadi 2)
› Barabara ya lami ya 28Km kutoka katika barabara kubwa iliyopo ya Kyaka – karagwe (B182)
› Kambi 1 ya makazi ya kudumu kwa ajili ya uendeshaji wa mradi.
• Sehemu ya Laini ya Usambazaji wa umeme:

› Njia ya kusafirisha umeme wenye msongo wa kV 220 wenye urefu wa kilomita 38.5 kutoka
kwenye bwawa hadi kituo kidogo cha kupokea na kupooza umeme kilichopo Kyaka
› Upana wa njia ya umeme utakuwa mita 35
8
15/04/2022
TAREHE MUHIMU
• Utwaaji wa ardhi utaanza mwaka 2023
• Shughuli za awali za ujenzi zitaanza 2023: Uchunguzi wa miamba na upimaji wa

ardhi ya mradi.
• Ujenzi utafanyika kwa kipindi cha miaka 4.5. Ujenzi umepangwa kuanza mwishoni
mwa 2023, itategemea kukamilika kwa makubaliano kati ya TANESCO na wafadhili
wa mradi.
• Kazi ya kuanza kujaza Bwawa la maji na kuanza kuzalisha umeme mwishoni mwa
2028
USHIRIKI WA UMMA & USHUGHULIKIAJI

WA MALALAMIKO
• TANESCO imedhamiria kuwa na ushirikiano wa kina na watu na jamii zinazoguswa
na mradi huu ili kuhakikisha kunakuwa na mashauriano na wanashiriki katika
utekelezaji wa mradi huu.
• Kabla na wakati wa ujenzi, Hili litafanyika kupitia:

- Mikutano ya hadhara
- Vituo vya kupata taarifa katika ofisi za TANESCO
- Mikutano ya ana kwa ana na wanaoguswa na mradi
- Mashauriano na serikali za vijiji
- Uwazi wa taarifa kupitia mtandao na vyombo vingine vya habari.
- Maafisa uhusiano na jamii wanaoishi katika bonde la mto Kagera.
10
15/04/2022
UTWAAJI WA ARDHI
• Jumla = 1,955 ha zinapaswa kuchukuliwa na Mradi / kwa taarifa za awali
› Kaya 84 zitapoteza ardhi, kati ya hizi kaya 8 zitapoteza nyumba zao (Kando ya njia
ya usafirishaji wa umeme).
› Taasisi ambazo zitaguswa kwa ardhi yake kuchukuliwa ni:
‒ Vijiji vya Kyaka (Njia ya umeme) na Mugaba, Bugara na Businde(Bwawa la
maji)
‒ Kiwanda cha sukari cha Kagera, gereza la Kitengule, NARCO
• Nyumba nyingi (93%) ambazo zitaguswa na ardhi zao kuchukuliwa zipo Kyaka.
• Malipo ya fidia yatafanyika kabla ya kutwaa ardhi (Mwaka: 2023)
• Tangazo la tarehe ambayo kaya zitakazoguswa zitalazimika kuondoka kwenye ardhi hiyo
litafanyika angalau miezi 3 baada ya malipo na kabla ya uchukuaji wa ardhi.
11
FIDIA & USAIDIZI

• Fidia kamili ya uchukuaji wa ardhi itafanyika kwa:
- Kaya zenye hati rasmi, au zenye Cheti cha Umiliki wa Kimila, au wenye Haki za Kimila za
Kukaa katika ardhi ya kijiji au kulima ambazo zimethibitishwa na Baraza la Ardhi la Kijiji.
• Kaya zisizo na hati yoyote kwenye ardhi zitalipwa kwa uendelezaji wa ardhi (mazao, miundo
na mali nyinginezo).
• Fidia italipwa kwa gharama kamili ya miundombinu, mazao na mali zote zitakazoathiriwa
na shughuli za mradi.
• Usaidizi kwa ajili ya kupata makazi mapya utatolewa kwa kaya zitakazohamishwa
(Programu ya Kujijenga + Ubainishaji wa viwanja kwa ajili ya ujenzi wa Nyumba
Zilizobomolewa kupisha mradi)
• Programu ya miradi ya kujikimu itatolewa kwa kaya zilizohamishwa makazi pamoja na zile
ambazo mashamba yake yatachukuliwa na mradi.
12
15/04/2022
UREJESHO WA SHUGHULI ZA KUJIKIMU (MIRADI

YA KUJIKIMU)
• Mradi utafanya zaidi ya fidia na kusaidia watu kurejesha shughuli zao za kilimo na
kiuchumi.
• Usaidizi wa Usimamizi wa Fidia ya Fedha Zilizopokewa na watakaoguswa na mradi.
• Msaada wa Kuboresha Shughuli Zilizopo za Kilimo:
› Msaada wa Kurejesha na Kuboresha Uzalishaji wa Mazao Uliopo
› Msaada wa Kuendeleza Uzalishaji Endelevu wa Mifugo
• Usaidizi wa Mipango ya Kutengeneza Vyanzo Mbadala vya Mapato:
› Uendelezaji wa Shughuli za Kiuchumi Nje ya kilimo.
› Kipaumbele katika ajira na mafunzo ya ujuzi
• Usaidizi katika kipindi cha mpito
13
AJIRA
• Ujenzi utachukua miaka 4.5
• Tunatarajia takribani ajira 1,000 wakati wa ujenzi, na ajira 30 wakati wa uendeshaji
wa mradi.
• Nafasi nyingi za ajira zitachukuliwa na Watanzania.
• Kutakuwa na ajira kama upishi, ulinzi, usafi, kufua, kazi za mkono, udereva,
kuongoza magari, wafanyakazi wa ofisini nk.
• Ajira zenye kuhitaji ujuzi lazima ziwe kulingana na sifa na Mradi utalenga kutoa
nafasi hizi kwa watanzania, ikiwa ni pamoja na wanawake.
• Kampuni itakayopewa kazi ya ujenzi itatoa mafunzo kazini kwa watu takribani 300
14
15/04/2022
UWEKEZAJI KATIKA JAMII

• Mradi upo kwa muda mrefu na una nia ya dhati katika maendeleo endelevu
ya eneo la bonde la mto Kagera.
• Kwa ushirikiano wa karibu na jamii, TANESCO itasaidia mipango mbalimbali

ya jamii wakati wa ujenzi na wakati wa uendeshaji wa mradi, kama vile:
- Kupata huduma za Afya na elimu katika vituo vya TANESCO
- Kuongeza mseto na tija ya shughuli za kilimo.
- Kusaidia na kukuza elimu kuhusiana na maji salama ya kunywa na usafi
• Mipango ya Uwekezaji katika Jamii itaanza mnamo 2024, baada ya tathmini

ya mahitaji kufanywa.
15
SAMAKI WA MTO KAGERA

• Mto Kagera ni makazi muhimu (kulingana na viwango vya kimataifa vya wafadhili) kwa sababu ya
kuwepo kwa aina kadhaa za samaki walio hatarini, wanaopatikana mto kagera tu na wanaohama
kwa msimu.
• Bwawa la Kakono litaathiri samaki kwasababu:

• Baadhi ya samaki wa asili wanaoishi katika Mto Kagera unaotiririka kwa kasi huenda
wasiweze kuzoea kuishi kwenye maji tulivu ndani ya Bwawa.
• Ukuta wa bwawa utazuia baadhi ya samaki kutembea huru kwenda upande wa juu na chini
ya mto ambao hutegemea kuhama kwa ajili ya kutaga na kusambaa.
• Samaki wa kigeni (kama vile sangara wa mto Nile) wanaweza kuletwa (kwa njia za asili au
zisizo za asili) kwenye Bwawa na kula samaki wa asili.
• Njia ya kupita samaki kwenye ukingo wa kushoto itawekwa.
• Mpango wa Usimamizi wa Uvuvi katika Bwawa utaandaliwa na kutekelezwa (mavuno endelevu ya

samaki, maeneo ya uvuvi, mahitaji ya vibali, vikwazo vya kufanya uvuvi katika msimu).
16
15/04/2022
Labeo victorianus (Ningu)
17
18
15/04/2022
TEMBO, VIBOKO & MAMBA

• Wakati wa ujenzi wa mabwawa, miundombinu na shughuli za mradi zinaweza kuwa kizuizi
kwa tembo, mamba na viboko katika Mto Kagera.
• Baada ya Bwawa kujazwa, tembo wanaweza kuogelea kwenye Bwawa na kuifikia ardhi ya
malisho na mashamba ya miwa kwenye ukingo wa kushoto na kusababisha migogoro.
• Tembo kwa vyovyote vile wana uwezekano wa kuwa tatizo linaloendelea kwenye ukingo wa
kulia wakati ambapo upanuzi wa shamba la miwa unafanyika, jambo ambalo linaweza
kusababisha migogoro.
• Viboko na mamba wanaotokea katika Mto Kagera katika eneo la bwawa na chini ya mkondo
wa mto hawatarajiwi kuathiriwa kwa kiasi kikubwa na Mradi na wana uwezekano wa
kuanzisha makazi kwenye hifadhi Bwawa (ambapo wanaweza kuleta shida kwa wakazi wa
eneo hilo).
19
MAGUGU MAJI
• Magugu maji yameenea katika Bonde la Mto Kagera na katika Ziwa Victoria, na
mara kwa mara husafirishwa hadi maeneo ya chini ya Mto Kagera.
• Baada ya maji kujazwa kwenye Bwawa, mkusanyiko wa magugu maji unatarajiwa

ndani ya Bwawa, na kuathiri kiwango cha oksijeni na kuongezeka kwa makazi ya
konokono wa kichocho.
• Mpango wa udhibiti wa magugu maji utatekelezwa: Magugu yataondolewa kwa

njia za kibaiolojia na kisayansi pia.
20
15/04/2022
Magugu maji
Source: Afrika21 @ https://www.afrik21.africa/
21
UBORA WA MAJI
• Mabaki ya viumbe hai na mimea iliyofurika kwenye bwawa utabadilisha ubora
wa maji kwenye bwawa, na katika Mto Kagera chini ya mkondo wa bwawa.
• Kutakuwa na ongezeko la viwango vya virutubisho na kupunguza viwango vya

oksijeni (ambayo inaweza kuathiri samaki).
• Kiwango cha mabadiliko ya ubora wa maji kitapungua kwa muda, na kwa

umbali wa bwawa katika Mto Kagera.
• Usafishaji wa mimea kwenye eneo la Bwawa kabla ya kujaza maji itapunguza

hatari hii.
22
15/04/2022
JIOMOFOLOJIA/MASHAPO
• Bwawa la maji itanasa ~ 60% ya mchanga wa mto.
• Hii itasababisha kupungua kwa kiwango cha mchanga maeneo ya chini baada ya Bwawa
• Matokeo ya uhifadhi wa mchanga kwenye bwawa ni pamoja na:
• Hii itasababisha kupungua kwa mchanga kwenye kingo za mto; kuongezeka kwa kina cha
mto katika kilomita 20 za kwanza chini ya bwawa katika miaka 10 hadi 20 ya kwanza.
› Kina cha mto kitaendelea kuongezeka zaidi maeneo ya chini ya mto kwa muda, na
kuathiri maeneo ya juu na chini ya Kyaka baada ya ~ miaka 10 hadi 75 na maji kufika
chini kwa kasi ndogo.
• Mkakati maalumu wa usimamizi wa mashapo/Mchanga utatengenezwa ili kupunguza
athari mbaya
23
MAJI JUU YA ARDHI & UJAZAJI WA

BWAWA
• Wakati wa kujaza Bwawa kutapunguza mtiririko wa maji maeneo ya chini ya
bwawa, na ukubwa utategemea kiwango cha kulijaza bwawa na msimu.
• Wakati wa uendeshaji wa mradi, Bwawa litaendeshwa kwa kuruhusu maji

yaendelee kupitq kama kawaida.
› Wakati wa uendeshaji wa kawaida wa mradi hakutakuwa na mabadiliko ya hali
ya mtiririko wa mto.
› Kutakuwa na mabadiliko katika hali ya mtiririko tu wakati wa kutoa mchanga
ambao umejilimbikiza kwenye Bwawa kwa muda mfupi kila baada ya miaka
michache.
• TANESCO itawashirikisha wadau ambao wapo maeneo ya chini ya mto kabla ya

operesheni yoyote ya bwawa ambayo itabadilisha hali ya mtiririko wa maji.
24
15/04/2022
HAKUTAKUWA NA KUFUNGA NA KUFUNGULIA

MAJI(NO HYDROPEAKING)
• Mradi ulichunguza uwezekano wa kuendesha Bwawa la umeme kwa njia ya
kufunga na kufungulia maji (k.m. asubuhi na jioni).
• Hali hii ya uendeshaji ingesababisha ongezeko au kupungua ghafla la maji la kila

siku katika vipindi fulani vya mwaka
• Tathmini za kimazingira na kijamii zilionyesha kuwa athari za kuongezeka kwa maji

kwa samaki na makazi ya watu maeneo ya chini ya mto zinaweza kutokea.
• Kutokana na hali hiyo, TANESCO imejitolea bila shaka kutoendesha mradi wa

Kakono HPP kama mtambo wa kuzalisha umeme kwa njia ya kufunga na kufungulia
majikuacha bwawa.
25
AFYA & USALAMA WA JAMII

• Mradi utatekelezwa kulingana na viwango bora vya afya na usalama vya kimataifa
kwa jamii na wafanyikazi.
• Hatari kuu ni:

› Wakati wa ujenzi, ongezeko la watu kutoka maeneo mengine wanaotafuta kazi
unatarajiwa, hii itaambatana na uwepo wa athari mbaya zinazohusiana na tabia
mbaya katika kijamii, ongezeko la shinikizo katika huduma za kijamii,
kuongezeka kwa magonjwa ya zinaa, na mfumuko wa bei katika eneo husika.
› Wakati wa uendeshaji wa mradi, hatari za kiafya zinahusiana na kuongezeka kwa
magonjwa yatokanayo na maji na uhamiaji wa wavuvi katika eneo kutokana na
kuundwa kwa hifadhi ya maji ya Kakono.
› Mpango wa elimu ya Afya utaandaliwa kabla ya ujenzi na kutekelezwa wakati wa
ujenzi na undeshaji wa mradi
26
15/04/2022
KWA HABARI ZAIDI NA MASWALI

• Tovuti: www.tanesco.co.tz
• Barua pepe: [email protected]
• Tembelea:
> TANESCO Ofisi zilizopo Kyerwa, Karagwe na Missenyi, au
> Wilaya au ofisi za mkoa za TANESCO Bukoba, na
> Wasilisha maoni/malalamiko kwa kuelekeza Mradi wa Kakono na
mawasiliano yako kwa ajili ya mrejesho.
• Simu:
+255 0262323456/7 na ulizia Meneja mradi wa Kakono wa TANESCO
27
MWISHO
28
15/04/2022
VIAMBATANISHO
29
30
15/04/2022
31
32
15/04/2022
33
34
15/04/2022
35
15/04/2022
Kakono Hydropower Project
Public Meetings
February 2022
PURPOSE OF THIS MEETING

• Context:
› Environmental & Social Impact Assessment study for the Kakono HPP prepared in 2016.
› Environmental permit issued in December 2016: validity of 3 years, which has now lapsed.
› Environmental studies updated in 2020-2021 to meet international lender standards
• Who we are:
› Developer:
› Environmental Consultants:
• The Project will comply with the standards of international funding agencies:
• We are here to:

› Present the Project's development plans and updated environmental and social issues.
› Hear your concerns about the Project and ideas for positive economic development.
1
15/04/2022
WHY THE PROJECT?

• National strategic importance:
- Energy independence of Tanzania
- Affordable renewable energy
- Stability of power supply in northwest Tanzania
• Partnership with local communities for economic development:

- Project commitment is: People will be better off as a result of the Project than without it
- Jobs
- Community investment and Infrastructure
2
15/04/2022
Businde
Mugaba &
Bugara
Missenyi Ranch
Mushabaiguru
Sugar cane
Reservoir
Dam
Sugar cane
Kitengule Ranch
Transmission Line
3
15/04/2022
Bunazi Kyaka
Kitengule Prison
Sugar cane
KSC Camp 6
Transmission Line
Sugar cane
Kagera
River
Kitengule Ranch
KSC Camp 10
Dam
Reservoir
PROJECT INFORMATION
• Hydropower component:
› 60-meter-high dam, creating a lake of 17 km² (36km length).
› Generation of ~524 GWh clean energy per year (~ 528,000 people)
› Reservoir operated with a Run-Of-River regime: reservoir inflow = reservoir
outflow, except during reservoir filling (0.5 to 2 months)
› 28-km asphalt access road from existing Kyaka-Karagwe regional road (B182)
› 1 permanent accommodation camp for operation.
• Transmission Line component:

› 38.5 km long 220 kV power transmission line
› From dam to the existing Kyaka sub-station
› 35 meter wide wayleave
4
15/04/2022
KEY DATES
• Land acquisition will start in 2023
• Pre-construction works in 2023: Geotechnical investigations and survey work
• Construction will last 4.5 years. Start of construction planned in late 2023, will
depend on agreement with international funding agencies.
• Scheduled reservoir filling and start of power generation: 2028
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION & GRIEVANCE

MANAGEMENT
• TANESCO is committed to a comprehensive engagement with affected people and
communities to ensure their informed consultation and participation takes place.
• Prior and during construction, this will be done through:
- Public meetings
- Information centers
- Face to face meetings with affected people
- Village Councils
- Transparency and wide access through website and media
- Community relations officers living in the Kagera valley
10
5
15/04/2022
LAND ACQUISITION
• Total = 1,955 ha have to be acquired by the Project.
› 84 households affected by loss of land, out of which 8 households will lose their
houses (along the Transmission Line).
› Institutions affected by loss of land are:
‒ Kyaka (Transmission Line) and Mugaba, Bugara and Businde (reservoir) villages
‒ Kagera Sugar, Kitengule Prison, NARCO (and sub-leasers)
• Most of households (93%) affected by loss of land are located in Kyaka.

• Payment of compensations before land acquisition by the Project (tentative date: 2023)
• Announcement of the date to which the affected households will have to vacate the
land at least 3 months in advance after payment of compensations
11
COMPENSATION & ASSISTANCE

• Compensation for land at full replacement cost for:
- Households with formal rights, or with Certificate of Customary Right of Occupancy, or
with undocumented Customary Rights of Occupancy residing on or farming village land
confirmed by the Village land council.
• Households without any rights on the land will be compensated for the improvements to
land (crops, structures and other assets).
• Compensation will be paid at full replacement cost for all structures, crops and assets lost.
• Resettlement assistance will be provided to physically displaced households (Self-Build

Programme + Identification of Plot for Replacement Houses)
• A Livelihood Restoration Programme will be provided to physically and economically

displaced households.
12
6
15/04/2022
LIVELIHOOD RESTORATION
• The Project will go beyond compensation and help people to restore their
farming and economic activities.
• Assistance for Management of Received Financial Compensation
• Support to Improve Existing Farming Activities:
› Assistance to Restore and Improve Existing Crops Production
› Assistance to Develop Sustainable Livestock Production
• Support for Initiatives to Develop Alternative Sources of Income:
› Development of Off-Farm Economic Activities
› Preferential Hiring and Skills Training
• Transitional Assistance
13
JOBS
• Construction is expected to last 4.5 years.
• We expect approximately 1,000 construction jobs, followed by 30 jobs during
operation.
• The majority of positions will be held by Tanzanian people.
• There will be jobs like catering, security, cleaning, laundry, manual labourers,
drivers, traffic controllers, office workers, for local people.
• Skilled and semi-skilled jobs have to be qualification-based and the Project will
target to offer these positions to a maximum of local people, including women.
• The construction company will provide on-the-job training for at least 300 people.
14
7
15/04/2022
COMMUNITY INVESTMENT
• The Project is here for the long-term and has a vested interest in the sustainable
development of the valley.
• In close participation with the communities, TANESCO will support local

initiatives during construction and operation, such as :
- Access to future TANESCO health center and school
- Increase diversification and productivity of agricultural activity
- Support and promote education of safe drinking water, sanitation & hygiene
(WASH)
• Community Investment initiatives will start with the main construction period,
after a needs assessment is conducted.
15
RIVER FISH
• Kagera River is critical habitat (based on international lender standards) because of the
presence of several species of threatened, restricted range and migratory fish.
• The Kakono Reservoir will impact fish because:

• Some native fish species that live in the fast flowing Kagera River may not adapt to
living in the still waters of the reservoir.
• The dam wall will prevent the free upstream and downstream movement of some
fish which rely on migration for spawning and dispersal.
• Alien fish (such as Nile perch) may be introduced (naturally or artificially) to the
reservoir and feed on native fish species
• A fish pass on the left bank will be integrated into the Project design.
• A Reservoir Fisheries Management Plan will be developed and implemented

(sustainable fish yields, fishing areas, permit requirements, restrictions on season).
16
8
15/04/2022
Labeo victorianus (Ningu)
17
18
9
15/04/2022
ELEPHANTS, HIPPOS & CROCS

• During dam construction, Project infrastructure and activities may pose a partial barrier
to movement of elephant, crocodiles and hippos along the Kagera River.
• After reservoir filling, elephants may be able to cross the reservoir to access the
ranching land and sugar cane plantations on the left bank and cause conflicts.
• Elephants are anyway likely to be an ongoing problem on the right bank as the sugar
cane plantation expands, which could result in persecution of problem animals.
• Hippopotamus and crocodiles which occur in the Kagera River in the reservoir area and
downstream are not expected to be significantly impacted by the Project and are likely
to become established in the reservoir (where they may pose a problem for local
residents).
19
WATER HYACINTH
• Water hyacinth is widespread in the Kagera River Basin and in Lake Victoria, and
is continually carried downstream in the Kagera River
• After reservoir filling, accumulation of water hyacinth is expected within the

reservoir, with potential consequences for dissolved oxygen levels and increased
habitat for bilharzia snails.
• Active and ongoing water hyacinth management will be implemented: floating

booms, biological and mechanical removal of aquatic hyacinth.
20
10
15/04/2022
Water Hyacinth
Source: Afrika21 @ https://www.afrik21.africa/
21
WATER QUALITY
• Biodegradation of flooded vegetation biomass in the reservoir will alter water
quality in the reservoir, and in Kagera River downstream of the dam
• There will be increased nutrient levels and lowered levels of dissolved oxygen
(which may impact on fish).
• Degree of water quality alteration will decrease over time, and with the
distance to the dam in the Kagera River.
• Reservoir vegetation clearing prior to reservoir filling will reduce this risk.
22
11
15/04/2022
GEOMORPHOLOGY
• Reservoir will trap ~60% of the river sediment load.
• This will cause reduced sediment load downstream of the dam.
• Consequences of sediment retention in the dam (and from upstream dams such as
Rusumo Falls and Kikagati) include:
› Reduced rates of floodplain sedimentation and floodplain fertility, riverbed
erosion and riverbed coarsening mainly along the first 20 km downstream of
the dam over the first 10 to 20 years.
› Riverbed erosion is likely to propagate further downstream over time, affecting
the areas upstream and downstream of Kyaka after ~10 to 75 years and lower
reaches at a slower rate.
• A sediment management program will be developed to minimize adverse effects
23
HYDROLOGY & RESERVOIR FILLING

• During reservoir filling there will be reduced flow downstream from the dam, and
the magnitude will be dependent on the rate of reservoir filling and the season.
• During operation, the Kakono reservoir will be operated as a run-of-river scheme

› During normal operation there will be no alteration to river flow conditions.
› There will be changes in flow conditions only during flushing of sediment that
has accumulated in the reservoir for a short period every few years.
• TANESCO will engage with downstream stakeholders prior to reservoir filling and
sediment management operation.
24
12
15/04/2022
NO HYDROPEAKING
• The Project examined the possibility to operate the reservoir with peaking power
releases (e.g. morning and evening).
• This operating mode would have caused sudden sub-daily increase and decrease of
river water level at certain periods of the year
• The environmental and social studies demonstrated that hydropeaking impacts on

fish and downstream aquatic habitats would be significant.
• As a result, TANESCO unequivocally commits to not operate the Kakono HPP as a

peaking power plant
25
COMMUNITY HEALTH & SAFETY

• Project will be implemented according to good international health and safety
standards for communities and workers.
• Main risks are:

› During construction:
‒ Traffic accidents
‒ Influx of job seekers: pressure on social services, increase in sexually
transmitted diseases or COVID-like diseases, local inflation.
› During operation, health risks are related to increased waterborne diseases
and in-migration of fishers due to the creation of the Kakono reservoir.
• A Community Health Awareness programme will be developed prior to
construction and implemented during construction and operation.
26
13
15/04/2022
INFORMATION AND QUERIES

• www.tanesco.co.tz
• Email:
› [email protected]
› To the attention of Kakono Project
• Visit:
› TANESCO Offices in Kyerwa, Karagwe and Misseny, or
› Districts or the TANESCO regional office in Bukoba, and
› Log your grievance to the attention of the Kakono Project, with your
contact details for the response.
• Tel: +255 0262323456/7 and ask TANESCO Project Manager of the Kakono Project
27
THE END
28
14
15/04/2022
APPENDICES
29
30
15
15/04/2022
31
32
16
15/04/2022
33
17
Annex 6-7 – ESIA Summary Distributed to

Village Councils & District Councils Ahead of
Public Consultations in Feb. 2022

Tathmini ya Athari ya Mazingirwa kutokana na Mradi Pendekezwa wa Kuzalisha Umeme kwa nguvu ya Maji wa Tathmini ya Athari ya Mazingirwa kutokana na Mradi Pendekezwa wa Kuzalisha Umeme kwa nguvu ya Maji wa
Kakono kiasi cha MW 87.8 Pamoja na Mradi wa Njia ya Usambaji wa Umeme wenye Msongo wa kV 220 wenye urefu Kakono kiasi cha MW 87.8 Pamoja na Mradi wa Njia ya Usambaji wa Umeme wenye Msongo wa kV 220 wenye urefu
wa km 38.5 wa km 38.5
MUHTASARI TENDAJI YALIYOMO
1 Utangulizi .................................................................................................. 1
2 Mfumo wa Sera, Sheria na Utawala ....................................................... 2

2.1 Mfumo wa Kitaifa ............................................................................................................................................ 2
2.2 Mfumo wa Kimataifa ...................................................................................................................................... 2
3 Maelezo ya Mradi na Uhalali Wake ......................................................... 3
4 Maelezo ya Mazingira ya Mradi............................................................... 6

4.1 Eneo la Utafiti - Mpangilio wa Jumla ............................................................................................................ 6
4.2 Mazingira ya Asilia........................................................................................................................................... 6
4.3 Mazingira ya Kibiolojia .................................................................................................................................... 7
4.4 Mazingira ya Kijamii na Kiuchumi .................................................................................................................. 8
5 Mradi Mbadala .......................................................................................... 9
6 Matokeo ya kulinganisha njia mbadala .............................................. 10
7 Athari Zinazoweza Kutokea ................................................................. 10

7.1 Athari chanya................................................................................................................................................. 10
7.2 Athari Hasi kwa Mazingira ............................................................................................................................ 10
7.3 Athari Hasi za Kijamii .................................................................................................................................... 13
8 Hatua za kupunguza/kuboresha na mipango ya ziada .................... 14
9 Mpango wa Kuhamisha Makazi ........................................................... 16
10 Athari zinazotarajiwa kubaki na Usimamizi wa hatari za kimazingira

................................................................................................................ 18
10.1 Athari za mabaki ........................................................................................................................................... 18
10.2 Usimamizi wa Hatari na Hali za Dharura .................................................................................................... 18
11 Tathmini ya Gesi Joto na Ustahimilivu wa Hali ya Hewa ................... 19

11.1 Uzalishaji wa Gesi Joto ................................................................................................................................. 19
11.2 Usitahimilivu wa Hali ya Hewa ..................................................................................................................... 19
Public Disclosure - 901.1.38_ESIA Kakono HPP_SUMMARY_Public Consultation_Swahili_18Jan2022 Public Disclosure - 901.1.38_ESIA Kakono HPP_SUMMARY_Public Consultation_Swahili_18Jan2022
wa km 38.5 wa km 38.5
12 Programu ya Ufuatiliaji......................................................................... 20
1 Utangulizi
13 Uhirikishwaji wa Wadau........................................................................ 21
Taarifa hii ni muhtasari wa Tathmini ya Athari ya Mazingira na Jamii (ESIA) iliofanywa mwaka 2021 kwa kwa
ajili ya Mradi wa Umeme wa Nguvu za Maji wa Kakono wenye uwezo wa 87.8 MW Pamoja na Mradi wa njia
14 Mpango wa Usimamizi wa Mazingira na Jamii ................................... 22 ya kusafirishia umeme wenye msongo wa kV 220 kwa kituo cha kupozea umeme kilichopo Kyaka (38.5 km),
mradi ambao umepangwa kutekelezwa na Shirika la Umeme nchini Tanzania (TANESCO). Muhtasari
unawasilisha sera, mfumo wa kisheria na utawala, maelezo ya kamili juu ya mradi ikiwa ni pamoja uhalali
15 Hitimisho ................................................................................................ 23 wake na uchambuzi yakinifu wa mbadala wa mradi, ikihusisha hali ya awali ya kimazingira na kijamii pamoja
na athari zinazotarajiwa na athari zitakazobaki baada ya kuweka hatua za udhibiti. Muhtasari wa hatua
zilizopendekezwa za kupunguza,madhara/athari, mpango wa ufuatiliaji, Mpango wa Usimamizi wa
Mazingira na Jamii, mashauriano ya umma, gesi jotona ubora wa hali ya hewa imewasilishwa.
Muhtasari huo utawekwa wazi wakati wa mashauriano ya umma yatakayofanyika Mwezi Februari 2022 ili
kuwapa wadau taarifa sahihi kuhusu mradi kama vile: (i) Shughuli za Mradi, (ii) athari tarajiwa kwa mazingira
ya asili na kwa jamii, na (iii) mpango mkakati ulioandaliwa na TANESCO ili kuepuka, kupunguza, au kufidia
athari mbaya, na kuongeza zile athari zenye matokeo chanya.
Rasimu ya kina ya nyaraka za ESIA zinapatikana mtandaoni kwa anwani ifuatayo:

• https://www.tanesco.co.tz/index.php/investments/environment-report?own=0
Mbali na shughuli za ushirikishwaji wa jamii ambazo tayari zimeshafanyika, wanajamii na wadau wengine
wanaweza kutoa maoni yao juu ya Mradi kwa kutumia anwani ifuatayo:
Mkurugenzi Mtendaji
TANESCO , S.L.P 453, Dodoma, Tanzania
Namba ya simu: +255 0262323456/7
www.tanesco.co.tz
Barua pepe: [email protected]
Public Disclosure - 901.1.38_ESIA Kakono HPP_SUMMARY_Public Consultation_Swahili_18Jan2022 Confidential - 901.1.38_ESIA Kakono HPP_SUMMARY_Public Consultation_Swahili_18Jan2022 Page 1 / 24
wa km 38.5 wa km 38.5
2 Mfumo wa Sera, Sheria na Utawala 3 Maelezo ya Mradi na Uhalali Wake

Lengo la jumla la Mradi ni kusambaza umeme wenye uhakika kaskazini magharibi mwa Tanzania na
2.1 Mfumo wa Kitaifa kusambaza umeme kwenye gridi/mkongo ya taifa.
Sheria kuu zinazohusiana na tathmini ya athari za mazingira nchini Tanzania na zinazotumika kwenye Mradi Mradi huu upo katika Mto Kagera ulioko kaskazin magharibi mwa Tanzania karibu na mpaka na Uganda,
huu ni: takriban kilomita 90 magharibi mwa Manispaa ya Bukoba (Tazama Kielelezo 1)
• Sera ya Taifa ya Mazingira (1997) ni waraka mkuu wa sera unaosimamia usimamizi wa mazingira Sifa kuu za mradi ni:
nchini Tanzania. Sera inahitaji tathmini ya athari za mazingira (EIA) kuwa ya lazima kwa miradi yote ya • Una urefu wa 284 m na kimo cha 60 m litakalotengenezwa kitaalamu kwa Roller Compacted
maendeleo ambayo inaweza kusababisha athari kubwa za mazingira. Concrete gravity na urefu wa mita 1,380 m ukiwa ni mawe makubwa (rockfill) upande wa kushoto na
• Sheria ya Usimamizi wa Mazingira (2004) inatoa mfumo wa kisheria na kitaasisi kwa usimamizi kulia kukiwa na nguzo (abutements) - (Angalia Mchoro 2).
endelevu wa mazingira. Sheria inatambua majukumu maalum, wajibu na kazi ya taasisi mbalimbali • Hifadhi yam aji yenye uwezo wa kutunza kiasi cha maji mita za ujazo milioni 150 itakyochukua eneo
ikiwa ni pamoja na: Kamati ya Ushauri ya Taifa; Mkurugenzi wa Mazingira; Baraza la Taifa la Usimamizi lenye ukubwa hekta 17,000.
wa Mazingira (NEMC) chini ya Ofisi ya Makamu wa Rais; sekta za Wizara, Sekretarieti za Mikoa; na
• Mtambo wa wa kuzalisha umeme wenye uwezo wa MW 87.8, utakaojengwa eneo la chini la bwawa.
Mamlaka za Serikali za Mitaa.
• Mradi huu utafanya kazi kama hifadhi kubwa inayoendeshwa kwenye mto na TANESCO imejitolea
• Sera ziingine muhimu ni: Sera ya Taifa ya Ardhi (1997), Sera ya Taifa ya Misitu (1998), Sera ya
kutoendesha mradi huo kwa kanuni za kila siku na mabadiliko ya kina cha maji kwenye bwawa
Wanyamapori na Maeneo Oevu (2007), Sera ya Taifa ya Maji (1991 / 2002), Sera ya Nishati (1992 /
(hydropeaking).
2003), Sera ya Maendeleo ya Makazi ya Binadamu ya Taifa (2000), na Dira ya Maendeleo ya Tanzania
2025 . Sheria nyingine zinazotumika ni pamoja na: Katiba ya Tanzania (Ibara ya 27), Kanuni za • Mtambo umeme utakuwa na sehemu vitengo 2 za kuingiza na kutia maji (Kaplan turbine) vyenye
Tathmini ya Athari kwa Mazingira na Ukaguzi (2005), Sheria ya Misitu (1957/ 2002), Sheria ya Uhifadhi uwezo wa kutoa 312 m3/ s.
wa Wanyamapori (1974/ 2009), Sheria ya Ardhi (1999), Sheria ya Ardhi ya Kijiji (1999), na Kanuni za • Lango la kutolea maji (sehemu ya kutolea maji) litakuwa na malango ya 3 yenye uwezo wa kutoa kiasi
Ardhi (2002). cha mita za ujazo 1,240 kwa sekunde (1,240m3/s)s (yaani, mafuriko tarajiwa ya kiasi cha juu zaidi).
• Tanzania pia imeridhia Mikataba mbalimbali ya Kimataifa juu ya mazingira ikiwa ni pamoja na Mkataba • Barabara mbili za kudumu katika pande zote mbili za Mto Kagera katika eneo la bwawa; barabara ya
wa Hifadhi ya Bioanuai (Convention on Biological Diversity) ya 1992, Mkataba unaohusiana na Maeneo lami yenye urefu wa km 28 kutoka barabara ya Kyaka-Karagwe iliyopo (B182)hadi ukingo wa kaskazini
Oevu yenye Umuhimu Kimataifa kama Makazi yaliyo pembezoni mwa Vyanzo vya mai safi (Waterfowl wa eneo la bwawa, na barabara yenye urefu wa mita 900 ya moramu kutoka barabara iliyopo ya
Habitat), "Mkataba wa RAMSAR" (1971), na Mkataba wa Uhifadhi wa Aina za Uhamiaji wa moramu (B181) hadi ukingo wa kushoto ya eneo la bwawa.
Wanyamapori, Mkataba wa Kimataifa wa Biashara katika Aina za Miti na wanyama zilizo hatarini • Kambi ya muda kwa ajili ya malazi ya wafanyakazi wa ujenzi wapatao 1,000 na kambi ya kudumu ya
(CITES), 1973, Mkataba wa Maliasili wa Afrika Mashariki, Pamoja na mkataba mingine. malazi kwa ajili ya uendeshaji wa Mradi inayojumuisha nyumba 20 kwa ajili ya usimamizi, vituo 24 vya
malazi kwa ajili ya wafanyakazi, kliniki, majengo kwa ajili ya huduma ya chakula na vinywaji na shule.
Tathmini ya athari za mazingira kwa sehemu ya Mradi wa Uzalishaji umeme kwa nguvu ya maji na tathmini
• Eneo kwa ajili ya Swichi ya kV 220 na km 38.5 kwa ajili ya Mradi wa usambazaji wa umeme kenda
ya athari za mazingira na za kijamii kwenye mradi wan jia ya usambazaji wa umeme iliandaliwa mwaka 2016
Kituo cha kupozea umeme cha Kyaka.
na kibali cha mazingira kutolewa na NEMC mnamo Desemba 2016 ikiwa na masharti ya njisi ya kutekeleza
mipango ya usimamizi wa mazingira wakati wa uendeshaji mradi. Tathmini ya athari za mazingira ya sasa
Kazi za ujenzi kwa sasa zimepangwa kuanza katika 2023 kwa muda wa miezi 52 kwa makadirio. Ujenzi wa
inahakikisha utekelezaji wa mradi unafuata sera za mazingira Taasisi za Kifedha za kimataifa ambazo ndizo
Njia ya kusafirisha umeme unakadiriwa kuwa takribani miezi 21.
Wakopeshaji wa Kimataifa kwa ajili ya uendeshaji Mradi (tazama hapa chini).
2.2 Mfumo wa Kimataifa

Benki ya Maendeleo ya Afrika (AfDB), Shirika la Maendeleo la Ufaransa (AFD), na Ubalozi wa Norway nchini
Tanzania wamefikiria kutoa msaada wa kifedha kwa ajili ya ujenzi wa Mradi huo. Mradi umewekwa katika
daraja A chini ya mahitaji ya sera ya AFD na AfDB, na kwa hivyo, tahmini ya mazingira ya kina (ESIA)
ikiambatana pamoja na mipango ya usimamizi ambayo imeandaliwa kulingana na viwango vifuatavyo:
• Undeshaji wa Benki ya Maendeleo ya Afrika (OS) – (The African Development Bank Operational
Safeguards (OS)).
• Orodha ya kutengwa kwa AFD Group katika nchi za kigeni (2017) – (Exclusion list for AFD Group in
foreign countries (2017)).
• Viwango vya Mazingira na Jamii vya Benki ya Dunia (ESS) – (The World Bank’s Environmental and Social
Standards (ESS)).
• Uendeshaji Mzuri wa IFC kuhusu Mikakati ya Mazingira, Afya, na Usalama kwa Miradi ya Umeme ya
Maji. – (The IFC Good Practice Note regarding Environmental, Health, and Safety Approaches for
Hydropower Projects)
• Kitabu cha Miongozo Bora juu ya Maji yanayopaswa kutiririka kwa ajili ya Mazingira wakati wa
Uendeshaji wa Miradi ya Umeme kwa nguvu za maji ya Benki ya Dunia – (The Good Practice Handbook
for Environmental Flows for Hydropower Projects of the World Bank Group).
Confidential - 901.1.38_ESIA Kakono HPP_SUMMARY_Public Consultation_Swahili_18Jan2022 Page 2 / 24 Confidential - 901.1.38_ESIA Kakono HPP_SUMMARY_Public Consultation_Swahili_18Jan2022 Page 3 / 24
Tathmini ya Athari ya Mazingirwa kutokana na Mradi Pendekezwa wa Kuzalisha Umeme kwa nguvu ya Maji wa Kakono kiasi cha 87.8 MW Pamoja na Mradi wa Usambaji 220 kV Tathmini ya Athari ya Mazingirwa kutokana na Mradi Pendekezwa wa Kuzalisha Umeme kwa nguvu ya Maji wa Kakono kiasi cha 87.8 MW Pamoja na Mradi wa Usambaji 220 kV
wenye urefu wa km 38.5 wenye urefu wa km 38.5
Kielelezo 1 – Mahali Mradi Ulipo Kielelezo 2 - Mpangilio wa Bwawa
Kakono kiasi cha 87.8 MW Pamoja na Mradi wa Njia ya Usambaji wa Umeme yenye Msongo wa kV 220 yenye urefu Kakono kiasi cha 87.8 MW Pamoja na Mradi wa Njia ya Usambaji wa Umeme yenye Msongo wa kV 220 yenye urefu
wa km 38.5 wa km 38.5
Maji ya juu ya uso wa ardhini: Bonde la Mto Kagera ni tawi kuu ya Ziwa Victoria. Lina eneo la la takriban
4 Maelezo ya Mazingira ya Mradi kilomita za mraba 60,000 na inachangia 34% ya maji yanayoingia Ziwa Victoria. Bonde hili linafahamika
kwa uwepo wa maziwa mapana yenye kina kifupi na maeneo yenye maji maji (swamps) juu ya eneo
pendekezwa hifadhi ya Kakono iliyoko Rwanda ambayo hurekebishwa mtiririko wa maji ya mto kwenye
eneo pendekezwa la bwawa. Kiasi cha maji yanayotiririka kwa mwaka katika bwawa pendekezwa la mradi
4.1 Eneo la Utafiti - Mpangilio wa Jumla ni 213 mita za ujazo kwa sekunde. Mtiririko wa juu wa msimu hutokea Aprili-Juni (msimu wa wakati wa
kiangazi) na kuwa na kiwango cha mtiririko wa mita za ujazo 250 kwa sekunde, na mtiririko wa chini wa
msimu hutokea Oktoba-Januari na Huwa na mtiririko katika anuwai ya mita za ujazo 180-200 kwa sekunde.
Eneo lililopendekezwa la bwawa na sehemu ya kutunzia maji lipo kwenye eneo la chini la Mto Kagera kiasi Miaka 10, miaka 100 na mafuriko ya miaka 10,00 yana viwango vya mtiririko wa 456, 722 na 810 m3/ s,
cha kilomita 30 (na urefu wa mto kilomita 58) sehemu ya juu ya mto katika kijiji cha Kyaka. Bwawa na hifadhi
kwa mtiririko huo. Kuna matawi mawili (Mwisa na Ngono Mto) ambazo zinaunga Mto Kagera kwa urefu wa
yam aji ziko ziko kwenye mto ambapo mwonekano wake hubadilika kutokana na uwepo maeneo
kilomita 250 kati ya eneo la bwawa lililopendekezwa na Ziwa Victoria. Wastani wa mtiririko wa maji wa kila
yanayofikiwa na mafuriko yaliyo pinda pindan a kutengeneza umbo “U” (river meanders). Eneo la Mto mwaka wa haya matawi ya mto mita za ujazo 43 kwa sekunde.
kutoka eneo la bwawa la baadaye hadi maji kufika ndani ya Ziwa Victoria ni kiasi cha kilomita 250 upande
wa chini wa mto inayosababishwa na uwepo wa maeneo yenye umbo “U” yaliyokatika kutoka katika Udongo na Mchanga : Kuna kiasi kikubwacha udongo uliorundikana katika Mto Kagera – kiai kikubwa kikiwa
mwelekeo wa mto kutokana na murundikano wa udongo kwenye eneo linalounga mto wenyewe na mkunjo kinapatikana wakati wa msimu wa mtiririko wa maji mengi. Eneo oevu kubwa lililoko katikati ya maeneo ya
wa mto baada ya kutengeneza njia nyingine (Oxbow Lake) na sehemu inayotenga maeneo makubwa oevu kukusanyikia maji hukusanya udongo na ichanga yote na hivyo kuna udongo na mchanga kidogo sana
yanayofurikwa na maji kwa musimu kwenye kila upande wa mto. kwenye eneo lililo chini ya eneo oevu. Kumekuwa na ongezeko la udongo pamoja na mchanga mwingi
unaosafirishwa na mto kwa zaidi ya miaka 30, hii inatokana na kuongezeka kwa mmomonyoko wa udongo
Ukingo sahihi kwenye eneo pendekezwa la bwawa la kuhifadhi maji limekaliwa na watu wachache likiwa na
usababishwao na ukataji miti na mvua kubwa. Hii imesababisha kuongezeka kwa kiasi cha udongo
mistu ya asili ya misitu ya wazi (woodland habitat) na maeneo ya ardhi yanayolimwa na wakazi wa eneo unaorundikwa kwenye eneo ambalo mto Kagera unaingia Ziwa Victoria.
hilo. Ukingo wa kushoto ya eneo la juu la hifadhi hiyo ni makazi ya asili na hutumiwa na Kampuni ya Ranchi
taTaifa kwa ajili ya malisho ya ng'ombe wa nyama, na eneo la chini ya hifadhi hiyo inamilikiwa na Kampuni Sura ya Eneo (Geomorphology): Bwawa lililopendekezwa lipo upande wa mwsho mwa urefu wa kilomita
ya Sukari ya Kagera (Kagera Sugar Estates Limited) na hutumika kwa ajili ya kilimo cha miwa. Kagera Sugar 200 za eneo la mto uliopinda pinda linalofikiwa na mafuriko. Eneo linalofikiwa na mafuriko ni jembamba
inatekeleza mradi wa upanuzi wa kingo ya kulia chini ya eneo pendekezwa la mradi wa umeme (HPP) upande wa juu ambapo hifadhi ya maji iliyopendekezwa itakuwa iko na kupanuka eneo la chini ya mto wa
ambayo itasababisha eneo kubwa lenye miti chini yae neo la mradi kufyekwa kwa ajili ya kilimo cha miwa. Kyaka hadi kufikia Ziwa Victoria. Eneo la chini ya Mto huo kuna mawemakubwa makubwa, changarawe na
Hii ni pamoja na kilomita kadhaa zitakazopimwa kwa ajili ya Mradi wa Njia ya kusafirisha umeme. mchanga, na kingo za mto zinaundwa na changarawe, mchanga, tifutifu na mfinyanzi. Jabali la udongo wa
kuletwa na maji lililoinuka liko chini ya eneo la mradi ambao linaweza kukabiliwa na mmomonyoko wa
Kuufikia Mto Kagera kiasi cha kilomita 56 kutoka eneo la juu kutoka eneo la bwawa lililopendekezwa ni udongo wakati wowote ule.
mpaka kati ya Tanzania na Uganda. Mto Kagera unavuka mpaka na kuingia Uganda kilomita 168 (urefu wa
mto) chini ya eneo lililopendekezwa la bwawa na maporomoko ya Mto Kagera yanapoingia katika Ziwa Ubora wa maji: Ubora wa maji ya Mto Kagera katika eneo la bwawa lililopendekezwa una sifa ya kuwa na
Victoria sehemu ya nchi ya Uganda. kiasi kikubwa cha virutubishi vinavyoingia kwenye ikolojia kwa muda pamoja na kuwepo kwa bakteria
wanaoonyesha kuwa kuna uchafusi wa maji kutokana na vinyesi ( faecal coliforms), ambayo inaweza kuwa
inasababishwa na uwepo wa shughuli za kibinadamu sana sana kwenye vyano vilivyoko juu. Eneo la juu la
4.2 Mazingira ya Asilia maeneo ya vyanzo vya maji hutumiwa kwa kilimo na kuna idadi ya watu wapatao milioni 16. Makazi mengi
hayana mifumo ya maji taka iliyo rasimi, hivyo uwepo wa maji machafu yasiyo yasiyotibiwa ni kawaida
Hali ya Hewa: Kuna msimu mkavu unaotokea mwezi Juni-Agosti, msimu wa mrefu wa mvua Februari-Mei, katika maeneo haya. Eneo kubwa la maziwa na maeneo oevu juu ya eneo la mradi inaweza kuwa ndio
na msimu mfupi-wa mvua Septemba-Novemba. Kipindi kifupi cha kiangazi hutokea kati ya Desemba na chanzo cha virutubisho. Joto la maji ya mto huonyesha mabadiliko madogo tu ya msimu na maji yana
Januari. Wastani wa mvua katika bonde hilo ni 1,000-1,200 mm kwa mwaka, unaojulikana kwa tofauti mkusanyiko mkubwa wa oksijeni.
kubwa ya mahali na ya muda: Mvua ya wastani ya hadi 1,800 mm kwa mwaka katika safu ya milima ya
magharibi nchini Rwanda na Burundi, na kushuka kwa kiasi kuelekea mashariki hadi 800 mm kwa mwaka.
Kuna mvua kubwa katika pwani ya magharibi ya Ziwa Victoria. Eneo hilo liko karibu na mstari wa ikweta na 4.3 Mazingira ya Kibiolojia
na hivyo joto halibadiriki mara kwa mara. Wastani wa joto la kila mwaka ni chini katika milima ya magharibi
na kaskazini magharibi mwa safu za Bonde la Kagera, kwa 15-18 °C, na hadi wastani wa 22 °C katika Samaki: Uchunguzi wa samaki na tathmini ya majini kwa mazingira iliyorekebishwa imeonyeshwa kuwa
sehemu ya kati ya bonde. Wastani wa kiwango cha chini hufikia 14.5 ° C na kiwango cha juu hufikia 27.5 ° C. eneo la Mradi uliopendekezwa ama moja kwa moja au kwa njia nyingine liko katika makazi muhimu kwa
samaki. Takribani aina 67 za samaki zimerekodiwa katika kilomita 520 za mto kati ya Ziwa Victoria nchini
Jiolojia: Eneo la bwawa lililopendekezwa na hifadhi iko katika strata ya kijiolojia yenye amana za zamani Uganda na Maporomoko ya Rusumo nchini Rwanda ambapo 32 yalithibitishwa katika eneo la kilomita 200
za milima tabaka inayopatikana kwenye mazingira ya ziwa pamoja na miamba inayojitokeza nje ya uso wa lililofanyiwa utafiti mwaka 2020 kama sehemu wa ukusanyi taarifa kwa ajili ya tahmini ya athari za
dunia. Amana hii ya miamba tabaka in unene unaotofautinana kutoka mita chache mpaka mita 50 zikiwa mazingira. Kuna aina 14 za samaki katika Mto Kagera wa chini ambazo zinasababisha eneo hili liiwe makazi
zimeundwa na hasa na mchanga na tifutifu(silt) ikiwa na mchanga wenye punje kubwa na mawe makubwa
muhimu: aina tatu zilizo hatarini sana ambazo moja ya Labeo victorianus (ningu) imethibitishwa katika eneo
(cobbles). Chini ya eneo oevu la Kagera (chini kutoka eneo pendekezwala bwawa kuelekea ziwa Victoria, lililopendekezwa la hifadhi na eneo la juu na chini ya mto; aina 7 zilizozuiliwa zilizothibitishwa katika makazi
limefunikwa na mawe yenye asili ya mchanga (sandstone). ya slackwater ya eneo la Mradi linalojumuisha aina tano za barb ikiwa ni pamoja na aina nne zisizojulikana
Tetemeko la Ardhi:Tukio la matetemeko ya ardhi katika eneo la Mradi linasababishwa na uwepo wa Bonde za Enteromius, aina ya catlet isiyojulikana (Zairechthys sp nov.), na aina mbalimbali zilizozuiliwa za cyprinid
la Ufa la Mashariki la Afrika,ambalo kwa sasa ni eneo hai zaidi la mgawanyiko/kuvunjika kwa ehemu ya uso (Labeobarbusacuticeps),na aina tano za Samaki wahamao kutoka eneo moja kwenda linguine (nne ambazo
wa dunia. Mradi uko katika tawi la magharibi la mfumo wa ufa na katika eneo la Mradi uliopendekezwa zimethibitishwa kuwepo katika eneo la Mradi).
ukubwa wa Richter uliosajiliwa unaofikia kiasi cha 3-5.
Makazi ya nchi kavu na mimea: Mradi uliopendekezwa uko katika eneo ambalo limefanyiwa tahmini kama
Maji ya chini ya ardhi: Bwawa pamoja na hifadhi ya maji iliyopendekezwa yako juu ya mwamba wenye maji Makazi ya Asili kwa ekolojia ya nchi kavu (ardhini) na aina 7 za uoto wa asili na aina 425 za mimea. Hakuna
wa Kagera unaoundwa na mawe yaliyovunjika vujika. Mwamba wenye maji wa Kagera in mwendelezo wa mimea iliyohatarini iliyopatikana wakati wa tafiti za bayoanuai kwa tathmini ya athari za mazingira
mwamba unaojumuisha eneo lenye kilomita za mraba 5,800 linalopitia maeneo ya Tanzania na Uganda. iliyorekebishwa. Aina za mimea zinapatikana kwa kiasi kikubwa ni mimea ya acacia aaina Vachellia, nyasi
Chanzo cha maji ya ardhini ni hasa kutokana na maji ya mvua yanayoingia ardhini, vilevile ubora wa maji ya zilizo kwenye eneo lenye miamba, mimea inayopatikana oneo oevu kwenye uwanda wa mafuriko, misitu
ardhini kwa ujumla ni mzuri. Unene wa mwamba wenye maji hutofautiana kati ya mita 10-20 na visima iliyo katika uwanda wa mafuriko, misitu iliyo kando kando mwa vanzo wa maji na msitu wa skafu.
mara nyingi huchimbwa kwa kina cha mita100-200 .
wa km 38.5 wa km 38.5
Mamalia wakubwa: Tembo wa Kiafrika (hivi karibuni wameorodheshwa kama wanyama walio katika Hatari Afya: Kutokana na ukosefu wa rasilimali, katika eneo la Mradi, vituo vya afya sio bora: muga mrefu wa
na IUCN) kwa kawaida huonekana katika eneo karibu na eneo la bwawa na hifadhi lililopendekezwa na kusubiri huduma, utoaji wa huduma za afya za kiwango kisicho bora, miundombinu ya zamani, udhibiti
inaaminika huhamia kutoka hifadhi za karibu na Mto Kagera, wakitembea kuptia kando ya barabara ya mdogo wa magonjwa na njia duni za kuyazuia. Maambukizi ya ma magonjwa ya mfumo wa kupumua wa
inayopita eneo la bwawa na kuelekea kwenye misitu kando ya kingo za kulia za mto. Inaripotiwa kuwa juu, malaria, maambukizi ya njia ya mkojo na kuhara yalikuwa magonjwa ya kawaida katika eneo la Mradi
imeenea zaidi na kuzaliana ikiwa takriban idadi ya tembo 30 waliothibitishwa wakati wa utafiti wa 2021. mwaka 2019. Mkoa wa Kagera ni moja ya mikoa yenye hatari kubwa ya malaria nchini Tanzania na malaria
Viboko na mamba pia wapo katika eneo hilo. Wanyama kama Mbawala (pongo), tohe na funo wanapatikana ni chanzo kikuu cha maradhi na vifo, hasa kwa watoto wenye umri chini ya miaka mitano na wanawake
katika maeneo ya mradi. wajawazito. Takwimu kutoka 2018 zinaonyesha kuwa maambukizi ya VVU ni 6.1% kati ya idadi ya watu
wenye umri wa miaka wa 15-49, ambayo ni juu ya wastani wa kitaifa wa 4.7%. Maambukizi ya VVU ni
Ndege: Kati ya aina 623 za ndege zinazojulikana kutokea katika misitu ya Victoria Basin Forest Savanna
makubwa kati ya wanawake (7.6%) kuliko wanaume (6.1%). Kwa kushangaza, hakuna rekodi za kichocho
ecoregion, aina 285 zilirekodiwa wakati wa utafiti wa bayoanuai wa tathmini ya athari za mazingira. Aina
kutoka kliniki ya huko Kagera Sugar au Bunazi. Hii inaweza kutokana na mtiririko wa haraka wa maji katika
muhimu ni pamoja Korngo taji kijivu aliye hatarini kutoweka, tiva mafunjo (papyrus gonolek) wanaopatikana
Mto Kagera ambao unazuia makazi kwa konokono wanaohifadhi hao wadudu wasasbabishao kichocho na
kwenye uwanda wa mafuriko na aina 4 ya ndege wala nyama wanaopenda kuishi kwenye misitu, ikiwa
mdogo ya binadamu kugusana na maji haya kutokana na hatari za mto huu kama vile kina kikubwa, kasi
ambao ni pamoja tumbusi kapuchini (hooded vulture) aliyehatarini Zaidi, tai tumbusi ngusha (lappet-faced
kubwa ya maji na uwepo wa viboko na mamba.
vulture) aliye hatarini kutoweka; na tai nyika (steppe eagle) na tai pungu (bateleur eagle). Kutokana na
mgawanyo mpana wa spishi hizi na upatikanaji mdogo na kutokuwepo kwa uthibitisho wa maeneo ya Lugha, dini na kabila: Ukristo na Uislamu ni dini mbili kuu katika eneo hilo na wengi wao ni Wakristo. Hata
mazalia katika eneo la mradi, hakuna ndege aliyeripotiwa kuhitaji makazi maalumu. hivyo, kuna wadu wanaoabudu miungu yao ya asili (animist) kama vilewanyama, mimea, mito, milima,
nyota, mwezi na jua. Idadi kubwa ya watu ni wa asili ya wa bantu wa Afrika, na makabila yaliyopo katika
Eneo lililohifadhiwa: Maeneo ya bwawa lililopendekezwa na hifadhi na mto wa chini yanayoathiriwa na Mradi
maeneo haya ni Wahaya na Wanyambo,ambayo kila moja ina lugha yao ya asili ikiwa ni Kihaya na Ki-
hayaingii kwenye maeneo ya hifadhi. Maeneo ya hifdhi yaliyo karibu na eneo la Mradi yanahusisha Hifadhi
Nyambo. Kiswahili ni lugha inayowaunganisha kwa pamoja. Makabila mengine ni pamoja na Wasukuma,
ya Taifa ya Burigi-Chato (kilomita 78 upande wa kusini) na Hifadhi ya Taifa ya Rumanyika-Karagwe (kilomita
Wahangaza na Wasubi ambao hupatikana katika eneo la Mradi. Hata hivyo, wanawakilisha wachache
21 upande wa magharibi). Hifadhi hizi zote mbili tangazwa katika gazeti la serikali 2019 na zinajumuisha
waliokatika eneo hili. Kuna wahamiaji wachache wa kisheria kutoka Rwanda na Uganda ambao
maziwa ya ndani, mito, maeneo oevu na aina mbalimbali za uoto wa asili. Hifadhi ya Msitu wa Minziro
wanazungumza lugha zao za asili, na hawajui Kiswahili.
(iliyoko takribani kilomita 120 kutoka Mradi) ni Eneo muhimu la Ndege ambalo kwa kiasi kikubwa
linajumuisha misitu ipatikanayo kwenye maeneo oevu (maeneo yenye maji maji) na mafuriko na unapakana Jinsia: Wanakijiji katika eneo la Mradi wanaishi katika jamii za jadi na mazoea ya mfumo dume ambapo mara
upande wa magharibi wa Mto Kagera wa chini na Hifadhi ya Msitu wa Kikuru upande wa mashariki. Kuna chache yamekuwa yakifichuliwa kutokana mabadiliko ya kijamii. Women wanaweza kushiriki katika
uwezekano kwamba samaki wanaohama, kama vile Labeo victorianus iliyo hatarini sana wanaweza masuala ya kijamii lakini hawahusiki katika shughuli za kiuchumi na wanaume huchukua maamuzi yote ya
kupandwa katika eneo hili. Takribani kilomita 168 kutoka eneo la bwawa lililopendekezwa, linaloenea kaya.
kutoka mpaka wa Tanzania na Uganda hadi sehemu ya Mto Kagera inayoingia ziwani liko kisiwa cha Sango
Watuwalio katika mazingira magumu: Watu walio katika mazingira magumu wamefanyiwa tathmini na
Bay-Musamwa- Mfumo Oevu wa Kagera, Eneo la Ndege la Kimataifa na eneo la Ramsar ambalo ni muhimu
kjukuisha kaya ambayo (i) inayoongozwa na mtu mwenye umri wa zaidi ya miaka 50 na haina chanzo
kwa maeneo yake ya mafuriko katika maeneo oevu na maisha ya ndege.
chochote cha kujipatia chakula (ii) inayoongozwa na mtu mwenye ulemavu, na haina chanzo chochote cha
kujipatia chakula (iii) inayoongozwa na mwanamke; na (iv) inayoongozwa na mtu asiye na ardhi. Utafiti wa
4.4 Mazingira ya Kijamii na Kiuchumi kijamii na kiuchumi uliofanywa wakati wa tathmini ya athari za mazingira iliyorekebishwa uligundua kuwa
25% ya kaya zilizofanyiwa utafiti ziko katika mazingira magumu.
Mfumo wa Utawala: Eneo la Mradi lililopendekezwa linachukua ardhi ambayo ni ya wilaya za Kyerwa, Urithi wa kitamaduni: Hakuna maeneo ya urithi wa kitamaduni wa kitaifa au kimataifa katika eneo hilo. Hata
Karagwe na Missenyiikiwa ni eneo linaloundwa na mamlaka ya Kata 6 na vijiji 11. hivyo, kuna maeneo ya urithi wa kitamaduni ambayo hawana utambuzi wa kitaifa au kimataifa kama vile
Idadi ya watu: Idadi ya watu katika eneo lililopendekezwa kwa ajili ya ujenzi wa la bwawa na hifadhi ya maji makaburi na maeneo ya matambiko.
ni takriban watu 16,000, ambao wanatoka vijiji vya Mushabaiguru, Bugara, Mugaba na Businde na kambi ya
kazi ya Kagera Sugar Kifaru. Katika eneo la mradi wa njia ya kusafirishia umeme, idadi ya watu imejikita
katika kijiji cha Kyaka, ambapo kuna watu wapatao 3,000. Eneo la mto Kagera lenye urefu upatao kilomita
90 lililoko chini ya eneo pendekezwa kwa ajili ya ujenzi wa bwawa lina idadi ya watu wapatao 6,000
wanaoishi katika kambi za wafanyakazi wa Kagera Sugar na kwa chini zaidi watu34,000 wanaoishi katika
5 Mradi Mbadala
vijiji 7. Hakuna makazi yaliyo karibu zaidi na eneo pendekezwa kwa ajili ya ujenzi wa bwawa au kando ya
barabara ya iliyopangwa kwa ajili ya kulifikia eneo la mradi. Usafirishaji wa umeme ni sehemu pekee ya Mradi
ambayo inavuka viunga vya Kyaka ambapo inaunganisha na kituo cha kupozea umeme kiichopo Kyaka. Kutofanya uchaguzi wa mradi (Do nothing option): Kama mradi wa Kakono wa uufuaji wa umeme kwa
nguvu za maji (HPP) hautajengwa, chaguo hili litasababisha kuendelea kwa hali ya sasa ya kutokuwa na
Matumizi ya ardhi na umiliki wa ardhi: Kuna ardhi kubwa katika Mradi uliopendekezwa ambao hutumiwa umeme wa kutosha unaosafirishwa kutoka mikoa mingine hadi kaskazini magharibi mwa Tanzania, na
kwa ajili ya kupanda miwa na kwa malisho ya mifugo. Ardhi iliyobaki ni makazi ya asili na baadhi ya maeneo kusababisha gharama kubwa ya upatikanaji wa umeme, ongezeko la umaskini, magonjwa, ukataji miti
madogo madogo yaliyopandwa na wana kijiji. Ardhi katika eneo hilo inamilikiwa na kampuni ya sukari ya unaoendelea, na uchafuzi wa hali ya hewa. Mchango wa maendeleo ya kiuchumi na kielimu
Kagera, Kampuni ya Taifa ya Ranchi, gereza la Kitengule na ardhi inayomilikiwa na kimila ambayo ni wamiliki unaosababishwa na uzalishaji wa umeme wa uhakika hautaweza kufikiwa.
wachache tu ndio wana hati ya kumiliki ardhi.
Teknolojia mbadala: Serikali ya Tanzania inahamasisha uwekezaji katika miradi ya nishati mbadala. Miradi
Elimu: Utafiti wa kijamii na kiuchumi uliofanywa wakati wathmini ya athari za mazingira kwa ajili ya mradi ya nishati ya upepo na nishati ya jua inaendelezwa katika mikoa mingine ya Tanzania lakini sio mikoa ya
huu umegundua kuwa kaya zilizoathiriwa na Mradi zimefikiwa na shule, lakini 21% haijawahi kuhudhuria kaskazini magharibi kwa sababu mzingira yake sio mazuri kwa ajili ya uwekezaji huo. Pamoja na hayo,
shule, na ingawa 57% ilimaliza shule ya msingi tu na 14% wamehitimu shule ya sekondari gharama ya kusafirisha umeme unaozalishwa na teknolojia ya nishati mbadala kutoka mahali pengine
nchini Tanzania kwenda mikoa ya kaskazini magharibi mwa Tanzania itakuwa ni ya juu zaidi na ugavi wa
meme utakuwa si wa uhakika. Kuna mitambo kadhaa ya kuzalisha umeme unaotokana na mabaki ya wa
nyamana mimea nchini Tanzania, lakini hazijaunganishwa kwenye mkongo wa taifa na serikali haiiendelezi
mitambo ya aina hii. Rasilimali za karibu za umeme wa jotoridi (geothermal) zilizoko kusini magharibi mwa
Tanzania na mbali sana na mikoa ya kaskazini magharibi kuiwezezesha kuwa mbadala unayofaa. Nguvu ya
wa km 38.5 wa km 38.5
mafuta sio mbadala unayofaa kwa sababu ya uzalishaji mkubwa wa gesijoto (gesi ukaa) ikilinganishwa na Ubora wa Maji: Mabaki ya wanyama na mimea yaliyooza na kuchukuliwa na maji hadi eneo karibu na hifadhi
umeme wa maji. ya maji itachangia kuathiri ubora wa maji kwenye bwawa na eneo la chini ya mkondo, lakini kwa kiwango
kidogo kuondoa cha mabaki ya mimea kabla ya mafuriko. Usanifu unaonyesha kuwa kutakuwa na
ongezeko la virutubisho na kupungua kwa kiwango cha hewa ya oksijeni iliyondani ya maji (Kwango hicho
6 Matokeo ya kulinganisha njia mbadala cha hewa ya oksijeni iliyokwenye maji itazidi kidogo viwango vya juu vinavyoweza kuleta athari kwa samaki).
Kiwango cha mabadiliko kitapungua kadri ya muda, na kurekebisha hadi kufikia viwango vya chini vya awali
baada ya miaka 10 hadi 15.
Eneo mbadala la bwawa: Lengo la Mradi ni kutoa umeme kwa mikoa ya kaskazini magharibi na Mto Kagera Jiomofolojia (Hali ya Mwonekano): Hifadhi ya bwawa inayopendekezwa inatabiriwa kunasa asilimia sitini ya
ni mto muhimu ambapo maeneo makubwa yanayowezesha uzalishaji wa umeme wa maji yanapatikana. shehena ya udongo na mchanga wa mto, na kusababisha kupungua kwa mchanga chini ya mto. Hii inaweza
Hata hivyo, maeneo mbadala yangesababisha gharama kubwa za ujenzi kwani maeneo mengine ya Mto kusababisha kupungua kwa viwango vya mchanga wa uwanda wa mafuriko wa mto na rutuba ya eneo la
Kagera ya chini haya mabonde meembamba ambayo bwawa linaweza kujengwa. uwanda wa mafuriko, mmomonyoko wa udongo na kupanda kwa ukanda wa chini kwenye kilomita 20 za
kwanza chini ya bwawa katika kipindi cha miaka 10 hadi 20 ya kwanza. Upasukaji/ukatikaji wa ukanda wa
Kiwango mbadala cha maji ya hifadhi: Kulijenga bwawa lililopendekezwa eneo la chini zaidi kuliko lilipo au
chini ya mto unaweza kuenea zaidi chini ya mkondo baada ya muda, na kuathiri maeneo ya juu na chini ya
kuongeza kimo cha bwawa kutaongeza kiwango cha maji ya hifadhi na kuruhusu ongezeko la uwezo wa
mto Kyaka baada ya miaka 10 hadi 75 na kufikia chini kwa kasi ndogo. Mmomonyoko wa upande wa ukingo
uzalishaji wa umeme. Hata hivyo, njia hii mbadala haiendani na Mradi wa umeme wa Nsongezi (Nsongezi
wa mto wa ukubwa wa mita kadhaa kwa miongo kadhaa unaweza kufuata. Mchakato huu una uwezekano
HPP) ambayo imejengwa eneo la juu kilomita 56 na itasababisha mafuriko makubwa kwenye barabara za
wa kuanza katika kilomita 20 za kwanza chini ya bwawa na inawezekana kuendelea chini ya mto baada ya
umma, makazi na athari zisizo za kawaida nchini Uganda.
muda, na kuathiri maeneo ya juu na chini ya mto Kyaka. Sehemu ya Mto Kagera inayoingia Ziwa Viktoria
Njia mbadala ya Kusafirisha Umeme: Njia iliyopendekezwa yakusafirisha umeme iko kwenye ukingo wa kulia huenda iukapokea mchanga kidogi kutoka kwenye Mto Kagera. Hata hivyo, mmomonyoko wa ukingo wa
wa Mto Kagera, njia mbadala ni kujenga njia ya usambazaji kwenye ukingo wa kushoto. Hata hivyo, hii ina mto inaweza kuchangia upunguaji huo wa mrundikano wa udongo/mchanga huo kwa kiasi fulani.
hatari ya kusababisha uhamishaji wa makazi ya watu pamoja na njia za kiuchumi katika maeneo ya Kyaka.
Samaki na makazi muhimu: Athari mbaya inayotarajiwa ya bwawa na hifadhi ya maji ni athari kwa samaki.
Kutakuwa na haja ya kuwa na sehemu mbili za kuvuka mto ambayo itaongeza athari kwa ndege ikiwa ni
Tathmini ya athari kwa mazingira na jamii inaonesha kuwa Mto Kagera ni makazi muhimu kwa sababu ya
pamoja na tai walio hatarini na walio hatarini zaidi (Endangered and Critically Endangered vultures).
kuwepo kwa aina kadhaa za samaki zilizopo hatarini, aina zinazopatikana kweny eeneo fulani na samaki
Njia mbadala ya uendeshaji: Miundombinu inayopenekezwa imesanifiwa kuutumia kiasi cha maji wanaohama. Kuwepo kwa bwawa kunaweza kuwa kikwazo kwa uhamaji wa msimu wa mkondo wa juu wa
kinachotiririka kwenye mto (run-of-river scheme). Njia mbadala itakuwa kufanya kazi na kanuni ndogo ya mto na chini ya ya mkondo wa mto kwa ajili ya kulisha na mazalia ya samaki kadhaa wanaohama, ikiwa ni
kila siku ambayo itaruhusu masaa kadhaa kwa siku ya uzalishaji wa wa juu. Hata hivyo, hii inaweza pamoja na Ningu (Labeo victorianus) iliyo hatarini kutoweka. Kujengwa kwa hifadhi ya Kakono kutabadilisha
kusababisha athari kubwa za mazingira kwenye ikolojia ya chini ya mto na kusababisha athari za inayovuka makazi ya maji yanayotiririka kuwa makazi ya maji yaliyo tuama na hii inaweza kuathiri aina fulani ya samaki
mipaka kwa Uganda. Kutokana na hali hiyo, TANESCO imejidhaatiti kutoendesha mradi wa Kakono Kwa vile Kimanda (Enteromius barbs) (ambao hawapatikani sehemu yyote nyingine). Kuna uwezekano kwamba
kuzalisha umeme wa kiwango cha juu au kwa aina yoyote ya kanuni ndogo za kila siku. wavuvi wa ndani au wajasiriamali wataingiza samaki aina ya Sangara (Lates niloticus) (Aina ngeni vamizi)
kwenye hifadhi ya maji ya Kakono ili kuunda eneo la uvuvi na sangara angeweza kuwala aina nyinginezo za
samaki wa asili waliopo. Matokeo ya kunaswa na kukwama kwa mashapo kwenye bwawa na hifadhi ya maji
(tazama hapo juu) inaweza kuharibu makazi ya samaki na kupunguza kiasi cha samaki na ndege na
7 Athari Zinazoweza Kutokea mawindo chini ya mto. Sehemu za hifadhi ya maji ya Kakono na urefu wa kilomita 10 kufikia chini ya Mto
Kagera zinatarajiwa kuwa na viwango pungufu vya oksijeni kwenye maji (4-5 mg/l) kwa sababu kiasi cha
oksijeni kilichopo kwenye maji hutumiwa na mimea iliyofunikwa na maji karibu na eneo la hifadhi na hii
inaweza kuathiri aina nyingi za samaki ambazo hazistahimili viwango vya chini vya hewa ya oksijeni kwenye
maji.
7.1 Athari chanya
Uoto na mimea: Ujenzi wa bwawa na ujazaji wa hifadhi ya maji utaathiri moja kwa moja takribani hekta
The Project will stabilise power supply in northwest Tanzania and supply electric power to the national grid. 1469 za makazi asilia, wakati huo huo hekta 655 za ziada zinaweza kuathiriwa na barabara, machimbo na
The improved supply of electricity will enhance economic development and quality of life and reduce the miundo mbinu mingine. Hii pia ni pamoja na hekta 26 za barabara ya lami ya kilometa 28 na hekta 73
use of charcoal (and associated deforestation, soil erosion and GHG emissions). The Project will create kwenye njia ya kusafirishia umeme. Asilimia 60 ya maeneo yaliyoathirika yana misitu ya Vachellia yenye
approximately 1,000 direct employment opportunities during the construction phase, and this will generate ukubwa wa hekta 1452, ikifuatiwa na eneo la nyasi lililo na miamba lenye ukubwa wa hekta 202, maeneo
indirect employment opportunities that will benefit local communities and stimulate long-term economic oevu kwenye uwanda wa mafuriko yenye hekta 187, kichaka kilichopo katika uwanda wa mafuriko chenye
development in the area. The Kakono reservoir will have a potential for development of fisheries (if the risk ukubwa wa hekta 161.5, misitu kando kando ya mto/kichaka chenye hekta 86 na msitu ya skafu yenye
of alien fish species on indigenous biodiversity can be adequately managed). ukubwa wa hekta 35.6. Kati ya hizi, ni misitu au vichaka vilivyopo kando ya mto na msitu wa skafu pekee
ndizo zilizotathiminiwa kuwa na umuhimu mkubwa wa kiikolojia kwa vile ni z asili kwa kiasi, pia zinauwezo
mdogo wa kustahimili mabadiliko, na kusaidia aina mbalimbali za wanyama zinazohusika na uhifadhi.
7.2 Athari Hasi kwa Mazingira Nyingine ni za umuhimu wa kati wa kiikolojia. Aina nyingine a mimea zina umuhimu wa ikilojia wa kati. Aina
zote za jamii ya mimea zinawakilishwa katika maeneo mengine yaliyoko juu na chini mtambo wa kufua
Maji ya juu ya uso wa ardhini: Sehemu ya hifadhi ya bwawa itaendeshwa kama hifadhi kubwa kufuatana na umeme kwa kutumia nguvu ya maji wa Kakono na hakuna mimea iliyo ya kipekee katika eneo litaloathiriwa
mpango wa mto, na wakati wa operesheni ya kawaida hakutakuwa na mabadiliko ya hali ya mtiririko wa na mradi. Wakati wa uendeshaji wa bwawa la la kuhifadhia maji, mmomonyoko wa kingo (ulioelezewa hapo
mto. Hata hivyo, wakati wa kujaza hifadhi ya maji kutakuwa na kupungua kwa mtiririko wa mto chini kutoka juu) ungesababisha uharibifu na upotevu wa makazi yaliyopo pembezoni mwa uwanda wa mafuriko wa mto
kwenye bwawa, na kiwango cha kupungua kwa maji kitategemea kiwango cha maji kinachohitajika ili karibu na kingo za mto. Hii pia huathiri moja kwa moja mimea iliyo katika eneo la uwanda wa mafuriko kama
kujaza hifadhi ya maji na msimu husika. Bwawa hilo lina sehemu ya chini inayoruhusu maji ya hifadhi vile miti mikubwa ya acacia aina ya Vachellia Kirkii ambayo haina mizizi mirefu na hupoteza virutubisho vya
kuachiliwa kwa haraka kwa sababu za kiusalama. Katika tukio hili mtiririko wa Mto Kagera chini ya mkondo mimea, hivyo husababisha mmea kukauka
wake unaweza kuongezeka kwa siku kadhaa ambapo jambo hili hutokea kwa nadra sana na katika Wanyama: Shughuli za ujenzi wa mabwawa zinaweza kuwa kizuizi kwa tembo katika Mto Kagera,
mazingira ya kipekee. Kunaweza kuwa na mabadiliko katika mtiririko yanaohusiana na umwagaji wa uwezekano wa kuwalazimisha tembo (Walio hatarini) ambao hutembelea kwenye ukingo wa kulia
mashapo ambayo yamekusanyika kwenye hifadhi. Hali hii hutokea kwa muda mfupi (siku kadhaa) kila kubadilisha njia zao na kuvuka miteremko kuelekea kaskazini mwa eneo la bwawa lakini haitabiriwi
baada ya miaka michache kulingana na mpango wa usimamizi wa mashapo. kuwazuia wasitembee kutoka sehemu moja kwenda nyingine. Baada ya mafuriko, hifadhi ya maji itaunda
wa km 38.5 wa km 38.5
ziwa jembamba kiasi na yalnayotiririka polepole sana au yaliyotuama na kuna uwezekano kwamba tembo Athari zingine wakati wa ujenzi: Athari zingine za kawaida wakati wa ujenzi wa mradi ni pamoja na
wanaweza kuvuka hifadhi katika sehemu za juu na kuyafikia ardhi ya malisho ya mifugo na mashamba ya mabadiliko ya ubora wa hewa, na ubora wamaji kutokana na uwepo vifaa visivyo hamishika na
miwa (ambayo hayana uzio) kwenye ukingo wa kushoto ambapo wanaweza kusababisha kero au vinavyohamishika, na uendeshaji wa utoaji wa maji machafu (kama utiririshaji ya mvua na maji machafu)
kusababisha migogoro na matumizi mengine ya ardhi. Hili huenda likawa tatizo linaloendelea kwenye kumwagika na kuvujisha kwa bahati mbaya vitu hatarishi.
ukingo wa kushoto kama mradi wa miwa ukipanuka, jambo ambalo linaweza kusababisha mateso au
uwindaji wa wanyama. Viboko na mamba wanaopatikana katika Mto Kagera katika eneo la hifadhi ya maji
na chini ya mkondo hawana uwezekano wa kuathiriwa kwa kiasi kikubwa na mradi na kuwepo kwenye 7.3 Athari Hasi za Kijamii
hifadhi ya maji. Hata hivyo, ingawa kuna makazi machache ya watu karibu na bwawa, wimbi kubwa la wavuvi
wanatarajiwa kutumia samaki wengi wanaotarajiwa kwenye bwawa baada ya kujazwa, linaweza Uchukuaji wa ardhi: Mahitaji ya ardhi ya mradi ni jumla ya hekta 2,453 ambapo hekta 750 zinatoka eneo la
kusababisha kuongezeka kwa migogoro ya binadamu na wanyamapori kama vile kiboko na tembo. Mto Kagera na uwanda wa mafuriko, hekta 36 ni za barabara yenye urefu wa kilomita 28, hekta 135 ni za
Korongo taji kijivu) aliyepo hatarini kutoweka anapatikana katika makazi ya uwanda wa mafuriko chini ya njia ya kupitishia umeme yenye urefu wa kilomita 38.5. Hekta 1,862 ni za ardhi iliyonunuliwa inayojumuisha
bwawa linalopendekezwa, ambapo kuna uwezekano wa kuweka kiota chini kwenye vitanda vya mafunjo. hekta 950 kutoka Kampuni ya Sukari ya Kagera, hekta 755 kutoka NARCO, hekta 199 ni za ardhi ya vijiji,
Korongo taji kijivu wachache wanatarajiwa kuwapo katika eneo karibu na hifadhi ya maji kwani makazi ya hekta 83 ni za ardhi ya kimila na hekta 29 kutoka Gereza la Kitengule.
uwanda wa mafuriko ni finyu kiasi ikilinganishwa eneo la mto lililo upande wa chini. Ujenzi wa bwawa na Uhamisho wa makazi na kiuchumi: Jumla ya kaya 85 zitaathiriwa na uchukuzi wa ardhi, zikijumuisha kaya
hifadhi ya maji, na uendeshaji wa kiasi cha maji yanayotiririka kwenye mto kwa ajili ya kufua umeme kwa 79 zilizoathiriwa na usambazaji wa umeme na upanuzi wa kituo cha kupoozea umeme kilichopo Kyaka.
kutumia nguvu ya maji katika bawa la Kakono inaweza isiathiri moja kwa moja makazi ya kuzaliana kwa Kaya 6 zitaathiriwa na kingo za hifadhi. Kati ya kaya 85,kaya 8 zitapoteza makazi.
korongo hawa au kuwa na athari kubwa kwa ndege wengine wanaotegemea ardhi oevu kama vile Tiva
mafunjo. Hata hivyo, njia ya kusafirishia umeme italeta hatari kubwa ya kugongana na kushikwa na umeme Vituo vya kusukuma maji vya Kampuni ya Sukari ya Kagera: Vituo vya kusukuma maji (vituo 6 vilivyopo na
kwa ndege fulani kama vile vinyago na ndege wa ardhi oevu, ikiwa ni pamoja na korongo wenye taji ya kijivu. vituo kadhaa vinavotarajiwa kuwepo) ambavo viko kwenye kingo za Mto Kagera zinazotumika kwa
Hatari ni kubwa zaidi katika kipindi cha kilele cha uhamaji (Oktoba/Novemba na Machi/Aprili) wakati ndege umwagiliaji wa shamba la miwa vinaweza kuathiriwa na mmomonyoko wa udongo utakaosababishwa na
wengi wakubwa wanaohama (kama vile tai wa nyika walio hatarini) wanatarajiwa kuvuka kupitia eneo la mradi.
mradi. Kilimo: Baadhi ya mashamba madogo yanayotumiwa na wanakijiji kwa kilimo yanaweza kuathiriwa na
Viumbe wageni vamizi: Magugu maji (Eichhornia crassipes) yameenea katika Bonde la Mto Kagera na Ziwa mmomonyoko wa mdogo unaoendelea polepole kando ya mto. Kando ya gogo lenye urefu wa kilomita 50
Victoria. Hutengeneza mikeka minene juu ya uso wa maji, na kusababisha kupungua kwa viwango vya chini ya mkondo wa bwawa kuna viwanja 50 ambapo kila kimoja kina ukubwa wa m2 500 (yaani jumla ya
oksijeni, kupoteza viumbe hai, kuongezeka kwa kupotea kwa maji (uvikizi) na huathiri safari za majini, uvuvi, hekta 2.5) vinaweza kupotea kutokana na mmonyoko. Hata hivyo, mmomonyoko wa udongo unafanyika
uzalishaji wa umeme kutumia maji, usambazaji wa maji na shughuli za utalii/burudani. Pia huchangia polepole na ni endelevu, watu wanahitaji kuchagua mashamba ya kulima kutokana na mabadiliko ya msimu
kuongezeka kwa magonjwa yanayohusiana na maji kama vile kichocho kwa sababu huhifadhi vimelea ya wa mafuriko ya kila mwaka.
uenezaji wa magonjwa kwa kutoa makazi kwa konokono. Wakati wa uzalishaji wa umeme, mkusanyiko wa
Uvuvi: Kazi ya ujenzi wa bwawa na uzibaji kwa hifadhi ya mto kunaweza kuzuia ufikiaji wa baadhi ya maeneo
magugu maji hutokea ndani ya hifadhi husababisha madhara ya viwango vya oksijeni iliyomo kwenye maji ya uvuvi yanayotumiwa na watu wachache wa eneo hilo.
na kuongeza makazi ya konokono wanaosababisha kichocho. Uwepo wa usimamizi wa kupunguza magugu
maji utahitajika. Sangara ni aina ya samaki wageni waliowekwa ziwa Victoria mwaka 1950. Uwekwaji wa Afya na Usalama wa Jamii: Awamu ya ujenzi wa Mradi inaonesha hatari kadhaa kwa afya na usalama wa
aina hiyo ya samaki umehusishwa na mabadiliko mabaya katika muundo na utendaji kazi wa mfumo wa jamii, na hii inahusisha kelele, vumbi kutoka kwa maeneo ya kazi pamoja na msongamano kwenye maeneo
kiikolojia wa Ziwa Victoria, hasa kutoweka kwa zaidi ya aina 200 za samaki asilia na kusababisha mabadiliko ya Mradi. Uhamiaji unaosababishwa na mradi unatarajiwa kuongezeka wakati wa ujenzi kutokana na watu
katika mtandao wa chakula. Inawezekana kwamba samaki aina ya sangara wanaweza kuwa wengi katika kutafuta fursa. Idadi ya wanaotafuta fursa inatarajiwa kuwa kati ya watu 1,000 hadi 2,000. Kuongezeka kwa
maeneo ya chini ya mto Kagera ingawa hakuna hata mmoja aliyevuliwa wakati wa uchunguzi, lakini uongozi watu kunaweza kusababisha athari za mmomonyoko wa maadili, ukosefu wa huduma za kijamii,
wa Kampuni ya Sukari ya Kagera ulithibitisha kuwa samaki aina ya sangara walikuwa wamevuliwa kilometa kuongezeka kwa magonjwa ya zinaa, unyanyasaji wa kijinsia na mfumuko wa bei wa ndani. Athari hizi pia ni
chache kutoka chini ya mto katika eneo lililopendekezwa la bwawa. Mimea vamizi aina ya Lantana (lantana zinahusisha nguvu kazi ya ujenzi (wafanyakazi 1,000), ambao baadhi yao wataletwa kutoka mikoa mingine
camara) ni aina nyingine ya mimea ya kigeni inayovamia ardhi kwa nguvu na ilikuwepo katika maeneo ya Tanzania kufanya kazi katika Mradi.
machache mbali na uwanda wa mafuriko na inaweza kuenea kupitia shughuli za ujenzi ikiwa udhibiti na
Awamu ya ujenzi wa Mradi inaonesha athari za kiusalama kwa jamii zinazoishi karibu na maeneo ya ujenzi
ufuatiliaji hautatekelezwa. Aina nyingine vamizi ni ule wa nyasi njugu (Cyperus rotundus)..
wa Mradi, jinsi vifaa hatarishi vinavohifadhiwa na kutumika pamoja na ajali za barabarani zinazohusiana ya
Madhara ya Jumuishi: Tathmini ya Athari jumla imetathmini athari za ziada zinazosababishwa na Mradi. Hatari zingine ni pamoja na hatari za kiafya zinazohusiana na kuongezeka kwa magonjwa yatokanayo
mwingiliano wa mahali na muda wa athari za Mradi unaopendekezwa na athari za miradi mingine ya umeme na uchafuzi wa maji, kuhama kwa wavuvi kutokana na kujengwa kwa hifadhi ya Kakono na kuathiriwa kwa
wa maji, shughuli za uchimbaji madini, mradi wa upanuzi wa Mradi wa uzalishaji wa Sukari wa Kampuni ya maeneo ya sumaku umeme ndani ya njia ya kusambaza umeme. Eneo la kudumu la hifadhi lenye mafuriko
Kagera, miradi mingine ya njia ya usafirishaji wa umeme, pamoja na miradi mingine ya barabara na linaweza kutengeneza makazi mazuri ya ukuzaji na uenezi wa vimelea vya magonjwa yatokanayo na maji.
madaraja katika eneo hilo. Inakadiriwa kuwa athari jumuishi katika ubora wa maji, makazi ya nchi kavu ya Uwezekano wa kutokea kwa magugu juu ya maji unaweza kusababisha mazalia ya vimelea vya magonjwa
wanyama na wanyamapori, kuhama kwa samaki, migogoro kati ya binadamu na wanyama pamoja na jamii kama vile mbu, ambao wanaosambaza ugonjwa wa malaria. Pia mradi unaopendekezwa unaweza
kwa ujumla inatarajiwa kusababishwa na upanuzi wa Mradi wa kuzalisha Sukari wa Kagerai.. kuongeza hatari ya ugonjwa wa kichocho kwa binadamu na mifugo. Mlundikano wa magugu maji
yanayoelea kwenye kingo zilizopendekezwa yanaweza kutoa makazi bora kwa viumbe wa majini wasio na
Athari zinazo vuka Mipaka: Athari zinazo vuka mipaka zinaweza kutokea kutokana na (i) kupungua kwa uti wa mgongo ambao huzaliana kwenye maji yaliyosimama.
uhamaji wa idadi ya samaki kutoka juu ya Mto Kagera na kupungua kwa idadi ya watu nchini Rwanda (juu
ya mto Kikagati); (ii) kupunguzwa kwa kasi ya samaki walio sehemu ya chini ya mto kwa ajili ya kuzaliana Urithi wa Kitamaduni: Urithi wa Kitamaduni unaoathiriwa na Mradi unajumuisha makaburi 7 kando ya njia ya
mradi wa umeme, sanaa chache za kale za Enzi za Chuma na maeneo ya kufanyia matambiko karibu na
na kutaga kwenye uwanda wa mafuriko wa mto; iii) kupungua kwa mtiririko wa jeni katikati ya idadi ya
hifadhi inayopendekezwa.
samaki sehemu ya Kagera chini, ikiwa ni pamoja na katika mlango wa mto Kagera na Ziwa Victoria (nchini
Uganda), pale yanapotokea matukio ya asili kama mabadiliko yanayoweza kutokea katika Ziwa Victoria au
vifo vya samaki kutokana na uchafuzi wa mazingira; na (iv) kupungua kwa mashapo na utoaji wa virutubishi
kwenye maeneo ya uwanda wa mafuriko yaliyoko chini ya Mto Kagera na Ziwa Victoria, jambo ambalo
linaweza kuathiri wingi wa samaki na ndege.
wa km 38.5 wa km 38.5
Receptor / athari Hatua muhimu za Kupunguza na Usimamizi Awamu*

8 Hatua za kupunguza/kuboresha na Athari zingine (ubora
wa hewa, kelele,
Usimamizi wa maji ya mvua C
Kuzuia na kudhibiti uchafuzi wa mazingira C
mipango ya ziada uvujaji utokanao na
uendeshaji na uvujaji
Usimamizi wa mchanga unaotuama
Usimamizi wa vitu hatari
C
C
wa ajali.
Athari za Kijamii
Hatua muhimu ya uborehsaje ni Mpango wa Uwekezaji wa Jamii ambao utaendelezwa na kutekelezwa na Upatikanaji wa ardhi Mpango wa Utekelezaji wa Makazi Mapya C
TANESCO ili kuhakikisha kuwa wananchi katika wilaya za Missenyi, Karagwe na Kyerwa wananufaika na Kituo cha kusukuma Kudumisha mtiririko wa maji wakati wa kujaza hifadhi ya maji na uendeshajii C
fursa za ajira, maboresho ya huduma za afya, na kunufaika na msaada wa kilimo, maji safi na salama ya maji cha kampuni ya wa mtambo wa kufua umeme kwa kutumia maji
kunywa, usafi wa mazingira. Hatua muhimu za kupunguza na kupendekeza kipimo cha uwezo wa athari Kagera Sugar Mpango wa kujaza hifadhi ya maji F
zimeainishwa katika sehemu ya 1.7 kama ifuatavyo: Taratibu za uendeshaji na usimamizi wa kukabiliana. O
Kilimo Njia za kupunguza athari za jiomophologia-Taratibu za uendeshaji na O
Receptor / athari Hatua muhimu za Kupunguza na Usimamizi Awamu* usimamizi unaofaa
Athari za Mazingira Hatua za kuimarisha kilimo - kupitia Mpango wa Uwekezaji wa Jamii O
Maswala ya maji Ufafanuzi wa kiwango cha chini cha mtiririko wa mazingira C, Z Uvuvi Utafiti wa upembuzi yakinifu wa Hifadhi ya Uvuvi O
Mpango wa kujaza hifadhi ya maji F Mpango wa Usimamizi wa Uvuvi wa hifadhi O
Mpango wa uendeshaji wa hifadhi ya maji O Usimamizi wa samaki wa kigeni O
Tengeneza mfano wa utiririshaji wa mvua Katika mabonde ili kufanya O Ufuatiliaji wa hifadhi ya maji na kipitishio cha samaki na usimamizi unaofaa O
tathmini ya kina zaidi ya athari za mabadiliko ya hali ya hewa kwenye
mfumo wa maji. Afya ya jamii na Mpango wa Usimamizi wa uingiaji wa watu C
usalama Uajiri wa ndani na ukuzaji wa ujuzi C
Ubora wa maji Kuondoa mimea kabla ya kujaza hifadhi ya maji C
Kuondolewa kwa Magugu vamizi O Mpango wa Uwekezaji wa Jamii C, Ee
Ufuatiliaji na usimamizi unaobadilika (Urekebishaji wa mifumo ya uwekaji O Mpango wa Afya ya Jamii C, Ee
oksiijeni tena ya maji yanayozunguka Kufuata viwango vya Tanzania na Kimataifa kwa viwango vya kelele, C
Jiomofologia Ufuatiliaji na usimamizi wa kukabiliana (kusafisha mabaki / uingizaji hewa) O mitetemo, vumbi, maji taka, mionzi ya sumaku umeme.
Samaki,makazi ya Kipitishio cha samaki na mitambo rafiki kwa samaki zijumuishe katika O Urithi wa kitamaduni Kuhamishwa kwa makaburi na maeneo ya matambiko C
majini na makazi muundo Kutafuta njia mbadala za kuona ni wapi miundombinu inaweza wekwa C
muhimu * C=Ujenzi, F=Kujaza Hifadhi, O=Uendeshaji
Usimamizi wa samaki wa kigeni O
Kupunguza ubora wa maji na jiomofolojia - taratibu za uendeshaji na O
usimamizi wa kukabiliana
Utekelezaji wa hatua za fidia ya viumbe hai kwa athari katika makazi O
muhimu
Uendeshaji wa njia ya kusafirishia umeme na barabara ya kufikia ili kuepuka C
maeneo oevu
Uoto na Mimea C
Kupunguza eneo la mradi ambalo linatakiwa kukatwa majani
Mpango wa usimamizi wa mimea ya kigeni vamizi ilioypo nchi kavu C
Utekelezaji wa vitendo vya fidia ya viumbe hai kwa athari kwa makazi ya O
asili (kwa mfano uwekezaji katika uhifadhi katika mbuga za karibu)
Njia za kupunguza athari za jiomophologia-Taratibu za uendeshaji na O
usimamizi unaofaa
Wanyama Mipango ya usimamizi wa trafiki (kwa mfano udhibiti wa mwendo kasi) C
Hatua za ulinzi wa wanyama, kwa mfano uokoaji wa nyoka, hatua za C
kuondoka kwa wanyama na hundi katika mfereji wazi
Usimamizi na udhibiti wa wanyamapori C
Hatua za kudhibiti tembo (ikiwa inahitajika) kuamua na mapendekeao ya O
TAWIRI (kwa mfano kuweka fence ya umeme kwenye ukingo wa hifadhi ya
maji ili kupunguza migogoro).
Muundo wa Laini ya Usambazaji kujumuisha hatua za ulinzi wa ndege O
Athari limbikizo Hatua za kupunguza athari kwa samaki, wanyama, jamii (kama hapo juu) O
Majadiliano na wamiliki wengine wa miradi ambayo inachangia athari C, Ee
limbikizo ili kuamua kupunguza ongezeko ikiwa inahitajika.
Athari za kuvuka Njia za kupunguza athari za jiomophologia - Taratibu za uendeshaji na O
mipaka usimamizi unaofaa.
Mazungumzo na Serikali ya Uganda C, Ee
Udhibiti wa udongo na mmomonyoko wa udongo C
wa km 38.5 wa km 38.5
Takriban kaya zote zilizoathirika (93%) ziko katika kijiji cha Kyaka (Wilaya ya Missenyi), na zitaathiriwa na
9 Mpango wa Kuhamisha Makazi njia ya usambazaji umeme. Asilimia 7 iliyobaki (kaya 6) ziko katika vijiji vya Mugaba na Bugara (Wilaya ya
Kyerwa), kwenye ukingo wa kushoto wa mto Kagera zitaathiriwa na ukingo wa hifadhi ya maji. Zaidi ya nusu
ya watu watakaoathirika (51%) ni chini ya umri wa miaka 18. Idadi ya nguvu kazi (kati ya miaka 19 na 60)
inawakilisha 44% ya idadi ya watu wote.
Mchakato wa kisheria wa uchukuaji wa ardhi kwa ajili ya Mradi ulianzishwa mwaka 2017. Ripoti ya Uthamini
ilitayarishwa na kuidhinishwa na Mthamini Mkuu wa Serikali mwezi Aprili 2018. Tangu wakati huo, baadhi Kaya zilizoathirika kwa kiasi kikubwa zinategemea kilimo ili kujikimu kimaisha. Mapato ya wastani ya kaya
ya vipengele vya Mradi vimebadilika, na kufanya uhalali wa Ripoti ya Uthamini muda wake kuisha hivyo zilizoathirika kwa kila mwezi ni TZS 210,000. Asilimia 20 ya kaya zilizoathirika zinaongozwa na wanawake.
kuhitaji iandaliwe Ripoti mpya ya Uthamini. Wanategemea zaidi vyanzo vya mapato vinavyotokana na ardhi na kufanya kuwa na viwango vya chini vya
mapato kuliko kaya zinazoongozwa na wanaume.
Makundi mawili ya wadau yataathiriwa kutokana na mpango wa uhamisho, ambayo ni (i) kaya zinazomiliki
ardhi ya kijiji, na (ii) vyama vya kitaasisi kama vile Kampuni ya Sukari ya Kagera, Kampuni ya Ranchi ya Taifa Stahiki na fidia zimeelezwa katika Mpango Kazi wa Uhamishaji na unalenga kufikia lengo la sera za kimataifa
au Gereza la Kitengule na makampuni binafsi ya ufugaji. Kaya 21 kati ya kaya 84 zilizoathirika zinazoishi za Wakopeshaji kuhusu uhamishaji wa hiari. Malengo makuu ni kuepusha au kupunguza makazi mapya ya
katika mazingira magumu zimetambuliwa. Athari zimefupishwa katika Jedwali 1 na Jedwali 2 hapa chini bila hiari na kupunguza athari zinazoweza kuepukika kwa kutoa fidia kwa wakati kutokana na upotevu wa
mali na kusaidia watu waliohamishwa kuboresha juhudi zao au angalau kurejesha maisha yao katika hali
Jedwali 1 - Muhtasari wa Athari Kutokana na Mchakato wa Kuchukua Ardhi nzuri kabla ya kuhamishwa.
Vipengele vya Mradi Kaya Zilizoathirika Taasisi zilizoathiriwa( yanii kupoteza ardhi)
Stahiki na fidia hizi ni pamoja na:
Kaya zote zilizoathirika Kuhamishwa makazi
(makazi na shughuli za • Fidia kwa gharama kamili ya ardhi na mali zilizopotea, kwa kaya zote zilizoathirika na vyama vya
kiuchumi kuhamishwa) taasisi kabla ya Mradi kumiliki ardhi iliyoathirika. Vijiji vya Kyaka, Businde, Bugara na Mugaba, Kampuni
Kaya Watu Kaya Watu ya Kagera Sugar, Gereza la Kitengule, NARCO na Makampuni tisa binafsi yaliyokodi ardhi ya NARCO
Upanuzi wa kituo 78 554 8 57 • Kijiji cha Kyaka yataathiriwa.
kidogo na njia ya • Gereza la Kitengule
Usambazaji • Msaada wa makazi mapya kwa kaya 8 zitakazoamishwa. Msaada wa kutambua kiwanja kwa ajili ya
• Kampuni ya Kagera Sugar
kujenga nyumba nyingine, usaidizi wa kujenga nyumba mbadala na usaidizi mahususi kwa kaya 2
Barabara ya kuingilia -- -- -- -- • Kampuni ya Kagera Sugar
zilizo katika mazingira magumu zilizohamishwa);
• Kampuni 6 za kibinafsi zinazokodisha ardhi
za NARCO • Mpango wa Kurejesha maisha.
Eneo la Bwawa -- -- -- -- • Kampuni ya Kagera Sugar
• NARCO (Ranchi ya Missenyi) Mpango wa kurejesha maisha ni pamoja na hatua zifuatazo zinazotekelezwa na TANESCO:
• Kampuni 1 ya kibinafsi iliyokodisha ardhi ya • Kuajiri shirika lisilo la kiserikali, ambalo litasaidia kaya 84 zilizoathirika kupitia:
NARCO katika Ranchi ya Kitengule
− Mafunzo ya kusimamia fedha za fidia zilizopokelewa,
Hifadhi 6 56 -- -- • Kampuni 2 za kibinafsi zinazokodisha ardhi
ya NARCO kwenye benki ya kushoto − Msaada wa kuendeleza shughuli zao za kilimo kupitia utoaji wa pembejeo na vifaa
• Vijiji vya Mugaba, Bugara na Businde − Msaada wa kuendeleza shughuli za kiuchumi nje ya mashamba,
Jumla 84 610 8 57 • Vyama 16 vya kitaasisi
− Utoaji wa msaada wa mpito kwa mwaka mmoja ili kufidia muda wa kurejesha shughuli zao za
kilimo. Msaada utatolewa kwa kupewa chakula kama vile mchele, ambao utasambazwa na
shirika lisilo la kiserikali (NGO) mara moja kwa mwezi kwa kila kaya iliyoathirika na mradi.
Jedwali 2 - Muhtasari wa Upotevu wa Ardhi
Vyama vilivyoathiriwa Idadi ya viwanja Jumla ya eneo lililoathiriwa • Wanakaya wenye umri wa kufanya kazi kutoka kaya zilizoathiriwa na mradi watapewa kipaumbele
Kampuni ya Sukari ya Kagera (Kagera Sugar”) 2 879ha katika suala la ajira kwa kazi zisizo na ujuzi kutoka kwa mkandarasi wa EPC na baadaye kwenye Mradi
Gereza la Kitengule 1 29ha wakati wa operesheni. Kuwezesha hatua hii kaya zilizoathiriwa na mradi, zitapewa programu ya
NARCO 2 673.8ha mafunzo ya ustadi itakayoandaliwa na mkandarasi wa EPC kwa wanakaya walio katika umri wa
(Ikijumuisha makampuni ya kibinafsi ya kukodisha vitalu vya (9) (437.1ha) kufanya kazi.
ardhi ya NARCO
Gereza la Kitengule 1 29.04ha Hatua hizi na jinsi zitakavyotekelezwa zitaelezwa kwa kaya zilizoathirika na vyama vya taasisi kupitia
Ardhi ya kijiji - ardhi ya jumuiya 4 Kyaka: 0.74ha* mikutano ya hadhara na binafsi wakati wa mchakato mpya wa uthamini utakapoanzishwa.
Businde: 137.6ha*
Bugala: 215.9ha*
• TANESCO itaanzisha Kitengo cha RAP, chenye jukumu la utekelezaji na ufuatiliaji wa RAP. Utaratibu wa
Mugaba: 7.6ha* kuwasilisha malalamiko umeelezwa katika ripoti hii na utatekelezwa na Kitengo cha RAP- TANESCO.
Ardhi ya Kijiji - Haki ya Kimila ya Kumiliki (pamoja na Cheti au 91 43.4ha Mpango wa ufuatiliaji na tathmini pia umeelezwa, unajumuisha:
bila hati) • Taarifa za ufuatiliaji wa utekelezaji wa RAP za robo mwaka zinazotayarishwa na kitengo cha RAP
Jumla 108 1,986.9ha TANESCO na kuwasilishwa kwa wakopeshaji hadi miaka 3 baada ya malipo ya fidia;
* Hakuna taarifa sahihi iliyopatikana kwenye mipaka ya ardhi ya kijiji na/au mipaka ya hifadhi. Kwa hiyo, takwimu zilizotolewa
• Taarifa ya ufatiliaji kutoka nje wa miezi sita iliyoandaliwa na mshauri huru wa ufuatiliaji, kuwasilishwa
hapa zinakadiriwa, kulingana na Ripoti ya Uthamini ya 2018 na mpangilio unaopatikana wa Mradi.
TANESCO na wakopeshaji;
Hakuna athari inayotarajiwa kwenye miundombinu ya umma. Makaburi saba katika kaya 4 ambayo yako • Ripoti moja ya ndani ya kukamilika kwa RAP, iliyoandaliwa na kitengo cha RAP TANESCO miaka 3 baada
katika Njia ya Usambazaji wa umeme yataathirika. Eneo linalotumika kwa matambiko ya zamani liliko ndani ya malipo ya fidia;
ya eneo la hifadhi ya maji katika kijiji cha Bugara litaathirika.Kulingana na majadiliano na viongozi wa kijiji, • Ukaguzi mmoja wa Kukamilika uliotayarishwa na Mshauri Huru wa Ufuatiliaji
matumizi ya maeneo haya ya matambiko yanapungua na yanaweza kuhamishwa. Hakuna upotevu wa
Bajeti ya utekelezaji wa Mpango wa Makazi mapya inakadiriwa kufikia jumla ya TZS bilioni 4.8 (kama EURO
rasilimali unaotarajiwa.
milioni 1.8). Dharura ya 30% imetolewa. Fidia ya upotevu wa ardhi na mali, ikijumuisha posho za kisheria, ni
takriban 45% ya bajeti hii (TZS bilioni 2,1 - takriban 775,000 €). Bajeti hii itabebwa na TANESCO.
wa km 38.5 wa km 38.5
• Mwongozo wa kina wa Usalama na Uendeshaji wa Bwawa utaandaliwa na kudumishwa. Mwongozo

10 Athari zinazotarajiwa kubaki na huu utakidhi Sera ya Benki ya Dunia ya Usalama wa Bwawa kuhusu usanifu, ujenzi, uendeshaji na
matengenezo ya Mradi na watumiaji wa maeneo ya chini (TANESCO).
Usimamizi wa hatari za kimazingira • Taratibu za ukaguzi na matengenezo ya mabwawa zitatayarishwa na kutekelezwa ili kuhakikisha
uadilifu wa miundo na vifaa vya Mradi kulingana na miongozo ya ICOLD (TANESCO).
10.1 Athari za mabaki

Madhara makubwa yafuatayo yanawezekana kwani hatua za kuepuka, kupunguza na kufidia athari huenda
11 Tathmini ya Gesi Joto na Ustahimilivu wa
zisiwe na ufanisi kwa asilimia 100 (100%) au kwa sababu tafiti za ziada zinahitajika ili kubainisha hali ya
uhifadhi na mipaka ya aina fulani ya samaki. Hali ya Hewa
• Aina za samaki ambao wako hatarini kutoweka ni Kimanda (Enteromius barbs), aina ambayo haihami,
inatarajiwa kuathiriwa na ujenzi wa hifadhi ya maji, kubadilisha makazi yake kutoka (Mto unaotiririka)
kwenda kwenye ziwa ambapo aina hizi za kimanda hazipatikani. Ujenzi wa njia ya kupitisha samaki
hautapunguza athari hii kwa kuwa si wahamaji. Zaidi ya hayo, aina hizi za kimanda zina uwezekano wa
11.1 Uzalishaji wa Gesi Joto
kushambuliwa na Sangara (Lates niloticus) ikiwa aina hii ngeni italetwa kwenye hifadhi ya Kakono. Hata
Uzalishaji wa Gesi Joto inawakilisha Tani zipatazo 225,445 kwa mwaka za kaboni dioksidi (CO2e). Uzalishaji
hivo, umuhimu wa athari hii inategemea kiwango cha kuwepo kwa kimanda (Enteromius barbs) katika
kutoka kwenye hifadhi (wastani wa zaidi ya miaka 100) inatarajiwa kuwa Tani 145,205 kwa mwaka. Wastani
mito mingine. Iwapo aina za kimanda (Enteromius barbs) zinapatikana tu katika sehemu ya Kagera
wa uzalishaji wa kila mwaka wa pamoja wa ujenzi na uzalishaji wa hifadhi (zaidi ya miaka 100) inakadiriwa
chini (hadi sasa inayojulikana tu kutoka kwenye hifadhi ya maji na ufikio wa chini wa mto), basi
kuwa kiasi cha 32.0 gCO2e kwa kila kWh, ambayo ni ya kawaida kwa miradi ya umeme iliyoripotiwa na Jopo
wanaweza kuwa katika hatari kubwa kutokana na mradi. Hata hivyo, kama tafiti za ziada nje ya eneo la
la Serikali za Mitaa juu ya Mabadiliko ya Hali ya Hewa. Kiwango cha kitaifa cha uzalishaji wa Gesi joto (tCO2e
mradi zinaweza kuonyesha kwamba aina hizi zipo mahali pengine basi hatari iliyobaki kwa kimanda
/ MWh) kimehesabiwa uwepo wa mradi ama bila Mradi, na mradi huo utapunguza kiwango cha uzalishaji wa
(Enteromius barbs) itapungua kwa kiasi kikubwa.
Gesi joto cha kitaifa kwa 0.9%. Kulingana na uwiano uliotolewa na mchango wa kitaifa kwa IPCC, uzalishaji
• Utegaji wa mashapo kwenye hifadhi ya maji inalopendekezwa huenda ukapunguza polepole viwango wa Gesi joto kutoka uzalishaji wa 5.24 x 105 MWh nchini Tanzania ungewakilisha uzalishaji wa Tani
vya virutubisho katika mlango wa mto Kagera nchini Uganda, na kuathiri idadi ya kamba (Decapod 1,063,720 kwa mwaka kwa sasa (yaani, bila Mradi). Kuzalisha nguvu kiasi hiki kwa kutumia Mradi
crutaceans) ambao ni chanzo cha chakula cha samaki, ndege na wanyama wengine, ikiwa ni pamoja na itasababisha Tani 13,634 kwa mwaka ambayo inawakilisha kupunguzwa kwa Gesi joto kwa Tani 1,050,096
aina ya Ningu (Labeo victorianus) iliyo hatarini Kutoweka - aina inayohama ambayo ipo katika eneo la kwa mwaka. Kwa hivyo Mradi huo utachangia vyema katika malengo ya kitaifa ya kupunguza GHGs. Ukataji
mradi. Athari hii pamoja na athari ya kizuizi cha uwepo wa bwawa inaweza kuwa na athari mbaya kwa wa mimea kabla ya kujaza hifadhi kutasababisha kupungua kwa uzalishaji wa Gesi joto kwa zaidi ya miaka
idadi ya viumbe hawa katika Kagera ya chini. Ikumbukwe kwamba ingawa bwawa linalopendekezwa 100 ya tani 235,396 (ambayo ni sawa na punguzo la asilimia 12.3 ikilinganishwa na kama mimea
litakuwa na kipitishio cha samaki, linaweza kuwa na ufanisi wa 10% pekee (Yaani, samaki 1 kati ya 10 isingeondolewa).
anayefika kwenye kizuizi cha bwawa anaweza kuingia kwenye hifadhi ya maji kwa mafanikio kupitia
kipitishio cha samaki).
• Kujengwa kwa hifadhi inayopendekezwa ya Kakono inaashiria atharii kwa idadi ya samaki wa maeneo
ya kati ya Mto Kagera toka sangara (Lates niloticus) aina ya Samaki ngeni vamizi walipowekwa kwa
mara ya kwanza,. Kuzuia kuingizwa kwa sangara (Lates niloticus) kwenye bwawa ni muhimu ili kulinda
11.2 Usitahimilivu wa Hali ya Hewa
samaki wa kiasili lakini kunaweza kusiwe na ufanisi kabisa. Mara baada ya kuingizwa kwenye bwawa la Utafiti wa Ustahimilivu wa Mabadiliko ya Hali ya Hewa ambao unafuata Mwongozo wa Ustahimilivu wa Hali
Kakono, inatarajiwa kwamba Sangara ((Lates niloticus) wataongezeka kuliko aina nyngine za samaki ya Hewa wa Sekta ya Kuzalisha Umeme kwa nguvu ya Maji iliyochapishwa 2019 na Shirika la Kimataifa la
katikati ya Mto Kagera ikijumuisha uwezekano wa ziwa la Kagera na maeneo oevu ya juu ya mkondo Umeme (IHA) lilifanywa kamasehemu ya tathmini ya athari za mazingira na jamii ya 2021. Tathmini
wa mto ambayo yana wingi wa viumbe hai wa majini. inatimisha kuwa, kuna uwezekano mkubwa wakupungua kwa uzalishaji wa nishati (kwa kiwango cha -10
hadi -20%) kwa kipindi cha miaka 100 ya mradi huo. Hii inahalalisha kufanya ufuatiliaji wa muda mrefu wa
mabadiliko ya hali ya hewa katika bonde la Kagera na mtiririko wa maji katika Mto Kagera, ili hatua
zichukuliwe kwa wakati unaofaa. Kuhusu makadirio ya mafuriko ya kiwango cha juui na athari zinazoweza
10.2 Usimamizi wa Hatari na Hali za Dharura kutokea kwenye upembuzi wa sehemu yakutolea maji; kwani kuna tofauti kubwa kati ya hali ya hewa ya
baadaye, kuna haja ya kuchagua njia sahihi wa namna ya kufanya upembuzi wa eneo la kutolea maji
Udhibiti wa hatari katika hali ya dharura ni kama ifuatavyo: ambayo itazingatia hali iliyo mbaya zaidi. Modelii ya maji ya chini yenye matokeo mazuri kuliko ile iliyotumika
• Jopo huru la wataalamu kwa ajili ya usalama wa bwawa litaundwa. Jopo litahitajika kupitia muundo na wakati wa tathmini ya athari za mazingira na jamii ya 2021 inatakiwe iandaliwe na Mkandarasi wa EPC kwa
vipengele vyote vya kazi, ikiwa ni pamoja na mfumo wa maji ya mafuriko, majimaji, eneo lamaji la bwawa la Kakono katika hatua inayofuata ya Mradi ili kuelezea zaidi mwenendo
mitetemo/matetemeko, jiolojia, teknolojia ya zege na mitambo iliyoundwa kufanya kazi katika maji uliotambuliwa, na kuthibitisha au kurekebisha vigezo vya upembuzi kwenye miundo ya usalama wa bwawa
yaliyojaa mashapo (TANESCO). (kwa mfano sehemu ya kutolea maji linapokuwa limejaa)
• Tathmini ya hatari ya kukatika kwa bwawa itafanywa kwa kuzingatia mbinu iliyopendekezwa na Tume
ya Kimataifa ya Mabwawa Makubwa (ICOLD). Hatua za kupunguza hatari zitaunganishwa katika
muundo huo ili kuhakikisha kwamba hatari ya jumla ya kuvunjika kwa bwawa inavumilika kulingana na
vigezo vya kukubalika kwa hatari za ICOLD (Mkandarasi wa EPC).
• Mpango wa Kukabiliana na dharura ikijumuisha hitilafu ya bwawa au lango/ubovu wa lango
utatayarishwa na kujumuisha muundo wa mafuriko wa hali mbaya zaidi (Mkandarasi wa EPC).
wa km 38.5 wa km 38.5
Vigezo Maelezo Awamu* Jukumu

12 Programu ya Ufuatiliaji Wanyama Uwepo wa tembo (idadi, mzunguko, maeneo yaliyotembelewa) na
migogoro na wanyamapori - kuamua haja ya hatua za kudhibiti (kwa
C, O, F TANESCO
mfano kuweka fensi na njia zingine za kuzuia

Kijamii
Wakati jukumu la jumla limepewa TANESCO kwa shuguli za ufuatiliaji, baadhi ya hutua zitahitaji Utekelezaji wa Mpango Ufuatiliaji wa nje wa utekelezaji wa RAP. Muda wa miaka mitatu baada C TANESCO
ushirikishwaji wa taasisi nyingine za serikali kama TAFIRI au TAWIRI. Vipengele muhimu vya programu ya wa Uhamishaji (RAP) ya malipo ya fidia. Utafanywa na mshauri huru.
ufuatiliaji ni kama ifuatavyo: Afya ya Jamii Utekelezaji wa Usimamizi wa Afya ya Jamii utakaofanywa na C TANESCO
Mkandarasi wa EPC
Kuzuia kenea kwa malaria na kichocho kwa kufuatilia takwimui katika O TANESCO
vituo vya afya vya ndani vilivyo katika jamii karibu na hifadhi.
Vigezo Maelezo Awamu* Jukumu itafuatiliwa kila mwezi
Uhifadhi wa Mazingira Viwango vya mradi na hali yoyote ya kutozingatia vitadhibitiwa C TANESCO Fuatilia uwepo wa konokono (genera Bulinus na Biomphalaria) O TANESCO
wakati wa shughuli ipasavyo wanaosababisha kichocho kwenye bwawa la Kakono na maji
zinazofanywa na yasiyotiririka ya Mto Kagera kilomita 10 kutoka chini ya bwawa
Mkandarasi wa EPC linalopendekezwa.
Mazingira ya njee Kufuatilia utekelezaji wa mkakati wa mpango wa Uhamiaji wa watu C TANESCO
Kiwango cha mtiririko wa Mkondo wa juu na chini wa hifadhi ya Kakono inayopendekezwa O TANESCO unaosababishwa na uwepo wa mradi, usimamizi wake utafanywa na
Mto Kagera Mkandarasi wa EPC
Ubora wa maji Hifadhi pendekezwa ya Kakono na eneola chini/ mkondo wa chini ya F, O TANESCO Makazi yasiyo rasmi Kufuatilia eneo la njia ya kusafirishia umeme kuangalia kama hakuna O TANESCO
hifadhi majengo/ujenzi. Ufuatiliaji wa mara kwa mara, doria
Mirundikano ya Udongo Ufuatiliaji wa mara kwa mara katika eneo la Mto Kagera kwenye eneo C TANESCO Kilimo Kufuatilia ufanisi wa mipango ya kuimarisha kilimo inayopendekezwa O TANESCO
(mashapo) lililo juu ya bwawa la hazina kwa wakulima itafuatiliwa. Itafanyika mara mbili kwa mwaka.
Mashapo, ubora wa maji, Kuwa na sehemu ya Ufuatiliaji wa mara kwa mara kati ya hifadhi yam C, F, O TANESCO Uvuvi Kufuatilia utekelezaji wa Mpango wa Usimamizi wa Uvuvi na Ofisi ya O TANESCO
viumbe wa majini wasio aji ya Kakono na sehemu ya Mto Kagera inayoingiza maji kwenye Ziwa Uvuvi ya Wilaya ya Missenyi
na uti wa mgongo na Victoria wakati wa ujenzi wa mradi hadi wakati wa uendeshaji Kufuatilia shughuli za uvuvi kwenye mkondo uliooko chini ya bwawa, ili O TANESCO
samaki kuthibitisha kile Tathmini ya Athari za Mazingira na Kijamii au
Viwango vya kelele Kufuata kanuni za Shirika la Afya Duniani (WHO) na Miongozo ya Kelele EPC kuchukua hatua za kurekebisha ikiwa mabadiliko yaliyojitokeza tofauti
ya Tanzania na ilivyokuwa mwanzoni na yanasababishwa na shughuli za mradi.
Maji Machafu Maji machafu yatatolewa kwenye maeneo ya ujenzi kwa kuzingatia Mkandarasi * C=Ujenzi, F=Kujaza Hifadhi, O=Uendeshaji
miongozo ya Tanzania, ya kimataifa (IFC) na Mwongozo wa Jumla wa wa EPC
Mazingira afya na usalama (EHS )wa maji machafu yanayotolewa
kwenye maeneo ya kazi ya ujenzi.
Ubora wa maji ya chini ya Katika kazi za ujenzi, kila mwezi C Mkandarasi
ardhi wa EPC
Mmomonyoko wa
udongo
Sehemu zote za ujenzi ili kuangalia ufanisi wa hatua zilizowekwa za
udhibiti. Kila wiki
C Mkandarasi
wa EPC
13 Uhirikishwaji wa Wadau
Mrundikano wa udongo Mkusanyiko wa udongo kwenye maeneo yanayofikiwa na mafuriko O TANESCO
na mchanga (Mashapo) pembeni mwa kingo za mto na kando ya kingo za mkondo chini ya
bwawa. kabla na baada ya kutoa / kutoa/kuchuja udongo
Ushirikishwaji wa Awali wa Wadau: Mradi umeendesha shughuli kadhaa za kushirikisha wadau tangu mwaka
Kiasi na ukubwa wa chembe, na chembe za udongo zilizorundikana O TANESCO
2013 hadi mwaka 2020: (i) Mikutano ya hadhara katika bonde la Kagera ilifanyika kama sehemu ya EIA
ndani ya hifadhi ya Kakono, kwa kila mwaka
mwaka 2016, (ii) Majadiliano ya kikundi, mahojiano na wakuu wa kaya yalifanywa kama sehemu ya tafiti za
Vipimo vinavyoonekana na tabia ya udongo ulio kwenye eneo la mto O TANESCO
(kutoka ukingo mmoja hadi mwingine) eneo linalofurikwa na maji chini kijamii na kiuchumi kwa ESIA mwaka 2021 na pia Kuanzia Machi hadi Oktoba mwaka 2020. (iii) Mikutano ya
ya bwawa ikihusisha eneo karibu na pale Mto Kagera unpomwaga maji umma itafanyika Februari 2022 ili kujadili matokeo ya utafiti wa ESIA wa mwaka 2021 kwa ajili ya kutoa
yake Ziwa Victoria, kila baada ya miaka 2 mapendekezo juu ya hatua zakuchukua ili kupunguza madhara.
Mkusanyiko wa mashapo yanayoelea na oksijeni iliyonyonywa na maji O TANESCO
chini ya bwawa wiki moja kabla, mwezi baada ya kila tukio la uingizaji Shughuli zitakazofanyika Baadaye: Kwa kuzingatia masuala ya mipaka, Mradi utafanya mashauriano na
hewa ama uchujaji wa udongo mamlaka za Uganda, pamoja na Kamisheni ya Bonde la Mto Ziwa Victoria kutoka Kamisheni ya Afrika
Mkusanyiko wa mashapo uliosimamishwa utafuatiliwa kwenye O TANESCO Mashariki. Mkandarasi wa EPC pia ataendesha mikutano maalum ili kuelezea zaidi taratibu zakuajiri, namna
Mdomo wa Mto Kagera kwa kutumia picha za satelaiti, kila mwaka. ya kuzidhibiti msongamano na shughuli muhimu za ujenzi. Katika kipindi chote cha ujenzi na uendeshaji wa
Ikolojia Mradi, TANESCO itahakikisha kwamba wadau wanapata taarifa za kutosha kuhusu ujenzi, hifadhi ya Kakono
Ufuatiliaji wa kibiolojia Katika hifadhi ya Kakono na mkondo wa juu na chini. Kuanzia mwaka C, F, O TANESCO na baadaye shughuli za uendeshaji. Wadau watapata fursa ya kutoa maoni yao kuhusu Mradi na kuhusu
kwa viumbe wa majini mmoja kabla ya kuanza kwa ujenzi. Kila Mwaka In the
TANESCO, ikiwa ni pamoja na kuibua hoja na malalamiko. Uwasilishaji wa taarifa utakidhi mahitaji yote ya
Samaki Mto Kagera juu na chini ya bwawa liliopendekezwa, ikiwa ni pamoja na C, F, O TANESCO
pale mto Kagera unapomwaga maji ziwani. Itafanyika mara mbili kwa
kisheria yanayotumika na utatii sera za Wakopeshaji kulingana na uwazi, ufichuzi na taratibu za malalamiko.
mwaka, kuanzia mwaka mmoja kabla ya kuanza kwa ujenzi na Ili kuwezesha hili, Mradi utatekeleza utaratibu wa kutoa malalamiko utakaowawezesha watu walioathirika
kuendelea hadi jumuiya ya samaki itengemae au matokeo yathibitishe na wadau wengine kutoa malalamiko au maoni yao kuhusu Mradi, kwa lengo la kutafuta suluhu, amani na
kiwango cha athari.. Hili litatekelezwa kwa ushirikiano na Idara ya kutatua kero hizo.
Uvuvi ya Uganda na Tanzania
Ndege Kufuatilia eneo la njia ya kusafirishia umeme. itafuatiliwa kwa angalau C, F, O TANESCO
miaka miwili au kama itavyothibitishwa na mtaalamu wa denge
kulingana na matokeo ya ufuatiliaji
Aina vamizi za kigeni Mimea migeni vamizi iliyopo nchi kavu kando ya njia ya kusafirishia O TANESCO
umeme. Mara mbili kila mwaka mpaka spishi za kigeni zitakapo
dhibitiwa
Spishi ngeni za majini katika hifadhi ya Kakono na chini ya mto. Hii F, O TANESCO
itafanywa mara mbili kwa mwaka
wa km 38.5 wa km 38.5
Mpango Kijenzi cha ESMS Bajeti katika Dola za Marekani 1,000

14 Mpango wa Usimamizi wa Mazingira na Ujenzi
Miezi 52
Uendeshaji - Bajeti kwa
mwaka
Jamii Miaka 3 ya
kwanza
> miaka
mitatu
Mpango wa Ushiriki wa SEP 1.- Uhamasishaji wa jamii na ushiriki 50 25 -
Wadau SEP 2.- Utaratibu wakuwasilisha Malalamiko - - -
Mkataba wa EPC utatengeneza na kutekeleza Mpango wa Usimamizi wa Mazingira na Jamii kwa ajili ya SEP 3.- Ushirikiano na taasisi zisizo za kiserikali na wadau wa 50 25 -
ngazi ya kitaifa
Ujenzi mradi ambao unafafanua mfumo wa kimuundo na kiufundi kuwa chini ya wajibu wa Mkandarasi wa
SEP 4.- Kutoa taarifa na kuripoti 50 25 -
EPC. Mpango wa Usimamizi wa Mazingira na Jamii wakati wa Ujenzi utajumuisha sehemu tatu: Sehemu ya
Mpango wa Ufuatiliaji MON 1.- Maji ya juu ya uso wa nchi (haidrolojia), Maji 200 50 25
1- Muundo wa Utendaji kwa ajili ya Mazingira na Jamii; Sehemu ya 2- Utunzaji wa Mazingira na Jamii; wa Mazingira na Jamii yanayotiririka kwa ajili ya Mazingira na Ubora wa Maji
Sehemu ya 3- Taratibu za Mazingira na Jamii. Sehemu ya mpango wa usimamizi wa mazingira na jamii MON 2.- Hifadhi na hali ya mwonekano ya Mto (Jiomofolojia) 200 150 50
inayopaswa kutekelezwa na TANESCO imewasilishwa katika jedwali lifuatalo. na udongo uliorundikana (Mashapo)
MON 3.- Samaki & , viumbe wasio na uti wa mgongo waishio 160 60 60
Mpango Kijenzi cha ESMS Bajeti katika Dola za Marekani 1,000 majini
Ujenzi Uendeshaji - Bajeti kwa MON 4.- Ufuatiliaji wa Ndege wkati wa uendeshaji wa njia ya - 25 25
Miezi 52 mwaka kusafirishia umeme
Miaka 3 ya > miaka MON 5.- Matumizi ya ardhi na upandaji wa memea 100 50 25
kwanza mitatu MON 6.- Shughuli za Uvuvi 100 25 25
Mfumo wa Usimamizi ESMS 1.- Kutengeneza Mfumo - - - MON 7.- Hali za lichumi za Kaya 100 25 -
wa Mazingira na Jamii ESMS 2.- Utekelezaji wa Mfumo 336 156 78 MON 8.- Uhamiaji unaosababishwa na uwepo wa mradi na 75 25 -
ESMS 3.- Msaada wa Kiufundi katika Mazingira na Kijamii 1,714 99 - mfumuko wa bei wa ndani
Usimamizi wa MCP 1.- Upembuzi 150 - - MON 9.- Kuripoti na kutoa taarifa kwa umma 75 - -
Utaratibu wa MCP 2.- Tathmini na vibali 300 - - TOTAL 14,633 4,037 1,523
Mabadiliko
MCP 3.- Kutoa taarifa kwa umma 25 - -
Upembuzi yakinifu, SURV 1.- Kubuni mapitio ya samaki na njia mbadala rafiki za 3,500 - -
Usimamizi wa shughuli mitambo ya kuzalisha umeme inayofaa kwa samaki.
za Ujenzi kwenye
Mazingira na kwa
Jamii
SURV 2.- Mapitio ya muundo wa kina kulingana na kulingana
na mpango ulivyo wa kusimamia Mazingira na Kijamii
- - -
15 Hitimisho
SURV 3.- Usimamizi wa mazingira wa njia za ujenzi - - -
Uhamishaji, RAP 1 - Ripoti ya uthamini na ulipaji wa fidia, 1,211 - -
Upatikanaji wa Ardhi RAP 2 – Kubadailisha makazi, kuretengenezea makazi 385 65 - Tathmini ya athari za mazingira na kijamii (ESIA) ya 2021 inatambua changamoto kuu za mazingira na
na Urejeshaji wa Njia mapya na kurejesha njia zingine za kujipatia kipato kijamii, ambazo zinahusiana hasa na athari za upungufu wa samaki na mwendelezo ya kiikolojia ya Mto
za kujipatia kipato
RAP 3 - Ufuatiliaji na tathmini 127 22 - Kagera ambao umetathminiwa kama Makazi Muhimu kwa sababu ya kuwepo kwa aina 14 za samaki
Afya na Usalama wa CHS 1.- Usalama na Afya katika ujenzi 150 - - ambazo zinafikia viwango vya mahitaji ya kimataifa ya IFC chini ya Kigezo cha 1 (Kuwa hatarini sana / Kuwa
Jamii CHS 2.- Afya ya jamii na usalama karibu na chini ya hifadhi 500 250 50 hatarini)); Kigezo 2 (Kupatikana latika maeneo Fulani - Restricted Range) na Kigezo 3 Uhamiaji / Kuwa
CHS 3.- Mpango wa Maandalizi ya Dharura 250 50 25 sehemu moja - Migratory/Congregatory ).
Usimamizi wa Uhamiaji INF 1.- Mipango na Ufuatiliaji 50 25 -
Ufungaji wa pitio la samaki kwenye mkondo wa Kakono inashauriwa kupunguza athari za kizuizi uhamaji
INF 2.- Kutarajia na kusimamia Uhamiaji unaosababishwa na - - -
uwepo wa Mradi wa samaki sehemu ya juu ya mkondo kwa kuzingatia aina za samaki wanaohama ili kuwezesha
INF 3.- Kushughulikia athari mbaya 200 50 25 mwendelezo wa jeni. Hata hivyo, hakuna njia yenye ufanisi wa kupunguza uhamaji wa samaki kwenda eneo
Uwekezaji wa Jamii CIP 1.- Tathmini ya Maendeleo ya Jamii 150 - - la chini au kwa athari kwenye sehemu ambazo samaki inafahamika kupatikana maeneo hayo tu (restricted
CIP 2.- Utawala na Mipango 50 - - range Enteromius barbs) (ambazo kwa sasa zinajulikana kupatikana eneo la Mradi wa Kuzalisha Umeme
CIP 3.- Kuwezesha uwekezaji katika jamii 1,200 1,000 250 kwa Nguvu za Maji la Kakono na maeneo ya karibu yaliyoko chini ya Mradi. Uchunguzi wa ziada na tafiti za
Uwekaji wa Mpaka wa RZF 1.- Uwekaji wa mipaka ya hifadhi 50 25 maumbile zinapendekezwa kufafanua upatikanaji wao na hali yao, ambayo inaweza kupunguza mantiki ya
Hifadhi na Usimamizi RZF 2.- Usimamizi wa uvuvi katika hifadhi ya maji 75 75 25 athari kwa aina hizi za samaki ambazo taarifa zake hazijaandikwa sasa. Aidha, hatari inayotokana na
wa Uvuvi kuweka sangara kwenye hifadhi kwa samaki wa asili inaweza kuwa vigumu kuidhibiti kwa kuwa kuna
Usimamizi wa Spishi za AIS 1.- Usimamizi wa magugu maji 250 100 100 mahitaji halisi ya samaki katika eneo hili, ambapo wengi husafirishwa kutoka Ziwa Victoria. Uwezekano wa
Vamizi za Mgeni AIS 2.- Usimamizi wa samaki wa kigeni 25 50 25 kuendeleza ufugaji wa samaki samaki wa asili kama vile Ningu inashauriwa kama mbadala wa ufugaji wa
Mpango wa Utekelezaji BAP 1.- Uchunguzi wa ziada wa Samaki wanaoptikana katika 75 - - spishi za kigeni. Usimamizi wa kipengele hiki utahitaji kujitoa kwa wadau ngazi ya wilaya na katika ngazi ya
wa Bioanuwai baadhi ya maeneo fulani na si kwingineko (Restricted Range vijiji na ufuatiliaji wa mara kwa mara wa samaki waliokwenye hifadhi. Usimamizi wa udongo na mchanga
Species)
pia utahitajika kupunguza athari za muda mrefu yatokanayo na mmomonyoko kwenye maeneo yaliyoko
BAP 2.- Usimamizi wa Wanyamapori na Udhibiti 200 60 60
chini...
BAP 3.- Mkakati wa Fidia ya Viumbe Hai 1,200 1,000 500
BAP 4.- Njia za ziada za Uhifadhi 925 375 75 Athari kwa mazingira ya kiasili na kijamii na athari zinazohusiana na shughuli za ujenzi; uzalishaji, uchafuzi
Usimamizi wa Mtiririko EFMP 1.- Taratibu za Uendeshaji na Usimamizi Unaofaa 50 25 25 wa hali ya hewa na kelele, uchafuzi wa mazingira, n.k unatarajiwa. Hata hivyo, athari hizi zote zinaweza
wa maji wa Mazingira EFMP 2.- Mtiririko wa chini wakati wa kujaza Hifadhi au - - - kupunguzwa kwa kutekeleza hatua zinazofaa zilizomo katika Mpango wa Usimamizi na Udhibiti wa
Matengenezo Mazingira na Jamii na Mpango Kazi wa Uhamishaji (RAP). Jumla ya kaya 85 zitaathiriwa na uhamishaji wa
EFMP 3.- Usimamizi wa njis z uvuvi wa Samaki 200 50 25 shughuli zao za kiuchumi na ambapo kaya 8 (zilizoathiriwa na njia ya usafirishaji wa umeme zitahamishwa
Usimamizi wa EFMP 4.- Usimamizi wa Udngo uliorundikana 100 50 25 makazi.
(Mashapo)
EFMP 5.- Ushirikiano na nchi jirani 25 25 25

Stakeholders in Consultations Held in
February 2022

MEETING MINUTES: MISSENYI DISTRICT COUNCIL
PROJECT: KAKONO HYDROPOWER PROJECT
DATE: Monday, 07th February, 2022
TIME: 09:15am – 10:40am
VENUE: MISSENYI DISTRICT HALL
ATTENDANCE:
The consultation meeting was attended by Missenyi District Commissioner (DC), District Executive Director (DED)
and his team of experts, District security officers, representatives from MTL Consulting, representative from SLR
Consulting and representatives from TANESCO. (See the attached attendance form)
AGENDA
1. Opening the meeting and self-introduction
2. Brief presentation of the project from TANESCO
3. Power point presentation of the project from Consultants.
4. Comments from Missenyi District Council
5. Closing of the meeting
1.0 OPENING THE MEETING.

The meeting was opened at 09:15Am by the TANESCO district manager and it started with self-introduction where
all participants introduced themselves (see Appended signed Consultation form). Thereafter he welcomed a
member from TANESCO headquarters for the brief about the KAKONO hydropower project.
2.0 BRIEF PRESENTATION OF PROJECT BY TANESCO

The Hydropower Engineer from TANESCO presented to the participants about the project and its status together
with what is being done currently. He said that, TANESCO is planning to execute the hydropower project in Kagera
River that is expected to generate 524GWh annually. The project is financed by African Development Bank and
France development agency (Lenders). Lenders engaged SLR Consulting to fill the gaps for the project to comply
with standards for international funding agencies. After that He welcomed SLR representative for the power point
presentation.
3.0 PRESENTATION FROM CONSULTANTS

The presentation was given out by SLR consultant assisted by MTL consultants. During presentation, SLR pointed
out that the ESIA Certificate was issued in 2016 and it lapsed in 2019. So in order to meet standards of the
international funding agencies further studies have to be conducted and in 2020/2021 the studies were done. He
pointed out about the location of the project and give out the details about the project infrastructures and give out
important timelines for different phases of the project. However the construction will start after agreement
between TANESCO and the Lenders, followed by the appointment of a Construction Company. Information about
Land acquisition was given out and pointed out that about 84 households will be affected by the project by losing
their land and about 8 Households will lose their houses (Physical displacement). SLR described the potential
adverse impacts that will be caused by the project and how those impacts are planned to be mitigated. SLR further
said that current public meetings in Feb 2022 are to present the status of the project, the conclusions of the E&S
studies and to collect people’s views about the project so as the studies can be completed. SLR also told the DC
and DED that the Project is starting the public consultations today, and that the meeting with the DC was the first
901.1.38_Kakono_Public Consultation_MoM MISSENYI DC_7Feb22 Page 1 / 4

one in the project area (after the meeting held with the Regional Commissioner). The Project Team will be having
similar meetings with other districts and communities from 7 to 11 Feb.
4.0 COMMENTS FROM MISENYI DISTRICT PARTICIPANTS
QUESTION: It was commented that, there will be impacts on downstream water quantity; most of the people in
the downstream area depends on Kagera River for their livelihood, so any changes on the amount of water will
have impact to their livelihood. A question was asked on what will be done to address this.
RESPONSE: It was responded that, the reservoir will be operated as a run-of-river. It means that there will no
change in water quantity downstream of the dam, except during the reservoir filling and the sediment
management operation. Even during these operations, the Project will maintain a minimum flow regime that
ensure that no ecological or community uses of the river is affected. .
QUESTION. What is the difference between this project and other hydropower projects in the country like Nyumba
ya Mungu hydropower project that are not performing well due to climate changes?
RESPONSE: Feasibility Studies have been done for quite a number of years and it has been confirmed that there is
enough water for all seasons in a year so the project will perform well. About the other projects mentioned, they
are affected because there have been destructions in the water sources due to some anthropogenic activities,
however initiatives are now taken by TANESCO to address this.
QUESTION: There are other hydropower projects upstream. The question was asked on whether this may affect
the Kakono HPP, it was also asked if Uganda decide to develop a project like this, what will be the impact to the
Kakono HPP?
RESPONSE: It was responded that, the mentioned projects do not block water which flows in Kagera River and for
this case, there will be no impacts anticipated for the KHPP. Rusumo Falls and Kikagati are both run-of-river
projects, like Kakono.
For the case of Uganda, it was responded that, there are transboundary agreements and if they will want to
develop other hydropower projects, there must be agreements between the two countries.
QUESTION: How will the project help the communities on health issues?
RESPONSE: The project will communicate with the local communities in order to understand what are their
priorities in what sector. A needs assessment will be undertaken by the Kakono HPP in order to help communities
in prioritizing what are their needs in terms of services in health, education, agriculture development, Water
supply. TANESCO will develop a community investment strategy that explains the governance of the Community
Investment Plan, and how initiatives will be selected for support from the Project. These initiatives are not
identified at this stage, as the approach is to work with local communities on these.
QUESTION: There have been over flooding due to climate changes in the Kagera River and people have been
affected, will the dam construction prevent over flooding?
RESPONSE: No, the dam does not prevent that, it is not a storage reservoir with regulation: the reservoir will be
operated as a run-of-river scheme, the reservoir water level will be maintained at its full supply level most of the
time. There will be no flood control function. Any flood coming from upstream will be transferred downstream,
without increase or decrease of river discharge.
QUESTION: The Kakono reservoir may allow the elephants to cross the river in the future, from left to right bank,
easier than now, especially up at the top end where it will be narrow.

RESPONSE: The Project will meet with Kagera Sugar to understand the problem of elephant in the area but also
discuss on how the project can work together with them to address this.
QUESTION: What will happen to people in the area affected by loss of land, that were told not to continue
developments in 2016. Up to 2023, it is about 7 years with no development what will happen with valuations
which were conducted because by now it will be outdated?
RESPONSE: The valuation will need to be updated so as to consider the changes, however there is still discussion
which is going on between TANESCO and the government on how to handle this.
QUESTION: Valuation conducted along the way leave covered 27m but now the width has been increased to 35m?
What will happen with the rest?
RESPONSE: Valuation will be done again and people will be compensated accordingly.
QUESTION: In other projects, the community development programs are being supported, so will this project do
that also?
RESPONSE: There will be a CSR component for this project; the possibility is how to finance this on health and
education. This is not yet planned but it will depend on the decision between responsible ministries.
COMMENT: It was advised that, TANESCO should not take so long to compensate the PAPs, they depend on those
areas for their livelihood, and any delay will have a negative impact to their life. The Project should be viable and
take off.
RESPONSE: Noted
5.0 CLOSING OF THE MEETING.

The meeting was closed by at 10:40am by District Commissioner and he thanked the team for coming by and
commented that the District Council is ready to support this project because they understand that this is a
strategic national project.

APPENDIX: SIGNED CONSULTATION FORM

MEETING MINUTES: KAGERA SUGAR COMPANY LTD
DATE: Monday, 07th February, 2022
TIME: 03:00Pm – 04:50Pm
VENUE: KAGERA SUGAR MEETING ROOM
ATTENDANCE:
The consultation meeting was attended by Kagera Sugar team, representatives from MTL Consulting, representative
from SLR Consulting and representatives from TANESCO. (See the attached attendance form)
AGENDA
2. Brief presentation of the project from TANESCO
3. Power point presentation of the project from Consultants.
4. Comments from Kagera Sugar Team
1.0 OPENING THE MEETING
The meeting was opened at 03:00Pm by the Project Manager from Kagera Sugar and it started with self-introduction
where all participants introduced themselves (see Appended signed Consultation form). Thereafter he welcomed a
member from SLR Consulting for the PowerPoint presentation about the KAKONO hydropower project.
2.0 POWER POINT PRESENTATION FROM CONSULTANTS
The presentation was given out by SLR consultant assisted by MTL consultants. During presentation, SLR pointed out
that the ESIA Certificate was issued in 2016 and it lapsed in 2019. So in order to meet standards of the international
funding agencies further studies have to be conducted and in 2020/2021 the studies were done. He pointed out
about the location of the project and give out the details about the project infrastructures and give out important
timelines for different phases of the project. However the construction will start after agreement between TANESCO
and the Lenders, followed by the appointment of a Construction Company. Information about Land acquisition was
given out and pointed out that about 84 households will be affected by the project by losing their land and about 8
Households will lose their houses (Physical displacement). SLR described the potential adverse impacts that will be
caused by the project and how those impacts are planned to be mitigated. SLR further said that current public
meetings in Feb 2022 are to present the status of the project, the conclusions of the E&S studies and to collect
people’s views about the project so as the studies can be completed. SLR also told the DC and DED that the Project
is starting the public consultations today, and that the meeting with the DC was the first one in the project area
(after the meeting held with the Regional Commissioner). The Project Team will be having similar meetings with
other districts and communities from 7 to 11 Feb.
3.0 COMMENTS FROM KAGERA SUGAR TEAM
QUESTION: Does the reservoir of 17km2 include only the river bed or does it go outside to Kagera Sugar fields?
RESPONSE: No, the reservoir will not encroach into the existing Kagera sugar fields. KSC has actually anticipated
the reservoir footprint: the recently developed sugar cane plantations on the right bank of the future Kakono
reservoir follows the contours of the reservoir boundaries.
QUESTION: will the project affect the irrigation program of Kagera Sugar Cane fields?
RESPONSE: The reservoir will be operated as a run-of-river scheme. What flows into the reservoir will flow out
of the reservoir. It will not be operated as a regulation reservoir. As a result, the Project will not affect the
operation of the KSC pumping stations located downstream of the reservoir during normal operation. Only
during reservoir filling, and possibly during sediment flushing operations, the river flow downstream of the dam
will be lower that upstream of the reservoir. However, a minimum flow regime has been calculated so that
during these short-term events, the Kagera river water level downstream of the dam remains high enough to
not affect the operation of the pumps downstream of the dam. TANESCO will engage KSC ahead of reservoir
filling and sediment flushing to avoid or minimize adverse effects on KSC irrigation operation. There is a
pumping station located presently upstream of the proposed dam, within the future Kakono reservoir
boundaries. It will need to be removed prior to reservoir filling.
COMMENT (Kagera Sugar): Before the Kakono reservoir filling starts, KSC will remove the pump(s) installed
withing the boundaries of the future Kakono reservoir.
QUESTION: Will the power generated be supplied to the Kagera region or connected to the National grid?
RESPONSE: The power generated will be connected to the North-Western grid, through the existing Kyaka
substation. However, there is a 440kV transmission line project from Masaka (Uganda) going through the
existing Kyaka sub-station to Nyakanazi (Tanzania). In 2022, the Nyakanazi sub-station was under construction,
as was the Transmission Line from Nyakanazi to the national Grid. This is how the Kakono HPP project will be
connected to the national grid.
QUESTION: Will there be a road on the top of the dam, will it be public?
RESPONSE: There will be an access on the top of the dam, but it is unlikely to be public for public safety and dam
operation reasons. The public access from left to right bank will be through the recently built bridge
downstream of the proposed dam.
QUESTION: Will there be camp sites both sides of the river?
RESPONSE: Yes, there will be camp sites on both sides of the river
QUESTION: Why can’t a substation be built near the Kagera Sugar company Ltd as KSC are in need of electricity?
RESPONSE: This is well noted. It will be communicated to the TANESCO headquarters to see how it will work.
COMMENT: If the erosion of the riverbed and bank will be because of the project, monitoring program should
be conducted.
QUESTION: Will the project help in training the communities around, Kagera sugar fear to lose some of their
workers who could be employed by the EPC Contractor of the Kakono project.
RESPONSE: Yes, training will be there at the beginning of the construction, we expect to train about 300 people
including women. However, it is correct that there would be some sort of ‘local’ competition for manpower
during the Kakono project construction period. During operation, there would be a very limited number of job
opportunities (~30 jobs).
QUESTION: The project will take some of our land, how will the compensation be done?
RESPONSE: Valuation was done in 2018 and will be updated, as the validity of the 2018 Valuation Report has no
lapsed. Compensation will be paid accordingly.
QUESTION: During the reservoir filling, will the Project be flexible and may wait for the rainy season so that
there will be no effects downstream as it would be the non irrigation period for the Kagera Sugar Company Ltd?
RESPONSE: The minimum flow regime calculated as part of the EFlows Assessment is to ensure that there is no
interruption of the irrigation service downstream of the dam during reservoir filling. For the pumping station
upstream of the dam however, there could be interruption of service, depending on when the reservoir filling is
planned to start, which then influence how long it will take. A dialogue between TANESCO and KSC will be
implemented several months prior to the start of the reservoir filling. This will not happen before 3 to 4 years
after the start of the construction. KSC and TANESCO will have time to work out the best solution to manage the
reservoir filling period. KSC should however anticipate that whenever the reservoir filling happens, as the new
pump station will be located on the shore of the future reservoir, a technical solution would need to be found to
pump the water as the reservoir water level progressively rises from river water level to full supply level.
QUESTION (SLR): Are you facing problems with elephants on the right bank sugar cane plantation? And how do
you tackle the problem?
RESPONSE (Kagera Sugar): Yes, KSC face problems with elephants and we used to chase them out with shots
guns in the air, however the installation of electric fence could solve the problem (if evaluated and prompt
viable).
COMMENT (SLR): Consultation with TAWIRI may provide additional solutions on how to tackle the problem.
QUESTION (TANESCO): Would the proposed 220Kv Transmission Line be affected by smoke and ashes from the
burning of sugar cane fields?
RESPONSE: The TL will pass through the Kagera sugar fields on the right bank. There will be a corridor of 60m
left along the transmission line (30m for the RoW of the 220kV TL plus additional 30meters for KSC own needs
(road). This should mitigate the impacts but maintenance may be required from TANESCO. The 60m corridor
through the sugar cane plantation is already
QUESTION: Will the project erode the river banks?
RESPONSE: The reservoir will trap sediments transported by the Kagera River. This, in turn, will cause erosion of
the riverbed downstream of the dam: riverbed erosion and riverbed coarsening mainly along the first 20 km
downstream of the dam over the first 10 to 20 years. Then riverbed erosion is likely to propagate further
downstream over time, affecting the areas upstream and downstream of Kyaka after ~10 to 75 years and lower
reaches at a slower rate.
QUESTION: How many turbines will be installed for operations?
RESPONSE: Two Kaplan turbines will be installed for operations, each of 44MW.
QUESTION: During installation of turbines will the river be diverted?
RESPONSE: Yes, the river will be diverted through a channel on the left bank, for the construction of the
foundations of the dam in the Kagera riverbed.
KSC: On the plot PH2B a new camp has been built. It is noted that increase of waterborne diseases dues to the
new reservoir could affect the health for the workers of the camp. They should be included on the Community
Health Awareness program, as for the other communities.
KSC: It will be easy to do the corridor for the new line because we already delimitate it. It is not cleared now but
we are not planting sugar cane in that corridor.
TANESCO: The other dams upstream might release their water hyacinth without control. A coordinated strategy
will be needed.
KSC: Is there a risk that the Kagera river discharge is reduced during the turbine testing?
SLR: The minimum flow regime will be applied whenever there is an operation that requires retention of water
into the reservoir, however the testing of the turbines and the powerhouse are not supposed to reduce the
water discharged downstream.
KSC: We confirm that KSC land border with the blocks belonging to Missenyi ranch have not changed over the
last 10 years.
The meeting was closed by at 04:50Pm by Project Manager of KSC and he thanked the team for coming by.
MEETING MINUTES: KIYAKA VILLAGE COUNCIL
DATE: 08th February, 2022
TIME: 10:00Am- 12:15Pm
VENUE: KYAKA PRIMARY SCHOOL
ATTENDANCE:
The consultation meeting was attended by Kyaka village council members, representatives from MTL Consulting,
representative from SLR Consulting and representatives from TANESCO. (See the attached attendance form)
AGENDA
2. Presentation of the project from the Consultants.
3. Comments from Kyaka village council
The meeting was opened at 10:00am by the Kyaka Village Chairman and it started with self-introduction where all
participants introduced themselves (see Appended Signed Consultation form). Thereafter he welcomed Tanesco
District Manager for the introduction. After that consultant was welcomed for the power point presentation
The presentation was given out by MTL (in Swahili language). During presentation, MTL pointed out that the ESIA
Certificate was issued in 2016 and it lapsed in 2019. So, in order to meet standards of the international funding
agencies further studies have to be conducted and in 2020/2021 the studies were done. He pointed out about the
location of the project and give out the details about the project infrastructures and give out important timelines for
different phases of the project. However, the construction will start after agreement between TANESCO and the
Lenders, followed by the appointment of a Construction Company. Information about Land acquisition was given
out and pointed out that about 84 households will be affected by the project by losing their land and about 8
Households will lose their houses (Physical displacement). MTL described the potential adverse impacts that will be
caused by the project and how those impacts are planned to be mitigated. MTL further said that current public
people’s views about the project so as the studies can be completed.
3.0 COMMENTS FROM KYAKA DISTRICT PARTICIPANTS
QUESTION: Will this reservoir built alongside side the river of within the river?
RESPONSE: The reservoir is designed to be built within the river
QUESTION: Will the construction of dam affect the quantity of water downstream?
RESPONSE: No, the construction of dam will not affect the quantity of water downstream, but during reservoir
filling it may affect the quantity of water downstream however there will be communications with TANESCO to
see how this will work, and in any cases, the project will comply with a minimum flow regime calculated to
preserve and maintain community activities and ecology during the duration of the reservoir filling.
901.1.38_Kakono_MoM Kyaka 8 feb 10am Page 1 / 4

QUESTION: During feasibility study as per your presentation, it has shown that there is only one endangered type
of fish in Kagera river, how will this project affect other types of fish?
RESPONSE: There are many types of fish in Kagera river, but Ningu (i.e. Labeo Victorianus) is a Critically
Endangered species. Additional fishing surveys will be conducted by the team of experts in February to further
fine tune the Project’ strategy with respect to fish species in the Kagera river.
QUESTION: Land compensation was done in 2018, how will we be paid in 2022, as three years have passed by?
And valuation has already been done.
RESPONSE: The valuation report of 2018 has expired so; Land valuation will be done again for valuation of the
people affected by the project and compensation will be done accordingly.
QUESTION: Since land valuation survey of 2018 it has been long time and nothing has been done and until now,
we have been restricted to do any developments in the area, how will be compensated?
RESPONSE: The project has not taken off since the international funding agencies required much details about
the project and a lot of studies have been done in 2020/2021, so this engagement is one of the stages to complete
the studies to meet the international standards for the project to be funded.
QUESTION: There is Benako-Kyaka project which is also a transmission line project, what is the difference this
project and that project or they are the same project?
RESPONSE(TANESCO): Yes, Benako-Kyaka project is there, and it is different from this one, but both are TANESCO
ongoing projects.
QUESTION: How are we going to be compensated?
RESPONSE: Valuation will be done for the people who will be affected by the project and they will be compensated
according to national laws, and livelihood restoration measures will be undertaken as per international standards.
QUESTION: People need compensation, and there is delay in compensation since 2018, people are doing no
development in the areas, don’t you see that you are blocking people from their own development?
RESPONSE (District Land Officer): According to Tanzania Laws, after asset inventory and valuation, the land
owners are not allowed to develop those areas, and if compensation delays till after six months they will be
compensated with interest as planned by Bank of Tanzania on that particular month.
COMMENT: We thank you for the good presentation, but most of the times when the project comes you use good
words but when the project takes off, people do not get jobs as promised and other stuffs
RESPONSE: Noted, when the project takes off the construction company together with TANESCO will announce
the jobs and qualifications needed and those who will qualify will be given the opportunity to apply for a job.
However, for the unskilled jobs TANESCO, the construction company and the village members will identify the
perfect candidates for the jobs and they will be offered the jobs.
COMMENT: We advise that since Kyaka Village is going to be affected much, it should benefit much from the
project
RESPONSE: This is well noted; however, this has not been planned yet but once the project starts there will be
meetings to identify the priorities of the villages and the plan will be prepared and implemented accordingly.

QUESTION: Where will the camp site be?
RESPONSE: The camp site will be located at Kakono area as it can be seen on the Maps that we have provided to
you
QUESTION: How will local people get the jobs and will this electricity be supplied to the Kyaka village?
RESPONSE: Local candidates will go to TANESCO district office and each candidate will register their skills for job.
Unskilled jobs will be in priority for local people. There will be a training program from the Construction company
to increase the opportunity for local people to obtain a semi-skilled jobs. The generated electricity will not connect
the local community, it will be transmitted to Kyaka substation for connection ng it to the National grid.
QUESTION: We have different groups of women who can provide the food services to the Camp site once
construction starts, how can we get that opportunity?
RESPONSE: When the time comes, TANESCO will put into contact the Construction Company Supply Chain
Manager with the Village councils, so that persons who may have services or goods to sell have a chance to
become a supplier of the camp. However, TANESCO will also be vigilant that local purchase from the Construction
company does not result in increased local inflation.
QUESTION: The proposed Camp site is very far from the Village almost 40KM how will the workers access the
social services in case of emergency?
RESPONSE: It will be a big camp like village with almost 1,000 workers. Any worker accommodated in the camp
will have access to the camp facilities (medical care, food supply).
COMMENT: We advise that the non-skilled jobs should be posted to the village council office and the chairman
should be the one to recommend the candidates as he is the one who knows us better
RESPONSE: TANESCO social team will work with the construction company so that construction jobs be adverted
in the village councils of Kyaka, Omodungo, Businde, Mushabaiguru, Mugaba and Bugara. In addition, TANESCO
will assist the village councils in establishing a list of candidates who would like to apply to a construction job, and
will share this list with the Human Resources Manager of the Construction Company.
COMMENT: We have aggregates quarry here at Kyaka Village, we advise that during construction, the
construction company can buy aggregates from us.
RESPONSE: Yes, there will be plan to buy materials (including aggregates) from local community, We will give out
the name of logistics officer from the construction company for contact when the materials are available.

The meeting was closed by at 12:15Pm by the Kyaka Village Chairman and he thanked the team for coming by and
commented that he is expecting the project will be implemented soon as indicated on the presentation (Timeline).
He also told the village council members that there will be other meetings next time so if there will be questions,
they should reserve them till next time or presented them to the Village office and the Tanesco district office.


MEETING MINUTES: OMUNDONGO VILLAGE COUNCIL
TIME: 02:30Am- 04:00Pm
VENUE: OMUNDONGO PRIMARY SCHOOL
ATTENDANCE:
The consultation meeting was attended by Omundongo village council members, representatives from MTL
Consulting, representative from SLR Consulting and representatives from TANESCO. (See the attached attendance
form)
AGENDA
3. Comments from Omundongo village council
The meeting was opened at 02:30am by the Omundongo Village Chairman and it started with self-introduction
where all participants introduced themselves (see Appended Signed Consultation form). Thereafter he welcomed
Tanesco Environmental officer for the introduction. After that consultant was welcomed for the presentation about
the project.
The presentation was given out by MTL consultant (in Swahili language) assisted by SLR. During presentation, MTL
pointed out that the ESIA Certificate was issued in 2016 and it lapsed in 2019. So, in order to meet standards of the
international funding agencies further studies have to be conducted and in 2020/2021 the studies were done. He
pointed out about the location of the project and give out the details about the project infrastructures and give out
important timelines for different phases of the project. However, the construction will start after agreement
between TANESCO and the Lenders, followed by the appointment of a Construction Company. Information about
Land acquisition was given out and pointed out that about 84 households will be affected by the project by losing
their land and about 8 Households will lose their houses (Physical displacement). MTL described the potential
adverse impacts that will be caused by the project and how those impacts are planned to be mitigated. MTL further
said that current public meetings in Feb 2022 are to present the status of the project, the conclusions of the E&S
studies and to collect people’s views about the project so as the studies can be completed.
QUESTION: What are the impacts of the project to the people of Omundongo?
RESPONSE: Omundongo is not affected much by the project as there will be no land acquisition. Together with
Kyaka, Omundongo is the first village downstream of the dam (excluding KSC worker camps). The village could be
affected if the project impacts on river water quality and river geomorphology were to be more significant than
predicted. Changes in river flow will only be during reservoir filling but it has been designed that no effects will
be observed for fishing activities.
QUESTION: Will the project help in providing social services to Omundongo people?
RESPONSE: TANESCO committed to develop and implement a Community Investment Plan, which includes CSR
initiatives, i.e. identifying what the development priorities are in each community affected by the Project, and
prioritize them for a support from the Project within the limit of a given budget.
901.1.38_Omodungo_MoM Kyaka 8Feb 2pm Page 1 / 3

QUESTION: We expect there will be jobs available, how are you assuring us that these jobs will be provided to us
and not the outsiders?
RESPONSE: During construction and operation, most positions will be held by Tanzanian people. However, only a
portion of these positions will be for unskilled jobs, i.e. jobs easily accessible by the local villagers as they would
require specific skills. It is estimated that around 180 positions will be for unskilled jobs during construction, and
these jobs will be first proposed to villagers living in the communities close to the reservoir, dam and the
Transmission Line. The EPC Contractor will be required to implement a local skills development programme to
improve the chances of local villagers to access semi-skilled jobs during construction. TANESCO’s social team will
also work with village councils to (i) establish the list of candidates for construction jobs and share it with the
Human Resources Manager of the Contractor(s) and (ii) communicate the list of jobs requirements established by
the Contractor(s) so that villagers are aware of opportunities and associated requirements.
QUESTION: The project covers almost three districts as per your maps, how are you planning that the CSR
programs will be distributed equally among three districts
RESPONSE: It has not been decided yet, but a survey will be conducted to identify priorities of villages on social
services and then the plan will be prepared and implemented accordingly.
QUESTION: During your presentation you have not identified how will the impacted people be compensated?
RESPONSE: Compensation will be undertaken following the Tanzania legal requirements, completed with
livelihood restoration measures that comply with the Lenders policies. Land valuation has been undertaken in
2018 but will have to be updated in the next months, as the funding of the Project is confirmed. Omundongo
villagers are not meant to be affected by loss of land due to the project construction or operation activities.
QUESTION: Comparing to Mwl Nyerere hydropower project, people nearby were adversely affected by the
project, how are you addressing that impact in this project?
RESPONSE(TANESCO): Feasibility studies have been done and it has been shown that nearby people who will be
affected by the project will be compensated accordingly and others will be physically displaced who will also be
compensated.
QUESTION: How do you ensure that the areas that were valuated in 2018 are not going to be developed by the
villagers?
RESPONSE(TANESCO): During 2018 valuation report, all affected people were contacted and told not to develop
their areas, so they are aware about the areas, and marks were placed there.
QUESTION: There is endangered fish found in Kagera river that you talked about, should we continue to fish it or
not?
RESPONSE: It is correct that there is an endangered fish species in the Kagera River (Labeo Victorianus). It is not
the Project’s competence to allow or forbid fishing of threatened species, only the authorities have this
prerogative.
QUESTION: Currently we use electricity from Uganda, are we going to use this electricity from Kakono project or
it will be connected to the national grid?
RESPONSE: Power generated by the Kakono HPP will be connected to the national grid and it will not supply
specifically the local communities. However, its objective is to strengthen and stabilize electricity supply in this
region.
QUESTION: We have experienced on other projects that people from outside the country are employed while
there are other Tanzanian with the same expertise who are not employed?
RESPONSE: In the contract of the construction company, it will be specified that Tanzanians should be employed
in priority, and that unskilled jobs be proposed first to local villagers. But also, the construction company will be
required to train local people for semi-skilled jobs.

QUESTION: About 40% of Tanzanians have skills and experience of doing some works example fabrication but we
don’t have certificates, how are we going to be employed? We propose that there should be practical interviews
for such kind of jobs that we can be employed even if we don’t have certificates.
RESPONSE: TANESCO should develop good relationship with the construction company so that priority would be
given to the local communities and the interviews will be done so that you can demonstrate your skills for job
even without certificates.
COMMENT (VEO): The government have come with strategy in relation to the matter, Government via VETA is
going to give certificates to the people with skills and experience after passing the interview and practical
examinations. You should register your name and skills that you have to WEO officer so that VETA would interview
you and give out certificates after examinations.

The meeting was closed by at 04:00Pm by the Omundongo Village Chairman and he thanked the team for coming
by and commented that he and village council members will give full support to the consultants in the project and
should not hesitate to contact him in case of anything. He then wished lucky to the consultants for the upcoming
meetings with other stakeholders.

MEETING MINUTES: KARAGWE DISTRICT COUNCIL
TIME: 09:35Pm- 11:10Pm
VENUE: KARAGWE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER’S OFFICE
ATTENDANCE:
The consultation meeting was attended by Karagwe District commissioner, Ag. District Executive Director and his
team of experts, representatives from MTL Consulting, representative from SLR Consulting and representatives from
TANESCO. (See the attached attendance form)
AGENDA
3. Comments from the District council members
The meeting was opened at 09:35am by the Karagwe District Commissioner and it started with self-introduction
where all participants introduced themselves (see Appended Signed Consultation form). Thereafter she welcomed
the project.
3.0 COMMENTS FROM KARAGWE DISTRICT PARTICIPANTS
QUESTION: We have heard about this project we thank you for good presentation, its good project for the nation,
we propose to have a site visit to the see where the project will be carried out, we thank you very much for the
project.
RESPONSE: Noted, this is a good idea that will be included in the revised ESIA/ESMMP.
QUESTION: what is the wayleave of the transmission line? In order to understand who will be affected.
RESPONSE: The wayleave of the transmission line is 35m, it’s a requirement from TANESCO relating to the voltage
of the power line.
QUESTION: What about land compensation to the people who will be affected by the project?
RESPONSE: Compensation will be undertaken following the Tanzania legal requirements, completed with
livelihood restoration measures that comply with the Lenders policies. Land valuation has been undertaken in
2018 but will have to be updated in the next months, as the funding of the Project is confirmed.
901.1.38-Kakono_MoM Karagwe_9Feb_9am Page 1 / 2

QUESTION: What will happen to the people without land certificates showing that they own the land, how will
they be compensated?
RESPONSE: As per our presentation, for households with undocumented Customary Rights of Occupancy, the
Project will seek for the confirmation from the Village land council that the household has been residing on or
farming village land, and they will be compensated accordingly.
QUESTION: In your presentation there are no costs of the project development, how much is it going to cost?
RESPONSE: Construction costs are expected to be 290 million dollars as estimated in year 2019.
QUESTION: In your presentation, you have not pointed out about CSR, how will it be?
RESPONSE: TANESCO committed to develop and implement a Community Investment Plan, which includes CSR
initiatives, i.e. identifying what the development priorities are in each community affected by the Project, and
prioritize them for a support from the Project within the limit of a given budget.
QUESTION: What will be the percentage of jobs for Tanzanians?
RESPONSE: During construction and operation, the majority of positions will be held by Tanzanian people.
However, only a portion of these positions will be for unskilled jobs, i.e. jobs easily accessible by the local villagers
as they would require specific skills. It is estimated that around 180 positions will be for unskilled jobs during
construction. The EPC Contractor will be required to implement a local skills development programme to improve
the chances of local villagers to access semi-skilled jobs during construction. TANESCO’s social team will also work
with village councils to (i) establish the list of candidates for construction jobs and share it with the Human
Resources Manager of the Contractor(s) and (ii) communicate the list of jobs requirements established by the
Contractor(s) so that villagers are aware of opportunities and associated requirements.
QUESTION: In the site area, there are problems with elephant invasion, what are the mitigation measures that
you are planning to use?
RESPONSE: The Project has also identified the presence of elephants as a potential issue that may be exacerbated
by the creation of the Kakono reservoir: After reservoir filling, elephants may be able to cross the reservoir to
access the ranching land and sugar cane plantations on the left bank and cause conflicts. Elephants are likely to
be an ongoing problem on the right bank as the sugar cane plantation expands, which could result in persecution
of problem animals. The Project will work with TAWIRI on solutions and how to promote/implement them in the
project area. Electrical fencing could be one of the solutions, but maybe there are other solutions, and this is why
a study must be commissioned to come up with a proper and practical plan. Kagera Sugar would need to be
involved as the expansion of sugar cane plantations in the area will attract elephants while reducing the land
available for the elephants to wander.

The meeting was closed by at 11:10Am by District Commissioner and she thanked the team for coming by and
commented that they are happy about the project as it will stabilize electricity in the region and they wish the project
would start as soon as possible. But also advised that when going down to the villages it is best to go with the district
officer so that villagers may understand that the project is known by the district commissioner and provide full
support.
901.1.38-Kakono_MoM Karagwe_9Feb_9am Page 2 / 2

MEETING MINUTES: MUSHABAIGURU VILLAGE COUNCIL
TIME: 03:10Pm- 04:50Pm
VENUE: MUSHABAIGURU PRIMARY SCHOOL
ATTENDANCE:
The consultation meeting was attended by Mushabaiguru village council members, representatives from MTL
Consulting, representative from SLR Consulting and representatives from TANESCO. (See the attached attendance
form)
AGENDA
3. Comments from Mushabaiguru village council

The meeting was opened at 03:10Pm by the Mushabaiguru Village Chairman and it started with self-introduction
the project.

3.0 COMMENTS FROM MUSHABAIGURU VILLAGE COUNCIL

QUESTION: Elephant is a big problem in our village, how will you help us with that?
available for the elephants to wander.
901.1.38_Kakono_MOM_MUSHABAIGURU_9Feb22_3pm Page 1 / 4
QUESTION: In our village, we don’t have dispensary, how will you help us with that?
RESPONSE: We spoke about community investment; Mushabaiguru village will be eligible to receiving the funds
for community investments as it is one of the villages that will be affected by the project. When construction
starts there will needs assessments to understand the priorities of the villages and then the plan will be prepared
and implemented accordingly within the available budget. If the village councils wants to give priority on health
rather than, for instance, education or agriculture sectors, this will be its choice. But the Project will not be able
to finance all local initiatives, so prioritization will have to be undertaken.
COMMENT: There are some households which were in Mugaba village but now they are in Mushabaiguru village
due to long distance in accessing social services
RESPONSE: All households affected by loss of land, whether residing in Mushabaiguru or in Mugaba, have been
identified and engaged.
QUESTION: We have experience where the project coordinators came with good words and promised us about
jobs but when the project starts no jobs are offered to the local people, how are you assuring us about the jobs?
RESPONSE: During construction and operation, the majority of positions will be held by Tanzanian people.
However, only a portion of these positions will be for unskilled jobs, i.e. jobs easily accessible by the local villagers
as they would require specific skills. It is estimated that around 180 positions will be for unskilled jobs during
construction. The EPC Contractor will be required to implement a local skills development programme to improve
the chances of local villagers to access semi-skilled jobs during construction. TANESCO’s social team will also work
with village councils to (i) establish the list of candidates for construction jobs and share it with the Human
Resources Manager of the Contractor(s) and (ii) communicate the list of jobs requirements established by the
Contractor(s) so that villagers are aware of opportunities and associated requirements.
QUESTION: Where will the access road of 38km be? Will it pass through Mushabaiguru village or not?
RESPONSE: No, the access road will pass through Narco ranch.
QUESTION: I have heard that there will jobs for non-skilled and skilled labors; will we be updated earlier so that
we can get trainings for the jobs?
RESPONSE Yes, Tanesco will inform the villages earlier on the trainings so that people can prepare themselves for
the training.
COMMENT: We advise that the facilities for the camp like hospitals should be built in Mushabaiguru village and
not on the NARCO ranch so that after the project they remain under village for villagers to continue accessing the
services
RESPONSE: The facilities will belong to Tanesco, so Tanesco will be responsible for organizing on how people will
access different services on the camp site. The present plan is to have TANESCO’s health facility located in the
operators village, close to the dam. Not in Mushabaiguru or other village’s land.
QUESTION: How many villages have you engaged, and when do you expect to finish? When do Tanesco expect
to receive the funds from lenders and when are you going to implement the project?
RESPONSE: The Project has engaged all villages in the past years. As part of the more recent ESIA process, all
villages have been engaged again in 2020. For the present disclosure process of the 2022 ESIA and RAP
conclusions, by 09 February, the project has had formal meetings with Kyaka, Omundongo and Mushabaiguru
villages so far. We expect to finish the remained affected villages on 11th February 2022. Lenders are expected to
receive the project documents on June or July; the report will be posted on the internet for 4 months before
approval to give time for any comments from people. If everything goes well, we expect the project will start next
year.
COMMENT: We advise that, you sit with the construction company so that the access road can pass through the
Mushabaiguru village so that we can benefit for doing businesses
RESPONSE: The access road route will be determined by the construction company. At this stage, it is not planned
that it goes through Mushabaiguru but through the easiest way which is in the plain, as illustrated on the maps
distributed during the meeting

The meeting was closed by at 04:50 pm by the Mushabaiguru Village Chairman and he thanked the team for coming
by and commented that he and village council members will give full support to the consultants in the project and
should not hesitate to contact him in case of anything. He wish the project to start as soon as possible.
MEETING MINUTES: KYERWA DISTRICT COUNCIL
TIME: 11:30Am- 12:25Pm
VENUE: KYERWA DISTRICT COMMISSIONER’S OFFICE
ATTENDANCE:
The consultation meeting was attended by Kyerwa District commissioner, District administrative secretary, District
Executive Director and his team of experts, District security officers, representatives from MTL Consulting,
AGENDA
3. Comments from the District council members
The meeting was opened at 11:30am by the Kyerwa District Commissioner and it started with self-introduction
Tanesco District Manager for the introduction. After that consultant was welcomed for the presentation about the
project.
location of the project and give out the details about the project infrastructures and give out important timelines
for different phases of the project. However, the construction will start after agreement between TANESCO and
the Lenders, followed by the appointment of a Construction Company. Information about Land acquisition was
given out and pointed out that about 84 households will be affected by the project by losing their land and about 8
Households will lose their houses (Physical displacement). MTL described the potential adverse impacts that will
be caused by the project and how those impacts are planned to be mitigated. MTL further said that current public
3.0 COMMENTS FROM KARAGWEDISTRICT PARTICIPANTS
QUESTION: what will be the costs for project?

RESPONSE: The construction costs are expected to be 290 million dollars as it was estimated in 2019.
QUESTION: who is going to finance this project
RESPONSE: The project is expected to be financed by Norway, the Africa Development Bank and the French
Agency for Development.
QUESTION: What are the mitigation measures you have planned for the disturbance that will be caused by the
project to the ecosystem especially for Elephants and hippos?
RESPONSE: The Project has identified the presence of elephants as a potential issue that may be exacerbated by
the creation of the Kakono reservoir: After reservoir filling, elephants may be able to cross the reservoir to
901.1.38_Kakono_MoM_Kyerwa_District_10Feb22_11am Page 1 / 2
be an ongoing problem on the right bank as the sugar cane plantation expands, which could result in
persecution of problem animals. The Project will work with TAWIRI on solutions and how to
promote/implement them in the project area. Electrical fencing could be one of the solutions, but maybe there
are other solutions, and this is why a study must be commissioned to come up with a proper and practical plan.
Kagera Sugar would need to be involved as the expansion of sugar cane plantations in the area will attract
elephants while reducing the land available for the elephants to wander
Hippopotamus which occur in the Kagera River in the reservoir area and downstream are not expected to be
significantly impacted by the Project and are likely to become established in the reservoir, where they may pose
a problem for local residents. As part of the reservoir fisheries management plan, public safety awareness
campaign will be undertaken, they will include the risks relating to the hippos presence (which is already
existing along the Kagera banks).
QUESTION: when you expect to compensate the affected people?
RESPONSE: The compensation is expected to be done next year, when the financing of the Project is confirmed.
QUESTION: When will the CSR programs start to the affected communities?
RESPONSE: Needs assessment is expected to be done next year in order to understand the priorities of the
villages and when the construction starts the CSR projects will be implemented as well.
QUESTION: Are you aware that Kyerwa district is a new district and are you ready to receive our priorities to
support our district in construction?
RESPONSE: Yes we are aware that Kyerwa District is new district but our targets are the affected villages, so the
CSR programs will be concentrated to the affected villages.
QUESTION: when will the project office be constructed at the site area?
RESPONSE: We expect the project office will be constructed at end of the next year at the Kitengule Ranch and
this is after the appointment of the construction company.
QUESTION: Does the villages know that you are going there for meetings?
RESPONSE: Yes, the information was shared to them since last week by one of our colleague.
QUESTION: Why is the substation not in Kyerwa?
RESPONSE: Because the generated power is going to be connected to the substation that is in Kyaka.
QUESTION: Along the project area in Kagera River, there is a place where villagers used to send their animals for
drinking water, how are you planning to allow that so that there may be no conflicts between project and local
communities?
RESPONSE: There is a plan to develop areas where animals would drink water along the Kakono reservoir, but
also a place where people will do fishing.
COMMENT: We advise that there should be a plan to accommodate small businesses for local people as many
would want to do business for their income
RESPONSE: Noted, we will work upon that.

The meeting was closed by at 12:25Pm by District Commissioner and he thanked the team for the good
presentation and commented that they would provide full support to the project and wish that the project would
start as soon as possible.
901.1.38_Kakono_MoM_Kyerwa_District_10Feb22_11am Page 2 / 2
MEETING MINUTES: MUGABA VILLAGE COUNCIL
TIME: 09:50Am- 11:25Am
VENUE: MUGABA VILLAGE OFFICE
ATTENDANCE:
The consultation meeting was attended by Mugaba village council members, representatives from MTL Consulting,
AGENDA
3. Comments from Mugaba village council
The meeting was opened at 09:50am by the Mugaba Village Executive Officer and it started with self-introduction
the project.
COMMENT: As I can understand, this project is helpful to our community it’s a gift, so am happy for the project
and I don’t think I should question anything.
RESPONSE: The Project will have positive impacts, but there are also negative effects of the project, three families
in Mugaba will lose their land and the village will lose part of the land too though compensation will be done but
it is still a loss. The lake may attract elephants and also mosquitoes. The project will try to mitigate the negative
effects. This is a big Project, and there is no big projects without negative effects. Positive effects will be during
construction phase (e.g. job opportunities) but the negative effects may be observed during operational phase.
901.1.38_Kakono_MOM_Mugaba_11Feb22_9am Page 1 / 2
QUESTION: This mountain here at Mugaba is a big problem, so we advise if is there a possibility to construct
access road via Mugaba village to access the project area so that we can provide our products including crops to
the camp site
RESPONSE: The camp site will be close to the dam, which is far from here, and the Project cannot build access
roads to each village to access the project area. We had similar requests from other communities, but there would
be only one access road to the dam facilities, and it will be in the plain as illustrated in the map distributed during
the meeting. The project will try to maximize the way for selling local goods from communities around to the
camp site.
QUESTION: There are lands in the project area that people use to feed their cattle (grazing), but also there are
areas where the cattle is drinking water (cattle water point): what will happen after those area are taken by the
project?
RESPONSE: There will be a study for creating water point for cattle. This has not yet been decided as the exact
boundaries of the reservoir have not been marked. For grazing land that belongs to households, compensation
will be done to the affected people where their grazing land has been taken. For grazing land that belong to the
village (and not to a household in particular) the compensation will be done in cash to the village council, based
on the updated valuation report.
QUESTION: The compensation will be done but where will we get the area for grazing again as the area will be
occupied by the reservoir? We advise the Government to give us another alternative area for grazing.
RESPONSE: The point is noted, but it is unlikely to happen. It will be up to the Village council to use the
compensation provided by the Project to assist in findings alternative land, as required.
QUESTION: For workers at the camp site, where will they get social services like school, hospitals etc.?
RESPONSE: In the camp site, there will be all facilities required for the workers during construction. During
operation, TANESCO is yet to plan on how the communities can access the social services.

The meeting was closed by at 11:25Am by the Mugaba Village Chairman and he thanked the team for coming by and
commented that he and village council members will give full support to the consultants in the project and should
not hesitate to contact him in case of anything. He then wished lucky to the consultants for the upcoming meetings
with other stakeholders.
901.1.38_Kakono_MOM_Mugaba_11Feb22_9am Page 2 / 2
MEETING MINUTES: BUGARA VILLAGE COUNCIL
TIME: 11:45Am- 01:25Pm
VENUE: BUGARA PRIMARY SCHOOL
ATTENDANCE:
The consultation meeting was attended by Bugara village council members, representatives from MTL Consulting,
AGENDA
3. Comments from Bugara village council
The meeting was opened at 11:45am by the Bugara Village Chairman and it started with self-introduction where all
participants introduced themselves (see Appended Signed Consultation form). Thereafter he welcomed Tanesco for
the introduction. After that consultant was welcomed for the power point presentation
3.0 COMMENTS FROM BUGARA VILLAGE COUNCIL
QUESTION: What will happen to the village land that will be lost because of the Project?
RESPONSE: The compensation will be done in cash and it will be paid to the village.
QUESTION: what will happen to the owners of the land with no title deed, how will the valuation be done?
RESPONSE: Land valuation will be done by the district land officer, for the houses with no title deed the village
council will prove the Land ownership of the person, though in this village no house will be lost due to project,
only part of the village land will be lost.
901.138_Kakono_MOM_BUGARA_11Feb22_11am Page 1 / 3
QUESTION: During your presentation you have not identified the mitigation measures for elephants though for
other impacts you have identified the mitigation measures, what are the mitigation measures for the problem
with elephants in our area?
RESPONSE: The project has a plan and budget for that, and it will work with TAWIRI on solutions and how to
promote/implement them in the project area. Electrical fencing could be one of the solutions, but maybe there
are other solutions, and this is why a study must be commissioned to come up with a proper and practical plan.
Kagera Sugar would need to be involved as the expansion of sugar cane plantations in the area will attract
elephants while reducing the land available for the elephants to wander.
QUESTION: As we have seen from your presentation, the project may result to different health problems in the
community areas, don’t you see its important to build health centers to the villages?
RESPONSE: There will be budget for community investment programs and the villagers will identify their priorities
through needs assessment if it is health, education or road construction and the plan will be prepared and
implemented accordingly. For health issues, the Project will further develop and implement a Community
Waterborne Disease Strategy (operation) and an Influx Management Strategy (construction) which will provide
additional resources to mitigate the project potential adverse effects on community health.
QUESTION: Part of the Land for grazing will be lost, what is the plan for the villagers who has lost their land for
grazing (Alternative area for grazing)?
RESPONSE: Topographic survey will be done to demarcate the reservoir boundaries; For grazing land that belongs
to households, compensation will be done to the affected people where their grazing land has been taken. For
grazing land that belong to the village (and not to a household in particular) the compensation will be done in
cash to the village council, based on the updated valuation report.
QUESTION: Thank you for good presentation, how did you identify the three households (land plots) that you said
will be affected directly by the project in our village?
RESPONSE: There have been valuation done in 2018 by the Missenyi district land officer and the land plots were
identified to be in the reservoir project area. A verification has been undertaken in 2020 by the ESIA Team.
QUESTION: There have been a lot of trees to be cut down and we depend to them for precipitation, how are you
planning to plant those trees?
RESPONSE: There will be no impact on precipitations. The area where vegetation will be cleared is small compared
to what would influence the climate. For now there is no plan for planting trees along the reservoir as it is too
long and natural vegetation may grow again along the new reservoir boundaries thanks to a wetter soil. There is
plan to compensate the loss of biodiversity though, but this will be through one of the existing protected area,
not necessarily along the future reservoir.
QUESTION: When will the CSR programs start, will it be during the construction or after?
RESPONSE: Before construction, there will be a needs assessment to understand the priorities of the villages, and
the implementation will be done during the construction and during the first years of operation
COMMENT: How was the inventory done, was that issue discussed with the village council? Do the people who
are going to be compensated belongs to the village?
RESPONSE: The valuation and inventory was done in 2018 by the Missenyi district Valuer. As it has now expired,
it will need to be updated. When new valuation starts, the Project will invite the village council for identifying the
citizens who owns the land.
The meeting was closed by at 01:25Pm by the Bugara Village Chairman and he thanked the team for coming by and
MEETING MINUTES: BUSINDE VILLAGE COUNCIL
TIME: 15:12Pm- 04:30Pm
VENUE: BUSINDE VILLAGE OFFICE
ATTENDANCE:
The consultation meeting was attended by Businde village council members, representatives from MTL Consulting,
AGENDA
3. Comments from Businde village council
The meeting was opened at 15:12Pm by the Businde Village Chairman and it started with self-introduction where all
participants introduced themselves (see Appended Signed Consultation form). Thereafter he welcomed Tanesco
District Manager for the introduction. After that consultant was welcomed for the power point presentation
3.0 COMMENTS FROM BUSINDE VILLAGE COUNCIL
QUESTION: What will happen to the village land that will be lost because of the project?
RESPONSE: For land that belongs to households, compensation will be done to the affected people where their
land has been taken. For grazing land that belong to the village (and not to a household in particular) the
compensation will be done in cash to the village council, based on the updated valuation report. To help
understand how much the land will be taken, the reservoir area will be physically delineated on the ground.
901.1.8_Kakono_MOM_BUSINDE_11Feb22_3pm Page 1 / 3
QUESTION: What is the percentage of the land that will be taken from our village?
RESPONSE: We can tell the number of hectares that will be taken from your village. In Businde village, 137.6
hectares will be taken for the project.
QUESTION: When will the project start?
RESPONSE: The project is expected to start at the end of next year, 2023
QUESTION: I have heard there will be community investments, when will it start?
RESPONSE: This will be done in steps. Step one will be done next year which is needs assessment in order to
understand your priorities. Step two there will be procurement to select the company for working in your
priorities and then the last is the execution. This is expected to be done during construction
QUESTION: How will you deal with elephants in our area as it is a big challenge and it may disturb the project.
available for the elephants to wander..
QUESTION: Will the execution of the project (creation of the reservoir) impact the cattle’s and other animals for
villagers?
RESPONSE: Due to project, some grazing area will be lost, and will be compensated, but the reservoir will not
affect the animals. As we talk to other villagers, there will be safe water point for animals.
QUESTION: How do you ensure that, the estimated full supply of the reservoir will not be exceeded and cause
overflows to other areas not expected?
RESPONSE: The reservoir level will be managed at its full supply level at any time, even during floods. It is expected
that certain years, during the high flow season, water spill over the dam. There is a safety infrastructure made for
that, formed of the spillway and the bottom outlet, so that overspill can be undertaken in a safe and controlled
manner and maintain the reservoir at a constant level. When and if the Project decides to manage sediments, the
reservoir could be lowered. But there are no events when the full supply level of the reservoir could be exceeded.
QUESTION: 137.6Hactares is a big area, and there are natural vegetations, trees will be cut down due to the
project, that will impact the area, how are you going to mitigate that?
RESPONSE: Its true trees will be cut down due to project, at the moment there is no plan to plant the trees,
however there will be biodiversity compensation. The loss of the trees will not impact the climate change but to
the vegetation.
The meeting was closed by at 04:30Pm by the Businde Village Chairman and he thanked the team for coming by and
Minutes of Stakeholder Meetings – Kakono ESIA
Location: Mwanza
Institution: Lake Victoria Water Board (LVWB)
Date 11 Feb 2022 (11-12.30)
Attendance: 6 staff of LVWB, J Hughes of SLR Consulting and E Mwanga of Tanesco
1. Introduction by E Mwanga (Tanesco) and brief overview of the purpose of the meeting
2. Presentation by J Hughes (SLR) with particular focus on aquatic ecology.
3. Questions and Answers
# Question Responses
1 The presentation has explained that TANESCO support the need for automated
water will be used by the turbines to monitoring of river flow and will give consideration
generate power. It is a mandate of the to this request.
LVWB to understand how the project
affects hydrology. Currently the LVWB
has a manual recording gauge. LVWB
would like to be able to compare
hydrological information between
gauges and recommend a telemetry
system for automated monitoring of
flow. They requested that TANESCO
make provision for this.
2 The presentation has addressed the key An ESMMP has been compiled as part of the ESIA
issues of relevance to the LVWB. that is available on the TANESCO website. This
However, an ESMP is needed to detail provides a framework that indicates the
all the management measures. environmental and social mitigation and monitoring
measures for the project. The EPC contractor who
will construct the dam will prepare sub-plans
relevant to construction. All the other measures fall
under TANESCO’s responsibility to ensure they are
implemented (including measures to be
implemented by other institutions in Tanzania). A
number of other plans are required to detail how
the measures will be implemented.
3 With respect to the issue of Asset registration has been done and compensation
compensation for loss of community will be expedited as quickly as possible. The loan
assets this needs to be speeded up as it from lenders still has to be agreed so there is time to
is a potential obstacle to starting the undertake the compensation process.
project.
4 Please clarify if the 1000 jobs are for Approximately 1000 jobs will be created during
construction or operation construction and 30 for operation.
5 The presentation mentioned various Construction management measures have been
mitigation measures but it didn’t detailed in the ESMMP but were not covered in this
include aspects such as wastewater presentation. Most are typically standard for a HPP
management. How has this and similar construction and will be the responsibility of the EPC
aspects been addressed? contractor to implement through various sub-plans
that need to be developed.
6 The presentation referred to monitoring Agreed. Nutrient levels are an important component
of sediments. However, it seems that of the biomonitoring programme and will be
this should include monitoring of included. A detailed monitoring programme needs
nutrients too as this is an indicator of to be developed with TAFIRI.
potential eutrophication, hyacinth and
problem algae and may affect
downstream river productivity
7 The Kagera River is a transboundary No. TANESCO has not discussed the project with
river. Has TANESCO contacted neighbouring countries. The project is entirely
neighbouring countries? situated within Tanzania and it is not a
transboundary project like Rusumo and Kikagati
HPPs. Engagement with neighbouring countries
(Uganda) is specified in the ESMMP as a condition of
the stakeholder engagement plan.
8 What is the lifespan of the dam given Some of this sediment will be trapped by Rusumo
the large volumes of sediment carried and Kikagati and in future by proposed Nsongezi
by the Kagera River? HPPs (as well as Akagera swamps). This aspect has
been considered in the design of the dam. The
reservoir is 36 km long and it will take many years
for sediment deposited at the headwaters to
incrementally deposit further down to the dam wall.
In addition, the sediment will be monitored and
flushing take place in years to come.
9 It is important to identify areas and We agree that in-country institutions are important
opportunities for LVWP and TANESCO for collaboration to implement the agreed mitigation
to work together, especially for aspects and monitoring measures.
such as minimum flow releases and Once funding has been agreed by project lenders
monitoring of sediment and flow. areas for collaboration can be agreed.
10 Has the project taken into account bulk Yes, the 2017 feasibility study considered this and
water abstraction in Uganda of 8 m3/s? the abstraction by Kagera Sugar. It was also
This is a lot of water and LVWB are in considered as part of the cumulative impact
negotiations with the project about the assessment in the 2020 ESIA. Kagera Sugar is
volume that they intend to abstract. downstream so their abstraction does not affect the
project. We considered their needs to ensure that a
minimum of 140m3/s is released during reservoir
filling to ensure their pumps can continue to work.
They are also aware that they had pump stations
planned in the reservoir area and are not
constructing these there anymore but will abstract
from below the dam.
12 Water hyacinth has been a big problem Thank you. We are aware of the issue on Owen Falls
on Owen Falls Dam. The project needs and the measures they have taken to try and
to consider the implications of this and manage the problem. We have specified the need
how to manage it, including during for an Aquatic Weed Management Plan, including
mechanical removal and transport of the need to investigate disposal and mechanical and
cleared hyacinth so it does not spread biological control options. We have also specified
further. It is advised to speak with the the need for booms to protect water intakes/
Plant Protection Department in the turbines.
Ministry of Agriculture about the
control of hyacinth and options for
reuse.
Thanks were given to all for attending
the meeting. The meeting was then
closed.
Location: Mwanza
Institution: TAFIRI
Date 11 Feb 2022
Attendance: 11 staff of TAFIRI, J Hughes of SLR Consulting and E Mwanga of TANESCO
1. Introduction by E Mwanga (TANESCO) and brief overview of the purpose of the meeting
2. Presentation by J Hughes (SLR) with particular focus on aquatic ecology.
1 As you have explained the Kakono To meet lender requirements, the first step is to
project is located in critical habitat for
determine if the project is in critical habitat and then
various specified fish. How does this to confirm how the project will impact it and
affect the risks of the project and how it
determine the mitigation needs. Because we have
will be viewed by lenders? determined that the project is in critical habitat for
fish we have identified strict mitigation and
monitoring requirements which includes i) no
hydropeaking ii) detailed reservoir management
plans including measures to minimise risk of exotic
fish and investigations for aquaculture with native
fish; iii) and a fish pass for upstream migration. We
are still going to do additional fish surveys to confirm
if restricted range species (Enteromius) are more
widely distributed in areas outside the project area
of influence to reduce the importance of project
impacts on these.
2 You have said there is scant information Typically fish ladders are not effective on dams over
on fish migration and proposed a fish 30 m height and most have been implemented in
pass on a natural stream which needs to northern hemisphere where fish migration
be reinforced to allow more water. How requirements are better understood (e.g. salmon).
does this option compare with a fish There is little reported success in Africa on the
ladder in terms of % efficiency? effectiveness of fish ladders and the fish migratory
behaviour and requirements are poorly understood.
Fortunately for Kakono, there is an existing stream
that can be used as a fish pass if it is reinforced
against erosion and to allow more water to be
diverted down it. A fish pass may only have 10%
efficiency which means that only 10% of fish
migrating to the dam will find the entrance to the
fish pass and successfully enter the reservoir. This is
believed sufficient for gene flow.
3 The monitoring plan requirements have We have not confirmed exactly how the monitoring
been described and include would be coordinated and implemented or how
collaboration between TAFIRI and financial resources will be allocated. We believe that
NAFIRI. Have you confirmed how this the institutions in Tanzania have the capacity to
will be supported and coordinated? undertake the work and it would be funded by the
lenders for the project to TANESCO. We assume
that TAFIRI already collaborate with NAFIRI and can
share the monitoring requirements and data. The
exact approach to implementing it will still have to
be worked out once lender financing has been
approved. Monitoring will need to start soon before
construction which is scheduled for the end of 2023.
4 Have the aquatic ecology assessments The 2020 surveys included macroinvertebrate
investigated and considered the project surveys. However, it proved very difficult to sample
impacts on the flood chain / lifecycle of the floodplain papyrus and invertebrates were
fish? For example, some dragonflies are poorly represented. Sampling of dragonflies with a
migratory. How will the project affect sweep net was included. We do not predict a
the fish food sources? significant impact on fish food supply as the project
will not alter the downstream flow regime as it will
not hydropeak which could cause stranding of
invertebrates and fish. Further, while a relatively
narrow strip of papyrus habitat will be flooded for
the reservoir the dam water levels will not fluctuate
and it may be possible for the papyrus to re-
establish along the edge.
5 It is indicated that 8 households will be Yes, a resettlement action plan has been prepared
resettled. Is there a resettlement plan in and will be implemented to compensate the
place? affected households.
6 To implement fisheries management, In the Kakono HPP area there is currently very little
the project should consider how the fishing as there is no settlement around the
beach management units can manage reservoir and the river flow velocity is fast and there
their resources. How is it proposed that are hippos and crocs. However, with the reservoir
the fisheries will be managed? What there may be more people coming to fish and some
approach will be adopted? people with more resources may come from outside
the area and not from the directly affected
communities. This is why a detailed Reservoir
Fisheries Management Plan is developed to ensure
that the benefits are sustainably managed and
allocated equitably to communities. This is
something that TAFIRI will need to assist with.
7 Livelihood alternatives through TAFIRI’s assistance and support will be needed to
aquaculture is a good idea. TAFIRI can find suitable options for aquaculture in the reservoir
assist with advising what kind of fish can as there is a desire to use it for fish farming.
be used and harvested. However, it is necessary that the introduction of Nile
perch and other alien fish are avoided to minimise
risks to native fish. We have also recommended that
aquaculture trials with native fish are performed to
confirm viability of using species such as Labeo
victorianus.
8 The presentation describes the risks The Kakono reservoir is a long 36km water body.
associated with sediments and Most baseload sediment will deposit at the head-
measures to reduce the amount of waters and it will incrementally deposit further
sedimentation. What is the capacity of down the dam over time. Its capacity to hold
the Kakono dam to hold sediment sediment is large and the upstream Kikagati and
without affecting the lifespan of the Rusumo HPPs will also trap sediment so there will be
project? less entering Kakono as these are constructed.
Sedimentation rates will be monitored and
sediments will be flushed periodically as required.
9 HPPs are facing challenges across the Thankyou for this clarification. We are due to speak
region. The right approach is being with TAWIRI and will arrange a joint meeting with
followed for this project. TAWA.
In terms of management of elephants,
crocodiles and hippos, TAWA should
also be involved, not only TAWIRI.
TAWA and TAWIRI should be
considered as equal partners. TAWIRI
monitor wildlife but TAWA also manage
wildlife issues and are provided the
monitoring information.
The presentation was shared with
TAFIRI. Thanks were given to all for
attending the meeting. The meeting
was then closed.
Location: Teams Online Meeting
Date 03 Mar 2022
Attendance: Dr Alexander Lobora of TAWIRI, J Hughes and D Moodaley of SLR Consulting Africa (Pty)
Ltd
Introductions: Jessica Hughes (SLR) introduced Dylan Moodaley (SLR) and herself and presented a
presentation outlining the project and focussed on wildlife findings and mitigation /monitoring
requirements that TAWIRI could assist with.
Alexander Lobora indicated that other TAWIRI members are out of office on business and couldn’t
attend
# Question / Issue Responses

1 What evidence do you have that leads Scattered elephant dung was found in a number of
you to believe there are elephants places along the access road and dam site and
crossing the dam area? reservoir area. A herd of 30 elephants were seen.
2 Do the red dots on Slide 11 represent The red dots represent transects to survey flora,
camera traps? fauna, and bird counts. Camera trapping was only
done around the dam wall in the Kakono stream
area as the traps needed to be accessible to collect
at the end of the survey.
3 I agree with the approach you have Agreed, pre-construction monitoring should start
represented with respect to wildlife one year before commencement of construction.
management and believe it is what is Monitoring would also need to be done especially
needed to enable development while once the dam is filling which would take about 2 to 6
balancing wildlife impacts. months depending on river flow, when additional
One issue I wanted to raise but which game scouts may be needed. Once filled, monitoring
has been answered is the need to start is required during operation to see what happens to
monitoring before construction of the wildlife over time. This includes how crocodiles and
project, otherwise there will not be a hippos adapt to the reservoir and whether elephants
comparable baseline. learn to cross to the north side where they may
come into conflict with ranchers and Kagera sugar
estate.
One aspect is the need to engage the Kagera sugar

project and find out from them what problems they
are having and how they are solving it (e.g. electric
fencing).
4 Question from J Hughes (SLR): Answer from TAWIRI:
How would it work in terms of engaging TAWIRI will do the monitoring and then liaise with
TANAPA and TAWIRI regarding the any potential stakeholders such as TANAPA, TFS and
monitoring? others as needed
5 Question from J Hughes (SLR): Answer from TAWIRI:
How does TAWIRI interface with other It depends as we currently have a contract for
institutions and what happens with the TANESCO for telemetry monitoring of elephants for
data that is produced from TAWIRI a 400kV transmission line project connecting
monitoring? Zambia, Tanzania, and Kenya passing through
protected areas (Funded by AfDB and JICA). This
involves collaring 30 elephants. We also are doing
# Question / Issue Responses
monitoring for other TANESCO projects including the
Julius Nyere Dam.
5 Closing comments:
Jessica indicated that the timing of
active interventions needed by TAWIRI
for wildlife monitoring would depend
on the construction schedule and
agreements on project financing. She
indicated that commissioning of wildlife
monitoring by TAWIRI would probably
be done via TANESCO.
She indicated that if any TAWIRI
colleagues had comments or questions
on the presentation or the ESIA content
to please send these through soon as
the stakeholder meeting report is in
preparation.
Dr Lobora reiterated that he was
satisfied with the management
interventions proposed and thanked
SLR for the opportunity to hear about
the project and what was proposed.
KAKONO HYDROPOWER PROJECT
ESIA DISCLOSURE – ATTENDANCE REGISTER
Location: Online Meeting with TAWIRI Date: 3 March 2022
Name/Surname Role/Responsibilities Phone number Email Date Signature

Dr Alexander Lobora Principal Research Officer, +255 27 254 9571 [email protected] 02/03/2022 Not signed
TAWIRI, Arusha +255 784 301 924 [email protected]
Jessica Hughes Biodiviersity Lead (SLR) – +27 83657515 [email protected] 02/03/2022

Kakono HPP ESIA
Dylan Moodaley Meeting minutes +27 84 24 22803 [email protected] 01/03/2022

End of this Section
Impacts & Mitigation Measures
Contents
7.1 Introduction .......................................................................................... 7-1
7.2 Screening .............................................................................................. 7-1
7.3 Hydrological and Geomorphological Impact Assessment ............ 7-11

Changes in Hydrology .............................................................................................................................. 7-11
Surface and Groundwater Quality........................................................................................................... 7-26
Sediment Transport, Hydro-Morphology, and Increased Erosion Potential ..................................... 7-46
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures..................................................................................... 7-61
7.4 Ecological Impact Assessment ........................................................ 7-67

Terrestrial Vegetation and Flora ............................................................................................................. 7-67
Terrestrial Fauna (including Birds) .......................................................................................................... 7-81
Aquatic Habitats and MacroInvertebrates ............................................................................................. 7-95
Fish ...........................................................................................................................................................7-110
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures...................................................................................7-126
7.5 Critical Habitat Impact Assessment .............................................. 7-133

Impacts on Natural Habitat....................................................................................................................7-133
Impacts on Critical Habitat .....................................................................................................................7-133
7.6 Social Impact Assessment ............................................................. 7-136

Land Acquisition & Restrictions on Land Use ......................................................................................7-136
Risks to Agricultural Land due to Bank Erosion ..................................................................................7-140
Project-Induced In-Migration.................................................................................................................7-143
Community Health ..................................................................................................................................7-153
Sugar Cane Production...........................................................................................................................7-164
Community Safety ..................................................................................................................................7-166
Fisheries ...................................................................................................................................................7-176
Cultural Heritage .....................................................................................................................................7-179
Visual Amenity.........................................................................................................................................7-182
7.7 Ecosystem Services Assessment .................................................. 7-199
7.8 Greenhouse Gas Assessment ........................................................ 7-202
Disclosure Authorized - Kakono HPP_ESIA_Section 7_IMPACT_June 2022 Page a

Construction GHG Emissions .................................................................................................................7-202

Reservoir GHG Emissions .......................................................................................................................7-204
Overall GHG Emissions ...........................................................................................................................7-205
Comparison of Project GHG Emissions with Alternative Technologies ............................................7-206
Comparison with Tanzania’s National GHG Emissions and Worldwide Emissions .........................7-207
GHG Offsets Resulting from Project Implementation ........................................................................7-207
7.9 Climate Resilience Assessment ..................................................... 7-209

Phase 1 - Climate Risk Screening .........................................................................................................7-209
Phase 2 - Initial Analysis ........................................................................................................................7-218
Phase 3 - Climate Stress Test ...............................................................................................................7-250
7.10 Cumulative Impact Assessment .................................................... 7-259

Introduction .............................................................................................................................................7-259
Cumulative Impact Scoping ...................................................................................................................7-262
Assessment of Cumulative Impacts .....................................................................................................7-268
7.11 Transboundary Impacts ................................................................. 7-274

Reduction in Upstream Fish Migration to Akagera Swamps .............................................................7-274
Reduction in Downstream Fish Migration to Lake Victoria ................................................................7-274
Erosion and Sediment/Nutrient Reduction to Downstream Floodplains and Lake Victoria ..........7-274
7.12 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures - Run-Of-River Mode

.......................................................................................................... 7-276
Summary of Impacts by Environmental or Social Value ....................................................................7-276
Summary of Impacts by Community ....................................................................................................7-296
Annex 7-1 – References ........................................................................................................................................................... 7-299
Disclosure Authorized - Kakono HPP_ESIA_Section 7_IMPACT_June 2022 Page b

List of Tables
Table 7.1 - Screening of Environmental and Social Impacts Associated with the Project Activities .................................. 7-1
Table 7.2 - Minimum Flow Regime Downstream of the Dam - Aquatic Environment Only .............................................. 7-17
Table 7.3 - Minimum Flow during Reservoir Filling for an Average Year - Aquatic Environment Only ............................ 7-17
Table 7.4 - Minimum Flow during Reservoir Filling for a Dry Year (2003 - Aquatic Environment Only ........................... 7-17
Table 7.5 - Minimum Flow during Reservoir Filling for a Wet Year (1991) - Aquatic Environment Only ......................... 7-17
Table 7.6 - Minimum Operating Level for the Downstream Pumping Stations Downstream of the Dam ...................... 7-18
Table 7.7 - Minimum Flow Regime in m3/s Downstream of the Dam - Aquatic Environment and Pumping Stations .. 7-18
Table 7.8 - Minimum Flow during Reservoir Filling for an Average Year - Aquatic Environment and Pumping Stations7-18
Table 7.9 - Minimum Flow during Reservoir Filling for a Dry Year (2003) - Aquatic Environment and Pumping Stations 7-
18
Table 7.10 - Timing for Closing the Bottom Outlet as Reservoir Filling Starts to Avoid Fish Stranding .......................... 7-19
Table 7.11 - Monthly Average Flow for the Kagera River at the Kakono Dam Site from 1967 to 2017 in m 3/s ............ 7-21
Table 7.12 - Minimum Flow Regime in m3/s Downstream of the Dam - Aquatic Environment and Pumping Stations7-22
Table 7.13 - Minimum Flow Regime in m3/s Downstream of the Dam - Aquatic Environment Only............................... 7-22
Table 7.14 – Key Impact Producing Factors and Baseline Elements for Water Quality ..................................................... 7-26
Table 7.15 – Key Baseline Characteristics that Influence Kagera River Water Quality ....................................................... 7-28
Table 7.16 – Carbon, Nitrogen and Phosphorus Content of Flooded Soils ......................................................................... 7-29
Table 7.17 – Carbon Content of Flooded Above Ground Vegetation .................................................................................... 7-29
Table 7.18 – Nitrogen and Phosphorus Content of Flooded Above Ground Vegetation ................................................... 7-29
Table 7.19 – Predicted Kakono Reservoir Water Quality Parameters during Filling .......................................................... 7-34
Table 7.20 – Interpretation of Predicted Kakono Reservoir Water Quality Parameters during Filling ............................ 7-34
Table 7.21 –Water Quality Monitoring Parameters during Construction and Operation ................................................... 7-37
Table 7.22 – Water Quality Monitoring Programme for Construction and Operation ........................................................ 7-38
Table 7.23 – Predicted Kakono Reservoir Water Quality Parameters after 30 Years of Operation ................................. 7-40
Table 7.24 – Comparison of Trophic Level Classification of Lakes & Reservoirs and Kakono Reservoir ........................ 7-44
Table 7.25 – Suspended Sediment Load Pre- and Post-Dam Construction ....................................................................... 7-50
Table 7.26 – Maximum Particle Size Transported During Events of 2-10 Year Recurrence Interval ............................... 7-53
Table 7.27 – Bed Erosion Depth and Volume Estimates ........................................................................................................ 7-53
Table 7.28 – Possible Sediment Contributions Through Bank Erosion ................................................................................ 7-54
Table 7.29 – Summary of Predicted Pre-Mitigation Geomorphology Impacts ................................................................... 7-55
Table 7.30 – Benefits and Drawbacks of Sediment Management Measures ...................................................................... 7-58
Table 7.31 – Estimates of Increased Annual Sediment Transfer Through the Reservoir .................................................. 7-59
Table 7.32 - Summary of Hydrological and Geomorphological Impacts and Mitigation Measures ................................. 7-62
Table 7.33. Summary of Rationale for Dam Construction and Reservoir Filling ................................................................. 7-67
Table 7.34. Extent of Habitat Types and their Ecological Importance Categories in Dam Construction and Reservoir 7-70
Table 7.35. Impact Production Factors and Key Baseline Elements for Operational Impacts .......................................... 7-75
Table 7.36 – Key IPFs & Baseline Elements for TL Impacts - Terrestrial Vegetation & Flora ........................................... 7-78
Disclosure Authorized - Kakono HPP_ESIA_Section 7_IMPACT_June 2022 Page c

Table 7.37. Areas of Habitat Types along the TL - Ecological Importance & Habitat Status ............................................ 7-78
Table 7.38. Summary of Rationale for Fauna Impacts during Dam Construction and Reservoir Filling .......................... 7-81
Table 7.39. Key IPFs & Key Baseline Elements for Run-of-River Operational Impacts - Fauna ....................................... 7-87
Table 7.40. Summary of Rationale for Fauna Impacts during the Construction and Operation of the TL ...................... 7-90
Table 7.41 – Key IPF & Baseline Elements for Dam Construction & Reservoir Filling on Aquatic Habitats ..................... 7-95
Table 7.42 – Key IPFs & Baseline Elements for Aquatic Habitats and Macroinvertebrates - Operational Phase ........ 7-102
Table 7.43 – Key IPFs & Baseline Elements for TL Impacts on Aquatic Habitats ............................................................. 7-107
Table 7.44 – Key IPFs & Baseline Elements for Dam Construction and Reservoir Filling - Fish .................................... 7-110
Table 7.45 –Summary of Fish Species that Trigger Critical Habitat in Different Zones of the Kagera Basin ............... 7-114
Table 7.46 – Key IPFs & Baseline Elements for Dam Operation - Fish .............................................................................. 7-118
Table 7.47 - Summary of Ecological Impacts and Mitigation Measures ........................................................................... 7-127
Table 7.48 - Summary of Impact on Critical Habitat and Mitigation Measures ................................................................ 7-135
Table 7.49 - Land Requirements per Project Component .................................................................................................. 7-136
Table 7.50 – Persons Physically Displaced ........................................................................................................................... 7-137
Table 7.51 – Households Economically Displaced ............................................................................................................... 7-137
Table 7.52 – Summary of Loss of Land ................................................................................................................................. 7-138
Table 7.53 – Residential and non-residential structures affected by the Project ........................................................... 7-138
Table 7.54 – Bank Erosion Impact on Flood Recession Farming ....................................................................................... 7-142
Table 7.55 - Assessment of Risks and Magnitude of Project Related In-Migration ........................................................ 7-145
Table 7.56 – Assimilative Capacities of the Local Communities Located Close to Project Construction Camps ......... 7-147
Table 7.57 – Factors Increasing the Potential Impacts from Project-Induced in-Migration ........................................... 7-149
Table 7.58 – Potential Impacts on Community Health During Construction .................................................................... 7-156
Table 7.59 – Assessment of Sensitivity of Visual Receptors .............................................................................................. 7-184
Table 7.60 – Significance of visual impacts during the construction phase ..................................................................... 7-187
Table 7.61 - Summary of Social Impacts and Mitigation Measures ................................................................................... 7-190
Table 7-62 – Mitigation Measures for Impacted Ecosystem Services ............................................................................... 7-199
Table 7.63 – Estimated Quantities of Construction Materials ............................................................................................ 7-203
Table 7.64 – Estimated GHG Emissions from Construction ................................................................................................ 7-203
Table 7.65 – Overall GHG Emissions from Construction and Reservoir Operation over 100 Years .............................. 7-205
Table 7.66 – Estimated GHG Emissions from Alternative Technologies ........................................................................... 7-206
Table 7.67 – Project Emissions Compared with National and Worldwide Emissions ...................................................... 7-207
Table 7.68 – GHG Emissions from Tanzania’s power Mix ................................................................................................... 7-208
Table 7.69 – Overview of the Phases of the Climate Resilience Assessment .................................................................. 7-209
Table 7.70 – General Climate Change Context ..................................................................................................................... 7-210
Table 7.71 – Kagera River Basin Features............................................................................................................................. 7-211
Table 7.72 – Key Project Characteristics for the Climate Resilience Assessment ........................................................... 7-212
Table 7.73 – Historical Meteorological, Hydrological and Climatic Data ........................................................................... 7-214
Table 7.74 – Potential Threat Multiplier Parameters .......................................................................................................... 7-214
Table 7.75 – Project Features - Possible Vulnerabilities ..................................................................................................... 7-215
Table 7.76 – Basin Features - Possible Vulnerabilities ........................................................................................................ 7-216
Disclosure Authorized - Kakono HPP_ESIA_Section 7_IMPACT_June 2022 Page d

Table 7.77 – Project Characteristics Potentially Affected and Criteria .............................................................................. 7-217
Table 7.78 – Need for Climate Risk Assessment .................................................................................................................. 7-218
Table 7.79 – Source of Data .................................................................................................................................................... 7-218
Table 7.80 – Historical Climate Data (1983-2016) .............................................................................................................. 7-219
Table 7.81 – GCM Ensemble used for Climate Change Projections ................................................................................... 7-225
Table 7.82 – Climate Change Scenarios used for Climate Change Projections ................................................................ 7-225
Table 7.83 – Models and Availability of Data for Climate Change Prediction ................................................................... 7-225
Table 7.84 – GCM Ensemble Predicted Precipitation (mm/season) for Future Time Periods ........................................ 7-228
Table 7.85 – GCM Ensemble Predicted Precipitation (mm/month) for Future Time Periods ......................................... 7-228
Table 7.86 – GCM Ensemble Predicted Maximum Temperature (°C) for Future Time Periods ...................................... 7-231
Table 7.87 – GCM Ensemble Predicted Minimum Temperature (°C) for Future Time Periods ....................................... 7-232
Table 7.88 – Predicted Change in Monthly Precipitation (mm/month) for Future Time Periods................................... 7-237
Table 7.89 – Predicted Change in Seasonal Precipitation (mm/season) for Future Time Periods ................................ 7-237
Table 7.90 – Predicted Change in Monthly Precipitation (%) for Future Time Periods.................................................... 7-238
Table 7.91 – Predicted Change in Seasonal Precipitation (%) for Future Time Periods .................................................. 7-238
Table 7.92 – Predicted Change in Maximum Temperature (°C) for Future Time Periods ............................................... 7-241
Table 7.93 – Predicted Change in Maximum Temperature (%) for Future Time Periods ............................................... 7-242
Table 7.94 – Predicted Change in Minimum Temperature (°C) for Future Time Periods ................................................ 7-243
Table 7.95 – Predicted Change in Minimum Temperature (%) for Future Time Periods ................................................ 7-244
Table 7.96 – Approaches for Climate Stress Test ................................................................................................................ 7-250
Table 7.97 – Medium and High Project Risks Identified during Phase 2 – Initial Analysis .............................................. 7-251
Table 7.98 – Data Availability for Hydrological Models ....................................................................................................... 7-251
Table 7.99 – Climate Stress-Test – Bias Determination from Historical Reference Period ........................................... 7-253
Table 7.100 – Climate Stress-Test – Delta Change for Climate Change Scenarios ......................................................... 7-253
Table 7.101 – Climate Change Risk and Opportunity Register ........................................................................................... 7-254
Table 7.102 – Climate Change Risk Management Measures .............................................................................................. 7-255
Table 7.103 – Hydropower Projects on the Kagera River ................................................................................................... 7-262
Table 7.104 – Regional Rusumo Falls Hydroelectric Project – Key Technical Features ................................................. 7-262
Table 7.105 – Kikagati Hydropower Project – Key Technical Features ............................................................................. 7-263
Table 7.106 – VECs Selected for CIA and their Spatial and Temporal Boundaries .......................................................... 7-266
Table 7.107 – Water Abstraction Projects............................................................................................................................. 7-268
Table 7.108 – Summary of Significance of Cumulative Impacts ........................................................................................ 7-272
Table 7.109 - Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures............................................................................................ 7-277
Disclosure Authorized - Kakono HPP_ESIA_Section 7_IMPACT_June 2022 Page e

List of Figures
Figure 7-1 - Relationships between Flow Regime & Different Elements of the Lower Kagera Social-Ecological System 7-
14
Figure 7-2 - Wetted Perimeter for a Selection of Kagera River Transects Downstream of the Dam .............................. 7-21
Figure 7-3 – Evolution of Kagera River Dissolved Oxygen Concentration Downstream from the Dam .......................... 7-36
Figure 7-4 – Evolution of Kakono Reservoir DO Concentrations over Time ........................................................................ 7-40
Figure 7-5 – Evolution of Kakono Reservoir N and P Concentrations over Time ................................................................ 7-41
Figure 7-6 – Reservoir Profile and Footprint Form Schematic .............................................................................................. 7-43
Figure 7-7 – Evolution of Dissolved Oxygen Concentration with Distance Downstream from the Dam......................... 7-45
Figure 7-8 – Longitudinal Profile of the Lower Kagera River ................................................................................................ 7-47
Figure 7-9 – Monthly Satellite Images for the Kagera River Mouth ...................................................................................... 7-47
Figure 7-10 – Deposition and Erosion of Bed Material in Relation to the Kakono Dam..................................................... 7-51
Figure 7-11 – Schematic of Changes to Channel Dimensions ............................................................................................... 7-52
Figure 7-12 – Example of Bird Diverters (top) and Aviation Warning Devices (bottom) .................................................... 7-93
Figure 7-13 – Example of Anti-Perching Devices to Prevent Bird Electrocution ................................................................ 7-93
Figure 7.14 – Aquatic biotopes of the Kagera River ................................................................................................................ 7-97
Figure 7-15 – Reservoir GHG Emissions ................................................................................................................................ 7-204
Figure 7-16 – Comparison of Reservoir Emissions with Worldwide Benchmark Values ................................................ 7-205
Figure 7-17 – Total GHG Emissions - Construction & Reservoir Operation over a 100-Year Period ............................ 7-206
Figure 7-18 – Comparison of the Project GHG Emissions with Alternative Technologies .............................................. 7-207
Figure 7-19 – Historical Monthly Precipitation and Temperature Variations (1983-2016) ........................................... 7-220
Figure 7-20 – Autocorrection Function Graph for Historical Data 1983-2016 ................................................................ 7-221
Figure 7-21 – Historical Precipitation Data – 1983-2016 – Mann Kendall Test .............................................................. 7-222
Figure 7-22 – Historical Precipitation Data – 1983-2016 – Mann Kendall Test – Selected Months ............................. 7-223
Figure 7-23 – Historical Temperature Data - 1983-2016 – Mann Kendall Test .............................................................. 7-224
Figure 7-24 – Climate Model Hindcasts vs Historical Data (1983-2016).......................................................................... 7-227
Figure 7-25 – Climate Change Projections - Precipitation – 2034-2067.......................................................................... 7-229
Figure 7-26 – Climate Change Projections - Precipitation – 2066-2099.......................................................................... 7-230
Figure 7-27 – Climate Change Projections – Maximum Temperature – 2034-2067 ...................................................... 7-233
Figure 7-28 – Climate Change Projections – Maximum Temperatures – 2066-2099 .................................................... 7-234
Figure 7-29 – Climate Change Projections – Minimum Temperature – 2034-2067 ....................................................... 7-235
Figure 7-30 – Climate Change Projections – Minimum Temperature – 2068-2099 ....................................................... 7-236
Figure 7-31 – Climate Change Projections – Change in Precipitation (mm) – 2034-2099 ............................................ 7-239
Figure 7-32 – Climate Change Projections – Change in Precipitation (%) – 2034-2099 ................................................ 7-240
Figure 7-33 – Climate Change Projections – Change in Maximum Temperature (°C) – 2034-2099 ............................ 7-245
Figure 7-34 – Climate Change Projections – Change in Maximum Temperature (%) – 2034-2099 ............................. 7-246
Figure 7-35 – Climate Change Projections – Change in Minimum Temperature (°C) – 2034-2099.............................. 7-247
Figure 7-36 – Climate Change Projections – Change in Minimum Temperature (%) – 2034-2099 .............................. 7-248
Disclosure Authorized - Kakono HPP_ESIA_Section 7_IMPACT_June 2022 Page f

Figure 7-37 – Projected Climate Change Projections Relative to 1983-2016 ................................................................. 7-249
Figure 7-38 – Alternative Approaches for Climate Stress Test .......................................................................................... 7-250
Figure 7-39 – Monthly Discharge – Historical Data, Raw Model Output Data and Bias Corrected Data ....................... 7-252
Figure 7-40 – Climate Stress -Test Delta Change Approach .............................................................................................. 7-253
Figure 7-41 – Six-Step Approach for CIA ............................................................................................................................... 7-260
Figure 7-42 – Schematic Illustrating VEC-Centred Approach ............................................................................................. 7-261
Disclosure Authorized - Kakono HPP_ESIA_Section 7_IMPACT_June 2022 Page g

7.1 Introduction
The assessment of the Project’s impacts and mitigation measures is the heart of the 2022 ESIA. It uses the
information provided in the project description (Section 3) and the description of the environmental and
social baseline situation (Section 5), to predict potential Project induced changes to the physical, biological
and human environment. The assessment also includes the identification of the control and mitigation
measures proposed to avoid, minimise and compensate the potential impacts, and an assessment of the
residual impacts.
The impact assessment of the Kakono HPP covers the construction and operation of the dam facilities, the
reservoir area, the access roads and the transmission line from the dam to its connection to the grid at the
Kyaka substation. Section 7 concerns two main subjects: (i) the screening of potential impacts and (ii) the
detailed assessment of impacts identified as requiring more in-depth assessment. This second step
includes the identification of the control and mitigation measures planned for each environmental and
social issue. The control and mitigation measures for all the impacts are developed into an action plan
presented in the ESMMP (Section 9). The information provided to stakeholders during the public
consultation process (Section 6) includes what the control and mitigation measures will be, and how they
will be implemented.
Since the environmental permit has been awarded in 2016 by NEMC, the Project was further developed at
the Basic Design Stage in 2019 by Studio Pietrangeli (Studio Pietrangeli, 2019).
7.2 Screening
The Project will comply with both the Tanzanian policy, legal and institutional framework and the
requirements of the World Bank Environmental and Social Standards as applied by the AFD, and the
Operational Safeguards of the African Development Bank. Those standards and Lenders requirements are
described on Section 4 of this 2022 ESIA.
The 2022 ESIA, informed by the scoping of the issues undertaken in 2019-202, took into account all
relevant environmental and social risks and impacts of the project, including (World Bank, 2018):
• ‘(a) Environmental risks and impacts, including: (i) those defined by the Lenders guidelines; (ii) those
related to community safety (including dam safety); (iii) those related to climate change and other
transboundary or global risks and impacts; (iv) any material threat to the protection, conservation,
maintenance and restoration of natural habitats and biodiversity; and (v) those related to ecosystem
services and the use of living natural resources, such as fisheries and forests;
• (b) Social risks and impacts, including: (i) threats to human security through the escalation of
personal, communal or inter-state conflict, crime or violence; (ii) risks that project impacts fall
disproportionately on individuals and groups who, because of their particular circumstances, may be
disadvantaged or vulnerable; (iii) any prejudice or discrimination toward individuals or groups in
providing access to development resources and project benefits, particularly in the case of those who
may be disadvantaged or vulnerable; (iv) negative economic and social impacts relating to the
involuntary taking of land or restrictions on land use; (v) risks or impacts associated with land and
natural resource tenure and use, including (as relevant) potential project impacts on local land use
patterns and tenurial arrangements, land access and availability, food security and land values, and
any corresponding risks related to conflict or contestation over land and natural resources;
(vi) impacts on the health, safety and well-being of workers and project-affected communities; and
(vii) risks to cultural heritage’.
This section summarizes the potential adverse environmental and social risks and impacts resulting from
the Project’s construction and operation activities. These potential risks and impacts have been identified
by the ESIA team based on:
• the 2016 EIA conclusions;
• the field reconnaissance conducted in December 2O19, February-March 2020, July and August
2020 and October-November 2020;
Disclosure Authorized - Kakono HPP_ESIA_Section 7_IMPACT_June 2022 Page 7-1

• the discussions with project-affected persons and the dialogue with the local authorities in 2019
and 2020;
• the AfDB 2015 ISS Guidance Materials and the 2018 IFC Good Practice Note on EHS Approaches for
Hydropower Projects (IFC, 2018a);
• the IFC Good Practice Handbook on Environmental Flows for Hydropower Projects (IFC, 2018b) , as
well as the International Hydropower Association Hydropower Sector Climate Resilience Guide (IHA,
2019);
• the numerous exchanges between TANESCO’s Project Team and the 2022 ESIA team during the
ESIA preparation, and
• experience for this type of project in similar natural and social environment.
Table 7.1 overleaf lists these potential risks and impacts per construction and operation activities. It also
describes whether the risk was further examined in detail in the 2022 ESIA, or if and why it has been scoped
out because not relevant to the Project’s situation.

Table 7.1 - Screening of Environmental and Social Impacts Associated with the Project Activities
Ref Project Activity Impact-producing factor Environmental and Social Risk Scoping World Bank ESS/
Observations Scoped Area impacted African Development
In/out Bank OS triggered
A. Project Location and Design
A1. Reservoir area Flooding of houses Involuntary resettlement of 3 to 6 households, with Between of 3 to 6 households, with or -IN- Reservoir area in Kyerwa ESS5 - Involuntary
or without legal rights to the land. without legal rights to the land, may live District Resettlement
within the proposed reservoir area.
Flooding of productive Loss of livelihood for households who currently use Villages of Businde, Mugaba, -IN- Reservoir area in Kyerwa ESS5 - Involuntary
farmlands, pasture or the land to be flooded in the reservoir, with or without Mushabaiguru and Bugara, on the right and Karagwe Districts Resettlement
forests, or access to these legal rights to the land: part of the physically bank may lose grazing land and farmland
resources. displaced household(s) and additional households and non-timber forest products area.
whose house is not flooded but whose land or access
to land is flooded.
Flooding of sugar cane plantation or ranch land Sugar cane plantations above full supply -IN- Reservoir area in Missenyi ESS5 - Involuntary
level. Missenyi and Kitengule ranches’ and Karagwe Districts Resettlement
land marginally affected.
Flooding of access to river Flooding of the KSC pumping stations KSC pumping station under construction -IN- Reservoir area in Missenyi ESS5 - Involuntary
water in March 2020 District Resettlement
Flooding of water intakes used by community No water intake used by community in OUT - ESS5 - Involuntary
reservoir area Resettlement
Flooding of livestock watering point Several cattle watering point at the river -IN- Reservoir area in ESS5 - Involuntary
margins were observed on both Missenyi, Kyerwa and Resettlement
riverbanks. Karagwe Districts
Flooding of public road Interruption of traffic and/or increased travel time for Kakono reservoir would not prevent OUT - ESS5 - Involuntary
local community. villagers from crossing the river by boat Resettlement
where it is done presently at the 2 or 3
crossing points. Crossing could even be
safer.
Encroachment on Loss of archaeological artefacts, cemeteries and At least one sacrifice site within the -IN- Reservoir area in ESS8 Cultural Heritage
historical/cultural graves, and impairment of access to living cultural reservoir, few graves could also be in the Missenyi, Kyerwa and
monuments/areas heritage elements (places of worship). reservoir. No UNESCO World heritage site Karagwe Districts
(List and tentative list).
Conversion of terrestrial Loss of swamp forest, riverine woodland and A few threatened plant and bird species -IN- Reservoir area ESS6 - Biodiversity
habitat into aquatic habitat floodplain Papyrus vegetation (because of reservoir observed in 2013 the riverine and riparian
flooding) would result in loss of habitats for a range habitats. Presence of other threatened
of species. fauna species yet to be investigated.
A1 Encroachment into Loss or fragmentation of habitat in protected or No formally protected areas and -IN- Kagera River mouth ESS6 - Biodiversity
protected areas or areas of conservation important areas or loss of individuals of internationally listed areas (e.g., Ramsar,
conservation importance species of conservation concern IBAs) within reservoir footprint and TL
wayleave. Closest protected area is
Akagera National Park in Rwanda and
closest IBA area is Sango Bay
downstream in Uganda.

A2. TL wayleave Loss of houses Involuntary resettlement of households. Between 5 to 10 households located in -IN- TL right of way and ESS5 - Involuntary
and footprint of the wayleave or in the Kyaka substation upgrade Kyaka Resettlement
Kyaka extension. substation footprint
substation Loss of resources, or access Loss of livelihood for persons who currently use the Between 50 to 100 households use the -IN- TL Right of Way ESS5 - Involuntary
extension to resources, for households land to be acquired in the wayleave, with or without wayleave as farmland. The line will also Resettlement
or agroindustry who legal rights to the land: part of the physically cross the future sugar plantation on the
currently use the land to be displaced household(s) and additional persons whose right bank which would be affected by
acquired in the wayleave residence is not in the wayleave but whose productive the wayleave.
land is in the wayleave.
Terrestrial habitat alteration Fragmentation of forested habitat, loss of wildlife Kakono line will not cross forested areas -IN- TL right of way ESS6 - Biodiversity
habitat including for nesting and establishment of but only open woodland. Presence of
non-native invasive pant species. elephants. Habitat fragmentation is
unlikely but needs to be substantiated.
Induced access to previously isolated areas with Existing vegetation is open woodland. OUT - ESS6 - Biodiversity
sensitive ecology through new corridor The line corridor will not facilitate access
to sensitive areas.
A3 Access Roads Loss of houses Risk of involuntary resettlement Physical displacement is unlikely with the -IN- Settlements along the ESS5 - Involuntary
2019 Basic Design route. Will need to be proposed southern Resettlement
confirmed. access road
Loss of resources or access Loss of livelihood Proposed route follows existing track for -IN- Settlements along the ESS5 - Involuntary
to resources 75% of the route. No productive land proposed southern Resettlement
expected to be affected but this needs to access road
be confirmed.
Induced Access during Existing threats to biodiversity could be exacerbated The main access road will follow an -IN- Southern bank of the ESS6 - Biodiversity
construction and operation by project-related indirect impacts caused by induced existing track. No access to previously Kagera river downstream ESS4 - Community
access, wildlife poaching, and in-migration isolated sensitive areas is expected but and upstream of the Health and Safety
this would need to be demonstrated. Kakono dam
A4. Physical Impediments to wildlife and Obstacle to elephant movements Elephants do not appear to cross the -IN- Reservoir area slopes ESS6 - Biodiversity
structure: fish movements Kagera River but when it becomes a
Dams and reservoir, they may cross it and affect
reservoir sugar cane plantations on the left bank.
Could then be possibly hunted.
Obstruction of upstream and downstream Several migratory fish species observed -IN- Lower Kagera River ESS6 - Biodiversity
movements of fish and other aquatic organisms, in the Kagera River.
causing a loss of connectivity between upstream and Movements of hippos and crocodiles may
downstream components of the riverine ecosystem be impaired due to dam.
Impediments to human Involuntary resettlement of households isolated from No households will be isolated post- OUT Reservoir area ESS5 - Involuntary
movements main accesses post-reservoir filling reservoir filling. The Project access road Resettlement
should improve the access to existing
houses.
Increase of travel time to move around reservoir No existing bridge will be flooded by the OUT Reservoir area ESS5 - Involuntary
perimeters for local residents. proposed Kakono reservoir. Crossing the Resettlement
River by boat - as currently undertaken -
will still be possible without significant
increase of travel time.

A5 Physical Wildlife collisions and Bird and Bat collisions and electrocutions risk. Avian Main biodiversity risk with any powerline - -IN- TL wayleave and towers ESS6 - Biodiversity
structure: TL electrocutions collisions with power line could occur if located within Will have to be examined in detailed.
Towers and daily flyways or migration corridors, or if groups are
conductors travelling at night or during low-light conditions.
Elephant electrocution risk Elephants in the area. Towers not in -IN- TL wayleave and towers ESS6 - Biodiversity
word. Electrocution risk would be low
because of the height of the conductors
and towers for 220 kV line. Needs to be
substantiated.
Aquatic habitat alteration Construction corridors may disrupt watercourses and Proposed TL route will cross the Mwisa -IN- TL wayleave and towers ESS6 - Biodiversity
wetlands and require removal of riparian. river and may traverse seasonally wet
area.
Visual amenity The line could be visually intrusive and undesirable to Flat topography of the power line route -IN- Lower Kagera watershed ESS8 - Cultural
local residents. It could also diminish the tourist to be considered in the impact Heritage
attractiveness of the local landscape. assessment.
Noise Noise in the form of buzzing or humming will be No houses will be allowed to stay within -IN- TL wayleave and towers ESS4 - Community
heard around the power line, particularly during the way leave. First distance to receptors Health & Safety
periods of rain. to be examined.
Aircraft Navigation safety If located near an airport, can impact aircraft safety. Bukoba airport at 45 km from closest line OUT - ESS4 - Community
section. Health & Safety
A6 All components Impact on Indigenous Applicability of ESS7 - Loss of land, livelihood and/or ESS7 not triggered for Kakono Project. OUT - ESS7 - Indigenous
Peoples / Sub-Saharan cultural identity. See Section 5 for justifications Peoples
African historically
underserved traditional local
communities
B. Project Construction and Reservoir Filling
B1. Dam, reservoir, Loss of timber forest Loss of 28 km of river length due to reservoir Open woodland timber is of interest for -IN- Kagera reservoir area ESS3 - Resource
TL wayleave products and non-timber impoundment, i.e. wooded habitat which local community in the reservoir area, as Efficiency
vegetation forest products if no accommodates timber resources which could be lost well as medicinal plants.
clearing vegetation clearing prior to if valuable timber or non-timber forest products are
reservoir filling not removed before impoundment.
B2. Reservoir filling Significant reduction of Impairment of sugar cane plantation irrigation; Downstream social and ecological -IN- Kagera river and river ESS5 - Involuntary
downstream Kagera river Adverse effect on aquatic ecology and riverine reliance will be dependent on maintaining banks downstream of the Resettlement
flow during reservoir filling ecosystems; Impairment of fisheries, livestock minimum river flow. dam ESS6 - Biodiversity
watering, soil moisture.
Temporary alteration of Altered flow patterns caused by river diversion could Potential impact particularly if entrance -IN- Kagera River downstream ESS6 - Biodiversity
flow patterns and water impact negatively on aquatic habitats and to the diversion canal is at a higher level of the dam
levels caused by river macroinvertebrates, but impacts are likely to be than the river level, so transition would
diversion localised and largely avoidable and were not need to be phased
considered further
Reservoir triggered The physical presence of the reservoir, and the No risk of reservoir triggered seismicity. OUT - ESS4 - Community
seismicity changes in reservoir water level— as part of the The dam height (61m) and the reservoir Health and Safety
normal operation — could potentially trigger volume (152 MCM) are below the ICOLD
instability of slopes above the reservoir. threshold for reservoir triggered

seismicity (dam higher than 100 m or
large reservoirs with a capacity greater
than 500 MCM).
B3. Construction Quarry/borrow areas and Silt-runoff from erosion in borrow and disposal areas Risks yet to be identified and addressed -IN- Dam site ESS3 - Resource
Environmental disposal areas due to lack of control measures. through Employer requirements. Efficiency & Pollution
Aspects Additional land take required if borrow/disposal areas Prevention
are not within the proposed reservoir boundaries. ESS4 - Community
Traffic management between dam site and Health & Safety
quarry/borrow/disposal areas: public safety, dust ESS5 - Involuntary
emissions and noise nuisances. Resettlement
Tunnelling spoil Tunnelling works generate effluents that are typically No diversion tunnel during construction, OUT - ESS3 - Resource
management high in suspended sediments and can have pH as the river will be diverted through a Efficiency & Pollution
significantly different from receiving surface water channel. No headrace tunnel as the Prevention
bodies (e.g. strongly basic because of alkaline soils or powerhouse is at the dam foot.
the use of shotcrete; or strongly acidic because of the
presence of acid generating rock), termed Acid Rock
Drainage or ARD).
Biodiversity Risk of construction workers hunting wildlife, Large workforce (~1,000 pers.) -IN- All construction sites ESS6 - Biodiversity
collecting natural resources and uncontrolled waste accommodated in a remote area
management which may attract pest and injure increases the likelihood of additional
animals. pressure on natural resources and threat
to wildlife.
If cut vegetation from reservoir clearing and TL Sufficient grass and timber biomass is -IN- Reservoir area and TL ESS6 - Biodiversity
wayleave clearing is left to accumulate, sufficient fuel present in the project footprint to burn wayleave
can accumulate that may promote forest fires. and affect adjacent areas.
Introduction of invasive species through import of Alien invasive species may spread into -IN- All construction sites. ESS6 - Biodiversity
material and reinstatement activities. and outcompete with natural vegetation.
Construction of access road for TL and poor design Recently constructed access road to new -IN- TL right of way ESS6 - Biodiversity
and siting of culverts may interfere with surface bridge has caused ponding of water due
hydrology and aquatic ecology resources to poor culvert design
Loss or degradation of fish habitat and fish due to Protection of aquatic resources (including OUT Mwisa River ESS6 - Biodiversity
construction of TL across the Mwisa River fish in Mwisa River) can be adequately
managed through pollution control
measures proposed for aquatic habitats
and macroinvertebrates.
B4. Workers Health Labour Management Risk of (i) Local Employment targets not defined; Principles to be specified in the ESMP -IN- All construction sites. ESS2 - Labour &
and Safety (ii) non-compliance with principle of equal opportunity Working Conditions
and fair treatment in the employment of project
workers, so that there will be no discrimination with
respect to any aspects of the employment
relationship; and Absence of Workers GRM.

Occupational Health & Need to establish and maintain a safe working OHS measures, including emergency -IN- All construction sites ESS2 - Labour &
Safety environment through (a) identification of potential preparedness and response measures, to Working Conditions
hazards to project workers, (b) provision of preventive be specified in the ESMP.
and protective measures, (c) training of project
workers; (d) documentation and reporting of
occupational accidents, diseases and incidents; (e)
emergency prevention and preparedness and
response arrangements to emergency situations; and
(f) remedies for adverse impacts such as occupational
injuries, deaths, disability and disease.
B5. Community Project-induced in-migration Migration of people into the Project area in Likelihood, scale and significance of a -IN- Vicinities of construction ESS4 - Community
Health and anticipation of economic opportunities associated potential Project-induced influx yet to be sites Health & Safety
Safety with the construction stage of the Kakono Project, established.
and risk of negative environmental, social, and health
effects on host communities.
Water borne diseases - The risk of malaria may increase slightly during Malaria is endemic in the Project area so OUT All construction sites -
Spread of malaria construction because of temporary water bodies standard procedures for the prevention
created by bulk earth works and outdoor storage of and control of malaria would apply.
materials and equipment, as well as the influx of Malaria was excluded as a project impact
workers who may have and therefore transmit during construction because the Project
malaria. is unlikely to significantly increase
existing risks.
C. Project Operation
C1. Reservoir Change in downstream river Dewatered river reach between the dam and the The Kakono powerhouse will be located OUT - ESS6 - Biodiversity
operation flow regime powerhouse where the reduction in flow would affect at the base of the dam and consequently ESS3 - Resource
aquatic ecosystems, flood recession agriculture and there will not be a bypassed reach of the Efficiency & Pollution
water extraction for irrigation or water supply. river downstream from the dam. Prevention
Losses from the reservoir due to evaporation would Likely to be negligible due to prevailing -IN- Reservoir area ESS3 - Resource
reduce the volume of water flowing downstream of climate conditions in Kagera region but Efficiency & Pollution
the dam and impair existing and future downstream needs to be demonstrated. Prevention
water uses.
Should peaking-power releases be planned, they Significant environmental and social -IN- Kagera River downstream ESS6 - Biodiversity
would result in hourly variations of downstream flow reliance downstream of Kakono dam: of the dam up to a limit ESS4 - Community
which in turn could affect downstream ecosystems aquatic biodiversity, irrigation, floodplain which is yet to be Heal and Safety
(e.g. fish stranding, wrong flow-related cues that farmland. determined. ESS5 - Involuntary
trigger fish migration) and community safety (e.g. Resettlement
persons or animals drowning).
Change in upstream Static or slow-moving water conditions in new Static water combined with altered water -IN- Villages around the ESS4 - Community
hydrology: conversion of reservoir can promote disease vectors that would quality and water hyacinth, could favour reservoir area Health & Safety
free-flowing lotic ecosystem otherwise not thrive in faster flowing unregulated aquatic vectors of diseases (e.g.
(river) into a lentic slow rivers. mosquitos and snails) and possibly
flowing water body exacerbating malaria or bilharzia as a
(reservoir) result of the Kakono reservoir.

Loss of riverine habitats and creation of still water Fish species which are present in the -IN- Reservoir area and ESS6 - Biodiversity
reservoir habitats that change fish community Kagera are adapted to river flow upstream reach of lower
structure. conditions. Some could not adapt Kagera River up to
favourably to living in still water Rusumo.
conditions (the reservoir).
Change in fish species distribution: introduction of Nile perch (Lates niloticus) and Nile tilapia -IN- Kakono Reservoir area ESS6 - Biodiversity
invasive commercial species by fishermen, which then (Oreochromis niloticus), both of which are and Lower Kagera
are entrained further downstream during spillage or adapted to lentic environments (Lewis, upstream reach up to
migrate upstream. 1974). Rusumo.
Risk of introduction and/or spread of invasive alien Water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) -IN- Kakono Reservoir area ESS6 - Biodiversity
plant species adapted to lentic habitat. observed in the area already. Could be
boosted by slow flowing water in
reservoir and irrigation return flows with
elevated nutrients.
Impairment of groundwater hydrology: Risk of water Source of water for villagers close to the -IN- Farmland around the ESS3 - Resource
logging in the vicinity of the proposed reservoir river are either the river or small streams Kakono reservoir area Efficiency & Pollution
boundaries and implications on productive farmland and do not appear to use groundwater Prevention
or water wells resources. Sugar cane plantations along
the proposed reservoir.
Reservoir drawdown area Risk of reservoir bank stability due to daily Gentle slope of Kakono reservoir and less -IN- Reservoir area ESS4 - Community
management fluctuations of the reservoir level. than 1m daily reservoir water level Health & Safety
fluctuations. Bank stability yet to be
investigated. Pumping station for cane
plantations likely to be located along the
reservoir.
Increased wildlife conflicts due to altered habitat in Hippos and crocodile population may -IN- Reservoir area ESS4 - Community
the reservoir. increase and generate a hazard for Health & Safety
community fetching water and doing
other activities sin the reservoir margins.
Fish entrainment into turbines can cause high Relevant to Kakono with presence of -IN- Reservoir area and dam ESS6 Biodiversity
mortality rates, which depends on dam height, Critically Endangered Labeo victorianus
turbine type, fish species, and fish size. as well as other fish species. This will
need to be examined.
Deep drawdowns of storage reservoirs combined Reservoir drawdown in normal operation -IN- Reservoir area ESS6 Biodiversity
with high-flow releases may significantly reduce would be less than 0.5 m. Only sediment
reservoir-based populations. flushing operation through bottom outlet
could cause deep drawdown.
Climate Change The proposed reservoir may emit Greenhouse Gas GHG emissions from Kakono Project yet -IN- Reservoir area ESS3 - Resource
Emissions because of the decomposition of to be estimated, taking into account Efficiency & Pollution
vegetation, as well as other organic matter inflows reservoir emissions and construction Prevention
from the catchment basin. Under anoxic conditions, works emissions.
methane may be produced by the decomposition of
impounded organic material.

Climate change will modify the reservoir inflow used Climate change effects on hydrology yet -IN- Lower Kagera River ESS3 - Resource
in the technical studies to design the height of the to be studied for the Kakono Project. Efficiency & Pollution
dam and the capacity of the powerhouse, which Prevention
would question the Project sustainability and the ESS4 - Community
associated negative impacts examined in the ESIA. In Health & Safety
addition, more intense and frequent heavy rainfall
may put greater stress on the dam if not designed to
take account of future climate change and may
increase their risk of failure.
Use of high global warming potential gas (e.g. SF6) in Kakono switchyard will be an air insulated OUT - ESS3 - Resource
Gas Insulated Station and risk of leaks. station, no Gas Insulated Station. Efficiency & Pollution
Prevention
Sediment management and Sediment trapping in reservoir and risk of long-term Kakono reservoir will trap sediments of a -IN- Downstream of dam up ESS3 - Resource
river morphology erosion in downstream reaches, due to release of certain size. Downstream implications to a limit which is yet to Efficiency & Pollution
turbidity-free waters, with impacts on downstream will also be a cumulative effect with be estimated. Prevention
riverbed geomorphology, bridges foundations, water upstream reservoirs
intake level.
Sediment flushing operation, or dredging operations, Downstream system probably adapted -IN- Downstream of dam up ESS6 - Biodiversity
with associated adverse effects: clogging of but will depend on the characteristics of to a limit which is yet to ESS3 - Resource
downstream spawning areas, impairment of proposed sediment flushing events: be estimated. Efficiency & Pollution
downstream water uses, disposal of dredge spoil and duration, maximum flow. Prevention
land take process.
C1. Reservoir Water right conflicts Between irrigation and energy production, between Pumping station for sugar cane -IN- Reservoir Area ESS3 - Resource
operation fisheries and energy production. Lack of reservoir and plantation will pump water from future Efficiency & Pollution
drawdown area management could result in social reservoir. Prevention
conflicts.
Dam Safety and Emergency The Kakono Dam (higher than 15 m) is large dams as Presence of houses along the Kagera -IN- Human settlement ESS4 - Community
Preparedness and Response per ICOLD definition. Dam failure (including the riverbanks in Kyaka, 50 km downstream downstream of the dam Health & Safety
potential failure of cofferdams during construction) of the dam. down to an area to be
could lead to extensive downstream flooding with calculated.
potentially catastrophic consequences.
C1. Reservoir Water quality Reservoir water quality during first years of operation: Vegetation clearing planned prior to -IN- Reservoir area and ESS3 - Resource
operation risk of thermal stratification, lower dissolved oxygen, reservoir filling will be more for downstream reach Efficiency & Pollution
eutrophication which in turn could affect reservoir operational reasons than water quality. Prevention
fisheries, downstream irrigation and downstream Main source of organic matter will come
aquatic ecology. from the river and stream inflows.
Release of mercury accumulated in the sediments Presence of gold mines (Hg used to -IN- Reservoir area and ESS3 - Resource
and flooded vegetation in reservoir, and risk of extract gold from ore) upstream of the downstream reach Efficiency & Pollution
bioaccumulation. reservoir needs to be investigated. Data Prevention
on water quality and sediment quality in
the Kagera River to be collected.

Release of contaminants included in the sediments The Kakono reservoir will receive -IN- Reservoir area and ESS3 - Resource
accumulated in the reservoir during reservoir drainage waters from surrounding sugar downstream reach Efficiency & Pollution
sediment flushing operations. cane plantations, with residual pesticides Prevention
if used in plantations, which could then
accumulate in sediments.
Community Health and The Project is unlikely to alter the existing risks of Malaria was excluded as a project impact OUT Reservoir area ESS4 - Community
Safety - Spread of malaria malaria during operation because the natural during operation because the Project is Health and Safety
occurrence of temporary standing waterbodies, unlikely to significantly increase existing
where malaria mosquitoes tend to breed, would not risks.
be affected by the Project.
Community Health and The Kakono HPP could create suitable habitat along The baseline survey confirmed the -IN- Reservoir shoreline ESS4 - Community
Safety - Spread of bilharzia the new reservoir shoreline for proliferation of snails presence of snail species that are Health and Safety
and liverfluke that are intermediate hosts for bilharzia and liverfluke intermediate hosts for bilharzia and
parasites. liverfluke parasites. However, there was
no evidence that the snails carried
bilharzia parasites. These observations
were supported by data from the clinic at
the Kagera Sugar Estate, which indicated
that bilharzia had never been a problem
at the estate.
Community Health and Impoundments typically increase the risks of pest Pest outbreaks of blackflies downstream OUT Impoundment tailwaters ESS4 - Community
Safety - Increased risk of outbreaks of blackflies (Simuliidae) in impoundment of the Kakono HPP are considered Health and Safety
blackflies tailwaters because of the abundance of unlikely because of the short residence
phytoplankton (food) generated within and time of about 12 days (on average), and
discharged from impoundments. this would limit the growth of
phytoplankton and so blackfly outbreaks
were excluded as a project impact.
Algal Blooms There is a potential risk of nuisance algal blooms such The water quality assessment concluded OUT Reservoir Area and river ESS6 - Biodiversity
as Microcystis sp. and/or Anabaena sp. developing in that nutrient levels would not be downstream ESS4 - Community
the reservoir. significantly increased principally because Health and Safety
of the short residence time and absence
of a thermocline, so potential algal
blooms were excluded from the ESIA.
Impact on conservation of Few macroinvertebrates are considered threatened The only potential range-restricted OUT Reservoir Area ESS6 - Biodiversity
important or range-restricted in the lower Kagera River. species that could be affected by
macroinvertebrates reservoir inundation is the crab
Potamonautes kansyore, recorded at one
location 30 km upstream of the FSL. It is
not known whether they may occur
within the Kakono HPP as none of this
species were caught despite attempts to
catch crabs during the 2020 surveys.
Since it is highly uncertain whether this
crab occurs in the Kakono reservoir area,
and because its only recorded locality is

outside the zone of influence this is not
considered a significant project risk.
C2 Waste Hazardous and non- Hazardous wastes from turbine and transformer oil, Unlikely to happen based on current -IN- Switchyard and Kyaka ESS3 - Resource
Management hazardous waste, river and maintenance materials or chemicals (e.g. paints, practice but will be addressed in Substation Efficiency & Pollution
vegetation biomass, solvents, and abrasives for sand blasting). Management Plans Prevention
pesticides Use pesticides in operation and maintenance of
Project facilities such as switchyard, permanent camp,
Kyaka substation.
Generation of solid waste from floating debris Domestic waste unlikely because of -IN- Reservoir area ESS3 - Resource
removed through screens in the water intake absence of large towns up to Rusumo Efficiency & Pollution
structures. Debris may consist of woody materials HPP and presence of upstream dams. But Prevention
and leaves, as well as plastic containers or other solid significant accumulation of vegetation
wastes in river systems located downstream of urban debris to be expected.
areas.
Non-hazardous wastes from office waste, packing Planned workforce during operation OUT Permanent camp and ESS3 - Resource
materials, and domestic waste from workers and planned to less than 100 persons. Will be office facilities Efficiency & Pollution
work camps. addressed in 2020 ESIA through Waste Prevention
Management Plans. Not a significant
issue.
C2. TL operation Wayleave maintenance Vegetation control in the wayleave may disrupt The ESMP will be prescriptive for -IN- TL wayleave ESS6 - Biodiversity
and wildlife and their habitats, in addition to herbicide use. vegetation control during operation.
maintenance If slash from routine maintenance is left to
accumulate in wayleave, sufficient field can
accumulate that may promote forest fires.
Excessive vegetation maintenance may remove The ESMP will be prescriptive for -IN- TL wayleave ESS6 - Biodiversity
unnecessary amount of vegetation resulting in vegetation control during operation.
continual replacement of successional species and an
increased likelihood of the establishment of invasive
species.
Electrocution and Collision Birds will be at risk of electrocution and collision with Will require good industry provisions in -IN- TL wayleave ESS6 - Biodiversity
with Wildlife the TL. the 2020 ESIA/ESMP
Degradation of water Once the TL is constructed and operational further Good industry provisions in the ESMP to OUT TL wayleave ESS6 - Biodiversity
courses / bodies impacts to aquatic resources will be minimal limit erosion, maintain hydrology along
access roads, and control alien invasive
plants will be required.
Electrocution Electrocution of persons (or wildlife) from direct Hazard most directly related to TL. Will -IN- TL wayleave ESS4 - Community
contact with the 220 kV electricity or from contact require good industry provisions in the Health & Safety
with vehicles, ladders or other devices that are on ESMP
contact with conductors.
Electric and Magnetic Fields Exposure to Electric and Magnetic Fields for No demonstrated effects on health for -IN- TL wayleave ESS4 - Community
households living within or adjacent to the 220 kV persons living out of the wayleave but Health & Safety
line. this needs to be substantiated.
Hazardous waste Mineral insulating oils used to cool transformers and The ESMP will be prescriptive for -IN- Switchyard and Kyaka ESS3 - Resource
provide electrical insulation between live vegetation control during operation. Substation Efficiency & Pollution
Prevention

components, as well as pesticides may be used in
sub-stations.
D. Cumulative impacts
D1. Ecological Presence of other Loss of connectivity across the entire river system if Fish pass planned on Kikagati and -IN- Lower Kagera River ESS6 - Biodiversity
connectivity hydropower developments one or more dams in the river do not provide fish Nsongezi HPPs. No fish pass in Rusumo
upstream of Kakono passage. HPPs
D2. Water Irrigation development on Incremental pressure on aquatic ecosystems due to Water extraction from Sugar Cane -IN- Lower Kagera River ESS3 - Resource
extraction both side of the Kagera river extraction of river water from existing and future irrigation cumulating with water Efficiency & Pollution
developments. evaporation from Kakono reservoir Prevention
D3. Habitat losses Sugar cane planation and Habitat loss and fragmentation due to concomitant Increased attraction to elephants and -IN- Reservoir Area ESS6 - Biodiversity
and wildlife settlements expansion on large developments and settlement expansion. loss of elephant migration corridors ESS4 - Community
conflicts the right bank would increase human-elephant Health & Safety
conflicts. Cumulative loss of woodland
habitat.
D4. Landscape and Other TLs Cumulative effects on visual amenity and Electric and New power lines connecting the Kyaka -IN- TL wayleave ESS4 - Community
EMF Magnetic Fields associated with several power lines in substation Health & Safety
the same valley.

7.3 Hydrological and Geomorphological Impact

Assessment
Changes in Hydrology
Socio-Ecological Conceptual Model
Construction and operation of the Kakono HPP will alter the natural flow regime of the Lower Kagera River.
This Section addresses hydrological changes only. In the context of the lower Kagera river, changes in
hydrology drives most of the other environmental and social impacts. This briefly summarizes the ways in
which flow influences the ecology of the river and benefits local human communities receive from the river.
As with rivers everywhere, the social-ecological system of the Lower Kagera River and floodplain is spatially
and temporally harmonized with the natural variability of river flows and the contours of the river channel
and floodplain (See Figure 7-1).
In the Kagera, water levels gradually rise and fall over the year, redistributing sediments and inundating
river margins, side channels and floodplains for differing periods of time. Distinct vegetation communities
establish and maintain themselves in areas of slow-moving and still water, serving as biotopes for many
animal species. In fast flowing areas, hydraulics and the composition of bed material become the defining
features of biotopes, again with different animal species preferring different conditions. These biotopes are
created and maintained in different locations for different periods of time during the hydrological year, and
plants and animals are adapted to make use of these biotopes where and when they exist. People’s
activities are also adapted to the annual rise and fall of the river, cultivating fertile floodplains during low-
flow periods and modifying fishing practices in accordance with the annual cycles of fish movements. In the
following paragraphs we take a closer look at each of these elements.
A Hydrology
The defining characteristic of the river flow regime is a gradual and predictable annual cycle of rising and
falling water levels, with higher flows from March through September. This is illustrated most strikingly in
the smooth maximum and minimum river levels in Figure 7-1. The smooth variations in seasonal and low
flows are a further reflection of the consistency and predictability of flow variations in the system. The
Kagera River’s sediment and nutrient cycling in the main channel is supplemented by lateral exchanges with
the floodplains. The annual flood is likely to be the single most important driver of biophysical processes in
the system.
B Sediment
Sediment is eroded and transported downstream mainly in March through May as the river rises, and
deposition on the floodplain and in the river channel is concentrated in June through August as the river
falls. This annual process adds a layer of fertile sediment to the floodplains each year and maintains the
shape and bed characteristics of the river.
Neither extreme flood nor drought events appear in the hydrological record, which indicates low levels of
severe disturbance in the river. There are certainly localised changes in the shape of the river channel and
its bedforms, creating newly formed habitats that can be colonised by pioneers and supports subsequent
succession. These changes occur in a patchy mosaic, and plant and animal species adapt to them without
detrimental impacts to ecosystem health.
C Vegetation
Vegetation, and especially perennial vegetation, is sensitive to levels of hydrological disturbance. Low
disturbance levels and predictable annual cycles in the Lower Kagera enable well-defined and dynamic
vegetation communities. Along the gently sloping banks of the river channel, where flow velocities are low
to zero and inundation is year-round, patches of papyrus (Cyperus papyrus) emerge. This marginal

vegetation can establish itself in depths of 2 m or more and, once established, acts as a baffle to slow flow
velocities further and maintain the conditions needed for papyrus to thrive.
During periods of extreme flow (e.g. 1 in 50 year floods), patches of papyrus can be partially uprooted and
/ or submerged, which appears to cause mass die-off of plants in certain locations. In most of the seasonally
inundated areas papyrus occurs in a mosaic with two hippo grass species (Vossia cuspidata and Echinochloa
stagnina). On the outer fringe of permanent inundation, usually on relatively broad areas of alluvium
deposition, tall floodplain woodland with a low thicket understory predominates, characterised by the tree
Vachellia kirkii. Vegetation communities continue to change across the floodplain in response to the local
topography as it determines the depth and duration of annual flood inundations. Each species is adapted
to specific hydroperiods, which may range from permanent inundation to inundation periods of a week or
less per year.
D Fish
Some species of fish are highly sensitive to the river flow regime during their annual life cycles, using
multiple and different habitats for feeding, spawning, rearing of young, and seeking shelter. Fish utilise
habitats at different times of the year when they become available, and over time they have adapted the
timing of their own reproductive cycles to coincide with the availability of needed habitats.
The synchronisation of reproductive cycles and habitat availability is especially important for fish utilising
floodplain habitats. Here the timing and duration of inundation are critical.
• Timing is critical because fish must be sexually mature (gravid) at the time spawning habitats
become available.
• Duration is critical because the spawning and rearing habitats must endure for a period of time that
allows for incubation, hatching, and growth of young fish to survive into adulthood.
To synchronise these biological and physical cycles, fish are often cued to enter reproductive cycles by
predictable changes in the physical environment, such as the initiation of increasing flows in the Kagera
River. Rising river flows in April, May, and June cue a number of fish species, including the critically
endangered Ningu (Labeo victorianus), to migrate upstream as floodplain spawning habitats are inundated.
Mormyrids also spawn in floodplains but without significant migrations longitudinally along the river
channel. Other species like Ripon barbel (Labeobarbus altianalis) spawn in gravel beds of the river’s main
channel, which also become available during high flow periods. Lungfish (Protopterus sp.) and catfish
(Clarias sp.) are commonly found in the papyrus and hippo grass biotopes.
A total of 28 species of fish has been recorded in the reaches downstream of Nsongezi affected by the
Kakono HPP. This is a subset of the wider Kagera Basin fish community for which research to date has
estimated at 63 species, but this number is likely to be much higher due to under-sampling. Some of the
species present in the reaches affected by the Kakono HPP will also be common to Lake Victoria while
others, like the Ningu, may migrate between the lake and river environments annually. The Kagera River
represents an important refuge for threatened lake species.
Each species will have specific adaptations to, and dependencies on, the natural variability of the river flow
regime. In addition to seasonal longitudinal migrations for spawning and dispersal of young fish, there are
lateral migrations onto the floodplains, as well as daily movements between deeper water during the day,
and shallower water along river margins for feeding at night. In addition to floodplains, therefore, marginal
slackwaters and backwater habitats, as well as inundated tributary inlets are important for fish diversity in
the system.
E Other Animals
Animals inhabit the biotopes formed by vegetation communities as well as the main river channel. In the
main channel, habitats are distinguished by depth, velocity, and the size of bed materials, ranging from fine
clays and silts to sand to coarser cobbles and boulders.
The river is distinctive in the reaches downstream of Nsongezi in that there are very few pool-rapid/riffle
sequences. The channel is uniformly deep and fast with the only flow refugia available to organisms being
along the channel margins and floodplains. Filter feeding organisms like molluscs and the larva of certain
flies prefer fast flowing habitats, as do some fish species that feed on them. Other species will prefer deeper
pool areas with slow flow velocities. Slackwaters with floating vegetation are preferred by some shrimps,
snails, worms, and fly larvae.

Macroinvertebrate communities inhabit all biotopes of the river and its floodplain, changing in association
with the communities of plants, which themselves change in association with periods and depths of annual
flooding. But the highest diversity and abundance of aquatic insects and crustaceans are found in the
biotopes characterised by papyrus and hippo grass, which lie along the vulnerable margin of the riverbank.
Some birds like Grey Crowned Cranes also nest in papyrus, while many others use these habitats selectively
for feeding. Certain bird species that occur in the project area are strongly associated with papyrus beds and
do not occur in other habitats, such as Papyrus Canary and White-winged Swamp Warbler, while others
occur mostly in papyrus and adjacent thickets (e.g. Papyrus Gonolek).
Larger species like crocodile and hippos also depend on habitats maintained by the flow regime of the river.
Hippos depend on pools in the river and play a role in their creation, but they feed on vegetation at the rivers
margin and extending well into the floodplain. According to local communities, hippos are particularly
problematic because of their habit of foraging in cultivated lands, and they probably prefer foraging on this
rather than on the surrounding indigenous floodplain vegetation.
F Community
Finally, as the largest river flowing into Africa’s largest lake, the Kagera is also of immense importance to
human communities living along it and along the lake. They too depend on its regular and predictable rise
and fall and the important role it plays for fisheries.
The river is an important source of fish (and thus protein) for local communities and also an important
spawning ground for species caught in the lake. Communities depend on the delivery of fertile sediments
to the floodplain each high-flow season and to the flood recession to expose moist floodplain soils to be
cultivated.
Fishers have adapted their practices to the different species inhabiting the river during different periods of
the year. During high-flow season fishing is focused on the floodplains, while emphasis shifts to the main
channel during the low-flow season. Fishers are adapted to the cycles of the fish, which are adapted to the
regular and predictable variations in river level. The result is a tightly coupled social-ecological system.

Figure 7-1 - Relationships between Flow Regime & Different Elements of the Lower Kagera Social-Ecological System
Sediment erosion
Sediment and transport peak
Fine sediment transport Sediment deposition on floodplain and in channel Fine sediment transport
Fine and coarse sediment transport
Riparian Water Hyacinth Flowering

Water Hyacinth Flowering
Vegetation
Vossia cuspidata flowering and seeding
Vachellia kirkii in fruit Vachellia kirkii flowering
Terrestrial Grey Crowned Cranes and Shoebills nesting in papyrus Grey Crowned Cranes
Fauna nesting in papyrus
Hippos moving out into floodplains
Crocodiles nesting on exposed Crocodiles nesting on exposed

sand banks and bars sand banks and bars
Lungfish and catfish inhabiting

Fish Lungfish and catfish inhabiting papyrus and hippo grass
Ripon barbel spawning in gravel
papyrus and hippo grass
beds
Migration/breeding Migration/breeding
Ningu Floodplain Migration/breeding Ningu Floodplain
Enteromius barbs inhabiting Mormyrids Floodplain Enteromius barbs inhabiting
vegetated channel margins vegetated channel margins
Main channel Fishing Main channel Fishing

Community
Floodplain Fishing
Floodplain Agriculture Floodplain Agriculture
600 600
High Flows and Floods (Max to Daily Q10)

Seasonal Flows (Daily Q10-Q75)
Low Flows (Daily Q75-Q95)
500 500
Daily Q95-Min
400 400
Flow in m3/s
300 300
200 200
100 100
Flow exceedance values (Qex) are used to divide flows into components:
A
0
10‐percent exceedance probability (Q10) represents a high flow that has been exceeded only 10% of all days in the flow 0
period.
AD1
95‐percent
D31 exceedance
D61 probability
D91 (QD121
95) represents
D151 a low flow, because
D181 D211 95%
D241of daily mean flows
D271 D301 in theD331
period are greater than
D361
that magnitude.

Construction & Reservoir Filling
A Key Relevant Elements of the Baseline and Impact-Producing Factors
The average annual flow of the Kagera River at the proposed Kakono dam site is 213 m3/s.
There is a high variability between years in terms of high flows, but low variability for low flows. When a
year is dry, the river flow is actually low every day of the year. Conversely, when a year is wet the river flow
is actually high every day of the year. The river flows observed in 2017 (Dry year) were every day lower than
the lowest daily flow recorded in 1989 (wet year).
Within a year, the Kagera River does not show sudden increase or decrease of daily flow rates. During flood
events, the flows stay high during weeks if not months. Likewise in dry years, there may be no discernible
flood events during the year. The hydrologic response of the watershed is slow at the Kakono dam site, and
the river flow rate increases or decreases progressively. It is a key feature of the Kagera River in its lower
reach: the river flow shows inertia and low variability from one day to the other a fortiori within a day.
Two activities during the construction phase may change the river flow upstream and downstream of the
dam:
• For the river diversion: the construction of the dam foundation and abutment requires that the
Kagera River be diverted from its main course. A temporary channel is planned to be constructed
on the left bank for that purpose. Depending on how it is managed, flow variations downstream of
the dam may be observed. The diversion of the river flow into the left bank canal will be
undertaken within the first year of the construction period, together with the construction of the
upstream cofferdam. The canal will be decommissioned, and the river back into its normal course,
within the fourth year of construction - See Section 3 for more details.
• For the reservoir filling, part of the river discharge will be stored in the reservoir. The Kagera river
flow rate downstream of the dam will be reduced by as much as the volume of water which will be
stored in the reservoir will not flow downstream. The first reservoir impoundment will therefore
create a significant flow alteration downstream of the dam during the period required to fill the
reservoir from the baseline river water level to the full supply level. It could take between weeks to
months depending on (i) when the reservoir filling starts (high flow or low flow season), (ii) the
baseline reservoir inflow at that time, and (iii) the reservoir outflow operated by TANESCO during
reservoir filling.
B Pre-Mitigation Impact Prediction
B.1 Issues
There are no large tributaries along the Kagera River between the proposed Kakono Dam and the estuary
in the Lake Victoria. Section 5 shows that downstream of the dam, there are two main tributaries located
on the left bank, the Mwisa River and the Ngono River, the sub-watersheds of which cover more than 80%
of the Kagera watershed area between the dam and the Lake Victoria. In average, the contribution of these
two downstream tributaries to the Kagera River flow is of the order of 20% of the Kagera River flow at the
proposed Kakono Dam (~5% from the Mwisa and ~15% from the Ngono River). As a result, the downstream
tributaries would not compensate any significant reduction in river flow within the Kagera River that the
reservoir filling could create.
During reservoir filling, at the end of the construction period, the reservoir level will progressively raise from
the initial river water level up to the full supply level. With an annual average flow of 213 m 3/s, the Kagera
River would theoretically fill the Kakono reservoir in less than ten days. However, as a great part of the river
flow will have to continue flowing downstream for ecological and socioeconomic reasons during reservoir
filling, the actual time taken for this phase would be between one and two months. If water filling coincides
with a low flow period, a longer filling period would be required to reduce downstream consequences.
The paragraphs below summarize the environmental and social constraints which must be considered while
planning for the reservoir filling and the river diversion.
The 2019 Basic Design does not examine the reservoir filling strategy: ‘The river diversion sequence and
relevant structures will be defined in the frame of the construction, since its design is under the responsibility
of the Contractor’. There is no reservoir filling curve showing reservoir inflow, reservoir outflow, and
reservoir water level for wet/average/dry years, and there is no assumption on the season when the first
reservoir filling could start.

The 2016 ESIA (Norplan, 2016a) prescribes that:

• ‘The filling of the reservoir is scheduled to take 1.5 months. About 50 m 3/s, equivalent to 20% of
the mean annual flow, will be retained, thus maintaining a significant residual flow in the river. The
downstream impact will be similar to that of a natural low flow period’
• ‘Maintain a minimum flow equal to 80% of the mean annual flow during the filling period’
The 2016 ESIA commitment for the reservoir filling strategy is commendable but not enough to avoid
impacts on downstream social and environmental reliance. Applying a constant retention rate of 50 m3/s
for the reservoir filling would not take into account what is left in the river downstream of the dam. For
instance, retaining 50 m3/s in January in a dry year (e.g. 2017) could represent 33% of the baseline flow
(150 m3/s in January 2017) and leave 100 m3/s in the downstream system which would not be enough to
maintain the aquatic environment and the sugar cane irrigation activities. On the other hand, retaining
50 m3/s in July in a wet year (e.g. 1989) could represent 11% of the baseline flow (450 m3/s in July 2017)
and be without consequences downstream of the dam: in these circumstances, water abstraction for
reservoir filling could be larger than 50 m3/s.
The approach selected in this 2022 ESIA is to consider the following constraints associated with the
reservoir filling:
• Constraint #1: Q95%. The minimum flow downstream of the proposed dam should never be lower
than the discharge observed in the past. This discharge differs from one month to the other. The
parameter used to define the monthly minimum flow for maintain the aquatic environment is Q95%.
It is the 5-percentile flow for the given month, i.e. the flow which was exceeded for 95% of the time
in the flow record for that month between 1967 and 2017 (available daily flow record). The Q 95%
flow is a significant low flow parameter particularly relevant in the assessment of river ecology
consent conditions.
• Constraint #2: QPumping Station.The river water level downstream of the dam should not be lower than
the minimum operating level of the existing sugar cane pumping stations during the irrigation
season. Sugar cane irrigation occurs most the time in the year in the Project area. There are periods
where pumping stations are shut down. These periods depend on the rain and irrigation deficit in
the fields. In a typical year, these would be in April-May and then again in November. If it has been
really wet in April, the no-irrigation period may extend to mid-May. Likewise, if November is really
wet, irrigation may be suspended up to mid-December. But if April or November have been dry,
then irrigation would start late April or late November.
• Constraint #3: QFish Stranding. When the reservoir filling starts, there could be a sudden decrease of
river water level downstream of the dam when the bottom outlets are closed. This could result in
fish stranding, in the floodplain or the slack/back waters along the main river channel.
• Constraint #4: River Diversion. At no time, the river flow must be lower than the minimum flow
defined through the two above constraints (Q95% and QPumping Station). There are at least two
construction stages which would require specific attention to avoid seriously reducing the river flow
downstream of the dam:
- At the beginning of the construction period, as part of the Kagera river diversion through the
diversion canal on the left bank. If the level of the diversion canal is higher than the riverbed
elevation, a small impoundment would be created upstream of the upstream cofferdam. This in
turn could reduce the flow downstream of the dam until the small impoundment level reaches
the diversion canal elevation.
− During the reservoir filling, if the bottom outlets are closed while the reservoir water level has
not yet reached the level of the power intake.
• Constraint #5: Floodplain Activation. Annual flooding of the floodplain should not be prevented
because of excessive water retention in the reservoir or a too long reservoir filling period.
Floodplain flooding is important for ecological reasons but also for flood recession farming. In
2003 - dryer year than the average - the Kagera river flow was higher than 175 m3/s only in May
(~200 m3/s that month). 175 m3/s is the river flow rate above which the floodplain is activated
downstream of the dam in most of the reaches down to Kyaka: A retention rate of more than 25
m3/s would have prevented the floodplain from being activated in 2003.

B.2 Constraints on Reservoir Filling Rates: Q95%
Table 7.2 below provides the minimum flow that should be released at any time during the reservoir filling
to maintain the aquatic environment, without considering the requirements for downstream irrigation.
Table 7.2 - Minimum Flow Regime Downstream of the Dam - Aquatic Environment Only
3
Q95% in m /s: Minimum Flow that 111 111 116 157 170 161 160 158 150 136 121 120
Should be Released at Any Time
During Reservoir Filling
The next tables provide an estimate of the time required to fill the reservoir when applying the constraints
given in Table 7.2. They show that:
• In an average year, see Table 7.3, the reservoir filling would take less than a month, whenever
starts the reservoir filling.
• In a dry year (2003 taken as an example, see Table 7.4) the reservoir filling could take one to six
months, subject to when the reservoir filling starts. There could even be periods when the start of
the reservoir filling would be delayed because there would be not enough discharge in the Kagera
river (see February and March in 2003).
• In a wet year (1991 taken as an example, see Table 7.5), the reservoir filling could take a week
only.
Table 7.3 - Minimum Flow during Reservoir Filling for an Average Year - Aquatic Environment Only
Average Monthly Flows at Dam 183 183 193 223 248 250 250 233 210 196 195 195
Site (in m3/s)
Flow rate retained in the reservoir 71 72 77 65 78 89 90 74 60 60 74 75
for an average year (in m3/s)
Flow rate retained in the reservoir 39% 39% 40% 29% 31% 36% 36% 32% 29% 31% 38% 38%
in % of inflow for an average year
Time for Reservoir filling for an 24 24 23 27 22 20 19 23 29 29 23 23
average year (in days)
Table 7.4 - Minimum Flow during Reservoir Filling for a Dry Year (2003 - Aquatic Environment Only
Monthly Flows at Dam Site in 166 101 104 169 197 171 175 171 171 167 170 164
2003 (in m3/s)
for a dry year (in m3/s)
in % of inflow for a dry year
Time for Reservoir filling for a dry 31 No fillin 149 64 179 119 134 82 55 36 40
year (in days)
Table 7.5 - Minimum Flow during Reservoir Filling for a Wet Year (1991) - Aquatic Environment Only
1991 (in m3/s)
for a wet year (in m3/s)
in % of inflow for a wet year
Time for Reservoir filling for a wet 56% 56% 55% 43% 44% 52% 52% 48% 46% 48% 53% 52%
year (in days)
B.3 Constraints on Reservoir Filling Rates: QPumping Station
Table 7.6 below provides the minimum operating level of the existing pumping stations and those under
construction at the time of writing, as provided by KSC during the preparation of the preparation of the 2022

ESIA. The table also provides the corresponding discharge as estimated by the 1-D HEC-Ras steady-flow
modelling undertaken for the 2022 ESIA (See Section 8).
Table 7.6 - Minimum Operating Level for the Downstream Pumping Stations Downstream of the Dam
and Associated Minimum Operating Flow Rate
Pumping Station Reference Location Minimum Operating Level Associated River Flow Rate Based on 1-
Number Downstream of the in Meter Above Sea Level D HEC-Ras Steady Flow Modelling
Dam
JPR3 on the left bank 3 km 1,153.70 110 m3/s
GRP1 on the left bank 19 km 1,148.38 140 m3/s
RP5 on the right bank 20 km 1,148.45 140 m3/s
Camp n°2 55 km 1,143.53 115 m3/s
Overall, the pumping stations downstream of the dam operate for a river flow rate of 140 m3/s or more.
Assuming that the KSC pumping stations were to operate downstream of the dam during reservoir filling
without interruption, this means that the minimum inflow released by the dam would have to be greater
than 140 m3/s as applicable. Table 7.7 below provides the minimum flow that should be released during
the reservoir filling to maintain the aquatic environment and the operation of the pumping stations
downstream of the dam.
Table 7.7 - Minimum Flow Regime in m3/s Downstream of the Dam - Aquatic Environment and Pumping Stations
Minimum flow that 140* 140* 140* 157 170 161 160 158 150 140* 121** 140*
should be released at
any time during
reservoir filling when
Qinflow > 140 m3/s
(*) 140 m3/s guided by minimum operating level of existing pumping stations, if the reservoir inflow is greater than 140 m3/s.
(**) November, like April, is a month without irrigation during which the pumping stations are not operated.
The next tables provide an estimate of the time required to fill the reservoir when applying the additional
constraints relating to the pumping stations as provided in Table 7.7. They show that:
• In an average year, see Table 7.8, the reservoir filling would take one to two months.
• In a dry year (2003 taken as an example, see Table 7.9) the reservoir filling could take two to six
months, subject to when the reservoir filling starts. There would be periods when the start of the
reservoir filling would be delayed because there would be not enough discharge in the Kagera river
(see February and March in 2003).
Table 7.8 - Minimum Flow during Reservoir Filling for an Average Year - Aquatic Environment and Pumping
Stations
Average Monthly Flows at Dam 183 183 193 223 248 250 250 233 210 196 195 195
Site (in m3/s)
for an average year (in m3/s)
in % of inflow for an average year
Time for Reservoir filling for an 41 41 33 27 22 20 19 23 29 31 23 32
average year (in days)
Table 7.9 - Minimum Flow during Reservoir Filling for a Dry Year (2003) - Aquatic Environment and Pumping
Stations
2003 (in m3/s)
for a dry year (in m3/s)
in % of inflow for a dry year
Time for Reservoir filling for a dry 66 No filling 146 64 177 116 134 82 64 36 73
year (in days)

B.4 Constraints on Reservoir Filling Rates: QFish Stranding
Throughout the 2022 ESIA, it was assumed that there could be a risk of fish stranding if the decrease of
water level would be faster than 15 centimetres per hour (or 0.25 cm/minute). To limit mortalities due to
stranding when the reservoir filling starts, TANESCO will have to operate the closure of the bottom outlet
so that the variation of water level downstream of the dam is lower than 15 centimetres per hour.
Table 7.10 provides an estimate of the time that would be required to close the bottom outlet so that the
subsequent reduction in water level at 3 km downstream of the dam is slower than 15 centimetres per
minutes. It is based on hydraulic simulations undertaken in steady flow regime (See Section 8). The
attenuation effect of the floodplain is not considered, the outcome is therefore conservative. Should the
reservoir filling happen in high flow period, the difference between the minimum flow and the baseline flow
would the largest: this is when there would a risk of fish stranding if the bottom outlet were to be closed in
less than 5 hours.
Table 7.10 - Timing for Closing the Bottom Outlet as Reservoir Filling Starts to Avoid Fish Stranding
Assumption on Reservoir Inflow Water Level 3 Targeted Water Level Maximum Minimum
km Minimum for targeted Variation of Duration to
downstream Flow during Minimum water level Close the
of Dam reservoir Flow at 3 km (cm) Bottom Outlet
Before filling (m3/s) downstream (hours)
Reservoir of Dam (m
Filling starts asl)
(m asl)
Low flow Period (Qinflow= 165 m3/s) 1,154.16 150 1,154.07 9 0.5
Average Flow Period (Qinflow= 209 m3/s) 1,154.37 150 1,154.07 30 2
High Flow Period (Qinflow= 300 m3/s) 1,154.90 160 1,154.12 78 5
B.5 Constraints on River Diversion
The solution to avoid significantly reducing the downstream river flow at the start of the river diversion is
relating to design and construction method. It is a risk - observed by SLR on other large dam construction
sites- only if the level of the diversion canal is higher than the riverbed elevation.
The solution to avoid closing the bottom outlets before the reservoir water level has reached the level of
the power intake is similar to the measure proposed above: the bottom outlet must be closed progressively
to always maintain a minimum flow higher than the required minimum flow until the minimum flow can be
fully released through the powerhouse and no longer through the bottom outlet only.
B.6 Constraints on Reservoir Filling Rates: Floodplain Activation
The assumption is that floodplain activation starts when the Kagera river flow reaches a rate between 150
and 200 m3/s, depending on the river morphology. See Figure 7-2 next page which shows the wetted
perimeter (part of the channel that is in contact with water) according to the river flow rate. The inflection
of the wetted curve is when a small increase of river flow rate results in a large increase of wetted perimeter,
which is the case when the river water level reaches the floodplain.
The Kagera monthly average flow data estimated at the dam site (see Table 7.11 next page) from 1967 to
2017 show that there has been only one year when no - or little - floodplain activation took place. It was in
2017. For all other years, the monthly average flow was greater than 175 m 3/s.
During reservoir filling, should the Project have applied the minimum flow rule described in Table 7.7, there
would have been no floodplain activation in:
• 1976, if the reservoir filling would have started in May or in June, because only May and June had
greater flow than 175 m3/s, and as the reservoir would have retained all flow above 175 m 3/s;
• 1994 and 2003, if the reservoir filling would have started in May as only May had greater flow than
175 m3/s, and as the reservoir would have retained all flow above 175 m 3/s;
• 1995, if the reservoir filling would have started in July or in August as only these 2 months had
greater flow than 175 m3/s, and as the reservoir would have retained all flow above 175 m 3/s;
• 2009, if the reservoir filling would have started in July as only July had greater flow than 175 m 3/s,
and as the reservoir would have retained all flow above 175 m3/s.

This means that the reservoir filling could impair floodplain activation in some river reaches downstream of
the dam in dry years, if the reservoir filling starts in May, June or July (annual high flow period).
It is difficult to predict whether a year will be dry or not based only on the January to March flow records.
For instance, Table 7.11 on the next page shows that although the monthly average flow in January to
March was similar in 2017 and 1977, the river flow in the following months were significantly different.
2017 ended up being one of the driest years since daily flow records are available, whereas 1977 turned
out to be an average year.
The consequences on downstream environmental and social resilience of a lack of flooding event on part
of the river reaches are not considered severe enough to prohibit - or seriously delay - reservoir filling in a
dry year. If reservoir filling were to proceed in a dry year, there will be a risk that the minimum flow rules
prescribed in this 2022 ESIA prevent the floodplain from being flooded during that year. Failure of floodplain
activation would exert stress on aquatic ecology, riparian vegetation and flood recession farming, but is
unlikely to induce irreversible impacts on biodiversity or community livelihood. The reason for this is that
such failures have occurred naturally in the past and so the floodplain biota and farming activities are likely
to be adapted to such events. Furthermore, reservoir filling is a once-off event, although there may be
additional periods when the reservoir may need to be emptied for unforeseen circumstances.
No further constraints have therefore been added to the aforementioned minimum flows.

Table 7.11 - Monthly Average Flow for the Kagera River at the Kakono Dam Site from 1967 to 2017 in m 3/s
YEAR 1967 1968 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1982 1983 1985 1986 1987 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1999 2003 2007 2009 2015 2016 2017
JAN 174 174 170 176 197 198 173 163 163 167 274 156 182 186 225 275 251 241 240 164 159 141 159 192 166 105 111 174 173 157
FEB 174 193 161 181 200 247 168 161 161 167 268 158 182 194 244 285 252 240 240 144 160 140 151 186 101 113 117 164 171 157
MAR 175 251 166 194 213 189 175 162 162 169 284 157 185 217 326 310 258 245 239 150 167 144 152 186 104 159 116 166 200 160
APR 180 307 191 229 258 209 193 174 174 171 377 187 213 248 386 378 277 249 240 159 161 192 174 189 169 200 158 187 253 171
MAY 204 407 231 299 288 214 189 185 202 199 382 216 265 269 452 451 304 257 247 179 171 186 191 190 197 273 162 203 274 173
JUN 198 447 225 294 257 235 180 182 231 288 300 271 313 268 467 429 338 265 256 156 171 197 168 184 171 219 163 215 250 163
JUL 201 430 238 267 251 261 173 172 272 307 287 274 353 270 425 384 335 270 257 153 189 189 200 176 175 205 177 220 235 160
AUG 199 371 234 234 240 247 175 175 240 300 267 238 314 251 365 329 301 251 252 169 195 171 205 160 171 180 170 205 212 154
SEP 190 309 225 214 224 228 160 171 212 277 225 208 261 216 319 284 276 239 250 154 175 170 182 154 171 119 164 195 194 156
OCT 180 256 209 197 205 210 166 169 194 291 199 186 216 191 285 260 263 239 245 150 144 158 170 143 167 112 163 182 190 155
NOV 183 235 200 211 204 199 175 165 217 267 194 181 192 199 270 257 257 240 220 151 143 159 204 207 170 120 120 188 179 145
DEC 186 242 186 205 193 189 185 165 188 279 186 182 187 239 280 258 251 240 191 160 140 159 258 204 164 115 126 180 179 140
AAF 187 302 203 225 227 219 176 170 201 240 270 201 239 229 337 325 280 248 240 157 165 167 185 181 161 160 145 190 209 158
In Blue: Monthly Average Flow higher than 175 m3/s, taken as approx. threshold for floodplain activation. In bold frame, years for which floodplain activation would have been impaired during reservoir filling.
Figure 7-2 - Wetted Perimeter for a Selection of Kagera River Transects Downstream of the Dam
3km Downstream of Dam 8km Downstream of Dam 19km Downstream of Dam

300 250 400
Wetted Perimeter (m)

350
250
200
300
200
150 250
150 200
100 150
100
100
50 50
50
0 0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275
Q (m3/s) Q (m3/s) Q (m3/s)
28km Downstream of Dam 39km Downstream of Dam 56km Downstream of Dam

250 350 140

Wetted Perimter (m)
300 120
200
250 100
150 200 80
100 150 60
100 40
50
50 20
0 0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
Q (m3/s) Q (m3/s) Q (m3/s)

C Proposed Mitigation Measures
The proposed minimum flow provided in Table 7.12 below will preserve the aquatic environment and the
operation of the pumping stations downstream of the dam. It is the recommended minimum flow regime
during reservoir filling for the Project.
Table 7.12 - Minimum Flow Regime in m3/s Downstream of the Dam - Aquatic Environment and Pumping Stations
Objective Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Minimum Flow to be 140* 140* 140* 157 170 161 160 158 150 140* 121** 140*
Released at any Time
during Reservoir Filling
when Qinflow > 140
m3/s to Maintain
Aquatic Environment
and Operation of
Pumping Stations (***)
(*) 140 m3/s guided by minimum operating level of existing pumping stations, if the reservoir inflow is greater than 140 m3/s.
(**) November, like April, is a month without irrigation during which the pumping stations are not operated and therefore the
minimum EFlow can fall below the 140 m3/s minimum operating level of the pumps.
(***) If the reservoir inflow is lower than the prescribed minimum outflow, then the reservoir filling should be delayed.
These measures are referred later in this report as:

• [M 1] The Kagera River flow continuity will be maintained at any time during the construction
period, including for the reservoir filling period. The river flow immediately downstream of the dam
site should never be lower than the minimum flow regime specified in the 2022 ESIA or than the
reservoir inflow.
Should the reservoir filling start in the low flow period (December to March), TANESCO may seek to minimize
the time needed for the filling through retaining more water than allowed for in Table 7.12. In that case, a
negotiation with KSC would be required. The objective would be to agree on the duration and the magnitude
of the downstream river flow decrease to minimise impairment of irrigation for sugar cane fields depending
on the pump stations located close to EFA2 (GRP1 on the left bank and RP5 on the right bank). Whatever is
the agreement with KSC at that time, the minimum flow downstream of the dam should not be lower than
either the flows indicated in Table 7.13 below or than the reservoir inflow.
Table 7.13 - Minimum Flow Regime in m3/s Downstream of the Dam - Aquatic Environment Only
Objective Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Minimum Flow that 111 111 116 157 170 161 160 158 150 136 121 120
Should be Released at
Any Time During
Reservoir Filling for
Maintaining Aquatic
Environment Only (*)
(*) If the reservoir inflow is lower than the prescribed minimum outflow, then the reservoir filling should be delayed.
This measure is referred later in this report as:

• [M 2] Should the Project needs to reduce the time needed for the reservoir filling, an agreement
with operators of irrigated sugar cane plantations will be required s to minimise impairment of
irrigation for sugar cane fields. Whatever is the agreement with operators of irrigated sugar cane
plantations at that time, the minimum flow downstream of the dam should not be lower than
either the flows indicated in the 2022 ESIA below or than the reservoir inflow.
In addition to the minimum flow to be applied during reservoir filling, the following measures will be
implemented:
• [M 3] During the Detailed Design stage, a Reservoir Filling Plan will be prepared as part of the
implementation of the ESMMP, which details - amongst other things - the reservoir filling timing
and procedure required to comply with the present EFlow requirements.
• [M 4] The Reservoir Filling Plan will be discussed with communities and operators of irrigated sugar
cane plantations to make sure that any interference with the operation of the pumping stations
downstream of the dam has been factored into the plan.

• [M 5] The river diversion works and procedures will be designed/prepared so that there is no
interruption of river flow - or reduction greater than that allowed in the 2022 ESIA - at any time
during the construction period, including the placement and decommissioning of the cofferdams.
• [M 6] The Owners Engineer will review the design of the river diversion works - and then supervise
the works accordingly - taking into account the minimum flow requirements specified in the 2022
ESIA.
The solution to avoid closing the bottom outlets before the reservoir water level has reached the level of
the power intake is similar to the measure proposed above: the bottom outlet must be closed progressively
to always maintain a minimum flow higher than the required minimum flow until the minimum flow can be
fully released through the powerhouse and no longer through the bottom outlet only. This measure is
referred later in this report as:
• [M 7] A staged-approach will be used to close the bottom outlet so that there is no risk of fish
stranding downstream of the dam.
The minimum flow requirements defined in the 2022 ESIA were defined to avoid adverse effects on aquatic
environmental and impairment to downstream irrigation. Their effective execution will result in non-
significant impacts downstream of the dam.
E Proposed Monitoring Measures
Monitoring of the river flow rate during construction is essential to enforce and demonstrate compliance
with the minimum flow requirements during construction and reservoir filling. These measures are referred
later in this report as:
• [M 8] The Kagera River flow rate will be monitored twice per day during the whole construction
period by TANESCO downstream of the dam.
• [M 9] The EPC Contractor will install a time-lapse video camera downstream of the dam which will
film the river during the construction period. Records will be filed with TANESCO.
Run-of-River Operation
Upstream of the dam, the Project will alter the river flow within the reservoir footprint (35 km from dam
wall up to upper reservoir limit) through the conversion of the free-flowing lotic ecosystem (river) into a
lentic water body (reservoir).
The Kakono powerhouse will be located at the foot of the dam; there will be no dewatered reach between
the dam and the tailrace (unlike the Rusumo Falls HPP for instance). Under the Run-of-River operation
mode proposed for the Kakono HPP, at any time, the reservoir outflow would match the reservoir inflow
and a natural hydrograph is maintained downstream of the dam.
There could be, however, circumstances where the reservoir outflow could be different from the reservoir
inflow, even in a Run-of-river operating mode. The paragraphs below address the main issues raised by the
operation a large reservoir in a Run-of-river mode and discuss if and how it could change the downstream
river flow.
A Loss of water for the Downstream System due to Reservoir Impoundment and Evaporation
The losses of water due to storage into the reservoir and evaporation are predicted to be not significant for
the downstream hydrosystems, as well below the interannual river flow variations.
A.1 Evaporation
The water losses due to the net evaporation from the reservoir are minor, they would represent 0.3% of
the total annual inflow into the reservoir. Evaporation from the Kakono reservoir has been calculated using
the method developed by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations (Allen, 2000)
(Kohli, 2015).

The evaporation from the reservoir is calculated using the following equations:
ETC = Kc x ET0 [Equation 1] (Allen, 2000)
Where:
ETc = Crop evapotranspiration in depth (mm/day)
Kc = Crop coefficient (-)
ET0 = Reference evapotranspiration (mm/day)
For open water, FAO (Kohli, 2015) assumes that Kc = 1.00, and consequently:
ETc = ET0 [Equation 2]

FAO (Kohli, 2015) assume that there is no transpiration element and so Equation 2 becomes:
Ed = ET0 [Equation 3]
Where:
Ed = Reservoir evaporation in depth (mm/year)
ET0 = Reference evapotranspiration (mm/year)
And in volumetric units and converting units:
Ev = ET0 x A x 10-6 [Equation 4]

Where:
Ev = Reservoir evaporation in volume ( km3/year)
ET0 = Reference evapotranspiration (mm/year)
A = Reservoir surface area km2
Therefore, using Equation 4, the evaporation for the Kakono reservoir is calculated using the data from the
basic design for the reservoir area and evapotranspiration values for the reservoir location from the FAO’s
AQUASTAT Climate Information Tool database (FAO, 2021).
ET0 = 1,331 mm/year

A = 15 km2
The annual evaporation from Kakono is calculated to be 19,965,000m 3, which corresponds 0.3% of the
total annual inflow into the reservoir.
A.2 Reservoir Impoundment
Only the reservoir impoundment would result into water being extracted from the Kagera system and no
longer available for downstream reliance. The 150 million m3 of water stored in the Kakono reservoir would
represent 2% of the Kagera River annual flow at the proposed dam location, and less than 0.01% of the
estimated water volume of the Lake Victoria.
B Flood Routing
The reservoir will not significantly modify the frequency or magnitude of the downstream floods.
It will be operated at full supply level (1,189 m. asl) and any increase of river inflow would be transferred
downstream through the turbines, or through the spillway gates for discharge larger than 316 m3/s. No
significant flood routing effect is expected. As the Kagera high flow periods - which create the downstream
floods - extend over weeks or months, even if the reservoir were preventatively lowered for flood control,
this would only delay by a few days the occurrence of the downstream flood.
C Sediment Management
No sediment management strategy was defined in the 2019 Basic Design Report. Yet, the Kakono Reservoir
will have a significant impact on river morphology and aquatic habitats due to the interruption in longitudinal

sediment transfer especially of the coarser bedload fraction, and resultant bed and bank erosion. Section
7.3.3 examine in details the Project’s impacts on downstream erosion.
The 2022 ESIA examined the feasibility of sediment management measures based on the 2019 reference
design layout to: (i) seek a balance between sediment inflow and outflow to optimise sediment delivery to
downstream areas, (ii) discard approaches which would not be efficient or would generate unacceptable
adverse impacts, and (iii) define the preferred approach to supplementing sediment contributions to the
downstream reaches.
Sediment empty flushing to hydraulically scour the deposited sediment was considered in this 2022 ESIA
but was assessed unlikely to be suitable: this flushing would likely scour fine sediment only due to the
length of the reservoir (and given that bedload sediment would deposit out in the upper reaches), resulting
in large increases in suspended sediment concentration. The negative impacts downstream would
overwhelm the targeted benefits and would require days to weeks of no power generation followed by
reservoir filling.
Sediment management options recommended in Section 7.3.3 are:
• Venting of water with high sediment concentrations (density currents) through the bottom outlet
could enable a portion of water with a high sediment concentration to reach the downstream river
channel;
• Sediment sluicing, which involves reservoir level reductions before the arrival of the sediment-
laden waters through the bottom release to reduce the retention time of sediment-laden water
and associated sedimentation;
• Pressure flushing, which may scour sediment at the inlet to the bottom outlet forming a localised
scour cone. This process will take place at the beginning of sluicing.
During turbidity current venting operation, the discharge upstream and downstream of the dam will remain
the same. To improve the efficiency of the venting it could be necessary to lower the water level in the
reservoir prior to the operation (sluicing). This lowering would result in a reservoir outflow higher than the
reservoir inflow, but not necessarily in the unnatural activation of the floodplain as it will depend on the
reservoir inflow at the time of the event. The lowering of the reservoir may be done using the turbines.
At the time of writing, only the 2022 ESIA team had screened the various sediment management options
(Section 7.3.3) but there were still uncertainties. These include (i) when the first sediment venting/sluicing
operation would start, as it could start several years after the first reservoir impoundment, (ii) what would
be the discharge rate through the bottom outlets and (iii) when in the year it would be best to program.
Given these uncertainties, the following measures are planned as part of the 2022 ESIA:
• [M 10] Preparation of a sediment venting/sluicing/flushing ESIA and implementation of
recommended mitigation measures prior to the first opening of the bottom outlet for sediment
management purposes.
• [M 11] The sediment venting/sluicing/flushing flow rates will be designed and implemented such
as that no unnatural activation of the floodplain occurs and that community safety issues are
planned and managed according to good international practices.
• [M 12] Downstream communities from dam to Kyaka will be informed ahead of each
venting/sluicing/flushing operation of the nature, timing and risks relating to such an operation.
D Emergency releases
The issues examined in the previous paragraphs (river diversion, reservoir filling, evaporation, reservoir
impoundment, flood routing, sediment management) relate to normal operation. There may be exceptional
situations where emergency releases through the spillway gates, the bottom outlet, or both of them, is
required. This would typically happen in case of:
• Dam failure hazard;
• Downstream release hazard; spillway or bottom outlet releases which could cause substantial
enough downstream flow to make it appropriate to notify local authorities and persons who might
be affected; or
• A circumstance that potentially indicates an increase in the likelihood of a dam failure hazard or
downstream release hazard happening. The hazard does not need to fully develop before an
emergency condition is considered to have occurred.

Dam failure or risk of emergency releases are addressed in Section 7.6.6 ‘Community safety’.
Surface and Groundwater Quality
A.1 Impact Producing factors
The key IPFs and baseline elements that need to be considered in the assessment of the impacts on water
quality are summarised in the following table.
Table 7.14 – Key Impact Producing Factors and Baseline Elements for Water Quality
Impact Producing Factor Key Baseline Element Potential Impact
Construction
1. Accidental spills and leaks of • Groundwater quality Pollution of groundwater
hazardous substances • Aquifer characteristics
2. Potentially contaminated runoff from • Land cover Pollution of Kagera River water
worksites, vehicle parking areas and • Land drainage
laydown areas contaminated by
• Rainfall
accidental leaks and spills
• Kagera River water quality
3. Discharges of sanitary and domestic • Kagera River water quality Modified water quality of Kagera River
wastewater
Reservoir Filling
4. Reservoir filling • Inflow water quality - influenced by Modified quality of Kakono reservoir
catchment characteristics waters (c.f. Kagera River baseline)
5. Discharge Downstream • Soils and vegetation in the Modified water quality of Kagera River
inundated area downstream from the Kakono
reservoir
A.2 Key Relevant Elements of the Baseline
a Groundwater Quality and Aquifer Characteristics
The Kagera aquifer underlies the dam and construction work sites. The Kagera aquifer is a vast
transboundary continuous aquifer overing 5,800 km2, the quality of the ground water is considered as good,
the water-bearing rocks are alluvial deposits consisting mainly of unconsolidated sediments, and the main
source of recharge is rainfall with some infiltration from rivers (Sangea H, 2018). At the dam site the aquifer
water level is similar to that of the Kagera River water level (Studio Pietrangeli, 2019).
b Kagera River Water Quality
The quality of the water is influenced by the land cover, land use and anthropogenic activities in the
upstream catchment. The key characteristics are as follows:
• Nitrate and Phosphorus Concentration [P] are high possibly because of the lack of sanitary
wastewater treatment in the catchment.
• Biological Oxygen Demand is high, and this may be because of the proximity to the Kagera Sugar
Company Estate.
• Total coliforms and Faecal coliform counts are high probably because of livestock and widespread
discharge of untreated l wastewaters into surface waters in the upstream catchment. The
population in the catchment is 16 million people.
• There is little seasonal fluctuation in water temperature because of the small variations in air
temperature and thermal inertia of such a large body of water as the Kagera River. The average
monthly air temperatures range is 18-20°C.
• The waters contain high concentrations of iron, probably originating from the natural high iron
content of soils in the catchment.

A.3 Methodology for the Assessment of the Kakono Reservoir Water Quality
Reservoir water quality for dam projects in general can be altered by nutrient released during the
biodegradation of flooded soils and biomass. Under certain conditions an increase in nutrient loading can
cause eutrophication, which result in a reduction in the Dissolved Oxygen (DO) concentration, and changes
in pH of the reservoir water. Such changes may affect the aquatic ecology of the reservoir and modify
downstream water quality, which in turn may affect downstream aquatic ecology and water users, such as
potable water abstraction or irrigation.
This assessment has therefor focused on an evaluation of the risk of these types of impacts occurring and
the objectives are as follows:
• Predict the quality of the water impounded in the future Kakono reservoirs.
• Predict how the reservoir water quality is expected to evolve over time.
• Predict how the Kagera River quality downstream may be affected.
The steps for the assessment are as follows.

• STEP 1: Measure baseline N, P and DO concentrations in the Kakono Stream at the reservoir
location.
• STEP 2: Estimate quantity of flooded hard and soft biomass in the inundated area.
• STEP 3: Estimate quantities of N, P, and organic C present in flooded hard and soft biomass.
• STEP 4: Estimate quantities of N, P, and organic C in flooded soils.
• STEP 5: Estimate rates at which N, P are liberated from flooded biomass and soils through
biodegradation.
• STEP 6: Compute inflow quantities of N, P, and organic C into reservoir water from soils, on an
annual basis – using a mass-balance approach.
• STEP 7: Compute annual average [N], [P] and Organic Carbon (OC) in reservoir water using a mass-
balance approach.
• STEP 8: Compute quantity of consumed oxygen for aerobic biodegradation of biomass using a
mass-balance approach.
• STEP 9: Compute [DO] in reservoir water on an annual basis using a mass balance approach.
The input data for Steps 1-4 are provided in Table 7.15, Table 7.16, Table 7.17 and Table 7.18.
With regards to biodegradation of flooded biomass, it is assumed that biodegradation follows an
exponential decay. The following hypothetical time constants have been adopted:
• Decay constant for biodegradation of hard biomass: 20-year half-life
• Decay constant for biodegradation of soft biomass: 5-year half-life
• Decay constant for biodegradation of biomass in soils: 15-year half-life
The decay constants have been selected using Expert Judgment, with orders of magnitude that are in
alignment with findings in studies for other hydropower projects (Fearnside, 1995). A precautionary
approach has been applied and the decay constants have been defined so that all flooded biomass has
biodegraded by the end of the 100-year assessment period.

Table 7.15 – Key Baseline Characteristics that Influence Kagera River Water Quality
Characteristic Data Remarks /source
Kagera Catchment Data
Catchment area (km2) 46,470 Tanzania: 35%, Rwanda: 33%, Burundi: 22%,
Uganda: 10%. Source (BRL, 2008)
Population on the catchment area in 2012 16 million Burundi: 47%, Rwanda 34%.
(persons) High demographic growth rate. High population
density.
Includes Kigali capital city of Rwanda, Source
(BRL, 2008)
Catchment annual runoff (mm/yr) 144 Calculated from catchment area and annual
discharge of Kagera River
Community wastewater treatment Mostly none Source (BRL, 2008)
Industrial wastewater treatment Mostly none Very little industry, mostly in Kigali, Rwanda,
source (BRL, 2008)
Land Cover in the Catchment Area (km2)
Croplands 22,120 (47.6%) Source (BRL, 2008)
Forest 12,407 (26.7%
Grassland/shrubland 6,970 (15.0%)
Bare areas 2,742 (5.9%)
Wetlands 1,348 (2.9%)
Water bodies 743 (1.6%)
Settlements 139 (0.3%)
Kagera River Baseline Water Quality at the Project Site
Phosphorus concentration (mg/l) 0.137 Source: (Norplan, 2016a) and this study
Nitrogen concentration (mg/l) 1.47 See Section 5.
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l) 8.5
Climatic Data
Temperature range (°C) 18-21 Source: (Norplan, 2016a)
Mean annual air temperature (°C) 19.7
Land Cover in the Reservoir Inundated Area (km2)
Grassland/shrubland 11.6 (7.65%) This study
Wetlands 1.9 (12.46%)
Forest 1.5 (9.89%)
Nutrients in Flooded Soils
Carbon (t) 185,105 See Table 7.16
Nitrogen (t) 18,875
Phosphorus (t) 29
Nutrients in Flooded Biomass
Carbon (t) 93,005 See Table 7.17 and Table 7.18
Nitrogen (t) 34.3
Phosphorus (t) 48.8
Future Reservoir Characteristics
Reservoir area (km2) 17 This study
Reservoir volume (MCM) 150 Source: (Studio Pietrangeli, 2019)
Water level (m above sea level) 1,189
Maximum depth (m) 34
Mean depth (m) 15
Water intake depth (m below water level) 34
Water intake elevation (m above sea level) 1,155
Soil carbon content under impounded area 10.9
(kgC/m2)
Annual wind speed (m/s) 2.75
Water residence time (days) 12
Annual discharge from the reservoir (m3/s) 212.2

Table 7.16 – Carbon, Nitrogen and Phosphorus Content of Flooded Soils

Carbon, Nitrogen and Phosphorus
Carbon, Nitrogen and Phosphorus Content for Eutric Nitisol soils (1)
Content of flooded soils
Soil depth Depth Organic Total Total Soil Density Organic Total Total
range Carbon Nitrogen Phosphorus Carbon Nitrogen Phosphorus
cm m % % mg/kg soil kg/m3 Kg/m2 Kg/m2 Kg/m2
0-30 0.3 3.05 0.311 4.78 1,190 10.89 1.11 0.0017
Total in 170,000 m2 (1,700 ha) of flooded soils (t) 185,105 18,875 29
Notes:
(1) Source: (Assen, 2010)
Table 7.17 – Carbon Content of Flooded Above Ground Vegetation

Vegetation Area Biomass Mass of Biomass Biomass Carbon Content
flooded density (1) Total Hard (2) Soft (3) Hard (4) Soft (5)
Type ha t/ha t t t t t
Vachellia woodland / 1,057 70 73,990 66,591 7,399 32,630 3,182
Bushclump masaic
Floodplain wetland 361 220 79,420 71,478 7,942 35,024 3,415
Floodplain woodland 161 140 22,540 20,286 2,254 9,940 969
Riparian forest 86 160 13,760 12,384 1,376 6,068 592
Scarp Forest 35 70 2,540 2,205 245 1,080 105
Total 1,700 192,160 172,944 19,216 84,743 8,263
93,005
Notes
(1) Source: (IPPC, 2006)
(2) Hard Biomass Fraction: 0.9 (IPPC, 2006)
(3) Soft Biomass Fraction: 0.1 (IPPC, 2006)
(4) Carbon Fraction of Hard Biomass: 0.49 (IPPC, 2006)
(5) Carbon Fraction of Hard Biomass: 0.43 (IPPC, 2006)
Table 7.18 – Nitrogen and Phosphorus Content of Flooded Above Ground Vegetation
Nutrient Nitrogen Phosphorus
Biomass type Hard Soft Hard Soft
Mass of Flooded Biomass (t) 172,944 19,216 172,944 19,216
Nutrient Content (kg/t biomass) (1) 0.198 0.002 0.282 0.001
Nutrient Mass (t) 34.24 0.038 48.77 0.019
Total (t) 34.3 48.8
Notes
(1) Source: (Mekonnen, 2021)

B.1 Groundwater Quality
a Impacts During Construction
The principal source of potential impact on groundwater quality during construction is accidental spills and
leaks of hazardous substances.
The Project will require storage and handling of hazardous substances, such as chemical additives used in
preparing concrete, small quantities of solvents and paints and larger quantities of hydrocarbons
comprising diesel fuel, hydraulic fluids, lubricating oils (new and used). The inventory of hazardous
substances and the types of storage and handling activities will be defined during the detailed project design
by the EPC Contractor. However, it can be expected that there will be several diesel storage tanks (typically
in the order of 20-30 m3 volume), vehicle refuelling areas, mobile power generators containing diesel and
oils, and areas dedicated to the storage of chemicals and hazards wastes (such as used oils) stored in iso-
containers and drums.
In the absence of pollution prevention measures, accidental spills and leaks from the storage and handling
of hazardous substances and leaks of hydraulic and lubricating oils from vehicles and power generators can
be expected. The quantities potentially released will be variable and will depend on numerous factors
include the volume of storage tanks, containers, power generators, and flow rates for refuelling.
In the event of accidental leaks and spills the soils at the spill location will be polluted. The area affected
will depend on the size of the spill. In the absence of clean-up, during rainfall some of the polluting
substances will be carried away with runoff, and some will infiltrate into groundwaters with the rainwaters,
leading to a pocket of polluted groundwater in the vicinity of the spill and which will progressively migrate.
However, when considering that there will probably not be large inventories of hazardous substances at
the project site, there is limited potential for extensive pollution of the groundwaters.
b Impacts during Reservoir Filling
Reservoir filling will result in a volume of 150 MCM of river water to be impounded in a reservoir covering
17 km2. The flooded biomass in the flooded soils and vegetation will biodegrade consuming DO in the
waters and releasing the nutrients contained in the biomass. There will consequently be an alteration to the
water quality compared to that of the baseline Kagera River water quality, there will be higher
concentrations of N and P and lowered concentration of DO, there will also be higher levels of suspended
organic matter and vegetation debris which will contribute further to reduction in oxygen levels- this is
described in more detail below in Part [B.2].
Because of the increased hydrostatic pressure resulting from the head of water in the reservoir, the
infiltration of river water into the underlying aquifer can be expected to increase causing an alteration of the
quality of the groundwater underlying the reservoir and downstream. However, because only relatively
small changes to the [N] and [P] concentrations are expected (as presented in [B.2]), the modification to
groundwater quality is not expected to be significant.
B.2 Kagera River Water Quality
a Impacts during Construction
During construction the principal sources of potential impacts on the Kagera River water quality are (i)
contaminated runoff from worksites, vehicle parking areas and laydown areas and (ii) discharges of sanitary
and domestic wastewater.
In the absence of pollution prevent measures the storage and handling of hazardous substance at the
construction worksites can result in accidental spills and leaks (see [B.1] above). The hazardous
substances―which might be hydrocarbons (fuel, hydraulic oil, lubricating oil) or chemicals― in the event of
an accidental spill during, or followed by rain, would result in contamination of runoff that would naturally
drain into the Kagera River. The quality of the polluting substances would depend on the size of the spill.
However, when considering the scale and duration of the construction works and the intensity of rainfall
during the rainy season, there is a potential for frequent release of polluting substances into the river
resulting in detectable pollution downstream.

The Project’s temporary facilities will include a construction workers’ accommodation camp. Which will
provide living facilities for the peak number of workers estimated to be 1,000 workers (Studio Pietrangeli,
2019). Domestic and sanitary wastewaters will be generated by the camp at a rate of 180 l/person/day, i.e.
180 m3/day for the peak period with 1,000 workers.
In the case that pollution prevention measures are not implemented, the untreated wastewaters could be
discharged into the Kagera River. The river has an average annual flow of 213 m3/s and the discharge flow
rate represents a fraction of that (0.001%). The discharge of untreated wastewater will probably result in a
measurable increase the faecal coliform count of the waters and there may be visual evidence of the
sewage in the waters.
Kakono Reservoir Water Quality

The detailed assessment of the predicted pre-mitigation impacts is presented with the assessment of the
residual (post mitigation) impacts in Part [D] below. The key predictions on the impounded water quality are
as follows:
• Increased [N] and [P] (<10% increase, which is not of significant).
• Lower [DO] (reduced from 8.5 mg/l to 4-5 mg/l), which is at the limit of the threshold for impacts
on fish.
• High levels of suspended organic matter and vegetation debris, which can be a safety issues as the
dam spillway may become blocked or cause operational issues as turbine inlet trash racks may
become blocked.
• Negligible change to water temperature.
• Negligible change in suspended sediments in the reservoir due to short residence time of water.
Kagera River Water Quality Downstream from the Dam

The detailed assessment of the predicted pre-mitigation impacts is presented with the assessment of the
residual (post mitigation) impacts in Part [D] below. The water quality of the Kagera River downstream from
the dam will have the same characteristics as the reservoir waters. However, the degree of alteration of
water quality parameters will decrease with distance downstream from the dam, because of reoxygenation
of waters.
C.1 Construction Site Pollution Prevention Measures
Potential sources of pollution include accidental spills and leaks of hazardous substances and discharge of
sanitary and domestic wastewaters. Measures to prevent accidental spills and leaks will be implemented
by the EPC Contractor and shall include the following:
• Development and implementation of a construction pollution prevention and control plan to
ensure compliance with national emission regulations and international good practice emissions
standards, such as the IFC General EHS Guidelines.
• All tanks containing hazardous substances (such as diesel) equipped with secondary containment
(bunding) with a volume equal to 110% of the tank volume.
• Tanks equipped with level detectors and safety systems to prevent overfilling.
• Secondary containment bunds maintained empty of rainwater.
• Storage areas for hazardous substances protected from adverse weather conditions, have
impervious hard surfaces as a base and equipped with secondary containment bunds to collect any
spills or leaks.
• All handling or transferring of hazardous substances performed on impervious surfaces equipped
with spill retention.
• Equipment and materials for clean-up of accidental spills available on site. Polluted soils are
removed and managed as hazardous waste.
• Runoff from worksite areas where hazardous materials are stored or handled is collected and
routed to an oil-water separator for separation of hydrocarbons before discharge to the natural
environment.

• Laydown / storage facilities and temporary camps shall not be located within 50 m of
watercourses and shall be located on a disturbed site.
• No fuel or chemical storage shall be located within 50 m of watercourses or within 100 m of
floodplain margins of the Kagera River.
• No cement batching (if required) shall be located within 50 m of watercourses or wetlands, or
within 100m of floodplain margins of the Kagera River.
• No vehicles may be washed at stream courses or wetlands.
• Location of temporary work camps shall be located on level ground to minimise risk of polluted
runoff draining to wetlands.
• Construction workers shall receive training in all aspects of pollution control, waste management,
vehicle management and offsite behaviour (including fire control). Weekly toolbox talks will be
undertaken on these topics.
• Code of conduct for construction workers will be included in their contracts which shall include
pollution control measures, restrictions on lighting of fires, littering, toilet etiquette, destruction,
damage and prohibition on harvesting of plants, and hunting of animals or purchase of bushmeat.
Penalties will be specified and implemented for infringements.
Measures to manage worksite runoff, silt and sediment shall include the following:
• A stormwater management plan shall be prepared that sets out the measures for managing
stormwater in such a way to prevent polluted runoff and sediment reaching the Kagera River. This
should include provisions such as drainage ditches and bunds to prevent straight run-off of wash
water, especially cement, from entering that the river. These must be delivered to settling ponds
from which effluent should be pumped to a tanker for proper disposal.
• The 2007 IFC General EHS Guidelines for erosion, road design, disturbance to water bodies shall be
followed.
• The banks of any river diversion, cofferdams and other areas close to the river that are disturbed
during construction, should be protected to minimise elevated turbidity in the river. Appropriate
stabilisers should be used, such as sandbags, plastic liners and/or coarse rock. Furthermore, the
river diversion must be wide enough to allow the river water to flow without damming.
• Stormwater runoff from access roads and all construction areas should be directed to buffer zones
before reaching the Kagera River. Temporary silt fences downstream of disturbed areas should be
constructed, where appropriate. Contractual requirements should be to provide drainage ditches
and bunds to prevent straight run-off of wash water, especially cement, from entering that the
river. These must be delivered to settling ponds from which effluent should be pumped to a tanker
for proper disposal. After construction is complete, the ponds must be emptied, and the waste
properly disposed of and rehabilitated.
• Construction activities in riparian zones should be minimised, and all support operations should be
done outside the riparian zone. A buffer zone of at least 50m from the edge of the riparian zone is
recommended for all activities that are not needed within the riparian zone.
• Rehabilitation of disturbed areas should aim to recreate the same mix of habitats, including stream
substrates that were present prior to disturbance.

• [M 13] Construction site pollution prevention and protection plans, and measures will be developed
and implemented for the dam and TL worksites (EPC Contractor).
Measures to prevent and control pollution from sanitary and domestic wastewater comprise installing a
wastewater collection and treatment system at the accommodation camp to ensure that discharges to
comply with IFC General EHS guidelines discharge limit values.
• [M 14] Construction accommodation camps will be equipped with wastewater treatment facilities
to ensure sanitary and domestic wastewater discharges are compliant with Tanzania’s and IFC EHS
guideline emission limit values (EPC Contractor).

C.2 Reservoir Vegetation Clearing and Management of Cleared Biomass
Vegetation will be cleared from the reservoir area by the EPC Contractor prior to filling. This will reduce the
quantities of floating biomass that can potentially block the dam spillway creating a hazardous situation,
will reduce the lowering of the reservoir waters [DO] which is harmful for fish and could create eutrophic
conditions further degrading reservoir water quality and reduces reservoir GHG emissions (see Section
7.8.2). This commitment is referred later in this report as:
• [M 15] Vegetation from the reservoir footprint (excluding floodplain papyrus) will be removed prior
to reservoir filling to reduce lowering of dissolved oxygen levels and reduce reservoir GHG
emissions (EPC Contractor).
As much above-ground biomass will be removed as possible. A biomass removal programme will be
developed by the EPC Contractor including (i) an estimation of the quantities of merchantable and non-
merchantable biomass, (ii) review of regional practices and identification of appropriate biomass
management strategies, (iii) development of execution plans to ensure that the vegetation removal works
are undertaken with minimum disturbance to soils; mechanical and non-mechanical tools will be used, but
the use of heavy earth moving equipment should be avoided .
• [M 16] A Reservoir Biomass Removal Plan will be developed and implemented (EPC Contractor).
Burning of the non-merchantable biomass will be avoided if technically and economically feasible. Any
burning is required the necessary authorisations will be obtained and a Smoke Management Plan will be
prepared to identify (i) smoke sensitivity zones including places of high use by the local community and (ii)
measures to manage smoke emissions, and control smoke.
• [M 17] If burning of vegetation cleared from the reservoir footprint cannot be avoided a Smoke
Management Plan will be developed and implemented (EPC Contractor).
Woody debris that could not be removed during the reservoir vegetation clearing is expected to accumulate
in the reservoir during the first filling. This debris will float and accumulate near the dam and will have to be
removed, stockpiled and transported to their final destination in alignment with the provisions included in
the Reservoir Biomass Removal Plan. This measure is referred later in this report as:
• [M 18] The Reservoir Biomass Removal Plan will include provisions for the removal and
management of floating woody debris from the reservoir during reservoir filling (EPC Contractor).
C.3 Oxygen Depletion Minimisation / Re-Oxygenation
The clearing of vegetation described in C.2 will contribute to the minimisation of DO depletion in the
reservoir waters. However, this may not be sufficient to prevent [DO] falling below the 4-5 mg/l threshold
for impacts on fish. Consequently, the EPC Contractor will include optional measures to reoxygenate
turbined waters to ensure that [DO] in the reach immediately downstream from the dam does not fall below
the 4-5 mg/l threshold for impacts on fish, for example turbine venting systems. This measure is referred
later in this report as:
• [M 19] The detailed Project design will include optional design features for re-oxygenation of
turbined waters (EPC Contractor).
D.1 Groundwater Quality
Assuming that the pollution prevention measures described in Part C.1 above are effectively implemented,
it can be anticipated that the likelihood of a major or moderate accidental spill or leaks will be unlikely.
However, small spills and leaks can still be expected. Nevertheless, if such spills are rapidly cleaned up there
should be negligible infiltration of polluting substances into the underlying groundwater. The pollution
prevention measures are best practice measures that the EPC Contractor should be familiar with
implementing. Consequently, there is a high level of certitude that the potential impacts will be mitigated
as predicted.

The mitigation measures for vegetation clearing and management for cleared biomass (see Part C.2 above)
and measures for reoxygenation (see Part C.3 above) will have negligible consequences on the reservoir’s
impact on groundwater. The measures will not change the quantities of reservoir water that feeds into the
underlying aquifer, and although the waters can be expected to have slightly lower concentrations of P the
change in significance of the impact is negligible.
D.2 Kagera River Water Quality
Assuming that the pollution prevention measures described in Part C.1 above are effectively implemented,
it can be anticipated that it will be unlikely that major or moderate accidental spill or leaks causing pollution
of runoff that drains into the Kagera River will occur or that untreated domestic and sanitary wastewaters
are discharged. The pollution prevention measures are best practice measures that the EPC Contractor
should be familiar with implementing. Consequently, there is a high level of certitude that the potential
impacts will be mitigated as predicted.
Kakono Reservoir Water Quality

Assuming that the measures relative to the reservoir vegetation clearing and management of the cleared
biomass described in Part C.2 are implemented, it can be expected that the quantities of flooded vegetation
will be reduced. This will result in smaller quantities of suspected organic matter and debris vegetation in
the reservoir waters, a slightly smaller increase in [P] and a smaller decrease in [DO].
Using the approach and methodology described in Part A.3 above, the predicted water quality with and
without clearing of vegetation before the filling are presented in Table 7.19. It is assumed that vegetation
will not be removed from the wetland floodplain as this will be too challenging technically and that 90% of
biomass from the other areas will be removed.
Table 7.19 – Predicted Kakono Reservoir Water Quality Parameters during Filling
Kagera Without Vegetation Clearing With Vegetation Clearing % Alteration
Parameter Units River Alteration cf. Alteration cf. from Veg.
Baseline Value Value Clearing
Baseline Baseline
[N] mg/l 1.5 1.6 8.6% 1.6 8.6% -0.06%
[P] µg/l 137.0 137.4 0.3% 137.3 0.25% -23.6%
N:P ratio 10.7 11.6 8.3% 11.6 8.4% 0.9%
[DO] mg/l 8.5 3.6 -57.5% 4.3 -49.7% -13.6%
Temp. °C 20.0 20.0 - 20.0 - -
Interpretation and assessment of the predicted changes to the water quality parameters are presented in
the following table.
Table 7.20 – Interpretation of Predicted Kakono Reservoir Water Quality Parameters during Filling
Parameter Impact Significance Commentary
[N] Increases by 8.6% (to a Not Vegetation clearing does not influence the [N] because the N
value of 1.6 mg/l) significant present in the above ground biomass in the reservoir footprint is
both with and without pre- (See N:P ratio) negligible compared to that in the soils.
filling vegetation clearing
[P] Increase by 0.3% without Not Soils in the reservoir footprint are poor in P and consequently
pre-filling vegetation significant removing vegetation has a measurable reduction in the overall P
clearing and 0.25% with (See N:P ratio) input into reservoir waters. However, the increase in [P] is very
pre-filling vegetation small and probably smaller than inter-season variations.
clearing
N:P ratio Increases from 10.7 to Not N:P ratio is an indicator of eutrophication risk.
11.6 with and without pre- significant For N:P <7 N is the limiting element, and for N:P>7 P is the
filling vegetation clearing limiting element. Consequently, P is the limiting element for the
baseline, and for reservoir waters.
[DO] Decreases from 8.5 mg/l Significant Without vegetation clearing, the [DO] is expected to fall below
to: the 5 mg/l fish impact threshold.

Parameter Impact Significance Commentary

3.6 mg/l without With vegetation clearing the [DO] is expected to be slightly above
vegetation clearing the 5 mg/l fish impact threshold, but reservoir re-oxygenation
4.3 mg/l with vegetation measures will be needed to provide additional assurance.
clearing
• Temperature/Reservoir stratification: Negligible changes in the temperature of impounded reservoir

waters are expected because reservoir stratification is not expected. This is because of the following:
- Short residence time: During normal operation the residence time is 12 days. During
reservoir filling, the residence time may be higher, depending on the adopted filling rate
which will be defined at a later stage. However, it is not expected to be longer than 4-6
weeks.
- Shallow reservoir depth: The average depth of the reservoir is 15 m. Reservoir that are
deeper than 20m are considered as deep reservoir and susceptible to stratification because
of depth (Chapman, 1996)
- Negligible variations in air and water temperatures: The climate in the catchment is semi-
tropical and air and river water temperatures remain constant throughout the year.
• Risk of eutrophication: Factors that represent a risk of creating eutrophic conditions include the
following:
- Reservoir stratification: Reservoir stratification is typically one of the common causes of
eutrophication. However, in the case of Kakono this is expected to be unlikely as described
above.
- High concentration of organic matter consuming DO and reduced [DO. However, using the
mass-balance approach it is not expected that the biodegradation of the biomass will
consume all the DO in the water causing anaerobic conditions to be created.
- High [N] and [P]: The [N] and [P] of the baseline Kagera River water quality and the
predicted Kakono reservoir waters are typical of hyper-eutrophic reservoirs.
- Although [N] and [P] are expected to be of levels that are typically observed in hyper-
eutrophic reservoir, it is assessed that it is probably unlikely that eutrophic conditions will
occur in the Kakono reservoir during filling. This is because of the short residence time of
the stored water, and the expected absence of reservoir stratification and light limitation
caused by elevated suspended solids.
Kagera River Water Quality Downstream from the Dam

The water quality of the Kagera River immediately downstream from the dam will have the same
characteristics as the reservoir waters. However, the degree of alteration of water quality parameters will
decrease with distance downstream from the dam, because of reoxygenation of waters.
The reoxygenation of the Kagera River Waters have been estimated using the Streeter-Phelps equation
(Streeter, 1925) (Tchobanoglous, 1984). This equation is still used in modern water modelling studies. The
dissolved oxygen concentration at a distance (x) downstream from the dam is calculated using the following
formula:
O = Ss – [kd / (ko-kd) ] Du [e-(kd/v)x -e-(ko/v)x] – (Ss-Oo) e-(ko/v)x
Where:
O Dissolved Oxygen concentration mg/l
Oo Dissolved Oxygen concentration at the dam discharge mg/l
Ss Dissolved Oxygen concentration at saturation mg/l
kd Deoxygenation constant /day
ko Oxygenation constant /day
Du BOD at the dam discharge mg/l
v River velocity m/day
x Distance downstream m
The key parameter for the calculation is the oxygenation constant (k o). There are numerous methods for
calculating ko depending the characteristics of the river. For this assessment two methods which are
suitable for large rivers have been used:

Ko = 596 x (v x slope (m/m))0.528 x Discharge (m3/s)-0.136 (Melching, 1999)……. Ko = 5.0 day-1

Ko = 5.792 x v0.5 x depth (m)-0.25 (Jha R., 2001)………………………………………………..Ko = 3.5 day-1
The reoxygenation of waters downstream from the Kakono dam are presented in Figure 7-3.
Evolutions of [DO] with and without pre-filling vegetation clearing and for the two oxygenation constants
are presented. It can be assumed that the actual evolution will be positioned somewhere between the upper
and lower curves.
Kagera River Reoxygenation - Year of Reservoir Filling
9.00
8.50
8.00
7.50
7.00
[D0] mg/L
6.50
With Reservoir Clearing, Oygenation Constant (ko) = 5 day-1
6.00
Without Reservoir Clearing, Oygenation Constant (ko) = 5 day-1
5.50 With Reservoir Clearing, Oygenation Constant (ko) = 3.5 day-1
5.00 Without Reservoir Clearing, Oygenation Constant (ko) = 3.5 day-1
4.50
4.00
0.1 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Distance Downstream from Kakono Dam (km)
Figure 7-3 – Evolution of Kagera River Dissolved Oxygen Concentration Downstream from the Dam
The monitoring programme for both construction and operation is as follows: Parameters to be monitored
are listed in Table 7.21. Table 7.22 presents the monitoring programme. The monitoring results will be
publicly disclosed on the Project’s website.
The water quality monitoring measures are referred to elsewhere in the report as:
• [M 20] The quality of wastewater discharges from construction worksites will be monitored to
check conformity with Tanzania’s and IFC General EHS Guideline discharge limit values (EPC
Contractor).
• [M 21] Groundwater at construction worksite will be monitored monthly during construction (EPC
Contractor).
• [M 22] River water quality downstream from construction worksites will be monitored monthly
during construction (EPC Contractor).
• [M 23] Environmental performance of the EPC Contractor will be monitored to check conformity
with Project standards and non-conformities will be managed through a non-conformity
management process (TANESCO).

• [M 24] Groundwater, Kagera River water quality upstream and downstream of the dam will be
monitored for the duration of the Project operation (TANESCO).
• [M 25] Water quality monitoring results will be publicly disclosed on the Project website (TANESCO).
Table 7.21 –Water Quality Monitoring Parameters during Construction and Operation
Wastewater discharges
• pH • Total phosphorus
• Biological Oxygen Demand • Oil and grease
• Chemical Oxygen Demand • Total suspended solids
• Total nitrogen • Total coliform bacteria
Reservoir Water Quality
• Temperature • Ammonia
• pH • Conductivity
• Dissolved oxygen • Nitrate
• Total phosphorus • Total alkalinity
• Turbidity • Nitrite
• Phosphates • Organic carbon
• Total suspended solids • Chlorophyll-a
Kagera River Water Quality
• Temperature • Total alkalinity
• pH • Nitrite
• Dissolved oxygen • Organic carbon
• Total phosphorus • Chlorophyll-a
• Turbidity • Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, Xylene (BTEX)
• Phosphates • EPA Priority Pollutant Metals (PP-13*)
• Total suspended solids • Total coliforms
• Ammonia • Faecal coliforms
• Conductivity • BOD
• Nitrate • COD
Groundwater Quality
• pH • Total alkalinity
• Total phosphorus • Nitrite
• Turbidity • Organic carbon
• Phosphates • Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, Xylene (BTEX)
• Total suspended solids • EPA Priority Pollutant Metals (PP-13*)
• Ammonia • Total coliforms
• Conductivity • Faecal coliforms
• Nitrate
* PP-13: (Sb) Antimony, (As) Arsenic, (Be) Beryllium, (Cd) Cadmium, (Cr) Chromium, (Cu) Copper, (Pb) Lead, (Ni) Nickel, (Se)
Selenium, (Ag) Silver, (Tl) Thallium, (Zn) Zinc, and (Hg) Mercury

Table 7.22 – Water Quality Monitoring Programme for Construction and Operation
Monitoring Parameters Monitoring Frequency
Location Commentary
Station Monitored Construction Operation
RES-WQ-1 Upper reaches of See Table Monthly from the February, May, 3 depths: surface,
reservoir 7.21 start of reservoir August and mid-depth and
RES-WQ-2 Middle reach of reservoir filling November in the bottom
first 5 years
RES-WQ-3 Reservoir in proximity to
following reservoir
the dam
filling.
KAG-WQ-1 Kagera River upstream See Table Monthly January (low N/A
from the reservoir 7.21* starting 1 year before seasonal flow) and
KAG-WQ-2 Kagera River immediately start of construction May (high seasonal
downstream from the flow) in subsequent
Kakono dam years
KAG-WQ-3 Kagera River 3km
downstream from the
Kakono dam
KAG-WQ-4 Kagera River 20 km
downstream from the
Kakono dam
KAG-WQ-5 Kagera River 40 km DO only N/A N/A
downstream from the
Kakono dam
KAG-WQ-6 Kagera River 60 km DO only
downstream from the
Kakono dam
downstream from the
Kakono dam
downstream from the
Kakono dam
GW-1 Groundwater at dam See Table Monthly Twice yearly: N/A
construction worksite 7.21* starting 1 year before January and May
GW-2 Groundwater at dam start of construction
construction worksite
GW-3 Groundwater at dam
GW-4 Groundwater at dam
* Monitoring of non-detected PP-13 Metals may be stopped at the end of the construction period

Large Reservoir Run of River Operation
Note regarding the assessment of impacts on groundwater: The assessment of impacts on water quality
during operation focuses on reservoir and river water quality. The impact on groundwater quality during the
operation will be a continuation of the impacts that occurred during construction and reservoir filling (see
Section 7.3.2.1D). No additional assessment is provided in this section.
During operation, the IMFs and key elements of the baseline comprise the water quality of the Kagera River
waters flowing into the reservoir, the reservoir characteristics, and the quantities of biomass and nutrient
in the flooded soils and vegetation. These factors are described in the assessment of construction and
reservoir filling (see Section 7.3.2.1A).
B.1 Continuation of Impacts from Reservoir Filling
The impact on the impounded waters and the Kagera River downstream will be a continuation of the
impacts that occurred during reservoir filling. The approach and method for assessing the impacts is
described in the assessment of construction and reservoir filling (see Section 7.3.2.1A). The initial
alterations to the water quality parameters caused by the reservoir filling will be progressively reduced over
time as the quantity of biomass in the reservoir decreases as a result of the natural biodegradation. The
evolution over time of the water quality parameters with and without the pre-mitigation (reservoir
vegetation clearing) are presented with the assessment of the residual (post mitigation) impacts in Part D
below.
B.2 Effects of Development of Water Hyacinth
During operation of the reservoir, it is probable that water hyacinth (an invasive species) will develop in the
reservoir forming floating mats on the surface of the water along the reservoir shoreline and in where the
reservoir shore meets the dam structure. The presence of the water hyacinth is mostly an operational and
safety issue as it may block the dam spillway gates and the fish pass exit. The development of water
hyacinth is limited by the availability of nutrients in the water and current and in the case of the Kakono
reservoir―as described above―there is an abundance of nutrients and consequently, this will not be a
limiting factor.
It is assessed that the water hyacinth mats will probably not develop in the waters of greater than 6m depth,
as has been reported by studies on African lakes (Dersseh, 2019) and there will probably be a wide channel
along the central axe of the reservoir where the water is deeper and where water hyacinth mats are not
expected to develop.
In terms of impact on water quality, typically shallow lakes and reservoirs where water hyacinth has
developed are subject to lowered [DO] beneath the mats―though in the deeper water that are not covered
by the mats the DO is not altered (Mironga, 2012). The lowering of [DO] is due to the water hyacinth mats
blocking out sunlight and preventing phytoplankton and aquatic plants from producing oxygen. In the case
of Kakono reservoir, the [DO] originates from the inflowing waters and not from phytoplankton or aquatic
plants and so the prevention of oxygen production from any phytoplankton or aquatic plants that develop
will not modify the predictions regarding [DO]. However, consumption of DO by the development of the
water hyacinth may result in some lowering of [DO] in the reservoir waters, but this is expected to be a
minor lowering as it will be mostly balanced by the inflow of oxygenated Kagera river waters.
Water hyacinth will be managed by the Alien Invasive Plant Management Plan described in Section
7.4.3.2C.2. No other measures in addition to those implemented during the construction phase for re-
oxygenation of discharged reservoir water (see section 7.3.2.1C.3) are planned.
D.1 Kakono Reservoir Water Quality

The progressive decrease in the degree of water quality alteration that occurred during reservoir filling is
presented in the graphs provided in Figure 7-4 and Figure 7-5. Interpretation and assessment of the
predicted changes to the water quality parameters are presented in Table 7.23.
Table 7.23 – Predicted Kakono Reservoir Water Quality Parameters after 30 Years of Operation
Without Pre-Filling Vegetation With Pre-Filling Vegetation
Kagera Clearing Clearing Alteration
Parameter Units River Reduction from
Baseline Alteration cf. Alteration cf. Veg. Clearing
Value Value
Baseline Baseline
End of First Year After Reservoir Filling
[N] mg/l 1.5 1.6 8.6% 1.6 8.6% -0.06%
[P] µg/l 137.0 137.4 0.32% 137.3 0.25% -23.6%
N:P ratio 10.7 11.6 8.3% 11.6 8.3% 0.9%
[DO] mg/l 8.5 3.6 -57.5% 4.3 -49.7% -13.6%
Temp. °C 18-20 18-20 - 18-20 - -
After 30 Years of Operation
[N] mg/l 1.5 1.5 2.3% 1.5 2.3% -0.1%
[P] µg/l 137.00 137.14 0.1% 137.10 0.08% -27.0%
N:P ratio 9.6 11.0 13.7% 11.0 13.7% 0.22%
[DO] mg/l 8.5 7.2 -15.2% 7.4 -13.1% -13.9%
Temp. °C 18-20 18-20 - 18-20 - -
Kakono Reservoir [DO] Evolution over Time after First Filling (mg/l)
(with and without pre-reservoir filling vegetation clearing)
10.00
9.00
8.00
7.00
6.00
mg/l
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29
Year after Filling
Kakono Reservoir (with vegetation clearing) Kakono Reservoir (without vegetation clearing)
Kagera River Baseline Fish Impact Threshold
Figure 7-4 – Evolution of Kakono Reservoir DO Concentrations over Time

Kakono Reservoir [N] Evolution over Time after First Filling (mg/l)
(with and without vegetation clearing prior to reservoir filling)
1.60
1.58
1.56
1.54
mg/l
1.52
1.50
1.48
1.46
1.44
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29
Years after First Filling
Kakono Reservoir (with and without vegetation clearing) Kagera River Baseline
Kakono Reservoir [P] Evolution over Time after First Filling (mg/l)
(with and without clearing of vegetation prior to reservoir filling)
0.1375
0.1374
0.1373
0.1372
0.1371
0.1370
0.1369
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29
Kakono Reservoi (without vegetation clearing) Kagera River Baseline

Kakono Reservoir (with vegetation clearing)
Kakono Reservoir N : P Ratio Evolution over Time after First Filling

(with and without clearing of vegetation prior to reservoir filling)
11.80
11.60
11.40
11.20
11.00
10.80
10.60
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29
Years after First Filling
Kakono Reservoir (with vegetation clearing) Kakono Reservoir (without vegetation clearing)
Kagera River Baseline
Figure 7-5 – Evolution of Kakono Reservoir N and P Concentrations over Time

a Dissolved Oxygen
It is expected that the reservoir filling will result in a decrease in [DO] in the impounded waters (4.3 mg/l
and 3.6 mg, with and without pre-filling vegetation clearing). In subsequent years the [DO] will progressively
increase as the amount of flooded organic carbon remaining in the reservoir decreases. However, hard
biomass degrades slowly (20-year half-life decay constant) and will take a significant time for all the carbon
to biodegrade. Consequently, [DO] will probably not reach baseline levels as the reservoir will trap inflowing
organic matter and vegetation and the biodegradation of this organic matter will consume oxygen. It is not
expected that reservoir stratification will occur (see below), and as result of this, anoxic layers are not
expected.
b Nitrogen Concentration
Following the initial 8.6% increase in [N] after reservoir filling, the concentration is progressively reduced
reaching values 5% and 2% higher than baseline conditions after 10 years and 30 years respectively. It is
probable that the degree of alteration will be less than inter-season variations within 5-10 years of reservoir
filling. It is noteworthy that pre-reservoir vegetation clearing does not influence the [N]. This is because the
quantity of N present in the above ground biomass is negligible compared to that in the soils. It is also
noteworthy that the forecast increase in population and agricultural activities in the catchment will also
increase the N input from the Kagera River resulting in cumulative impacts. This is discussed in the
Cumulative Impact Assessment (CIA) (see Section 7.10.3).
c Phosphorus Concentration
The initial increase in [P] after reservoir filling is very small (0.25% and 0.32%, with and without pre-filling
vegetation clearing respectively). This degree of alteration is within baseline inter-seasonal variations; the
alteration can therefore be considered as negligible and will decrease further over time. There is only a
small increase in [P] because the P input from soils and biomass is very small compared to the high P
loading in the inflowing Kagera River. The river has a high loading because of the widespread discharge of
untreated domestic and sanitary wastewater into the river in the upper catchment.
d N:P Ratio
The N:P ratio is an indicator of eutrophication risk. For N:P <7, N is the limiting element, and for N:P>7, P is
the limiting element. Consequently, P is the limiting element for the baseline, and for reservoir waters after
reservoir filling and after 30 years of operation.
e Risk of Reservoir Stratification and Changes in Water Temperature
An assessment of the possibility of reservoir stratification has been undertaken by applying the equations
developed to determine thermocline depth using reservoir area, reservoir depth and climatic conditions
(Gorham, 1989). The results for the Kakono reservoir characteristics and climatic conditions indicated
negligible difference in density between surface and bottom waters. This is because there are very small
seasonal variations in air temperatures. Using expert judgment; taking into account (i) the short residence
time of the stored water (12 days) and (ii) the profile and form of the reservoir (see Figure 7-6). It is thought
unlikely that a thermocline could occur. The average depth of the reservoir will be in the order of 10 m and
scholarly studies have found that stratification does not usually occur in reservoirs of <10m depth
(Chapman, 1996). The deepest parts of the reservoir reach depths of 40m, but these parts are close to the
dam and the water intake for the turbines are at the same elevation as the bottom of the reservoir, which
should prevent the formation of a pocket of anoxic waters below the elevation of the water intake.
Consequently, the temperature of the water turbined is expected to have a negligible difference from the
temperature of the reservoir inflow.

Figure 7-6 – Reservoir Profile and Footprint Form Schematic

f Risk of Eutrophication
Eutrophic conditions occur when there is an excessive development of primary and secondary producers
(algae, macrophytes, zooplankton) resulting in oxygen depletion and algal blooms. Factors that influence
creation of eutrophic conditions and the situation for the Kakono reservoir are discussed as follows:
• Inflow water quality: An inflow of nutrients and organic matter at sufficiently high levels can be
favourable for creation of eutrophic conditions in the reservoir. The Kagera baseline nutrient
concentrations are typical of eutrophic/hypereutrophic reservoir conditions (see Table 7.24) and P
is the limiting element. The concentrations are sufficiently high to represent a risk of
eutrophication under certain conditions.
• Water storage residence-time and temperature: The longer the water is stored the higher the
chance of changes in water temperature and if sufficient nutrients are present the creation of
eutrophic conditions. However, the residence time for the Kakono reservoir is 12 days which
minimises the risk.
• Water depth, geometric form of the reservoir and reservoir operation: These aspects can be the
cause of the creation of thermoclines and zones of stagnant anoxic water. However, as discussed
above, the water depth, water storage residence time and geometric form of the reservoir are not
favourable for stratification.
• Biomass in the inundated area: The biodegradation of the biomass and the release of nutrients to
the reservoir water can cause eutrophic conditions. If released over time into the reservoir water at
sufficiently high levels eutrophic conditions can be produced. The quantities of nutrient released
from flooded biomass and soils over time have been computed. It is expected that there will be a
slight increase in the concentrations of nutrients in the impounded waters. However, the increase
in [P] is negligible and a P is the limiting element, the nutrient input from flooded biomass and soils
is expected to have a negligible effect on the risk of eutrophication.
Table 7.24 – Comparison of Trophic Level Classification of Lakes & Reservoirs and Kakono Reservoir
Parameter Oligotrophic a Mesotrophic a Eutrophic a Hypereutrophic a Kakono b
Average total N (mg/l) 0.006 0.753 1.875 High 1.6
Average total P (mg/l) 0.0008 0.0267 0.084 >0.2 0.137
a
Source: (UNEP)
b
Comparable with Eutrophic/Hypereutrophic conditions, N:P>7 (P is the limiting element)
The assessment of the above factors concludes that eutrophic conditions will probably not occur in the
reservoir, principally because of the short residence time of the stored water and the absence of reservoir
stratification.
D.2 Downstream Kagera River Water Quality
The alteration to the [DO] of the waters downstream from the Kakono dam that occurred during reservoir
filling will continue during the operation. The increase in [DO] with distance from the dam and with the
number of years following reservoir filling are presented in Figure 7-7.
The monitoring programme from the operation will be a continuation of the monitoring undertaken during
construction (see Section 7.3.2.1E).

Kagera River Reoxygenation - Year 5 After Reservoir Filling
9.00
8.50
8.00
7.50
7.00
[D0] mg/L
6.50
6.00
4.50
4.00
0.1 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
9.00
8.50
8.00
7.50
7.00
[D0] mg/L
6.50
6.00
4.50
4.00
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
9.00
8.50
8.00
7.50
7.00
[D0] mg/L
6.50
6.00
4.50
4.00
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Figure 7-7 – Evolution of Dissolved Oxygen Concentration with Distance Downstream from the Dam

Sediment Transport, Hydro-Morphology, and Increased Erosion

Potential
The lower Kagera River, from Nsongezi Falls to Lake Victoria, ranges from the lower foothills geomorphic
zone to a lowland river based on river gradient and geomorphic features (Figure 7-8). The lower foothill
zone is described as a river with a moderate gradient (0.001-0.005) mixed bed (often bedrock and cobble),
pool riffle/rapid sequences and a narrow floodplain composed of sand, gravel and cobbles and the lowland
zone has a low gradient (0.001-0.0001), fine-grained alluvial bed, meandering planform in a distinct fine-
grained floodplain and unconfined valley setting (Rowntree, 1999). The following reaches were identified
for the Lower Kagera River (Figure 7-8):
• Reach A is classified as lower foothill and the channel characteristics fit the description of a very
narrow, discontinuous floodplain (floodplain width less than channel width), straight to wandering
channel, bedrock sections, bedrock islands and rapids.
• Reach B, where the dam will be built, can be classified as a lowland zone based on the longitudinal
slope (0.00075), but its character fits the lower foothill description better mostly due to its
confined valley setting, narrow flood plain (floodplain width similar to channel width) and sinuous
wandering channel, coarse bed material (bedrock, boulders, cobbles), coarse to fine bank and
floodplain material (cobbles, gravels and sand). The georadar observations of bedrock presence at
the dam site confirms the more mixed bed character of Reach B.
• Reach C is a transitional reach that exhibits a moderate floodplain width (floodplain width similar to
4 channel widths), a partly confined valley setting allowing meander development, wandering to
meandering channel planform, coarse to moderate bed material (cobbles and gravels), fine to
moderate floodplain material (gravel, sand and silt).
• Reach D has a partly confined valley setting, moderate floodplain width (floodplain width similar to
8 channel widths), wandering to meandering channel pattern, moderate to fine bed material
(cobbles, gravels and sand), fine bank and floodplain material (sand, silt and clay).
• Reach E has an unconfined valley setting, wide floodplain (floodplain width similar to 10+ channel
widths), meandering channel pattern, moderate to fine bed material (gravel and sand), fine bank
and floodplain material (sand, silt and clay).
The valley confinement decreases, and floodplain width increases, from Reach D to E with meander and
alluvial floodplain features, such as oxbows and backswamps, becoming more prevalent.
Based on monthly satellite imagery for the Kagera River mouth during 2019 it is clear that the suspended
sediment concentration remains high throughout the year and that the Kagera’s contribution of suspended
sediment to Lake Victoria is significant (Figure 7-9). Due to the increase in flow rate from April to September,
it is expected that the volume of sediment delivered to Lake Victoria will peak during the same period.

Figure 7-8 – Longitudinal Profile of the Lower Kagera River

Showing the main Reaches and Geomorphic Characteristics of the River. Source: Elevation data extracted from SRTM 30
Figure 7-9 – Monthly Satellite Images for the Kagera River Mouth
Showing Suspended Sediment Plumes and Density Currents Flowing into Lake Victoria. Image Source: Planet Labs
The lower Kagera River morphology is in balance with the main drivers, namely hydrology and sediment
supply, of the system. As the lower Kagera River is an alluvial system, it is sensitive to changes in hydrology
and sediment supply. The construction phase of the Kakono Dam is likely to impact the balance of
hydrology and sediment delivery as the dam is built in stages across the river channel.
The following two activities may impact the morphological drivers:

• The dam will be constructed over 52 months with a gravity structure constructed in the Kagera
River channel. A cofferdam and river diversion will be used until the bottom outlet is completed to
divert the river flow without the need for a diversion structure. Some of the coarser bedload will be
trapped by the diversion structure, but the majority of the suspended sediment will bypass the
diversion works due to the short residence time of the water in the diversion dam. It is assumed
that the bedload will pass through the bottom outlet due to its low elevation and negligible
damming effect associated with bed sediment deposition.
• The filling phase might take place over several weeks to months. The trapping efficiency of the
reservoir will increase as the reservoir volume increase and flow velocities are reduced along the
reservoir, facilitating siltation and subsequent sediment starvation of downstream reaches.
The following impacts are associated with the construction and filling process of the Kakono dam- reservoir:
• Increased sediment supply during the excavation and construction phase. During the excavation
process, the banks and bed of the river will be disturbed and exposed to increased fluvial erosion.

The construction of the cofferdams and river diversion will modify the hydraulic flow pattern,
possibly increasing the erosion of bank and bed material, resulting in increased sediment loadings
and water turbidity. This effect will be highest at the excavation site and may diminish over a reach
of 10-30 km downstream. The impact is likely to start at the onset of the excavations and
cofferdam construction and may stop as excavation and construction in the channel is no longer
exposing erodible material to high-velocity flow currents. The aquatic organisms and downstream
water users may be impacted by higher suspended sediment concentrations, turbidity and
localised sediment deposition.
• Bed sediment trapping due to ponding upstream of the cofferdam may reduce sediment supply to
the immediate downstream reach (0 to 5 km downstream of the dam). The reduction in bed
sediment supply might result in the lowering of some of the bedforms along the impacted zone.
As the longitudinal bedload transport should be resumed once the bottom release valve is
completed and be used to route the flow (no more damming effect), the impact may be localised
(0 to 5 km downstream) and the duration determined by the duration of damming by coffer type
infrastructure (short time). As the construction of the gravity wall is of short duration it is expected
that the bed lowering may have a relatively low non-significant impact and is unlikely to increase
downstream bank erosion rates.
• Sediment trapping during the filling phase will take place as the volume of the reservoir increases,
increasing cross-sectional area and residence time and lead to reduced flow velocity. This may
result in increased sedimentation, especially of the bedload. The result of this process is a
reduction in longitudinal sediment transport with an overall reduction in the sediment delivery to
downstream reaches. Based on calculations for the full supply volume of the Kakono Reservoir, the
annual sediment load can be reduced by ~63% (see Section 7.3.3.2B.2). It is assumed that all
bedload may be trapped by the reservoir, leading to bedload sediment starvation of the
downstream reaches. As the filling process is assumed to be relatively fast (several weeks to
months), it is expected that the downstream effects, such as bed and bank erosion, are likely to be
non-significant impact and immediately downstream of the dam (0 to 5 km). This effect will
however continue through the operational phase and would be significant (see Section 7.3.3.2).
Various mitigation measures to enhance longitudinal sediment transport were considered. Some of the
mitigation measures are unfeasible due to the physical characteristics of the site or practicality, whereas
other measures are possible with the current design. The measures are described below.
C.1 Possibly Unfeasible Mitigation Measures
Dams have a significant effect on longitudinal sediment transport, with the effect of starving downstream
reaches of sediment. To avoid this impact a sediment bypass can be constructed as a tunnel or canal that
transports the sediment-laden water from upstream of the reservoir to just downstream of the reservoir
to allow the normal longitudinal connectivity of bed and suspended sediment. This mitigation measure is
likely to be very expensive and has the risk of silting up, rendering it ineffective and costly to restore its
function.
Another alternative is to remove the sediment from the impounded area and transport it to the downstream
area. This will need significant logistical inputs and is not sustainable due to the large volumes that need
transporting on an ongoing basis.
C.2 Feasible Mitigation Measures
To prevent soil erosion at construction worksite prevention measures will be employed when working on
bare soils and banks for excavated areas, such as maintaining safe bank angles. When working in the river
it will be ensured that works will be downstream of cofferdams so that local fluvial erosion and fluctuations
and increases in downstream sediment concentration is minimised. This measure is referred to elsewhere
in this report as:
• [M 26] During construction, erosion mitigation measures will be employed to prevent soil erosion
and fluvial erosion when undertaking works on bare soil and banks and when working in the river
(EPC Contractor).

The construction of the dam across the channel will require excavations and building without the influence
of water. This will require a cofferdam to redirect the flow. The cofferdam may pond some of the flow,
resulting in lower flow velocities and bed sediment deposition, reducing the longitudinal transport of bed
sediment.
• [M 27] Cofferdams used for construction works in the river will be designed to enable bedload
delivery to downstream reaches while construction is taking place (EPC Contractor).
During the reservoir filling phase, enhancement of water and sediment flow to reduce downstream
sediment starvation can be done by implementing bottom sluicing.
• [M 28] During the reservoir filling phase, bottom sluicing will be undertaken to maintain sediment
throughflow as best possible and flows will be sufficient to transport the released sediment
downstream to avoid siltation of instream habitats immediately downstream of the dam
(TANESCO).
The mitigation measures during the construction phase should be effective in maintaining the baseline
longitudinal flow of sediment, with minimal downstream impacts to bed and bank erosional processes.
During the filling phase, the sediment longitudinal transport may be moderately effective, with large
reductions in the downstream supply of bedload and coarser suspended sediment. This will result in
systematic localised bed lowering in the reach immediately downstream of the dam (0-5 km). The bed
lowering is likely to result in bank toe erosion and increase bank exposure to fluvial erosion, bank
undercutting and subsequent bank collapse. This process will continue during the operational phase (see
Section 7.3.3.2 for details).
The following monitoring measures are proposed to monitor erosion at the site and assess how the
sediment concentrations differ upstream and downstream of the construction and inundated site.
At the construction site, soil erosion should be monitored by undertaking weekly fixed-point photos of
construction sites to detect erosion, such as sheet, rill and gully erosion. Mitigation against the erosion
detected can be put in place to avoid soil erosion and subsequent increases in sediment concentration in
the river. This measure is referred to as:
• [M 29] During construction, worksite surface erosion and effectiveness of control measures will be
monitored by taking weekly fixed-point photos of cleared areas (EPC Contractor).
Monitoring of suspended sediment concentrations during construction should be done to inform adaptive
management requirements. This should include the use of continuous loggers with a real-time data feed
that are calibrated to the local suspended sediment type (samples analysed to account for grain size
influence on suspended sediment concentration) and can accurately measure very high sediment
concentrations (light-based methods fail during very high sediment concentrations). The upstream and
downstream data should be used in real-time to adjust the operations to maintain sediment concentrations
that are similar to the concentrations of the inflowing river water and acceptable for the ecosystem and
downstream users. The monitoring should start a month before construction starts to monitor short term
natural variability and continue for the duration of the construction phase. This monitoring will be continued
by TANESCO during the operational phase (see Section 7.3.3.2). This measure is referred to elsewhere as:
• [M 30] During dam construction continuous monitoring of suspended sediment concentration in
the Kagera River upstream of the cofferdam ponded area and immediately downstream of the
construction zone will be undertaken (EPC Contractor).
The lower Kagera River is located along an alluvial river system where the river geomorphology is
determined by two main drivers: hydrology and sediment supply (see Section 7.3.3.1A). Changes to these
will have a direct impact on the river morphology downstream of the dam. In the case of a run-of-river
project, the main driver influencing river morphology is the reduction in sediment load (bed and suspended

load) due to sediment deposition in the reservoir, while the hydrology downstream of the Project will remain
unaffected.
B.1 Sediment Trapping and the Resultant Changes to the Sediment Balance
The Kagera catchment produces a large volume of fine sediment, especially in the steeper uplands of
Rwanda and Burundi. Basin-wide assessments of land cover indicate that cultivated land, grassland and
woodland has increased, whereas bare land and bushland have decreased from 1990 to 2011 (Hagai,
2019). Soil erosion is associated with expansion in cultivated land, and this has been extensive in the upper
regions of the Kagera River catchment, increasing sediment supply (FAO, n.d.). The erosion of surface soils
produces largely fine sediment that is transported in suspension. Other sources of soil erosion are the
cultivation of riverbanks and floodplains, road and stormwater runoff driving erosion, and reduced sediment
buffering by degraded wetlands and riparian strips (FAO, n.d.). A large proportion of the sediment eroded in
the uplands is deposited in lakes, wetlands and floodplains along the drainage network of the upper and
middle Kagera (upstream of Kikagati) (SNC LAVALIN International, 2011), but it is evident that a large
proportion of the very fine sediment makes its way down to Lake Victoria see Figure 7-9. This anthropogenic
influence results in increased suspended sediment and associated nutrient supply to the lower Kagera
Floodplain and Lake Victoria.
Observations on sediment yield are limited, but calculations based on available data indicate a sediment
yield of ~1 million tonnes at the Kakono Dam (Table 7.25) (Studio Pietrangeli, 2019). Assuming a bulk
density of 1,130 kg/m3 this equates to 885,000 m3 of sediment (SNC LAVALIN International, 2011).
Table 7.25 – Suspended Sediment Load Pre- and Post-Dam Construction

Sediment load pre- Downstream Sediment load post- Total maximum
Site
dam catchment input dam sediment reduction
(tonnes/year) (tonnes/year) (tonnes/year) %
At dam 995,000 0 368,000 63.0
EFA1 3 km 996,000 1,000 369,000 62.9
EFA2 18 km 1,003,000 9,000 377,000 62.1
EFA3 54 km 1,014,000 19,000 387,000 61.8
EFA4 92 km 1,157,000 162,000 530,000 54.2
Lake Victoria 1,250,000 255,000 623,000 50.2
Note: There is a lag effect for the lower sites and that the bed and banks will contribute additional sediment
The total annual river-based sediment load for Lake Victoria is 6.5 million tonnes/year, with the Kagera
contributing 1.25 million tonnes/year or 1.132 MCM/year (Mnyanga, et al., 2005), making the Kagera River
system a significant sediment source of Lake Victoria.
The Kakono reservoir has a capacity of 150 MCM and the Kagera at that point has a mean annual runoff
(MAR) volume of 6,700 MCM (Studio Pietrangeli, 2019). The ratio of reservoir capacity to MAR is 0.023. Based
on this ratio, the Kakono dam should have a median trap efficiency of 63% (and outer edges of the envelope
of 50% to 73%) according to observations by Brune (1953) for normally ponded reservoirs. This trapping
efficiency value is lower than values published for large reservoirs in the Nile basin (79 to 98%). This is
expected due to their low capacity to inflow ratio (capacity often up to 2 times the annual runoff, resulting
in high sediment trapping due to long retention times) (Eizel-Din, et al., 2010) (Shahis, 1993) that the
predicted trapping efficiencies for reservoirs using the Brune curve are overestimated due to the fine nature
of the sediment in the Nile River basin. This would suggest that the lower end of the trapping efficiency
curve of 50% could be more realistic for the Kakono Reservoir, but this needs to be confirmed by observed
suspended and bedload sediment data and reservoir hydromorphological modelling (see Section 7.3.3.2F).
The trap efficiency of the Kakono dam will decrease over time as the live volume is reduced by siltation,
lowering the residence time of the reservoir. If one assumes that 50% of the Kakono Reservoir volume is
lost due to siltation, the ratio of reservoir capacity to MAR is 0.011, resulting in an estimated median
trapping efficiency of 44% according to the Brune curve. This effect and timescale can be further
investigated through reservoir hydromorphological modelling (see Section 7.3.3.2F.
There are limited data on the particle size of transported sediment at the Kakono Dam site. The size of the
suspended sediment measured at and upstream of Rusumo Falls (330 km upstream) is mostly silt and clay
(80% less than 0.05mm with a small fine sand component, 20% of 0.05-0.1 mm) (SNC LAVALIN

International, 2011), thus it is assumed that the suspended sediment particle size at the Kakono dam may
be of a similar range. No information is available on the bedload size or rate of supply for the lower Kagera
River. Bedload is estimated to be 10% of the total sediment load in the Nile basin (Eizel-Din, et al., 2010),
(Abdelsalam & Ismail, 2008). It is thus assumed that the Kagera at the Kakono dam may produce a similar
ratio of bedload calculated to be 100,000 tonnes/year or 52,000 m3/year1.
Bedload is associated with high fall velocities, resulting in the rapid deposition if flow velocities are low. All
bedload will settle out in the reservoir inlet in the form of a delta as flow velocities decrease as cross-
sectional area increases. A large portion of the fine suspended sediment (silt and clay) and associated
nutrients will be transported to downstream of the dam due to their slow fall velocities and relatively short
residence time of the reservoir (~12 days).
The Black Dotted Line and Red Hashed

Line Indicate Extensions of the Bed
Gradient of the Lower Reaches
Figure 7-10 – Deposition and Erosion of Bed Material in Relation to the Kakono Dam
The assumed median trap efficiency of 63% results in a total sediment reduction to 368,000 m3/year,
mainly of very fine suspended sediment (clays and fine silts carrying nutrients), with 0m 3/year of bedload
immediately downstream of the dam (Table 7.25).
B.2 Sediment Supply Downstream of the Kakono Dam
As the lower Kagera River floodplain is an alluvial system, we may assume that the system passes its flow
and sediment load without dramatic changes to the channel shape (Church, 2006). This was shown by Lane
(1955) through the relation QS ~ QSD, in which Q is discharge, S is channel gradient, Q s is sediment flux (bed
material flux), and D is sediment size. As the main change with the Run-of-river scheme lies with the
bedload supply interruption, we can assume that the slope will adjust to a lower gradient or/and the bed
material size will increase as we expect with bed armouring. The level of degradation will depend on local
controls, such as stable base levels, either bedrock or/and an immobile armoured bed (Figure 7-11, Case
4). An armoured bed develops through the loss of finer particles resulting in a coarser stable bed that
protects the underlying sediment from erosion. The armoured layer could be eroded during large low-
frequency events (such as a 1 in 50-year flood), resulting in further bed and slope lowering and the
development of a new equilibrium. The lowering of the slope will also reduce the flow competence for
further erosion and result in reduced erosion competence.
Based on the information available, there is an indication that the bed level is controlled by bedrock at the
dam site (georadar scans in (Norplan, 2014c). Lake Victoria acts as a baselevel control for the Kagera
floodplain, resulting in a graded alluvial system that is in balance with sediment supply and sediment
transport.
In Figure 7-10 there are two breaks in slope, one at 20 km and one at 90 km downstream of the dam. If we
assume that the lake level will remain constant, we would not expect changes to the baselevel control or
gradient of the lower reach (90 to 200 km in Figure 7-10). Due to the bedload starved water that is released
from the dam, sediment may be eroded immediately downstream of the dam until the supply is exhausted.
1
Assuming a bulk density of gravel with sand of 1.92tonnes/m3 (https://www.rfcafe.com/references/general/density-building-
materials.htm).

This reach of bedload recovery moves downstream as upstream reaches are exhausted of sediment within
the river’s transport competence. It is anticipated that the steeper section (0 to 20 km) may erode to the
gradient (from 0.00075 to 0.00016) downstream of the change in slope (20 to 90 km), whereafter the
section from 20 to 90 km may erode to the grade (from 0.00016 to 0.0001) of the section from 90 km to
Lake Victoria. This could result in changes of ~8m at 5 km downstream of the dam, 4 m at 20 km and 2 m
at 60 km, which are unrealistic as the bed is likely to contain coarser material that should resist incision.
According to Beck & Basson (2002), it is likely that the armoured bed will become the control instead of the
maximum reduction in river slope downstream of dams, but this is uncertain with the existing data for the
Kagera River.
The gradient and transport capacity of the lower Kagera River reduces towards Lake Victoria. Figure 7-10
shows that the transport capacity (calculated using the (Meyer-Peter & Müller, 1948) bedload transport
formula) for the reach upstream of the dam is 53 times larger, the 20 km downstream of the dam is
13 times larger and the reach from 20-90 km has 3 times the transport capacity of the lowest reach (90-
200 km). Furthermore, the maximum particle size that can be transported decreases with distance
downstream (Table 7.26). Based on these calculations we can assume that the reaches upstream of the
dam and 0 to 20 km has limited storage of fine mobile sediment along the bed and larger immobile clasts
should be present on the bed along the reach 0 to 90 km (possibly mobilized and transported during very
large floods, e.g. 1:100-year return period). With the sediment starvation due to the dam, the smaller
mobile particles are likely to be eroded, resulting in a stable immobile bed or erosion platform. It is predicted
that the lowering can be in the order of up to 0.5-1m across the bed and erosion should concentrate on 0-
20 km first due to the higher transport capacity and proximity to the dam. Some deposition of coarser
material (more than 10mm) can take place along 20-90 km, but it is likely that the existing finer bed material
will be eroded, forming an armoured bed at a lower depth (~0.5-1 m).
Figure 7-11 – Schematic of Changes to Channel Dimensions

Based on Flow (Q) and Sediment Load Alteration Downstream of Dams. The grey line indicates the pre-dam
channel whereas the black line indicates the possible post-dam channel dimensions. Source: Brandt (2000)

It is possible that the bed lowering along the Kagera River could propagate up the Mwisa River, lowering the
bed level to a point where a baselevel control is present. This is likely to be limited to the first 2 km from
the Kagera-Mwisa confluence due to the bridge on the B182 road (assuming it is built on larger stable clasts
or bedrock), thus the impact on the Mwisa Riverbed and banks should be low.
Table 7.26 – Maximum Particle Size Transported During Events of 2-10 Year Recurrence Interval
Reach (km) Slope Maximum particle size transported (mm)
Q2 - 301m3/s Q5 - 393 m3/s Q10 - 456 m3/s
0 - 20 0.00075 31 36 39
20 - 90 0.00016 10 11 12
90 – 200 0.0001 6 7 7
Downstream of the dam, the river will attempt to restore its sediment load with the same volume and
character as before the presence of the dam (Chien, 1985). By using the volume of mobile sediment stored
on the bed, if incision of 0.5-1m is assumed, the time taken to restore the bedload sediment balance can
be predicted. It is estimated that the reach 0-20 km will erode over the first ~10-17 years, whereafter the
reach 20-90 km may erode over a period of ~10-75 years (see Table 7.27).
There is a high degree of uncertainty regarding the extent and rate of erosion and it will need to be
monitored (see Section 7.3.3.1E). Rates of bed erosion are estimated to be of the order of 1-10 cm/year
with changes taking place in a non-uniform manner (areas with coarse sediment, such as boulders and
cobble, should be less sensitive to erosion due to high critical shear stress requirements for movement).
The largest changes can be expected along bars and benches composed of finer mobile material (gravel,
sand and silt).
Table 7.27 – Bed Erosion Depth and Volume Estimates

Bed erosion depth Volume (m3) Years of supply Erosion rate (m/year)
0-20 km
Bed erosion of 1 m 900,000 17 0.06
Bed erosion of 0.5 m 510,000 10 0.05
20-90 km
Bed erosion of 1 m 3,000,000 58 0.02
Bed erosion of 0.5 m 1,800,000 35 0.01
Bed and suspended sediment should be contributed by the immediate incremental catchments, eroded
banks and tributaries such as the Mwisa (57 km downstream) and Ngono River (132 km downstream)
catchments, downstream of the dam. The Mwisa River channel is well vegetated with wetland sections and
of a low slope, so its bedload contribution is expected to be relatively low and of a fine nature. The Ngono
has a clearly defined channel and should have larger bedload contributions. Both these rivers could
contribute coarser bed material if the Kagera River incises, leading to bed steepening and incision to
propagate up these tributaries. This incisional process will release coarser bed material the Kagera River
that was stored on the bed of the tributaries.
Once the bed erosion reaches a stable erosional platform, the banks will likely be eroded to contribute to
the bedload deficit (Figure 7-11, Case 4). Where the benches or bank attached bars are eroded, the banks
will lose their toe protection and be susceptible to fluvial erosion (due to shear stress acting on the exposed
banks). As the riverbanks are generally vertically graded, with coarser non-cohesive sediment at the base,
the banks are susceptible to undercutting by eroding the non-cohesive sandy and gravel layers at the base
of the bank. Bank collapse is likely as the mass of the overhanging bank exceeds the shear strength of the
bank material. The wasted bank material is eroded through fluvial processes to downstream reaches. It is
expected that the incision and associated bank erosion will start at the dam once the bed sediment supply
is cut off by the dam. The bank erosional process will propagate downstream along with bed
incision/armouring. Based on a review by Beck and Basson (2002), there is no clear evidence that bank
erosion decreases with distance downstream of a dam. Bank erosion is expected to be of the order of 1 to
10m along either bank on average and could extend ~90 km downstream as the river continues to erode
laterally to balance the sediment load and lower the gradient (Table 7.28). Bank erosion should focus on
0 to 20 km first, whereafter erosion may take place along 20 to 90 km. The timing of the contributions may
follow bed erosion, with a possible lag effect, but this needs to be monitored. It is expected that there will
be high spatial variability in bank erosion, such as on outside banks due to velocity gradients, boundary

shear stress variations, localised strong down-welling and upwelling currents in the near-bank region, back-
eddy circulation and other flow mechanics.
Table 7.28 – Possible Sediment Contributions Through Bank Erosion

Reach km Width of erosion (m) Volume (m3/km)
0-20 1 5,000
10 50,000
20-90 1 5,000
10 50,000
Catchment sediment contributions were estimated based on an incremental area approach based on the
average catchment sediment yield rate of 21.4 tonnes/km2/year (Table 7.25). The results show the dam
will have a large reduction in suspended sediment loads due to sediment trapping. Bank and bed erosion is
likely to contribute significantly to balance the sediment deficit along the floodplain, but there is uncertainty
about the volumes and timing of sediment contributions.
B.3 Impacts of Sediment Trapping on Lake Victoria
The reduction in suspended sediment to Lake Victoria could be reduced by 50% with some contributions
from the banks and bed downstream of the dam (Table 7.25 and Table 7.28). The reduction in fine sediment
could reduce fine sediment-associated nutrient levels, but this reduction is assumed to be less than 50%
as the finest sediments (clay and fine silts) are the main vectors of nutrients and are more likely to be
transported through the Kakono Reservoir due to their slow settling velocities and water transit time in the
reservoir estimated at 12 days. Beach erosion on the shore of Lake Victoria is a possibility after several
decades as the bed sediment exhaustion propagates down the floodplain system (200 km long), reducing
the bed sediment input to the beaches surrounding the Kagera River mouth. This potential impact should
also be considered in the context of the significantly higher sediment contributions delivered by the Kagera
to Lake Victoria due to land cover changes in the catchment; to some extent the Kakono Dam may help to
normalise the large catchment contribution of sediment to Lake Victoria. In addition, land use changes
downstream of Kyaka are also contributing additional increased sediments than would occur under natural
conditions.
B.4 Impacts of Reduced Sediment Supply on the Bed, Bank and Floodplain Erosion
Based on the processes and calculations presented above regarding the reductions in sediment supply, it is
likely that the bed, banks and floodplain downstream of the dam should undergo erosion. The likely impacts
can be summarised as follows:
• As the bedload supply is severely reduced downstream of the dam, the bed should erode vertically
until a stable immobile bed is reached, possibly up to 1m below the current bed level (Figure 7-11,
Case 4). Finer particles on the bed, such as sand and fine gravel should erode during normal
hydrological years and will not be replaced due to the removal of the coarse sediment supply from
upstream. This process will start downstream of the dam (steeper reach with slope 0.00075 from
0 to 20 km) upon filling and operation and propagate downstream over the first 10 to 17 years.
Bed degradation could progress downstream to the lower gradient reach (slope of 0.00016) 20 to
90 km over years ~10 to 75. It is envisioned that erosion can be of an average magnitude of
centimetres per year in a non-uniform pattern, with bars and benches undergoing the largest
erosional changes. The removal of the finer sediment, leaving the coarser bed particles behind, will
lead to a coarsening of the average bed material size. The coarser gravels eroded from 0 to 20 km
should be deposited along 20 to 90 km due to the reductions in river gradient and associated flow
velocity and shear stress. The coarser cobble and boulder features are unlikely to be affected until
a large flood mobilises the large gravel and cobble material downstream with limited upstream
supply filling the eroded areas (possibly as 1:50 year flood event). Such a large event could see a
sudden overall riverbed level and composition change over a longer reach than is predicted.
• Due to the loss of bank toe protection through bar and bench erosion and incision of the bed, the
bank toes are predicted to be exposed to fluvial erosion, driving undercutting of the non-cohesive
lower bank material, leading to bank collapse (Figure 7-11; Case 4). This process should follow the
bed erosional process, with some possible lag effects, starting at the dam and progress
downstream over time. It is estimated that the banks can erode several metres on average along
0 to 90 km with possible larger losses where the channel adjusts its planform (meander migration).

The bank adjustments are expected to peak during and following the high-flow season as a portion
of the toe protection is lost, the groundwater table is highest (high pore pressure) in the floodplain
and the bank shear strength is at its lowest.
• The floodplain may receive up to ~50% less fine sediment (silt and clay) during the flood period,
resulting in lower sedimentation rates on the floodplain. This could reduce floodplain maintenance
through vertical aggradation, possibly resulting in gradual floodplain lowering or sinking (several
centimetres over 100s of years) as sediment compacts without sufficient annual additions of fine
sediment. This may also impact floodplain fertility as less fine sediment carrying nutrients is
deposited. The more obvious change to the floodplain should be the loss of bank that will reduce
the area of floodplain available. The loss of floodplain should follow lateral bank erosion.
The above-mentioned effects should decrease downstream as an incremental catchment, bed and bank
erosion supply sediment to downstream river reaches, balancing the sediment deficit. The bed and banks
should erode until they are in equilibrium with the new sediment starved flow regime. The extent of the
impact on the bed and bank erosion should progress downstream as the sediment input from the bed and
bank decline over time (Table 7.29).
The erosional process is predicted to commence with reservoir filling and subsequent operation as
sediment transfer is reduced by the reservoir. Erosion should take place until a new bed and bank
equilibrium is established in relation to the reduced sediment input.
The bed and bank erosion may lead to reduced aquatic habitat diversity and stability, and may impact
habitat requirements for aquatic biota, such as soft sandy and silty substrates along the channel margins.
The conditions for vegetation establishment may be disrupted by annual cycles of bank erosion associated
with or following high flows. This may further reduce the shelter for aquatic life along the banks. The
reduction in floodplain area may affect farming practices, and unstable and eroding banks may be a possible
safety hazard for people and livestock accessing the river. Bed lowering and bank erosion is predicted to
change the channel dimensions, possibly affecting pump infrastructure (bank erosion) and water levels
relative to existing infrastructure (bed lowering and larger channel).
Table 7.29 – Summary of Predicted Pre-Mitigation Geomorphology Impacts

Site Possible Bed erosion Bank erosion Floodplain erosion
Sediment
reduction
EFA1 – bedrock, Up to 62.6% • Impact – moderate to high • Impact – high • Impact – low
boulder, cobble, • Systematic erosion of • Systematic erosion of • Systematic erosion of
gravel and sand bed deposits of finer material the bed and bank toe floodplain edge as
with cohesive fine- along the bed and channel leading to bank bank erosion
grained banks and margins. Erosion of collapse, possible progresses into
floodplain bedforms can be several erosion of several floodplain. Follows
centimetres per year with metres following bed bank erosion.
up to ~1m of the erosion erosion. • Reduced
taking place over the first • Immediate effect or sedimentation and
~10 to 17 years slight delay while bed nutrient input on
• The erosional process erodes and could floodplain (~0.1 to
should maintain an incised continue for the life of 5 mm/year).
coarser bed for the life of the dam until a stable • Immediate effect and
the dam or until a bank slope is continues for lifespan
significant increase is made established. of the dam.
to bedload.
EFA2 – cobble, Up to 62.1% • Impact – moderate to high • Impact – high • Impact – low
gravel and sand bed • Systematic erosion of • Systematic erosion of • Systematic erosion of
with cohesive fine- deposits of finer material the bed and bank toe floodplain edge as
grained banks and along the bed and channel leading to bank bank erosion
floodplain margins. Erosion of collapse, possible progresses into
bedforms can be several erosion of several floodplain. Follows
centimetres per year with metres following bed bank erosion.
up to ~1m of the erosion erosion. • Reduced
taking place over the first • Immediate effect or sedimentation and
~10 to 17 years slight delay while bed nutrient input on
• The erosional process erodes and could floodplain (~0.1 to
should maintain an incised continue for the life of 5 mm/year).
coarser bed for the life of the dam until a stable • Immediate effect and
the dam or until a bank slope is continues for lifespan
significant increase is made established. of the dam.
to bedload.

Table 7.29 – Summary of Predicted Pre-Mitigation Geomorphology Impacts

Site Possible Bed erosion Bank erosion Floodplain erosion
Sediment
reduction
EFA3 – cobble, Up to 61.8% • Impact – low to moderate • Impact – low to • Impact – low
gravel and sand bed • Possible temporary bed moderate • Systematic erosion of
with cohesive fine- buildup due to accelerated • Systematic erosion of floodplain edge as
grained banks and erosion upstream – timing bed and bank toe bank erosion
floodplain is uncertain – needs further leading to bank progresses into
monitoring. collapse of several floodplain. Follows
• Systematic erosion of metres, possibly bank erosion.
deposits of finer material during years ~10 to • Reduced
along the bed and channel 75. sedimentation and
margins several • Follows bed erosion nutrient input on
centimetres per year, bed and should continue floodplain (~0.1 to
erosion of up to ~1 m for the life of the dam 5 mm/year).
during years ~10 to 75. until a stable bank • Immediate effect and
• The erosional process slope is established. continues for lifespan
should result in a coarser of the dam.
bed and should continue
for the life of the dam or
until a stable bed/gradient
is reached or significant
increases are made to
bedload.
EFA4 - gravel and Up to 53.6% • Impact – low • Impact – low • Impact – low
sand bed with • Possible temporary bed • Systematic erosion of • Systematic erosion of
cohesive fine- build-up due to accelerated bed and bank toe floodplain edge as
grained banks and erosion upstream – timing leading to bank bank erosion
floodplain is uncertain – needs further collapse of several progresses into
monitoring. metres, possibly floodplain. Follows
• Systematic erosion of during years ~10 to bank erosion.
deposits of finer material 75. • Reduced
along the bed and channel • Follows bed erosion sedimentation and
margins several and should continue nutrient input on
centimetres per year, bed for the life of the dam floodplain (~0.1 to
erosion of up to ~0.5 m until a stable bank 5 mm/year).
during years ~10 to 75. slope is established. • Immediate effect and
• The erosional process continues for lifespan
should result in a coarser of the dam.
bed and should continue
for the life of the dam or
until a stable bed/gradient
is reached or significant
increases are made to
bedload.
The following mitigation measures were considered to seek a balance between sediment inflow and
outflow to restore sediment delivery to downstream areas. The main principle for sediment management
is ‘store the clear water and release the muddy water (Kondolf, et al., 2014). Some of the measures are
considered to be unfeasible due to the local conditions. The options are presented below.
C.1 Unfeasible Mitigation Measures
Sediment bypass - dams have a significant effect on longitudinal sediment transport, with the effect of
starving downstream reaches of sediment. To avoid this impact a sediment bypass could be constructed as
a tunnel or canal that transports the sediment-laden water from upstream of the reservoir to just
downstream of the reservoir to allow the normal longitudinal connectivity of bed and suspended sediment.
The mitigation measure could be very expensive along the 35 km of the Kakono Reservoir and has the risk
of silting up (low gradient), rendering it ineffective and costly to restore.
Dredging or dry excavation - remove the sediment from the impounded area and transport the sediment
to the downstream area. Dredging or excavation could be effective if the sediment is released downstream
in a constant manner to avoid high concentration sediment pulses. This will need significant logistical inputs
and is not sustainable due to the large volumes that need transporting and associated costs on an ongoing

basis. A hydro suction dredge could be an option, but this is limited to a few kilometres upstream of the
dam and needs intensive management (Morris, 2020).
Hydraulic scour of deposited sediment through empty flushing (also called drawdown flushing) - the
reservoir is drawn down or emptied to increase flow velocities along the exposed reservoir bed to facilitate
erosion of the deposited material (Eizel-Din, et al., 2010). Due to the high settling velocity of the bedload, it
is expected that the bedload will be deposited in the upper and middle reaches of the reservoir. It is assumed
that flushing may not entrain the deposited bedload from these distant reaches (up to 35 km upstream of
the dam) during short flushing events (hours to days). Reestablishing the river flow across the floor of the
reservoir could potentially entrain bedload from the upper reaches downstream of the dam if this process
is allowed for an extensive period (weeks to months), leading to long downtime of the hydro facility. It is
thus assumed that the flushing may scour fine sediment only (finer sand, silt and clay). This process is
predicted to create sediment load peaks2 during the flushing event, especially when a full drawdown is
achieved, with significant negative impacts associated with siltation downstream (Fruchart & Camenen,
2012; Kondolf, et al., 2014; Morris, 2020).
The high sediment concentrations may lead to temporary deposition along downstream reaches along the
channel margins and floodplain (if inundated during the release), but these deposits are likely to be eroded
during successive flows with low sediment concentrations over several years. This flushing is unlikely to
have a lasting impact or mitigate bed and bank erosion. The empty flushing is followed by reservoir filling
which has further consequences on downstream flows and sediment delivery. Annual flushing would be
most beneficial as smaller sediment pulses are delivered more frequently to downstream reaches, but this
has large power generation implications. Due to the extended losses in power generation, excessively high
sediment concentrations (resulting in siltation of downstream habitats) and low ability to counteract bed
and bank erosion it is assumed that empty flushing is an ineffective mitigation measure for the Kakono HPP.
Bedload augmentation – additions of gravel and sand along the banks immediately downstream of the dam
(Kondolf, et al., 2014). The sediment will be entrained by the river and distributed naturally to form habitat
diversity. The gravel and sand can be sourced from nearby quarries, floodplains or the deposited delta at
the inlet of the reservoir. This method requires ongoing logistical input and might have adverse
environmental consequences on the floodplain (quarry area) or along transport routes. This method is
unlikely to be sustainable over the long run for the Kakono HPP.
C.2 Feasible Mitigation Measures
Sediment pass through - venting of water with high sediment concentrations (density currents) could
enable a portion of water with a high sediment concentration to reach the downstream river channel. The
depth and extent of the density current need to be monitored by the dam operator for this to be effective
as the current needs to be maintained to the bottom outlet without large reductions in flow velocity (to
prevent sedimentation). Curtains suspended from floats could help to guide the density currents to the dam
outlet (Kondolf, et al., 2014). A flow guide (pipe extending the hydro intake to a lower level) can help to
guide density currents towards the turbine intake to allow the very fine sediment-laden water at the bottom
of the reservoir to be turbined, possibly with little damage as the particles are very small (see Morris (2020)).
This may allow downstream sediment concentrations and flow timing that emulate the baseline regime to
a large extent (some delays and reductions in sediment volume and calibre is expected).
Sediment pass through - sediment sluicing involves reservoir level reductions before the arrival of the
sediment-laden waters through the bottom release to reduce the retention time of sediment-laden water
and associated sedimentation (Kondolf, et al., 2014). Sediment sluicing largely maintains the natural
hydrograph and suspended sediment characteristics and normally takes place during flood flows. This
approach may flush some of the sediment deposited near the intake to form a scour cone, but sediment
concentrations remain fairly low during this operation due to the high dilution ratio of the high flow rate.
This method is well suited for long elongated reservoirs, such as the Kakono HPP. This method will likely be
used for the Kakono HPP during floods with a recurrence interval of more than 2 years (Q2 = 301 m3/s and
Q5 = 393 m3/s) as these events should have flow rates of more than 316 m3/s (the capacity of the turbines).
Power production might need to be stopped if abrasive sediment (silt with high quartz content) is routed
through the powerhouse (Kondolf, et al., 2014).
2
Values of 80 to 135g/l have been observed, see https://www.hydropower.org/sediment-management-case-studies

Hydraulic scour of deposited sediment - pressure flushing may scour sediment at the inlet to the bottom
outlet forming a localised scour cone. This flushing may release a small volume of sediment with a short
peak in sediment concentration. It is assumed that pressure flushing could take place on an annual basis at
the Kakono HPP to maintain the entrance to the bottom outlet free of sediment.
The benefits, drawbacks and practicality of the various sediment management options are presented in
Table 7.30.
Table 7.30 – Benefits and Drawbacks of Sediment Management Measures

Practicality and cost
Intervention Benefits Drawbacks
implications
Venting – release of • Reduction in reservoir wide • Reduction in flow available • Can be done at the Kakono
sediment density currents to sedimentation. for hydropower generation, Dam if turbidity currents do
reduce siltation rates. • Delivery of fine suspended unless venting through occur this needs to be
sediment to downstream turbines. monitored or modelled
river reaches. • Very small impact on during later phases of
• Gradual release of sedimentation rates. design – vent through
sediment from dam. • No bedload will be bottom outlet.
• Low impact on power entrained. • Possibility to vent density
generation. current through the
turbines with flow guide.
• Will scour deposited
• This option can be done at
sediment around the intake
opening. high flow levels to limit the
impact on power
production.
Sluicing – reducing the • Reduction of siltation. • Reduction in flow and head • Can be done at the Kakono
residence time of the • Follows natural sediment available for hydropower Dam – sluice through the
reservoir to pass sediment- concentrations and generation. bottom outlet.
rich water through the hydrology timing. • Small impact on • Small loss of power
reservoir • Low sediment sedimentation rates. production due to
concentration peaks due to • No bedload will be reduction in water level
dilution. entrained. (reduction in pressure
• Will scour deposited • Silts with a high quartz through turbines).
sediment around the intake content can damage • Low cost to implement.
opening. turbines.
Pressure flushing - release • Ensures clearing of • Will only flush sediment • Relatively easy to do with
of water from the bottom sediment from the bottom from a relatively small area dilution effect during high
gate to scour sediment gate inlet. around the bottom gate flows (dilute with water
locally over a short time. • Release of fine sediment inlet forming a scour cone. from turbine).
Velocities increased locally deposited around bottom • No bedload will be flushed.
around inlet of bottom gate. • Pulse of high sediment
outlet • Small impact on head and concentration flow can lead
reservoir volume. to clogging of habitats by
blanket sediment
deposition, but unlikely due
to high discharge.
Empty flushing or hard • Significant volumes of • Very high sediment • Emptying of reservoir and
flushing – empty reservoir sediment can be flushed. concentrations possible allowing ‘river state’ for
to reinstate high velocity • Potential to entrain some through mudslides/flows. extended periods will
flows along the bed of the bedload if done for • High possibility of blanket result in large power
entire reservoir to scour extended periods. mud deposits across generation losses.
sediment. downstream habitats. • Very high sediment
• No potential to dilute high concentrations may have
concentrations of sediment. adverse ecological and
• The empty flushing is social effects downstream.
followed by reservoir filling • This method becomes less
which has further efficient as deposited
consequences on sediment sediment consolidates
delivery. over time.
From the possible options, a combination of venting, sluicing and pressure flushing could be used to
manage sediment. The efficiency of the improved sediment routing through the dam is roughly estimated
to be between 5 to 20% on an annual basis, see Table 7.31. It is assumed that the flushed sediment would
be largely suspended sediment. This mitigation is referred to elsewhere as:
• [M 31] During Project operation, suspended sediment longitudinal transit through the reservoir will
be enhanced by using a combination of sediment venting, sluicing and pressure flushing
undertaken every year during the high-flow period (TANESCO).

Table 7.31 – Estimates of Increased Annual Sediment Transfer Through the Reservoir
Pre dam Downstream Total sediment 5% flushing 20% flushing
catchment input reduction efficiency efficiency
Site
Total sediment reduction
(tonnes/year) (tonnes/year) (%) (%)
At dam 995,000 0 63.0 - -

EFA1 996,000 1,000 62.6 57.6 42.6
EFA2 1,003,000 9,000 61.5 56.5 41.5
EFA3 1,014,000 19,000 61.2 56.3 41.5
EFA4 1,157,000 162,000 53.6 49.3 36.4
Lake
Victoria 1,250,000 255,000 48.6 44.6 32.7
D Residual (Post-Mitigation) Impacts due to Sediment Venting and Sluicing
The sediment venting and sluicing should release relatively low volumes of very fine sediment in low to
moderate sediment concentrations. This process may enhance floodplain sedimentation (if the floodplains
are inundated while the flushing process is taking place), but sedimentation levels may remain below
baseline levels. This measure is unlikely to slow bank erosion significantly due to the fine nature (clay and
fine silt) of the released sediment that may not deposit along the banks despite relatively low velocities.
Pressure flushing may have a similar effect to venting and sluicing, with relatively low volumes of
suspended sediment releases and sediment concentrations. Pressure flushing can result in high sediment
concentrations for a short time if done during low flows. As the velocities are relatively high in the channel,
the majority of the suspended sediment may not settle out in the channel. Some sedimentation may take
place along the banks and backwater areas, creating new fine sediment habitats. This sedimentation may
have a minor positive effect in reducing the rates of bank erosion as the deposits could be small in area and
volume.
The residual effects of the Run-of-river scheme with sediment venting and sluicing are the same as for Run-
of-river due to the relatively small increase in suspended sediment supply due to the low efficiency of
sediment flushing (Table 7.29). No changes are expected for the extent of bed and bank erosion. The rate
of floodplain sedimentation should be increased but is likely to remain lower than baseline levels.
Monitoring is essential to manage the Kakono HPP to ensure benefit to the scheme and downstream users
and biota. As there is uncertainty regarding the exact extent of predicted impacts of the operation of the
scheme and the downstream consequences, monitoring is needed to guide adaptive management. As it is
predicted that the river channel and floodplain can erode, but the exact extent is uncertain, monitoring is
needed to adapt mitigation measures. Sediment flushing might have negative consequences, which needs
monitoring and adaptation. Monitoring should include reservoir volume, character and volume of deposited
sediment, floodplain and river channel dimensions and character, and suspended sediment concentrations
(and deposition associated with sediment flushing). These monitoring measures are described below.
E.1 Monitoring Flow Rates and Sediment Deposition in the Reservoir
The flow rates and water temperature of the water entering and leaving the reservoir will be monitored
continuously. This information can be used to plan sediment management events and to warn downstream
communities. The water temperature data can be used to monitor the possible formation of density
currents. This monitoring commitment is referred to elsewhere in the report as:
• [M 32] During Project operation, the flow rate and water temperature of the Kagera River waters
upstream and downstream of the Kakono reservoir will be monitored continuously (TANESCO).
The volume and character of the deposited sediment in the reservoir will be monitored in relation to floods
and sediment management events. A high-resolution topographical survey of the reservoir floor before
filling is needed to form the baseline for successive bathymetric surveys. The bathymetric surveys should
be coupled with grain size studies along the reservoir bed and of the suspended sediment. These studies

should be done before and after sediment management events and on an annual basis. This dataset will
allow the calculation of the volume of bed sediment deposited and supply rates, siltation rates throughout
the reservoir (trapping efficiency), remaining reservoir volume and character of suspended sediment along
the length of the reservoir. Further data on sediment density current formation can be collected monthly
(until the reservoir dynamics are better understood) along cross-sections at 1 km intervals along the
reservoir during high flows. The surveys should include velocity measurements (using Acoustic Doppler
Current Profiler), suspended sediment concentration with depth (collected with Niskin bottles) and
temperature. This information will aid the planning of sediment management events and adaptation to
improve the efficiency of the events.
• [M 33] During Project operation, deposited sediment volumes and particle size, and suspended
sediment particle size in the Kakono reservoir will be monitored on an annual basis (TANESCO).
E.2 Monitoring of the Physical Dimensions of the River Channel
Channel dimensions should be monitored at fixed cross-sections with survey-grade instruments (2-5 cm
vertical accuracy) that are referenced to local control points (survey beacons and fixed markers on the
riverbanks). This will require a combination of a Total Station or Differential Global Positioning System for
the terrestrial sections and an Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler for the river sections of the cross-section.
The measurements will track the changes of channel and floodplain dimensions against the predictions.
This will allow additional mitigation measures to be implemented (such as bank protection along sensitive
regions) before damage occurs to essential infrastructure. The surveys should take place at (i) 3 km, 18 km,
54 km, and 92 km downstream from the dam, (ii) Mwisa River 2 km up from the Kagera confluence and (iii)
the Kagera Estuary 3 km upstream of the mouth with Lake Victoria on an annual basis. A beach profile
should be included in the survey, one ~4 km to the north and one ~4 km to the south of the Kagera River
Mouth.
The surveys should include a composite (5 randomly selected samples combined to form a composite) of
surface sediment grab samples to represent the bed, banks and floodplain for each cross-section. The bed
and bank sediment should be analysed for particle size, whereas the floodplain sediment should be
analysed for particle size and nutrients. The monitoring should be accompanied by fixed point photos of the
various morphological features (channel, banks, floodplain and beach). High-resolution aerial images, taken
by a drone or acquired from a high-resolution satellite platform (such as Planet Labs for 0.5m resolution
SkySat images) would allow mapping of changes along the channel and on the floodplain. This dataset
should provide information on the natural variability of erosion and deposition along the river and the
beaches and trends associated with reductions in sediment supply.
• [M 34] During Project operation, the physical dimensions and sediment characteristics of the river
channel and floodplain will be monitored downstream of the dam, including a site near the Kagera
River Estuary, every two years (TANESCO).
E.3 Monitoring of Suspended Sediment
The monitoring measures below should enable the assessment of excessive suspended sediment
concentrations and sedimentation associated with the sediment flushing events and methods. If the
suspended sediment concentrations are above the biological and socially acceptable limits, the operations
of venting, sluicing and flushing should be modified to allow for greater dilution. The monitoring of sediment
deposition along the downstream river reaches should be used similarly to adjust the flushing operation
and timing to reduce sedimentation to reasonable levels on the floodplain (order of 0.1 to 10 mm per year)
and along the banks (order of 10 to 100 cm) or values that don’t affect the pumping infrastructure or
floodplain agricultural practices negatively. The following monitoring measures are recommended to
inform adaptive management:
• Monitor the sediment concentration of the water immediately downstream of the dam
(continuously) and at 3 km, 18 km, and 54 km downstream of the dam (during flushing events).
This monitoring should be done using continuous loggers that are calibrated to the local sediment
type (grain size) and can accurately measure very high sediment concentrations. The data of the
logger immediately downstream of the dam should be used to adjust the dilution ratio during
flushing events to maintain sediment concentrations that are acceptable for the ecosystem and
downstream users. The monitoring at 3 km, 18 km, and 54 km downstream of the dam should
start a week before the flushing events and continue for a month after the flushing event to get a
complete dataset on peaks in sediment concentrations, how the released sediment propagate
down the system and when the sediment concentrations return to pre-flushing levels. The

suspended sediment concentration should be monitored at the Kagera River Mouth every month
from the start of the construction, possibly through satellite image analysis (depending on cloud
influence).
- [M 35] During Project operation, the suspended sediment concentration and dissolved
oxygen will be monitored downstream of the dam during a week before, and a month after
each venting or sluicing event. The suspended sediment concentration will be monitored at
the Kagera River Mouth using satellite imagery. (TANESCO).
• Measure deposition on the floodplains and along the banks – this should be done at 3 km, 18 km,
and 54 km downstream of the dam to monitor the effect of each sluicing, venting and flushing
event. Simple staff gauges (indicating 1mm increments) can be installed perpendicular to the
surface to measure the relative surface elevation before and after the flushing event. Measuring at
20 stations per site (10 scattered on the floodplain and 10 scattered along the banks) should give a
good indication of sedimentation processes and subsequent erosion of the deposited material (if
the bank staff gauges are monitored weekly after the flushing event). The monitoring will be
dependent on lower water levels to expose the floodplain and upper banks. More sophisticated
equipment can be used, such as a Total Station or DGPS, but their vertical error margins (2 to 5 cm)
are within the magnitude of the expected sediment deposition thickness and unlikely to be of use.
• Fixed-point photos along the floodplain and banks at 3 km, 18 km, and 54 km downstream of the
dam, immediately before and after the flushing event should give visual evidence of the presence
or absence of larger changes associated with the flushing events along the floodplain and banks.
Additional fixed-point photos of features such as pump infrastructure and cultivated fields should
be included along this reach.
- [M 36] During Project operation, Fixed point photos and simple staff gauges will be used to
monitor sediment deposition associated with sediment venting or sluicing across the
floodplain and along the banks downstream of the dam. Fixed point photos will be taken
immediately before and after venting/sluicing events to document sedimentation around
the pumping stations and on agricultural fields within the floodplain down to Kyaka
(TANESCO).
F Recommendations
As there is uncertainty to the sediment supply and bed character, it would be recommended to undertake
further studies:
• During the construction phase, the EPC Contractor should commence the sediment monitoring
described in Section 7.3.3.1E as soon as possible and determine sediment inflow concentrations
for various flow conditions. The results should be used as an input for numerical modelling studies
performed by the EPC Contractor that predict how inflowing sediment would move through, or be
trapped, in the reservoir and this shall be used to define when and how venting and sluicing of
sediment should be performed by TANESCO during the operation phase.
• Characterise sediment size with depth along the Kagera Riverbed downstream of the dam to better
predict the downstream bed and bank erosion.
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The summary hydrological and geomorphological impacts and mitigation measures is provided in the table
on the following pages.

Table 7.32 - Summary of Hydrological and Geomorphological Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Environmental Impact Producing Phase Assessment of significance without Commitments Predicted
or Social Value Factor mitigation or compensation residual
High Hi - Moderate M - Low Lo impact
[+] positive, [-] negative Key Mitigation, Compensation or Management measures
Main construction
Likelihood, Magnitude, Extent, Duration
Reservoir filling
Operation
Hydrology
Kagera River Reduction of ◼ ◼  Hi Likelihood: Possible [-] • [M 1] The Kagera River flow continuity will be maintained at any time during the Lo
Flow downstream river Extent: Down to Lake Victoria construction period, including for the reservoir filling period. The river flow immediately
flow for Reservoir Duration: Short-term downstream of the dam site should never be lower than the minimum flow regime
filling Magnitude: high specified in the 2022 ESIA or than the reservoir inflow.
• [M 2] Should the Project needs to reduce the time needed for the reservoir filling, an
agreement with operators of irrigated sugar cane plantations will be required s to minimise
impairment of irrigation for sugar cane fields. Whatever is the agreement with operators of
irrigated sugar cane plantations at that time, the minimum flow downstream of the dam
should not be lower than either the flows indicated in the 2022 ESIA below or than the
reservoir inflow.
• [M 3] During the Detailed Design stage, a Reservoir Filling Plan will be prepared as part of
the implementation of the ESMMP, which details - amongst other things - the reservoir
filling timing and procedure required to comply with the present EFlow requirements.
• [M 4] The Reservoir Filling Plan will be discussed with communities and operators of
irrigated sugar cane plantations to make sure that any interference with the operation of
the pumping stations downstream of the dam has been factored into the plan.
• [M 5] The river diversion works and procedures will be designed/prepared so that there is
no interruption of river flow - or reduction greater than that allowed in the 2022 ESIA - at
any time during the construction period, including the placement and decommissioning of
the cofferdams.
• [M 6] The Owners Engineer will review the design of the river diversion works - and then
supervise the works accordingly - taking into account the minimum flow requirements
specified in the 2022 ESIA.
• [M 7] A staged-approach will be used to close the bottom outlet so that there is no risk of
fish stranding downstream of the dam.
• [M 8] The Kagera River flow rate will be monitored twice per day during the whole
construction period by TANESCO downstream of the dam.
• [M 9] The EPC Contractor will install a time-lapse video camera downstream of the dam
which will film the river during the construction period. Records will be filed with TANESCO.
Sediment venting,   ◼ M Likelihood: Possible [-] • [M 10] Preparation of a sediment venting/sluicing/flushing ESIA and implementation of Lo
sluicing or pressure Extent: Down to Kyaka recommended mitigation measures prior to the first opening of the bottom outlet for
flushing Duration: Short-term sediment management purposes.
Magnitude: high • [M 11] The sediment venting/sluicing/flushing flow rates will be designed and
implemented such as that no unnatural activation of the floodplain occurs and that


Main construction
Reservoir filling
Operation
community safety issues are planned and managed according to good international
practices.
venting/sluicing/flushing operation of the nature, timing and risks relating to such an
operation.
Groundwater Accidental spills and ◼   M Likelihood: Possible [-] • [M 13] Construction site pollution prevention and protection plans, and measures will be Lo
leaks of hazardous Extent: Localised - aquifer developed and implemented for the dam and TL worksites (EPC Contractor).
substances underlying construction worksites • [M 20] The quality of wastewater discharges from construction worksites will be
Duration: Long-term monitored to check conformity with Tanzania’s and IFC General EHS Guideline discharge
Magnitude: high limit values (EPC Contractor).
• [M 21] Groundwater at construction worksite will be monitored monthly during
construction (EPC Contractor).
  ◼ M Likelihood: Possible [-] • [M 24] Groundwater, Kagera River water quality upstream and downstream of the dam will Lo
Extent: Localised - aquifer be monitored for the duration of the Project operation (TANESCO).
underlying construction worksites
Duration: Long-term
Magnitude: high
Kagera river Potentially ◼   M Likelihood: High probability [-] • [M 13] Construction site pollution prevention and protection plans, and measures will be Lo
contaminated Extent: ~50-100 km downstream developed and implemented for the dam and TL worksites (EPC Contractor).
runoff from Duration: short-term (duration of • [M 20] The quality of wastewater discharges from construction worksites will be
worksites, vehicle construction works) monitored to check conformity with Tanzania’s and IFC General EHS Guideline discharge
parking areas, Magnitude: moderate limit values (EPC Contractor).
laydown areas • [M 21] Groundwater at construction worksite will be monitored monthly during
construction (EPC Contractor).
• [M 22] River water quality downstream from construction worksites will be monitored
monthly during construction (EPC Contractor).
• [M 23] Environmental performance of the EPC Contractor will be monitored to check
conformity with Project standards and non-conformities will be managed through a non-
conformity management process (TANESCO).
Discharges of ◼   M Likelihood: High probability [-] • [M 14] Construction accommodation camps will be equipped with wastewater treatment Lo
sanitary and Extent: detected changes to facilities to ensure sanitary and domestic wastewater discharges are compliant with
domestic water quality for ~50-100 km Tanzania’s and IFC EHS guideline emission limit values (EPC Contractor).
wastewater downstream


Main construction
Reservoir filling
Operation
Duration: short-term (duration of
construction works)
Magnitude: moderate
Kakono Reservoir filling  ◼ ◼ M Likelihood: Certain [-] • [M 15] Vegetation from the reservoir footprint (excluding floodplain papyrus) will be M
reservoir water alteration of water Extent: reservoir waters removed prior to reservoir filling to reduce lowering of dissolved oxygen levels and reduce
quality (increased Duration: ~30 years reservoir GHG emissions (EPC Contractor).
nutrient levels and Magnitude: moderate (for DO) • [M 16] A Reservoir Biomass Removal Plan will be developed and implemented (EPC
reduced dissolved Contractor).
oxygen levels) • [M 17] If burning of vegetation cleared from the reservoir footprint cannot be avoided a
Smoke Management Plan will be developed and implemented (EPC Contractor).
• [M 18] The Reservoir Biomass Removal Plan will include provisions for the removal and
management of floating woody debris from the reservoir during reservoir filling (EPC
Contractor).
• [M 25] Water quality monitoring results will be publicly disclosed on the Project website
(TANESCO).


Main construction
Reservoir filling
Operation
Kagera river Reservoir filling  ◼ ◼ M Likelihood: Certain [-] • Measures for the reservoir above, plus M
downstream alteration of water Extent: ~50-60 km downstream • [M 19] The detailed Project design will include optional design features for re-oxygenation
from dam quality from dam of turbined waters (EPC Contractor).
Duration: ~30 years • [M 24] Groundwater, Kagera River water quality upstream and downstream of the dam will
Magnitude: moderate (for DO) be monitored for the duration of the Project operation (TANESCO).
• [M 25] Water quality monitoring results will be publicly disclosed on the Project website
(TANESCO).
Geomorphology
Increased Banks and bed of ◼   Lo Likelihood: Certain [-] • [M 26] During construction, erosion mitigation measures will be employed to prevent soil Lo
sediment the river exposed to Extent: ~10-30 km downstream erosion and fluvial erosion when undertaking works on bare soil and banks and when
supply to increased fluvial from dam working in the river (EPC Contractor).
immediate erosion during Duration: duration of cofferdam • [M 29] During construction, worksite surface erosion and effectiveness of control
downstream construction of the construction measures will be monitored by taking weekly fixed-point photos of cleared areas (EPC
reach cofferdam and river Magnitude: low Contractor).
diversion
Reduced Bed sediment ◼   Lo Likelihood: Certain [-] • [M 27] Cofferdams used for construction works in the river will be designed to enable Lo
sediment trapping due to Extent: ~0-5 km downstream bedload delivery to downstream reaches while construction is taking place (EPC
supply to ponding upstream from dam Contractor).
immediate of the cofferdam Duration: duration of cofferdam • [M 30] During dam construction continuous monitoring of suspended sediment
downstream construction concentration in the Kagera River upstream of the cofferdam ponded area and
reach Magnitude: low immediately downstream of the construction zone will be undertaken (EPC Contractor).
Erosion of the Sediment trapping  ◼  Lo Likelihood: Certain [-] • [M 28] During the reservoir filling phase, bottom sluicing will be undertaken to maintain Lo
bed, banks and by the Extent: ~0-5 km downstream sediment throughflow as best possible and flows will be sufficient to transport the
floodplain impoundment from dam released sediment downstream to avoid siltation of instream habitats immediately
during filling Duration: duration of reservoir downstream of the dam (TANESCO).
filling (1-2 months)
Sediment Sediment flushing   ◼ M Likelihood: Certain [-] • [M 36] During Project operation, Fixed point photos and simple staff gauges will be used to Lo
smothering (empty or hard Extent: 20 to 90 km downstream monitor sediment deposition associated with sediment venting or sluicing across the
flushing) of dam floodplain and along the banks downstream of the dam. Fixed point photos will be taken
Duration: Following immediately before and after venting/sluicing events to document sedimentation around
flushing/sluicing event, effect can the pumping stations and on agricultural fields within the floodplain down to Kyaka
be visible for up to a year or more (TANESCO).
Magnitude: low to moderate
depending on the flushing regime
and sediment concentration


Main construction
Reservoir filling
Operation
Erosion of the Sediment trapping   ◼ Hi Likelihood: Certain [-] • [M 31] During Project operation, suspended sediment longitudinal transit through the Hi
bed, banks and by the Extent: up to 90 km downstream reservoir will be enhanced by using a combination of sediment venting, sluicing and
floodplain impoundment of the dam pressure flushing undertaken every year during the high-flow period (TANESCO).
during operation Duration: Ongoing process • [M 32] During Project operation, the flow rate and water temperature of the Kagera River
propagating downstream from waters upstream and downstream of the Kakono reservoir will be monitored continuously
the dam over the lifespan of the (TANESCO).
dam • [M 33] During Project operation, deposited sediment volumes and particle size, and
Magnitude: Irreversible suspended sediment particle size in the Kakono reservoir will be monitored on an annual
basis (TANESCO).
• [M 34] During Project operation, the physical dimensions and sediment characteristics of
the river channel and floodplain will be monitored downstream of the dam, including a site
near the Kagera River Estuary, every two years (TANESCO).
• [M 35] During Project operation, the suspended sediment concentration and dissolved
oxygen will be monitored downstream of the dam during a week before, and a month after
each venting or sluicing event. The suspended sediment concentration will be monitored at
the Kagera River Mouth using satellite imagery. (TANESCO).

7.4 Ecological Impact Assessment
Terrestrial Vegetation and Flora
Construction and Reservoir Filling
A Key Relevant Elements of the Baseline and Impact Producing Factors / Rationale
A.1 Impact Producing Factors
The key IPFs and baseline elements that need to be considered in the assessment of impacts on terrestrial
vegetation and flora are summarised in Table 7.33.
Table 7.33. Summary of Rationale for Dam Construction and Reservoir Filling
1. Dam construction activities: • Vegetation Communities • Loss and degradation of habitat
• Vegetation clearing for dam wall, > Floodplain Wetland (Dam wall) • Establishment and spread of
quarries, access roads, camps etc. > Rocky Grassland / Outcrop invasive alien plants
• Dust from construction works, Thicket Mosaic - quarries • Loss of plant resources (grazing
including blasting at quarries and for • Ecological Importance (High and areas for livestock)
dam wall. Medium)
• Presence of construction workers • Invasive Alien Plants
(fire risk, littering, harvesting) • Plant resources (grazing areas for
livestock on Rubira and Rwekubo
Hills)
2 Access Road Construction and • Vegetation communities (Vachellia • Loss, fragmentation and
Widening of Existing Roads: Woodland / Bushclump Mosaic) degradation of natural habitats and
• Vegetation clearing. • Invasive alien plants flora
• Dust generation • Establishment and spread of
• Temporary camps / laydown sites.
invasive alien plants
3 Reservoir filling • Vegetation Communities (mostly • Loss, fragmentation and
Vachellia Woodland / Bushclump degradation of natural habitats and
Mosaic, Rocky Grassland / Outcrop flora
Thicket Mosaic) • Establishment and spread of
• Invasive alien plants invasive alien plants
• Harvestable plant resources • Loss of plant resources (fuelwood,
charcoal, medicinal plants)
a Dam Construction
Project activities that will permanently impact vegetation are primarily associated with clearing of
vegetation during the construction of the access road, dam wall, quarries, and other project infrastructure
such as construction camps, laydown areas. A total of 2,124 ha of vegetation within the AoI may be affected
of which 26 ha is affected by road construction. Vegetation around quarries will be further impacted by
dumping of spoil and rock material and dust from blasting.
Movement of construction vehicles is likely to result in additional habitat losses through excess dust
production if uncontrolled. The clearing of vegetation will also create a suitable base (bare soil) for
populations of invasive alien species to become established which may be spread by vehicle movement,
including from the import of fill material from areas that may have alien invasive plants.
The presence of 1,000 construction workers on site for a 52-month period is expected to lead to vegetation
impacts through potential harvesting of plants for firewood or medicinal use, risk of fires, and litter/waste
disposal.
b Access Road Construction and Widening of Existing Roads
The primary access road to the dam wall will follow an existing track in some places but will deviate from
this in other places where necessary. Impacts to vegetation and flora will result from the widening of the
current track to a 6 m paved road and clearing of vegetation for new parts of the alignment. Incorrect design

and road alignment could cause altered hydrology if insufficient or incorrectly placed culverts are installed
which diverts surface flow causing erosion or may result in ponding.
Increased traffic of heavy trucks with fill material to the dam site may increase the risk of invasive alien
plants being brought to the construction site (e.g., seeds lodged in treads of vehicle tyres or in fill material).
Exposed bare soil, such as road verges, will be continuously vulnerable to invasion by alien plant species
during the life of the project.
c Reservoir Inundation
Reservoir inundation will result in flooding of an estimated 1,718 ha upstream of the dam wall. This is
expected to take place over a single season. Flooding will result in drowning of terrestrial / riparian
vegetation. It is possible that Cyperus papyrus or Echinochloa / Vossia wetlands could recolonise the margin
of the reservoir around the full supply level over time, depending on the operational regime and reservoir
fluctuation.
The operational phase aspects of the project are addressed in Section 7.4.1.2.
A.2 Key Elements of Baseline
A detailed description of the terrestrial baseline vegetation and flora is contained in Section 5. Key elements
relevant to the project impacts are summarised here.
a Dam Structure, Access Road and Reservoir Area
The project area of influence comprises 9 vegetation communities, of which 6 are likely to be impacted by
dam construction and reservoir inundation. A breakdown of the extent of vegetation communities in the
project footprint and AoI is summarised in Table 7.34.
Almost all of the reservoir and dam footprint is assessed as Natural Habitat with only an estimated 13.7ha
comprising Modified Habitat (settlement and agriculture).
The majority (60%) of the reservoir and dam construction footprint including areas earmarked for quarries
and access roads is dominated by Vachellia Woodland/Bushclump Mosaic, followed by Rocky
Grassland/Outcrop Mosaic, Floodplain Wetlands, Floodplain Woodland/Thicket; Riparian Forest/Thicket and
Scarp Forest.
Each of the vegetation communities and the extent in the dam construction and reservoir zone that will be
impacted by dam construction are summarised below:
• Vachellia Woodland/Bushclump Mosaic (1,452 ha): This is the most widespread vegetation
community in the project area, most of which is on the right bank of the Kagera River and part of
ranching land. It has the highest species richness of all the vegetation communities, with
295 species recorded. No threatened, near threatened or restricted-range species were confirmed
to occur. Sugar plantations on the left bank and ongoing expansion of new plantations on the right
bank have converted many thousands of hectares of this vegetation community and represents
the greatest risk facing Vachellia Woodland/Bushclump Mosaic in the project area. Habitat that has
not yet been cleared is generally in a good ecological state, although overgrazed by livestock in
some areas. An estimated 1,452 ha will be cleared or flooded by dam construction and reservoir
filling, representing 60% of the inundation zone (Table 7.34).
• Rocky Grassland/Outcrop Mosaic (202 ha): Rocky Grassland is a localised community confined to
the line of low hills located north (Rubira Hills) and south (Rwekubo Hills) of the dam wall area. Of
the 4,479 ha in the Indirect AoI, approximately 202 ha occurs in the footprint of the project, mostly
at proposed quarry locations. A total of 98 species were recorded in this vegetation mosaic, none
of which are threatened, near threatened or restricted-range species. Vegetation is in a good
ecological state, with little evidence of human disturbance (slopes are generally too steep and
rocky for agriculture) and low numbers of invasive alien plants, except for moderate overgrazing
by livestock in some areas.
• Floodplain Wetlands (187 ha): This community refers to the frequently flooded wetlands along the
floodplain of the Kagera River, which is more extensive along the lower reaches. It largely
comprises a mosaic of Papyrus and Vossia. An estimated 187 ha of this community occurs in the
dam wall and reservoir area. No threatened, near threatened or restricted-range species were
confirmed to occur in the Floodplain Wetland community. The Floodplain Wetlands is a dynamic

one that is predicted to change in spatial extent depending on severity (duration and height) of
floods or droughts.
• Floodplain Woodland / Thicket (162 ha): This community is prominent along the floodplain of the
Kagera River, particularly downstream of the Kakono HPP, and is associated with areas of
extensive alluvium deposition, often opposite cliffs or steep slopes and often adjacent (behind)
Papyrus – Vossia Wetlands where it occurs at a slightly higher elevation. An estimated 162 ha
occurs in the dam construction and reservoir area. Species richness is relatively high with 91
species confirmed. No threatened, near threatened or restricted-range species were confirmed to
occur. Most of the Floodplain Woodlands are in a disturbed state as a result of frequent flooding,
which introduces invasive alien species, or from small-scale deforestation for making charcoal.
This community has the highest proportion of invasive alien species of all the natural habitats.
• Riparian Forest/Thicket (86 ha): This community is found mostly in localised narrow strips along
tributaries feeding into the Kagera River (e.g. Kakono Stream) but is rare along the Kagera River
main channel where it occurs mostly at the junctions with these tributaries. An estimated 86 ha
occurs within the dam construction and reservoir zone, while a few hectares occurs 200-300m
downstream of the dam wall along the Kakono Stream in the location of the proposed fish pass.
Sixty-nine (69) species were recorded during fieldwork, representing 15% of the study area species
list. No threatened, near threatened or restricted-range species were confirmed to occur in
Riparian Forest/Thicket. Most of the Riparian Forests in the project area are in a relatively healthy
ecological state, with limited evidence of clearance for agriculture (slopes are generally too steep)
and low numbers of invasive alien plants.
• Scarp Forest (35 ha): Is confined to steep slopes and cliffs at river bends or adjacent to Riparian
Forest along some of the major tributaries in the project area. It is unlikely that more than 35 ha of
Scarp Forest will be lost through inundation. Sixty-eight species were recorded in Scarp Forest
during fieldwork, representing 16% of the study area species list. Milicia excelsa (NT) was the only
species of conservation concern (SCC) recorded, which was found on a steep slope above the
Kagera River in the upper inundation zone. Most of the Scarp Forests in the study area are in a
relatively healthy ecological state, with limited evidence of clearance for agriculture (slopes are
generally too steep) and low numbers of invasive alien plants.
b Ecological Importance (EI)
Habitats of highest ecological importance (EI) for plant diversity represented in the reservoir area are
Riparian Forest/Thicket and Scarp Forest, only small, localised portions of which occur in the reservoir area.
Both of these vegetation communities have High EI as a result of being relatively localised in the region;
potentially supporting a range of SCCs; having confirmed populations of Endangered African savanna
elephant and appearing to be an important refuge habitat for this species (especially south of the Kagera
River), and because the forests have Very High Functional Integrity.
The other vegetation communities (Vachellia Woodland / Bushclump Mosaic, Rocky Grassland / Outcrop
Mosaic, Floodplain Wetlands, Floodplain Woodland / Thicket) all have Medium EI and are more widely
distributed in the construction and reservoir area. They are of higher conservation importance for fauna
(see Section 7.4.2.1A.2).
c Invasive Alien Plants
A low proportion of invasive alien species is present in the study area, with only 4.5% of the species list
represented by these species. However, Eichhornia crassipes (water hyacinth) is a widespread and
aggressive invader in the study area, particularly in open water habitat, but also in Floodplain Wetlands and
slackwaters along the river, where its’ growth may be facilitated by possible nutrient inputs from the
adjacent sugar cane plantations.
Another potentially aggressive invader, Lantana camara, was observed at a few sites, both in the sugar
estate and on cattle ranches, usually in disturbed ground, but also at a few forest edges where it could
become a serious problem in the future if not controlled. Floodplain Woodland / Thicket is the vegetation
community with the highest proportion of alien species (including the herbaceous understorey on drier soils
is diverse and often has a high proportion of alien species, (including Amaranthus hybridus, Bidens pilosa,
Tagetes minuta and Ricinis communis), which are typical of a riparian vegetation community.

d Harvestable Plant Resources
Apart from cattle grazing primarily in the Vachellia Woodland and Rocky Grassland communities, only
limited evidence was found of community use of plant resources within the inundation zone, mostly
comprising some collection of fuel wood within the Floodplain Woodland / Thicket habitat. Some small-
scale charcoal manufacturing was found just below the dam wall site and may occur upstream in the
inundation zone. The limited use of resources by communities is likely to be linked to the fact that most of
the area around the reservoir and dam wall falls under KSC or NARCO ranch land and there is little human
settlement close to the dam. Large parts of the reservoir are also difficult to access.
The social baseline survey indicated that medicinal plants are utilised in the riparian zone downstream of
the reservoir, mostly in Floodplain Woodland / Thicket, and it is possible that some plants are harvested in
the inundation zone.
Table 7.34. Extent of Habitat Types and their Ecological Importance Categories in Dam Construction and Reservoir
Full dam area Reservoir & Dam Wall Access Road Corridor
Vegetation Community / Ecological Habitat Direct Direct Direct

Habitat Type Importance Status FSL + dam + quarries & FSL + dam footprint 10 m road
other
Ha % Ha Size: Ha %
Riparian Forest/Thicket High Natural 85.9 3.6 71.7 4.2 - -
Scarp Forest High Natural 35.6 1.5 32.2 1.9 - -
Floodplain Woodland/ Thicket Medium Natural 161.5 6.8 135.0 7.9 - -
Vachellia Woodland/
Medium Natural 1,452 60.7 1,069.9 62.3 17.9 67
Bushclump Mosaic
Rocky Grassland/Outcrop
Medium Natural 201.8 8.4 6.5 0.4 8.8 33
Thicket Mosaic
Floodplain Wetlands Medium Natural 187.1 7.8 153.7 8.9 - -
Open Water Medium Natural 252.0 10.5 235.3 13.7 - -
Agricultural Areas Low Modified 11.8 0.5 10.3 0.6 - -
Settlements Very Low Modified 3.4 0.1 3.4 0.2 - -
Total 2,391.5 100 1,718.0 100 26.8 100
In summary, all of the vegetation communities within the area of the dam wall, reservoir and access road
are assessed as Natural Habitat. Although a high diversity of plant species was recorded - 425 species
across all vegetation communities – no threatened or restricted range species were found, and the area
does not trigger critical habitat for vegetation. Most habitats with highest diversity are located away from
the river and floodplain. Only small portions of Scarp Forest and Riparian Forest are considered of High
Ecological Importance as they are relatively localised in the study area, potentially support a range of SCCs)
(mainly fauna) and have low resilience to habitat change.
B.1 Loss, Fragmentation and Degradation of Natural Habitats and Flora for Dam Construction Facilities, Quarries
and Inundation
Construction and reservoir filling impacts on natural habitats and flora will arise from: i) direct and
permanent loss of habitats in the construction footprint and reservoir; ii) sedimentation impacts from
construction activities.
The loss of habitat in the quarries is likely to be a permanent loss, i.e. the impact will exist for the life of the
project. The frequency of the invasive alien plant impact is likely to be continuous during the construction
phase but will only be intermittent during the operation phase.
Dam construction and reservoir filling will directly and permanently impact a minimum of 1469ha of
vegetation communities assessed as Natural Habitat. An additional 655 ha may be impacted in the vicinity
of the construction area through access roads, quarries and other infrastructure, and related disturbance.
The 28 km paved access road will directly impact 26 ha. Most of the directly impacted habitats comprise
Vachellia Woodland (~62%), followed by Rocky Grassland Outcrops for quarries (8.4%), Floodplains
Wetlands (7.8%), and Floodplain Woodlands (6.8%).
Vachellia Woodland / Bushclump Mosaic is a widespread habitat type throughout the wider indirect AoI with
an estimated 48,000 ha remaining, but which is under significant pressure from sugar cane expansion,

which is earmarked to impact approximately 26,000 ha. While the project area was found to have high
botanical diversity, no threatened plant species were recorded to occur in any of the vegetation
communities that will be impacted by the dam and reservoir.
Loss of vegetation and flora will arise from the following:
• Dam Construction: The construction of the dam wall will result in the loss of natural habitat within
the dam wall footprint as well as the construction facilities and quarries. Rocky Grassland / Outcrop
Thicket Mosaic will be the most significantly impacted habitat, with an estimated 202 ha affected.
This will be a permanent loss of habitat, since it will not be possible to restore the shallow rocky
grassland habitat to its original species richness and diversity. Habitat adjacent to the impact
footprints could also be degraded through excessive dust production by construction activities,
particularly at and around the quarries and along transport routes.
• Access Road: approximately 27 ha of natural habitat will be lost through the widening of existing
access roads and creation of new portions of access road. The vegetation community that will be
most impacted will be Vachellia Woodland / Bushclump Mosaic (18 ha). This is likely to be a
permanent loss of natural habitat, since there is a small community that will continue using the
road beyond the construction phase.
• Reservoir Filling: Inundation of the reservoir will result in the greatest magnitude of loss of natural
habitat (1,718 ha), particularly Vachellia Woodland / Bushclump Mosaic (1070 ha), Floodplain
Wetlands (1,54 ha) and Floodplain Woodland / Thicket (135 ha). Most of this will be permanent loss
of natural habitat, although it is possible that some Floodplain Wetland habitat may re-establish
over time in shallower parts of the dam around the full supply level.
• Fish Pass (Kakono Stream): The construction of the fish-pass along the Kakono Stream will require
certain portions of the streambed to be modified in order to stabilise banks and facilitate fish
movement, particularly in steeper reaches where landscaping of the stream bed may be needed.
This may result in some loss and degradation of Riparian Forest / Thicket along these reaches.
• Construction workers and in-migration: The presence of approximately 1,000 construction workers
and job-seekers at the dam could result in increased harvesting of plant resources such as
fuelwood and medicinal plants, or destruction of vegetation and flora related to accidental fires.
Construction workers may also damage natural woodland through littering, dumping of waste.
This impact is most likely to impact the Floodplain Woodland / Thicket and Vachellia Woodland /
Bushclump Mosaic communities. The impact would occur during the construction phase and is
unlikely to result in permanent or significant damage to vegetation or flora, taking into account the
ongoing damage caused by cattle ranching and sugar cane expansion. Given the remote location of
the project site which will be accessible by one main access road, and the fact that most land is in
private ownership or management (e.g. NARCO and Kagera Sugar), the risk of influx of job-seekers
is considered low. For the reasons above, the impacts related to construction workers and job-
seekers is considered non-significant.
Although no threatened plants were recorded, the impacts arising from loss and fragmentation of
vegetation across the 35 km long / 17 km2 reservoir area for the project is nonetheless considered
significant due to the high plant diversity and extent of natural habitat that will be directly and permanently
impacted (i.e. up to 2,124 ha).
B.2 Loss and Degradation of Natural Habitat Through Establishment and Spread of Invasive Alien Plants
a Dam Construction
Construction will create areas of bare ground within and at the edge of the works area and along the access
road, which will provide a base for the growth and spread of invasive alien plants. Movement of construction
vehicles along access roads to the dam construction areas will pose a continuous risk of introducing invasive
alien species into the project area by bringing in seeds of these species either trapped in mud of vehicle tyre
treads or in fill material contaminated with invasive plants.
The main alien invasive plant of concern is the spread of Lantana camara, an aggressive invader which was
observed at a few sites in the sugar estate and on cattle ranches, usually in disturbed ground, but also at a
few forest edges. The spread of this species can invade and outcompete natural vegetation causing the
development of dense thickets if left unchecked where it can be further spread on the hooves of cattle.
b Reservoir Inundation

Various alien invasive plants and their seeds may be washed downstream in the Kagera River and may
become established around the full supply level of the reservoir, especially where bare soil areas develop
as a result of die-off of natural terrestrial vegetation. This could result in the establishment of invasive alien
species that are tolerant of waterlogged soil conditions (such as water hyacinth). The impact related to
water hyacinth spread in the reservoir during operation is addressed more fully in Section 7.4.3.2 as it is
primarily an impact affecting the aquatic ecosystem.
B.3 Loss of Harvestable Plant Resources
a Construction
The current extent of harvesting of plant resources by communities is low in the dam wall and reservoir
area, and along the access road, largely due to poor accessibility as a result of few roads; the fact that land
is mostly being under private management (NARCO or KSC), and few communities are resident in the area.
Loss of land for project construction is predicted to have an insignificant impact on harvestable resources
as the construction footprint is relatively small and similar to the available land in the wider area, and there
are no settlements in close proximity; most villages closest to the reservoir are on the right bank and
located on the top of Bugara Hills above the reservoir, while some settlements for worker camps for Kagera
Sugar are located 3.5 km downstream of the reservoir. Expanding sugar cane irrigation on the right bank
is rapidly clearing several thousand hectares of open woodland and is expected to have a significantly higher
impact on harvestable resources than the Kakono HPP although it is largely within designated ranching land
that is not available to local communities.
Influx of job-seekers during construction may create additional pressures on land and natural resources for
grazing, harvesting, settlement or agriculture, if not controlled. This impact could reduce available
resources for local communities in the medium to long-term if job-seekers settle in nearby villages and
remain after project construction (e.g. in the hope of finding work on the expanding KSC project).
b Reservoir Inundation
The inundation of the reservoir will result in the loss of harvestable plant resources such as fuelwood,
charcoal and medicinal plants, particularly in the Vachellia Woodland / Bushclump Mosaic and Floodplain
Woodland / Thicket communities.
From observations during fieldwork and information received during the social survey, the project is
expected to have a non-significant impact on important vegetation or plants used for food, medicinal or
building purposes. However, given the requirement to clear vegetation from the reservoir area to maintain
downstream water quality and aquatic biota, this presents an opportunity for community members to
collect useful plant resources before inundation. Loss of harvestable plant resources is considered non-
significant and can be offset by permitting community members to collect useful plants from the reservoir
zone in a supervised and controlled manner prior to reservoir filling.
C.1 Site Development
Limited mitigation is possible to avert impacts of vegetation loss from dam construction and inundation. No
search and rescue or translocation of plants is required for the project. Measures that will be applied to
minimise impacts on vegetation and flora during dam construction include:
a Site Development Planning
• Clearly designate construction site footprints on site development plans, including areas for spoil
dumps, topsoil dumps, vehicle access/turning and parking areas and demarcate these on the
ground to limit vegetation clearance to the minimum necessary.
• A full-time on-site Environmental Compliance Officer (ECO) with ecological experience will be
appointed to oversee site clearance and ensure boundaries of designated areas are adhered to.
• Sites for construction facilities, spoil dumps and topsoil stockpiles will be sited on disturbed ground
wherever possible.
• Designate and demarcate vehicle access tracks, turning areas and parking areas on site
development plans and on the ground.

These measures are referred to elsewhere in this report as:

• [M 37] Construction work site planning shall seek to minimise impacts on vegetation and an
Environmental Compliance Officer with ecological experience will oversee site clearance and
ensure control measures are implemented (EPC Contractor).
b Site Clearance
All sites to be cleared will be done in accordance with the following measures:
• Site clearance will be restricted to the minimum required as per demarcations on site development
plans.
• Equipment and vehicles will be restricted to designated access tracks and turning areas.
• Spoil dumps for quarries will be designated and designed to minimise downslope rolling of rocks
and material.
• Bank stabilisation will be implemented to prevent erosion or slumping of berms or banks. This will
include measures such as silt screens, berms, gabions, and geotextiles.
• Vehicle access routes to be comply with designated areas marked on the ground.

• [M 38] Construction site clearance activities will be implemented in a manner to minimise loss of
vegetation by restricting footprints of vegetation removal, stockpiling and vehicle access (EPC
Contractor).
Sediment control measures are described elsewhere in this report in Section 7.3.3.1C.
c Topsoil Management
Removal and stockpiling of topsoil is important for the restoration of the construction footprint and use in
landscaping. Proper storage and protection of topsoil will facilitate improved and efficient restoration during
and post-construction. The following measures apply:
• Quantify volume of topsoil to be removed and identify one or more sites of sufficient capacity and
protected from construction activities and stormwater runoff.
• EPC contractor will develop a Topsoil Management Plan. This will specify height and shape of
topsoil dumps (no taller than 2 m to avoid compaction of seedbank); signage to restrict trucks
driving and compacting topsoil; and protection measures to minimise loss of soil from wind or
runoff, including alien plant monitoring and control.
• Topsoil stockpiling and protection will be implemented in accordance with the Topsoil Management
plan.
• ECO will monitor topsoil stockpiles for compaction, erosion, alien invasive plants, and ensure
correct management is applied.
• Topsoil stockpiles will not be used for covering of waste, filling trenches or purposes other than
site restoration and landscaping of completed construction areas.
• Restoration of completed work sites shall be done concurrently with dam construction to optimise
the viability of seedbanks in topsoil stockpiles and facilitate efficient restoration. It will also
minimise risk of soil loss through wind or water erosion in stockpiles left longer than necessary.

• [M 39] During construction, topsoil management will be implemented in accordance with a Topsoil
Management Plan that defines the location, storage, size/shape and protection measures for
topsoil stockpiles (EPC Contractor).
C.2 Alien Invasive Plant Management
a Construction Phase
• Sources of imported material e.g. borrow pits will be verified by an on-site Environmental Control
Officer (ECO) as free of alien invasive plants.

• Construction vehicles used on site will be washed down and disinfected at a designated and formal
wash area (away from a stream or river). This will take place on arrival at the construction site or
each time the vehicles work in other areas where alien vegetation is present and return to site.
• The ECO will conduct regular monitoring (weekly) along the construction wayleave and access
routes, and around vehicle wash areas. Any alien plants found will be immediately removed by
mechanical means and disposed of at a designated waste site.
• Use of herbicides and bulldozers to remove aliens will be avoided.
• [M 40] A Terrestrial Alien Invasive Plant Management, Monitoring and Control Plan for the HPP and
TL construction activities will be developed and implemented (EPC Contractor).
C.3 In-Migration Control Measures
Control measures to restrict the risk of in-migration of job-seekers into the project area includes restrictions
on population access via the access road; limiting recruitment in nearby towns/settlements and not at the
project site or along the access road; and working with local government to develop spatial plans for
settlements and land access. These measures are detailed in the social impact assessment in Section 7.6.3.
C.4 Vegetation Clearance During Reservoir Filling
Limited mitigation is possible to significantly reduce the inundation impacts on vegetation. No search and
rescue of plants is required for translocation prior to reservoir filling. Woody vegetation will be removed
from the reservoir area prior to filling as per the mitigation measures documented in Section 7.3.2.1C in
order to protect water quality and aquatic ecosystems. Access to harvest natural resources by local
communities will be arranged in a coordinated manner that minimises risks to animals or the surrounding
area and is covered under the Social Impact Assessment in Section 7.5.
D.1 Loss, Fragmentation and Degradation of Natural Habitats and Flora for Dam Construction Facilities, Quarries
and Reservoir Filling
The residual impact of habitat loss for the reservoir remains significant as mitigation measures cannot
adequately minimise the permanent loss of up to 2,100 ha of natural habitat with high diversity. However,
the habitat types are widespread in the Kagera Basin, and there are no threatened or restricted-range
species and no species or habitats that trigger critical habitat. Compliance with IFC GN6 and ESS6 requires
no net loss for significant adverse impacts on natural habitat (where feasible) and this places a requirement
for adherence to the mitigation hierarchy and to implement all feasible measures to avoid loss of habitats.
Options for achieving no net loss of Natural Habitat are addressed in Section 7.5.
D.2 Loss and Degradation of Natural Habitat from Spread of Invasive Alien Plants
The residual impact of invasive alien plant spread can be easily mitigated through implementing the alien
control and monitoring measures. Alien plant control is considerably more effective if implemented from
the outset of construction to avoid their introduction and spread, rather than as a remedial measure once
alien plants have been introduced during construction activities. The residual impact is considered
insignificant if mitigation is effectively applied.
D.3 Loss of Harvestable Plant Resources
The loss of harvestable resources in the construction footprint is difficult to mitigate due to the need for
land clearance but the residual impact is considered non-significant due to the relatively small area affected
by construction, availability of similar resources in the wider area, and the limited number of resource users
living around the construction footprint. The impact of increased harvesting on plant resources resulting
from in-migration of job-seekers and labour can be effectively mitigated to an non-significant level through
access control and ensuring no staff recruitment is done at the dam site.
b Reservoir Filling

The direct loss of harvestable plant resources from reservoir filling can be mitigated to some extent by
allowing communities to benefit from the clearing of trees and bushes prior to inundation. Since a large
portion of the reservoir is under private management by NARCO and KSC and there is limited ongoing
harvesting by local communities, the residual impact of reservoir filling on harvestable resources is
considered insignificant.
The only monitoring required for impacts on vegetation and flora is to monitor and control spread of
terrestrial alien invasive plants during construction, post-construction and into operation. A plan for
terrestrial alien invasive plant monitoring will be developed and shall cover the monitoring frequency,
resource requirements, species identification, and removal, control and disposal measures.
This measure is referred to elsewhere in this report as:
• [M 40] A Terrestrial Alien Invasive Plant Management, Monitoring and Control Plan for the HPP and
TL construction activities will be developed and implemented (EPC Contractor).
Operation – Large Reservoir Run of River
The key baseline elements and impact-producing factors that need to be considered in the assessment of
impacts on terrestrial / riparian vegetation and flora are described below and summarised in Table 7.35.
A.1 Impact-Producing Factors / Impact Drivers
Under a run-of-river regime water flowing into the reservoir is equal to the water flowing out through the
powerhouse and there is no change in river hydrology downstream of the dam (i.e. the volume and velocity
of flow is natural and there are no daily variation in river levels). Therefore, the main impact of a run-of-
river regime on vegetation and flora is linked to the effects and consequences of sediment trapping by the
dam on the downstream river. These effects are detailed in Section 7.3.3.2.
In summary, trapping of baseload sediment in the reservoir will lead to sediment-starved water
downstream of the HPP, which is predicted to result in increased erosion of the floodplain and riverbanks.
This impact will be attenuated with increasing distance from the reservoir and the impacts will thus be
greatest in the first few kilometres below the dam. Pulses of high sediment concentrations from annual
flushing events will help to reduce this impact to some extent.
Table 7.35. Impact Production Factors and Key Baseline Elements for Operational Impacts
Sediment Trapping by dam leading to • Unconsolidated sandy riverbanks • Erosion of riverbanks causing loss
increased erosion of the floodplain and • Vegetation Communities (Floodplain and degradation of Floodplain
riverbanks Woodland / Thicket, Floodplain Woodland / Thicket
Wetlands) with Medium Ecological • Establishment and spread of
Importance. invasive alien plants
• Invasive Alien Plants • Loss of plant resources (grazing
• Plant resources harvested from areas for livestock)
riverbanks (fuelwood, charcoal,
medicinal plants)

a Downstream Vegetation Communities
The two main vegetation communities in the downstream river reaches that are likely to be impacted by
dam operation under a run-of-river regime are Floodplain Wetlands and Floodplain Woodland / Thicket,
both of which are summarised below. A very small portion of Scarp Forest occurring on cliffs or very steep
banks along the Kagera River within the first 20 km below the dam could potentially be affected through
increased riverbank erosion in the long term. No Riparian Forest strips occur along the main Kagera River
downstream of the Kakono Stream, just below the dam wall.
• Floodplain Wetlands (3,210 ha): This community refers to the frequently flooded wetlands along
the floodplain of the Kagera River, particularly along the lower reaches covering an estimated 3210
ha of the Kagera Floodplain downstream of the HPP. It comprises areas dominated by tall Cyperus
papyrus which is rooted in submerged alluvium, and shorter Vossia cuspidata and Echinochloa
stagnina grassland that is either rooted or floating. Species richness is low (11 species) and
comprises mostly highly specialised species that are adapted to prolonged inundation and
waterlogged soils. No threatened, near threatened or restricted-range species were confirmed to
occur in the Floodplain Wetland community. The vegetation community is a dynamic one that is
likely to change in spatial extent depending on severity of floods or droughts. Large areas of the
floodplain approximately 59 km downstream of the HPP, near Mwisa River confluence and Kyaka
have been cultivated and some of this habitat has been lost to small-scale agriculture. It is unlikely
that the more deeply inundated areas of wetland have been impacted as much by agriculture. The
main controls for development of floodplain wetland vegetation (including Cyperus papyrus and
Vossia cuspidata) are water depth, current velocity and slope of shoreline (Sutcliffe & Parkes,
1999); evidence from the Sudd has shown that Cyperus papyrus is limited by range of flooding, that
Vossia can tolerate faster currents (which is possibly why Vossia fared better during the recent
flooding of the Kagera River than Cyperus), and that Echinochloa is limited by depth of flooding.
• Floodplain Woodland / Thicket (469 ha): This community is prominent along floodplain of the
Kagera River, particularly downstream of the Kakono HPP, and is associated with areas of
extensive alluvium deposition, often opposite cliffs or steep slopes and often adjacent to Papyrus –
Vossia Wetlands on slightly higher ground. An estimated 469 ha of the Kagera Floodplain
downstream of the HPP is occupied by this community. Species richness is relatively high (91
species). No threatened, near threatened or restricted-range species were confirmed to occur.
Most of the Floodplain Woodlands in the study area are in a disturbed state as a result of frequent
flooding, which introduces invasive alien species, or small-scale deforestation for making charcoal.
Of the all the vegetation communities in the project area that represent Natural Habitat, this
community has the highest proportion of invasive alien species.
b Invasive Alien Plants
Eichhornia crassipes (water hyacinth) is the most commonly encountered alien invasive plant occurring in
the downstream river reaches, particularly in open water habitat, but also in Floodplain Wetlands and
slackwaters along the river, where its’ growth is facilitated by naturally high levels of N and P, possibly
enhanced from some increased nutrient inputs from the adjacent sugar cane plantations. Lantana camara,
a terrestrial invasive plant, was observed at a few sites, both in the sugar estate and on cattle ranches,
usually in disturbed ground, but also at a few forest edges where it may become a serious problem in the
future if not controlled. Floodplain Woodland / Thicket is the vegetation community with the highest
proportion of alien species, which is typical of riparian vegetation types.
c Riverbank Use of Natural Resources
Use of plant resources along the riverbanks downstream of the dam is largely limited to floodplain
agriculture. It appears there is little harvesting of woody plants for fuel or building or medicinal plants along
the riverbanks, except for some collection in the Floodplain Woodland / Thicket areas. The impact of a run-
of-river regime on social uses of riverbanks for farming is discussed in Section 7.5.

B.1 Loss and Degradation of Floodplain Natural Habitats due to Floodplain and Riverbank Erosion
Sediment trapping in the dam will lead to sediment-starved water downstream of the HPP, resulting in
increased erosion of the floodplain and riverbanks initially affecting the reaches within 20 km of the dam
and over the long-term potentially affecting riparian habitats for a distance of up to 90 km downstream,
decreasing in severity with increasing distance downstream. This process is described in more detail in
Section 7.3.3.2. Pulses of high sediment concentrations from annual flushing events will reduce this impact,
although there will still be net erosion from the river reaches below the dam. The vegetation community
that is expected to be impacted is Floodplain Woodland / Thicket, which occurs along the riverbank and on
the floodplain at a slightly elevated level to the lower lying Papyrus-Vossia floodplain wetland vegetation.
Vachellia kirkii trees do not have a deep root system and will possibly not be able to withstand ongoing bank
erosion. As bank erosion progresses and habitat is lost, bare areas are likely to form which could result in
colonisation by alien invasive plants such as water hyacinth which can establish on permanently wet soils.
Ongoing bank erosion and cutting back of bank vegetation and potential spread of alien plants is predicted
to occur on a continual basis after dam wall construction as sediment inputs to the downstream river are
depleted. Some of the exposed banks are likely to be recolonised by papyrus due to the slow and
incremental nature of soil erosion and the natural flow variations. Taking into account the slow process of
erosion, the likelihood that the floodplain vegetation will adapt to the river channel changes under a run-
of-river operation, and the lack of threatened or restricted range species in the affected habitats, the impact
on floodplain vegetation is considered non-significant.
There is limited mitigation for riverbank erosion resulting from sediment trapping in the dam apart from
implementing regular sediment flushing (see Section 7.3.3.2).
While sediment flushing will contribute some additional sediments below the dam – mainly suspended
sediments rather than bedload - there will still be a net loss of sediment to the downstream reaches and
bank erosion and loss of bank habitat is expected to continue to occur. The residual impact on vegetation
will remain non-significant.
No specific monitoring of vegetation loss associated with bank erosion is warranted. Monitoring of river
morphology and erosion described in Section 7.3.3.2.
Transmission Line Construction and Operation
The key IPFs and baseline elements that need to be considered in the assessment of impacts on terrestrial
habitats and vegetation are summarised in Table 7.36.
The TL will be located within a 35 m wide servitude (17.5 m either side of the centre line) within which an
unpaved access road of 4.5 m width will be required for construction and maintenance. An estimated
117 lattice type towers will be required each of which requires a working of approximately 15x15 m.
Construction activities are expected to take 21 months and may require approximately 100 construction
staff (i.e.10% of 1,000 dam workers). Stringing of the TL across the Mwisa River will involve construction
activities on either side of the river to construction the towers, but no construction works are expected in
the river course. Temporary camps for materials and equipment are likely to be required at different points
along the TL route.

Table 7.36 – Key IPFs & Baseline Elements for TL Impacts - Terrestrial Vegetation & Flora
Construction
1. Clearance of vegetation for access • Vachellia Woodland / Grassland Vegetation clearance of the wayleave,
road construction in the wayleave and (dominant) mostly of widespread
support facilities (e.g. temporary • Edaphic grassland Woodland/grassland habitats.
camps and lay down areas) • Floodplain wetland
2 Clearance of vegetation in tower
footprint and erection of pylons
(117 towers of 15x15 m working
footprint)
3. Presence of construction workers • Seasonally inundated wetland Construction workers may trample
during TL construction and stringing. habitats and biota wetland vegetation and cause
• Water quality pollution through washing vehicles
near water bodies, and littering.
Maintenance / Operation
3. Spread of alien plants into adjacent • Vachellia Woodland / Grassland Encroachment of natural habitats by
terrestrial habitats and wetlands (dominant) alien invasive plants such as Lantana
resulting from construction activities • Floodplain wetlands camara.
(e.g. import of fill material and • Invasive alien plants
movement of vehicles contaminated
by seed of alien invasive plants)
4. Clearance of trees and bushes to Loss of woodland habitat – large trees
reduce height under TL in way leave.
5. Alien vegetation control Positive benefit of removing aliens.
Potential contamination if herbicides
used.
a Vegetation Communities
The TL way leave comprises 135 ha, of which almost half (62 ha) represents Modified Habitat in the form of
agriculture or settlements. Vachellia Woodland / Bushclump Mosaic is the dominant vegetation community
in the remaining Natural Habitat, covering 70 ha, with small portions of Edaphic Grassland (2.5 ha) and
Floodplain Wetland (0.3 ha) that will also be impacted. A breakdown of the extent of vegetation
communities in the TL footprint and AoI is summarised in Table 7.37. Each of the relevant vegetation
communities is summarised further below.
Table 7.37. Areas of Habitat Types along the TL - Ecological Importance & Habitat Status
Powerline Corridor
Ecological Habitat Direct Indirect

Vegetation Community / Habitat Type
Importance Status 35 m wayleave 100 m corridor
Ha % Ha %
Vachellia Woodland/ Bushclump Mosaic Medium Natural 69.7 51.8 196.6 52.9
Floodplain Wetlands Medium Natural 0.3 0.2 0.9 0.2
Edaphic Grassland Medium Natural 2.5 1.9 7.1 1.9
Agricultural Areas Low Modified 22.4 16.6 58.2 15.7
Settlements Very Low Modified 39.8 29.5 108.7 29.3
Total 134.7 100 371.4 100
• Vachellia Woodland / Bushclump Mosaic (69.7 ha): This is the most widespread vegetation
community in the project area, most of which is south of the Kagera River. This is also the
vegetation community with the highest species richness, with 295 species recorded during
fieldwork. However, no threatened, near threatened or restricted-range species were confirmed to
occur. A moderate amount of this vegetation community has already been lost to sugar
plantations to the north of the Kagera River and new plantations are being cleared south of the
river. This habitat loss is the greatest risk facing Vachellia Woodland / Bushclump Mosaic in the
project area. Habitat that has not yet been cleared is generally in a good ecological state, although
overgrazed by livestock in some areas.

• Edaphic Grassland (2.5 ha); This vegetation community comprises open grasslands on seasonally
wet soils that are too waterlogged to allow the development of woodland / savanna vegetation,
apart from around termitaria where evergreen thickets develop. No threatened, near threatened or
restricted-range species were confirmed to occur in edaphic grassland during fieldwork. The
greatest threat facing these grasslands in the project AoI is the future development of sugar
plantations south of the Kagera River, where most of the edaphic grasslands are situated. Habitat
that has not yet been cleared is generally in a good ecological state, although overgrazed by
livestock in some areas.
• Floodplain Wetlands (0.3 ha): The Floodplain Wetland community refers to the small area of
frequently flooded wetlands along the floodplain of the Mwisa River which is crossed by the TL.
This habitat is degraded relative to floodplain wetlands elsewhere along the Kagera River due to
the high human settlement and agriculture in the vicinity of the Mwisa River where the TL crosses.
No threatened, near threatened or restricted-range species were confirmed to occur in the
Floodplain Wetland community of the Mwisa River.
b Ecological Importance
All 3 vegetation communities represented in the TL route are of medium ecological importance, mainly for
bird species.
c Invasive Alien Species
The main alien invasive species recorded in the woodland/ grassland habitats was Lantana camara which
typically occurs in disturbed ground.
d Plant Resources
The main form of natural resource use in the vicinity of the TL is grazing for livestock. While there are wood
resources, there is little evidence of harvesting as the land is mainly under private management for
ranching. A large portion of the land used for grazing will be transformed for sugar cane irrigation in the
eastern part of the TL route.
B Pre-Mitigation Impact Prediction (Description)
B.1 Loss, Fragmentation and Degradation of Natural Habitats for TL
TL construction will affect vegetation and flora along the TL from i) direct loss from vegetation clearing; ii)
dust generated from construction vehicles; iii) harvesting and fire risk from construction workers and iv) risk
of spread of alien invasive plants, as summarised below.
• Vegetation clearance: The clearance of vegetation within the TL way leave (35m width) will result in
the loss of 61 ha of Natural Habitat, most of which comprises the widely distributed Vachellia
Woodland / Bushclump Mosaic (58 ha). No threatened or restricted range plant species were
confirmed in the TL wayleave. Some portions of additional natural habitat will be lost for creating
an access road along the TL, some of which may fall outside the wayleave. The wayleave is
expected to be maintained by clearing woody shrubs and trees to maintain access for
maintenance, but a low shrub / grass cover is likely to regrow across most of the way leave (except
where it crosses sugar cane plantations). Vegetation loss for the TL will be a long-term impact but
will only affect a narrow strip over 38 km.
• Dust from construction vehicles: Movement of construction vehicles along unpaved access roads
and when transporting fill material will generate dust which may cause some degradation of
roadside vegetation. This will be of minimal consequence and of short-term duration and occurring
frequently during the construction phase.
• Harvesting and fire by construction workers/job-seekers: The presence of construction workers and
potentially job-seekers during construction of the TL could result in increased harvesting of plant
resources such as fuelwood and medicinal plants. Their presence may also contribute to a higher
risk of fire which could result in significant damage to vegetation. This impact is most likely to
impact the Vachellia Woodland / Bushclump Mosaic vegetation, which is where most of these
resources are located. This is unlikely to result in permanent loss of Natural Habitat but could be a
frequent impact during the entire construction phase.

• Alien plant spread: The clearing of vegetation in the wayleave and for the access road will create a
suitable base (bare soil) for populations of invasive alien species such as Lantana camara to
become established. This impact may arise during the construction phase and would need to
extend into the operation phase if not effectively managed during construction.
All impacts arising from the TL construction are assessed as non-significant.
Measures regarding the routing of the TL access road described for the protection of aquatic habitat in
Section 7.4.3.3C will be implemented.
The ECO will conduct regular monitoring (weekly) along the TL wayleave and access routes during
construction, and monthly visits during operations. Any alien plants found will be immediately removed by
mechanical means and disposed of at a designated waste site. Use of herbicides and bulldozers to remove
aliens will be avoided. These measures are referred elsewhere in this report as:
• [M 41] Terrestrial alien invasive plant management, monitoring and control measures will be
conducted along the TL wayleave and access routes during construction (EPC Contractor).
All of the proposed mitigation measures will effectively minimise the adverse impacts of TL construction on
vegetation. The impact on vegetation will remain non-significant.
Monitoring of terrestrial invasive plant and erosion is described in Section 7.4.3.3E.1.

Terrestrial Fauna (including Birds)
Impact producing factors associated with dam construction and reservoir filling are summarised in Table
7.38. The factors driving impacts on fauna largely overlap with those driving impacts on vegetation or faunal
habitats. This section will focus specifically on those impacts directly affecting fauna with reference to their
habitats where required.
Project construction features that are specific to fauna rather than impacting on their habitats include
blasting, trenching, vehicle collisions, hunting or habitat degradation due to workers or job-seekers.
Table 7.38. Summary of Rationale for Fauna Impacts during Dam Construction and Reservoir Filling
1. Dam construction activities: • Fauna resident or using Forest / • Loss, fragmentation and
• Vegetation clearing for dam wall, Thicket, Floodplain Woodland / degradation of faunal habitat
quarries, access roads, camps etc. Thicket, Woodland, Wetland, Open • Loss of or disturbance to priority
Water habitats fauna species
• Priority Species (mainly threatened • Loss of fauna resources (bushmeat)
or biome endemic birds)
• Fauna resources (wildlife for
bushmeat)
2. Noise and dust from construction • Wildlife around construction sites, • Disturbance and displacement of
works, including blasting at quarries including elephants and threatened wildlife.
and for dam wall raptors. • Reduced breeding success of birds.
3. Excavation of open trenches for • Small animals – mammals, reptiles, • Animal mortality or injury from
pipelines or powerlines frogs falling in trenches.
4. Access Road Construction and • Wildlife, including elephants moving • Loss, fragmentation and
Widening of Existing Roads through the road corridor area degradation of faunal habitat
• Priority bird species (mainly • Loss of or disturbance to priority
threatened raptors nesting in open fauna species
woodland and grey-crowned crane
in floodplain vegetation.
5. Presence of construction workers and • Wildlife resources and habitats • Increased risk of fire and faunal
job-seekers habitat degradation
• Increased mortality due to hunting
or human-wildlife conflicts.
6. Reservoir filling • Faunal Assemblages (Forest / • Loss, fragmentation and
• Loss of faunal habitat and animal Thicket, Floodplain Woodland / degradation of faunal habitat from
mortality from flooding Thicket, Woodland, Wetland, Open flooding
Water) • Loss of or disturbance to priority
• Priority Species (threatened, NT, fauna species, including possible
biome endemics) stranding
• Fauna resources (bushmeat) • Loss of fauna resources (bushmeat)
a Dam Construction Activities
Clearing vegetation in the project footprint and from filling of the reservoir will permanently impact up to
2,124 ha of faunal habitats. The extent and status of the vegetation types affected by the project are
summarised in Table 7.34.
Specific construction activities that may generate faunal impacts are likely to occur from noise generated
by blasting activities in quarries and at construction sites, and trucking of materials and equipment. This
may affect sensitive fauna including breeding of birds. Blasting in the quarries and trenching at the dam
wall could result in direct mortalities of fossorial fauna (particularly reptiles). Vehicle activity along the
access roads may also result in wildlife mortality (e.g. mammals, birds and reptiles), especially if vehicles
are driving at night and without speed control. Open trenching for laying of cables or pipelines, if left open
or with pooled water, may cause mortality of animals that fall into them.

The higher number of people present at the dam wall site during construction (labourers, job-seekers) may
result in elevated levels of faunal resource use, particularly bushmeat hunting. These people may also set
fires to improve hunting success in areas of long grass or to scare off snakes or other wild animals, causing
further habitat damage.
b Access Road Construction and Widening of Existing Roads
The 38 km primary access road to the dam wall is expected to follow an existing dirt track but will deviate
from this in other places where necessary, resulting in variable extents of habitat clearance in the road
corridor. Additional internal access roads to the dam facilities will require clearing of additional habitat.
Increased traffic of heavy vehicles to the dam wall during the construction phase will result in elevated noise
disturbance of fauna and mortality risks through collision.
c Reservoir Filling
Inundation of the reservoir will is expected to take place over a few weeks in a single season and will result
in the loss of an estimated 1,718 ha of faunal habitat upstream of the dam wall (see Table 7.34), causing
direct impacts on various vegetation communities as described in Section 7.4.1.1B.1. Flooding will change
the Kagera River system from a fast flowing (lentic) river to a 35 km long lake. Several faunal species will
be displaced from the reservoir area, while others may adapt to the new water body. The potential impacts
of this are described below.
The faunal groups that will be affected by construction and reservoir filling are described below and
summarised in Table 7.38. Vegetation communities in the construction and reservoir footprints are
described in the baseline chapter in Section 5.
The various habitats are of different ecological importance for different faunal groups in the dam and
reservoir area. Key habitats and their component fauna are summarised below:
• Vachellia Woodland/Bushclump Mosaic (1,452 ha): this vegetation type has the largest spatial
extent in the dam and reservoir area and is of High Conservation Importance as a result of
confirmed populations of EN bird species (grey-crowned crane, lappet-faced vulture, bataleur
eagle). It is also widely used by African elephant moving through towards and along the Kagera
River. It is moderately resilient to disturbance and is assessed as Medium Ecological Importance.
• Rocky Grassland/Outcrop Thicket Mosaic (202 ha): has Medium Conservation Importance as a result
of confirmed populations of VU fauna species (African elephant) and High Functional Importance
because of the lack of visible ecological degradation. No birds of specific conservation importance
were recorded in this habitat.
• Floodplain Wetlands (187 ha): these are important for hippopotamus (VU) and crocodiles and
several birds such as the NT papyrus gonolek (bird). It has High Conservation Importance as a
result of confirmed populations of EN bird species (grey-crowned crane), but only Medium
Functional Importance because of evidence of some ecological degradation and because wetlands
have Medium resilience.
• Floodplain Woodland / Thicket (161.5 ha): has confirmed populations of VU (hippopotamus) and NT
(papyrus gonolek), but there is evidence of ecological degradation, particularly alien plant invasion.
• Dry Evergreen Forest (0 ha in reservoir area but 291 ha in the Indirect Area of Influence): this habitat
occurs in several large fragments to the south of Kagera River with highly fragmented dense tall
evergreen thickets to southwest of the dam wall, outside the project footprint. Based on the
abundance of dung it appears to be an important refuge for African elephant and possibly other
wildlife.
a Faunal Assemblages
A total of 285 bird species were recorded across the project area. Seven faunal assemblages primarily for
birds were defined based on species associations with different habitat types: Forest/Thicket; Floodplain
Woodland / Thicket; Woodland; Wetland; Open Water; Agricultural Areas; and Settlements. These are
described in detail in Section 5. The Woodland assemblage had the highest species diversity with 187 bird
species and 17 mammal species recorded during fieldwork and is also the most widespread. This was
followed by Floodplain Woodland/Thicket with 90 species, and which is important for hippo, African

elephant and may provide breeding habitat for Nile crocodiles. The third most diverse assemblage with 69
bird species was found in Forest/Thicket which comprise the forested tributaries of the Kagera River (e.g.
along the Kakono Stream), the Scarp Forest along cliffs or steep banks, thickets on termitaria and large
patches of dry evergreen forests scattered in the southern part of the project area. It is also an important
refuge for large mammals such as African elephant. The Wetland assemblage had 44 bird species (13 not
found in other habitats) of which the grey-crowned crane is the only threatened bird species. The Wetland
habitat together with the Open Water habitat is important for hippo and crocodiles. The modified cultivated
and settlement assemblages comprise widespread habitat generalist species, none of conservation
concern.
b Priority Fauna
• Avifauna: Populations of five EN bird species were confirmed in the project area (hooded vulture,
lappet-faced vulture, steppe eagle, bateleur, and grey-crowned crane), as well as one VU species
(southern ground hornbill) and one NT species (papyrus gonolek). Vachellia Woodland / Bushclump
Mosaic is the most important habitat for five of these species, while Floodplain Wetlands is
important for grey-crowned crane and papyrus gonolek. Seven bird species that are considered to
be endemic to the Lake Victoria Basin biome were confirmed to occur in the study area during
fieldwork, all of which were observed in Floodplain Wetlands and / or Floodplain Woodland /
Thicket, which are the key habitats for these species in the project area.
• Mammals: Two threatened mammal species were confirmed to occur in the project area during
fieldwork, namely African elephant (Endangered) and hippopotamus (Vulnerable).
- African elephant: Previous studies have confirmed the presence of elephants in the project
area through indirect evidence (elephant dung, feeding signs, spoor), most of which was
located south of the Kagera River on land belonging to Kagera Sugar Estates and Kitengule
Prison. These animals are thought to move through to and from Burigi-Chato National Park
each year. Visual evidence of elephant herds was obtained in the extensive dense thickets
and riparian forests to the southwest of the dam wall as well, where up to 30 animals were
seen in one herd and at least two herds were present. Extensive evidence (dung, spoor) was
also found in a fragment of dry evergreen forest close to the Kyaka – Kagera main road,
although none of the evidence was recent. It is possible that these fragments of dry
evergreen forest are important refuges for this species at certain times of the year.
- Hippopotamus: Hippos were seen and heard during October 2020 fieldwork at six different
localities between the middle inundation zone and 90 km downstream of the Kakono HPP,
although it is likely that there are more sites in this area at which they occur. Mating
behaviour was observed at one site and hippo are likely to be breeding residents in the
study area, although numbers are probably low. Discussions between the SLR Social Field
Team and local communities along the lower Kagera River revealed that local people have
regular conflicts with hippopotamus destroying their crops at night.
• Crocodiles: Nile crocodiles (Vulnerable) occur in the Kagera River system, but the population density
in the lower Kagera River is unknown. Most of the fishermen that were questioned during fieldwork
acknowledged the presence of crocodile and a large individual was seen on the riverbank
approximately 58 km downstream of the HPP in October 2020. Other sightings by other team
members confirmed crocodile in the Kakono HPP area. Fieldwork during the previous ESIA resulted
in numerous sightings of crocodile along the river. There appears to be relatively limited breeding
habitat for Nile crocodile – dry sandy banks for laying eggs -in the project area and the number of
breeding animals is probably low, although this could not be confirmed.
c Faunal Resources for Community Use
No evidence of hunting was seen during fieldwork, although this is likely to take place on a small scale given
the limited settlement and low numbers of people and the fact the land is largely under private
management for ranching and sugar cane. Very few dogs were observed, and no traps or snares were
encountered. However, widespread cattle ranching and presence of herders in the woodlands of the study
area pose a disturbance risk to natural wildlife.
B.1 Loss, Fragmentation and Degradation of Faunal Habitats in Dam and Reservoir Area

Long term to permanent impacts on fauna habitats from dam construction and reservoir filling are:
• Habitat clearance: Vegetation clearing for construction of the access road, dam wall, quarries, and
other project infrastructure (such as construction camps, laydown areas) will permanently impact
faunal habitat. A total of up to 2,124 ha of vegetation (excluding open water and modified habitats)
within the AoI may be affected of which 26 ha is affected by road construction. The loss of habitat
is likely to be permanent (will exist beyond the life of the project) for some infrastructure (quarries,
dam wall) and short-term for others (e.g. construction camps, laydown areas). Flooding will result
in permanent loss of terrestrial / riparian vegetation, particularly Vachellia Woodland / Bushclump
Mosaic (1,070 ha), Floodplain Wetlands (154 ha) and Floodplain Woodland / Thicket (135 ha).
However, Cyperus papyrus and Echinochloa / Vossia wetlands could possibly recolonise the margin
of the reservoir around the full supply level over time depending if the reservoir is maintained at a
relatively constant level.
• Habitat loss for dam construction and reservoir filling may impact African elephant which are
regular visitors and prefer the Rocky Grassland / Outcrop Thicket Mosaic and Vachellia Woodland /
Thicket near the proposed dam wall area, where many elephants were seen. The extent of habitat
loss is considered small in the context of available adjacent habitats for African elephant which will
be able to adjust their movement corridors to move around the construction site along the low
footslopes on the Rubira Hills. As a result, this impact is not considered significant.
• Although grey-crowned crane are resident in the Floodplain Wetlands, the narrow strip of this
habitat in the dam area is not considered important breeding habitat of this species which is more
likely to prefer the wider downstream floodplain habitats. The impact of dam construction or
reservoir inundation on this species is therefore considered non-significant.
• Potential drowning or stranding of animals during reservoir filling: The reservoir is likely to be filled
within a period of approximately 1-2 months (depending on season and volume of water at time of
filling, and agreed downstream flow release). Some smaller animals which burrow or hide under
rocks and cannot move fast, fly or swim could drown but it is unlikely that any will become
stranded given the narrow reservoir and unlikelihood any islands will form during filling. Animals
that may drown could include tortoises, some snakes, lizards and possibly some small burrowing
mammals. It is expected that the majority of animals will be able to move upslope away from the
rising water levels and escape into adjacent habitat. Some animals may lose a seasonal breeding
cycle if eggs or young are drowned. The reservoir area is not considered preferred habitat for grey-
crowned cranes compared to the downstream wider floodplains, and rising water levels are
unlikely to affect any nests of this species. Drowning or stranding of some animals may have
permanent impacts on some smaller animals that cannot escape and temporary impacts on others
that manage to escape but may miss a breeding season and have to re-establish themselves in
other areas. Since relatively few species are likely to be suffer major mortality and no known
threatened species are likely to drown, this impact is considered to be non-significant.
B.2 Loss of, or Disturbance to Fauna Due to Construction-Related Activities
Temporary or short-term construction phase impacts on fauna will occur from the following:
• Noise: Noise produced during construction activities (particularly blasting at the quarries, trucking
of materials and equipment and dam construction) will result in disturbance of fauna, particularly
large mammals and large avifauna, notably raptors. This could also disrupt elephant movements
through the project area, particularly since they appear to be using a corridor along the existing
track to the dam site as part of their movement route into the project area. It may also cause the
elephants to abandon their forest refuges and forage elsewhere in the AoI where they can come
into conflict with other communities. In the case of raptors, noise from blasting may disrupt
breeding of raptors causing nest failure and reduction in threatened raptors around the dam site.
However, while threatened raptors such as steppe eagle, hooded vulture, lappet-faced vulture, and
bateleur eagle were recorded during surveys, only bateleur is likely to be a breeding resident
(although no confirmed nests were located). This is the only raptor that could be affected if nests
are located close to quarries or the dam wall.
• Blasting and trenching: Blasting in the quarries and trenching for cables or pipes could result in
direct mortalities of fossorial or other fauna (particularly reptiles) which may fall into trenches,
possibly leading to drowning if filled with water.
• Vehicle collision: Vehicle activity along the access road could result in mortalities with mammals,
avifauna and reptiles, especially if vehicles are driving at night and without speed control. This is

particularly relevant because few vehicles currently use the road and fauna are not habituated to
vehicles driving at speed or at night.
• Presence of construction workers and job-seekers: The higher number of people present at the dam
wall site during construction (labourers, job-seekers) could result in elevated levels of faunal
resource use, particularly bushmeat hunting. The increase in people could lead to an increase in
feral dogs if people being settling in the vicinity of the dam wall, which will lead to increased
disturbance to and loss of mammal fauna (e.g. hares, small antelope etc.). The presence of 1,000
construction workers in the area around the dam could also lead to direct disturbance or
persecution of wildlife, such as elephants, which could cause injury or mortality to the elephants or
construction staff. However, due to the fact that most land is in private landownership or
management around the dam site and workers will be provided with housing, the risk of population
influx is low.
The majority of these construction phase impacts on fauna will be limited to the construction phase and
most can be adequately managed through standard construction mitigation measures and awareness
raising. Disturbance of large wildlife such as elephants may persist into the operation phase but they are
likely to find alternative routes and become accustomed to the human presence (as long as they are not
persecuted) and to continue to move through the area. The construction phase impacts on wildlife is
therefore considered non-significant.
B.3 Wildlife – People Conflicts
Elephants appear to be using the corridor of the access road to the dam to reach the right bank of the
Kagera River (and probably sugar cane fields) and move east to west through the area proposed for the
dam construction site and wall. The construction and increased use of the paved access road to the dam by
heavy vehicles, as well as the presence of the construction site activities may displace elephants to adjacent
areas and elephants may be encountered along the access road at night (where accidents could result in
human or elephant injury or mortality). To avoid the partial barrier posed by the construction site, elephants
may be forced to traverse the higher slopes of the Rubira Hills to move westwards along the reservoir area
or may spend more time in ranching land adjacent to the sugar cane expansion area where they may cause
increased human-elephant conflict. However, potential conflict between elephants (and hippo) with KSC
staff and possibly cattle ranchers may occur irrespective of the Kakono HPP as KSC continues to clear
several thousand hectares of suitable elephant habitat for sugar cane, which is likely to be highly attractive
to elephants. This is likely to occur unless KSC manage to put in effective mitigation such as elephant-proof
fencing, trenches and other deterrents. Such conflicts could result in possible legal or illegal ‘removal’ of
problem animals or require active interventions by conservation staff of the Burigi-Chato National Park,
where the elephants are believed to be moving to and from.
Human density in the vicinity of the dam wall is currently low and human – wildlife conflicts are limited. Most
human wildlife conflicts occur with hippo and local residents do not report elephants to be much of a
problem.
The potential impact of the Kakono HPP construction and reservoir filling on elephant populations is
considered non-significant as the elephants are likely to adapt to the new reservoir and its associated
habitat changes. The issue of the filled reservoir affecting faunal movement and community structure is
described in Section 7.4.2.2B.
C.1 Dam Construction
• Habitat clearance: Mitigation to minimise impacts arising from habitat / vegetation clearance is
covered in Section 7.4.1.1C.1.
• Vehicle/traffic management: Vehicles will comply with a 30 km/hr speed limit on the main dam
access road and 20 km/hr speed limit on internal roads to minimise risk of animal collision. A
vehicle tracking system should be considered to monitor vehicle speeds. Penalties for non-
compliance will be applied to all contractors and subcontractors who infringe speed limits. These
commitments are referred to elsewhere as:
- [M 42] The Construction Traffic Management Plan will set speed limits (30 km/h on the dam
and TL access roads and 20 km/h on other internal roads), and define speed control

measures, tracking of construction vehicles and penalties for non-compliance by staff (EPC
Contractor).
• Alien plant management: Mitigation to restrict alien plant invasion of faunal habitats (see Section
7.4.1.1C).
• Construction worker management: Construction workers will be required to be trained in
awareness of faunal protection, avoidance of hunting, purchase of bushmeat, and habitat
disturbance (see Section 7.6.3.1C).
• Faunal management: Mitigation for human-wildlife conflicts during the construction phase will
require:
- Snake rescue and translocation: the appointment of at least one qualified snake handler on
site, preferably the ECO, to be able to relocate snakes and other wildlife found in
construction sites, trapped in trenches or injured during vehicle collisions. All snakes caught
should be translocated to safe areas located away from human settlement.
- Open trenches: Any open trenches will have escape ramps for fauna that may fall in (e.g. a
log placed at an angle in each trench or every approximate 100 m). Trenches will be
inspected at least every three days to ensure no fauna are trapped and need rescue.
Trenches will be left open for the shortest possible time before filling.
- Awareness of wildlife protection: Posters and other awareness raising materials will be
developed and put up in construction sites and used during toolbox talks with construction
staff to inform all staff of the importance of protecting all wildlife, restrictions on harming
fauna and safe behaviour during encounters.
This mitigation is referred to elsewhere as:
- [M 43] Faunal protection measures will be implemented that will include snake rescue and
translocation, faunal escape measures, checks in open trenches, and wildlife awareness
training of staff (EPC Contractor).
C.2 Reservoir Filling
No mitigation to search and rescue or relocate animals (including snakes) is warranted given the likelihood
that most animals will be able to move upslope ahead of the rising water and due to the low numbers of
residents around the dam that may be affected by increased snakes moving out of the reservoir during
filling. Given the level of effort required and likely low return on cost and effort this measure is not
warranted.
D.1 Loss, Fragmentation and Degradation of Faunal Habitats in Dam and Reservoir Area
Despite the permanent loss of up to 2,124 ha of faunal habitat (including Open Water) to the project, and
other construction and reservoir filling impacts on fauna, little mitigation can be applied to effectively reduce
impacts on faunal habitats or fauna. However, the faunal habitats affected are widespread and although
threatened species such as African elephants, hippopotamus and crocodile are present, it is expected that
they will adapt to the new reservoir habitat. Loss of potential habitat of the Endangered grey-crowned crane
may occur in the reservoir area but this is sub-optimal habitat and they were not confirmed. Since no species
of conservation concern are likely to be directly and significantly affected by construction and reservoir
filling, the residual impacts on faunal habitats and fauna post mitigation are predicted to be non-significant
when viewed at a local and regional level.
D.2 Loss of, or Disturbance to Fauna due to Construction-Related Activities
Several mitigation measures are proposed to mitigate construction impacts on fauna and these are likely
to be effective at reducing faunal mortality from vehicle collisions, falling into trenches and potential
impacts from construction workers. However, little to no mitigation can be applied to mitigate construction
noise impacts, although impacts of construction noise, including blasting, is not predicted to have significant
impacts on birds or other fauna. Elephants are likely to move away from the area during construction and

to adjust their movements depending on noise and human presence. Therefore, the residual impact
construction and reservoir filling on fauna is considered to be non-significant.
D.3 Wildlife – People Conflicts
Implementation of mitigation measures is likely to adequately minimise risks to wildlife which may arise
from construction-related activities such as killing of snakes by construction workers, mortality of wildlife
from vehicles or falling into trenches to a non-significant impact.
E.1 Dam Construction
As recommended by TAWIRI 2017 in the Elephant Migration Study (TAWIRI 2017), a survey of the elephant
population in the Kakono Dam (and TL) area should be undertaken, including the use of telemetry (GPS
collars) to track elephant movements as a basis for identifying additional mitigation requirements that may
be required. TANESCO should arrange with TAWIRI to undertake these additional surveys.
E.2 Reservoir Filling
Surveys of large wildlife around the reservoir should be undertaken by TAWIRI during filling to verify
whether any large potentially dangerous animals (e.g. crocodile, hippo or elephant) are displaced and may
pose a risk to nearby communities, ranchers or may encroach into Kagera Sugar estate. This mitigation is
referred to elsewhere as:
• [M 44] TAWIRI will be engaged to conduct surveys of large wildlife around the reservoir during
filling to verify if large potentially dangerous animals (crocodile, hippo, elephant) are displaced and
pose a risk to communities, ranchers and KSC (TANESCO).
Operation – Run-of-River
A Key Elements of Baseline and Impact Producing Factors
Impact producing factors associated with dam operation under a run of river regime are summarised in
Table 7.39. The factors driving impacts on fauna largely overlap with those driving impacts on vegetation
or faunal habitats. This section will therefore focus specifically on those impacts directly affecting fauna
with reference to their habitats where required. Run-of-river operation primarily impacts on fauna through
i) the long-term presence of the reservoir water body in place of flowing river system and ii) changes to
downstream habitats through sediment trapping in the reservoir.
Table 7.39. Key IPFs & Key Baseline Elements for Run-of-River Operational Impacts - Fauna
1. Creation of reservoir water body that • Fauna adapted to flowing river • Loss, fragmentation and
alters and fragments the flowing river • Fauna adapted to uninterrupted degradation of faunal habitat
system movement along river courses (e.g. • Loss of or disturbance to priority
hippo, crocodile) fauna species through nests being
• Faunal Assemblages in different flooded (breeding failure)
habitats flooded by reservoir. • Creation of new habitat for elephant,
• Priority Species (threatened, NT, hippo and crocodile.
biome endemics) in reservoir and
downstream floodplain reaches.
2. Improved access to faunal resources • Wildlife resources for hunting. • Increase in utilisation of faunal
through access road creation resources (especially bushmeat)
3. Reduced flow velocity in the reservoir • African elephant, hippopotamus and • Elephants may be able to swim
water body and improved access to crocodiles cross the reservoir to left bank
riverbanks around reservoir • Elephants and hippo likely to use
reservoir banks to access sugarcane
fields on left bank
• Increased human – wildlife conflict


4. Sediment trapping and downstream • Floodplain Wetlands and Floodplain • Some loss of floodplain habitats for
erosion of floodplain habitats Woodland/Thicket foraging and breeding of fauna such
as grey-crowned crane.
The faunal habitats in the reservoir and downstream area are described in Section 7.4.2.1A.2 in relation to
impacts of dam construction and reservoir filling. The extent of different vegetation types in the reservoir
is quantified in Table 7.34 and is not repeated here.
The key baseline elements and impact-producing factors that need to be considered in the assessment of
impacts on terrestrial / riparian vegetation and flora during the operation phase are described below and
summarised in Table 7.39.
Downstream habitats affected by operation will be limited to Floodplain Wetlands and Floodplain Woodland
/ Thicket that will be degraded from bank erosion as a result of sediment trapping in the reservoir. Key fauna
likely to be affected by the reservoir and dam operation are summarised below.
a Priority Fauna Species
• Avifauna: The only priority avifauna species likely to be impacted during the operation phase are
one EN species (grey-crowned crane), one NT species (papyrus gonolek) and seven bird species
that are considered to be endemic to the Lake Victoria Basin biome. Floodplain Wetlands are the
most important breeding habitat for these species, while the adjacent Vachellia Woodland /
Bushclump Mosaic is important feeding habitat for most of the biome-restricted endemics. The
more extensive Floodplain Wetlands located downstream of the Mwisa River confluence
(approximately 50 km downstream of Kakono HPP) are considered more important for the priority
wetland associated birds.
• Mammals: Hippo and elephants are the key large mammal species in the reservoir and
downstream river reaches. Hippos were seen and heard during October 2020 fieldwork at six
different localities between the middle inundation zone and 90 km downstream of Kakono HPP,
although it is likely that there are more sites in this area at which they occur. Mating behaviour was
observed at one site and hippo are likely to be breeding residents in the study area, although
numbers are probably low. Discussions between the SLR Social Field Team and local communities
along the lower Kagera River revealed that local people have regular conflicts with hippopotamus
destroying their crops at night. Extensive evidence of elephants was confirmed in the dam wall
area and along the right bank of the reservoir and it appears they may be accessing the area along
the access road corridor. Some may be resident in the area. African savanna elephant were seen in
a herd and fresh and old dung droppings were found in several places.
• Crocodiles: The Nile crocodile is known to occur on the Kagera River system, but the population
density in the lower Kagera River is unknown. Most of the fishermen that were questioned during
fieldwork acknowledged the presence of crocodile and a large individual was seen on the riverbank
54 km downstream in October 2020. Fieldwork in 2013 for the previous ESIA (Norplan 2014, 2016)
resulted in numerous sightings of crocodile along the river. There appears to be relatively limited
breeding habitat for Nile crocodile in the project area and the number of breeding animals is
probably low, although this could not be confirmed.
Key faunal habitats features in the downstream system are most likely to be impacted by the loss of habitat
along riverbanks and on the floodplain through increased erosion.
B.1 Barrier to Movement and Increase in Human - Wildlife conflict
The impoundment on the Kagera River will be 35 km long but only as little as 60-75 m wide in the upper
part, and an average of 10 m deep. Over time as sediment deposits and builds up at the upper reach of the
full supply level, the river may become shallower. Significantly reduced velocity of water flow in the
reservoir may reduce the barrier effect to elephant movement, potentially allowing elephants to swim
across especially in the narrow upstream parts of the impoundment. This may enable elephants to access
the Missenyi Ranch and sugar plantations on the left bank (north side) where they could increase the conflict

with the landowners, particularly KSC. However, elephants may prefer to remain on the right bank (south
side) where there will be sufficient sugar cane if accessible and if not persecuted by landowners (e.g. cattle
ranchers). Currently elephants reportedly do not cross the Kagera River, likely due to the strong current.
The dam will have an emban kment wall of 1 km in length on the left bank, with a maximum height of 42 m
closest to the dam. Hippo, crocodiles and elephant are expected to be able to walk around this 1 km barrier,
and hippos and crocodiles are predicted to become resident in the reservoir. Here, they may come into
conflict with residents or fishermen attempting to cross the reservoir or fish in a dugout canoe or herders
with livestock while stock-watering. Hippo can be highly aggressive and are widely known to cause human
mortality in such situations and are typically more feared than elephants.
The gently sloping left bank of the reservoir may favour easy access of hippo and crocodiles in and out of
the water to bask and for hippo to forage on the banks. Given the recent expansion of sugar cane on the
left bank, just upslope of the reservoir, establishment of hippo in the reservoir poses a high risk that they
will enter the sugarcane fields to forage (unless fenced).
Increased movement of hippo, crocodile and elephants on the left bank may lead to an increase in human
– wildlife conflicts with adjacent landowners, and possible mortalities if ‘problem’ animals are legally or
illegally ‘removed’. The risks of increased human-wildlife conflicts to both wildlife and local communities,
farmers or herders as a result of the reservoir is considered potentially significant. The conflicts with KSC if
elephants are able to cross the river and access sugarcane fields may require substantial investment in
additional security protection (e.g. elephant-proof electric fencing) to keep animals out of sugarcane fields.
B.2 Change in Bird Community in Reservoir
Reservoir inundation is likely to result in a minor change to the bird community associated with the Kagera
River. Few waterbirds show a preference for deep waterbodies, most preferring shallow water with gently
sloping shorelines. The avifauna of the reservoir is likely to have a depauperate diversity of birdlife
associated with open water, with a possible increase in widespread generalist species such as Egyptian
goose, reed cormorant and little grebe. Birds associated with Floodplain Wetlands, including the possible
presence of endemics such as papyrus gonolek, will be lost from the reservoir during vegetation clearance
and reservoir filling. Under a stable full supply level it is expected that papyrus floodplain habitat will likely
establish around the reservoir over time and some of the wetland-dependent avifauna may return. This
permanent change in bird community in the reservoir is a non-significant impact as extensive riverine
habitats remain upstream and downstream of the reservoir.
B.3 Loss of, or Disturbance to Fauna Through In-Migration of People due to Improved Access
Improved access to the project area south of the Kagera River as a result of new paved access road to the
dam site could result in an increased number of people accessing the project area and harvesting faunal
resources such as bushmeat or for medicinal / cultural products. Any potential increase in human density in
the project area could increase the risk of bush fires, cause conversion of natural habitat to agriculture and
general disturbance of fauna as a result of increased human presence. However, while this remains a risk,
it is considered a low risk as most of the land is under private management for cattle ranching and sugar
farming, and there are few settlements that are likely to expand in close proximity to the dam site. The
potential impact is therefore considered non-significant.
C.1 Fencing of Reservoir
In order to reduce the likelihood of hippos and elephants entering the fields farmed by the communities,
elephant-proof electric fencing may need to be constructed on the right bank in relevant locations. This will
need to be determined after construction once it is clear whether the predictions of increased foraging in
the sugar plantation by hippo and possibly elephant are confirmed. The risk of increased elephant and hippo
foraging in sugarcane fields on the right bank are expected to occur in any event without the dam project.
In addition, support will be provided to upstream communities to install electrical fencing against elephants
attracted by the reservoir while less grazing land as a combined effect of reservoir and sugar cane
plantation extension.
This mitigation measure is referred to in this report as:

• [M 45] If found to be required, elephant control measures will be identified and implemented with
input of TAWIRI on the right bank of reservoir to minimise elephant damage on community and
irrigated agriculture. This could include consideration of the need for electric fencing (TANESCO).
C.2 Restrictions on Human Access
The Project shall ensure that all measures are taken to reduce the risk of increased in-migration and
settlement along the project access road or around dam site during Project operation.
This mitigation is referred to in this report as:
• [M 46] Access to the dam site along the new access road will be restricted possibly by installing a
manned gate at the entrance from the tarred road between Kyaka and Karagwe (TANESCO).
D.1 Barrier to Animal Movement and Increase in Human – Wildlife Conflict
Fencing of the left bank of the reservoir and access controls to prevent in-migration is expected to reduce
the risk of human-wildlife conflict and the residual impact is expected to remain insignificant.
D.2 Change in Bird Community in Reservoir
No mitigation for birds in the reservoir is feasible and although the bird community structure is predicted to
move towards birds that prefer open water, this is considered an impact of low significance.
D.3 Loss of, or Disturbance to Fauna Through In-Migration of People due to Improved Access
The risk of in-migration during the operation phase and associated impacts on fauna are considered low if
access is controlled via a gate on the new paved access road to the dam. The residual impact will remain
low significance.
No faunal monitoring during the operation phase is required.
Construction & Operation of Transmission Lines
The key baseline elements and IPFs that need to be considered in the assessment of impacts on fauna
during the construction and operation of the TLs are described below and summarised in Table 7.40.
Table 7.40. Summary of Rationale for Fauna Impacts during the Construction and Operation of the TL
Construction
1. Vegetation clearing during • Fauna typically associated with • Loss and degradation of faunal
construction and erection of pylons Vachellia kirkii Woodland habitat
• Large portion of Vachellia kirkii • Mortalities of fauna through
Woodland is being transformed to collisions with construction vehicles
sugar cane
Maintenance / Operation
2. Presence of TLs • Priority bird species (especially • Mortality of birds as a result of
threatened (CR & EN) species and collisions with overhead lines or
migratory raptors electrocution on pylons
Faunal habitats along the TL route are summarised in Section 7.4.1.3. The most dominant natural habitat
within the 35 m wayleave is Vachellia Woodland / Bushclump Mosaic (70 ha) with small portions of Edaphic

Grassland (2.5 ha) and Floodplain Wetland (0.3 ha). Almost half the route is Modified Habitat comprising
agriculture and settlement.
Priority fauna in the TL corridor comprises:
• African elephant: Previous studies have confirmed the presence of elephants in the project area
through indirect evidence (elephant dung, feeding signs, spoor), most of which was located south
of the Kagera River on land belonging to KSC and Kitengule Prison, particularly the part of the TL
route between towers 34 and 69. These animals are thought to move through to and from Burigi-
Chato National Park each year. However, this portion of the powerline was carefully surveyed
during October 2020 fieldwork and no evidence of elephant was found. An extensive area of
natural habitat was surveyed along the proposed TL alignment, but very little evidence of elephant
activity was located until the vicinity of the access road, where there was plentiful evidence, such as
fresh dung and broken branches. Visual evidence of elephant herds was obtained in the extensive
dense thickets and riparian forests to the southwest of the dam wall as well, where up to 30
animals were seen in one herd and at least two herds were present. Extensive evidence (dung,
spoor) was also found in a fragment of dry evergreen forest close to the Kyaka – Kagera main
road, although none of the evidence was recent. It is possible that these fragments of dry
evergreen forest are important refuges for this species at certain times of the year.
• Priority Birds: Populations of five threatened (Endangered and Critically Endangered) avifauna
species are confirmed to be present in the project area and could potentially be negatively
impacted by the TLs (hooded vulture, lappet-faced vulture, steppe eagle, bateleur and grey-
crowned crane), as well as the Vulnerable (southern ground hornbill). Vachellia Woodland /
Bushclump Mosaic is the most important habitat for five of these species, while Floodplain
Wetlands is important for grey-crowned crane. The only floodplain wetland habitat within the TL
wayleave is located in the Mwisa River, which is a degraded river system bordered by settlement
and agriculture near the crossing point.
B.1 Loss and Fragmentation of Faunal Habitat in TL Wayleave
The clearance of vegetation within the TL way leave (35 m width) will result in the loss of 73 ha of natural
faunal habitat, most of which comprises the widespread Vachellia Woodland / Bushclump Mosaic (70 ha).
Approximately half of the route crosses settlements, agriculture and land under current sugar cane
expansion. The clearance of a narrow corridor through these habitats is assessed as low significance as
there is predicted to be minimal impact on fauna during the 21-month construction phase. Construction
workers will need to be aware of the risk of encountering elephants to avoid conflicts. Movement of
construction vehicles may result in some minor additional habitat degradation through excess dust
production if uncontrolled and may result in increased mortality of snakes, birds and other animals on the
access roads. During operation phase, there will be a requirement for ongoing clearance of the wayleave to
maintain tree height and clear alien plants, however this is not expected to impact on fauna in the area. Due
to the small extent of widespread faunal habitat affected by the TL the impacts of the TL construction and
operation on faunal habitats is non-significant.
B.2 Mortality of Birds as a Result of Collision with TLs or Electrocution
The presence of overhead TLs presents a constant risk of collision for large, slow-flying avifauna,
particularly birds of prey, gamebirds or large waterbirds. The thinner earth line, which is positioned above
the other live TLs is usually the cause for collisions and in most cases results in mortalities. Towers also
present a constant risk of electrocution for avifauna, particularly large species that are far more likely to
perch on towers than on the TLs (which smaller avifauna prefer as perches). All 5 highly threatened species
that are confirmed to be present in the wider project area (hooded vulture, lappet-faced vulture, steppe
eagle, bateleur, grey-crowned crane) will be vulnerable to this impact on the 38 km 220 kV TL. The risk of
this impact will be elevated during the peak migration period (October to November and March to April)
when numerous large migratory birds (such as the Endangered steppe eagle) are likely to be moving
through the project area. The entire stretch of TL poses a risk of collision and especially parts that traverse
natural flyways such as river crossings (e.g. Mwisa River crossing). Given the presence of highly threatened
but wide-ranging raptor species in the project area, and the risk of mortality of individuals of these birds
through collision or electrocution with the TL, this impact is considered significant.

C.1 Vegetation Protection
Measures to minimise clearance of faunal habitat are the same as those listed for vegetation in Section
7.4.1.3C.
C.2 Bird Protection Measures
Anti-bird collision and electrocution measures shall be installed on the TL during construction. This shall
include:
• Bird diverters (see Figure 7-12) on the entire line between Kyaka Substation and the dam site;
• Aviation Warning Devices (AWDs) (see Figure 7-12) on the section of line across the Mwisa River;
and
• Anti-perching devices on all towers (see Figure 7-13).
These measures are referred to in this report as:
• [M 47] The TL design will include bird protection features on the entire TL to reduce risk of bird
collision and electrocution (EPC Contractor) - Spacing between diverters should be adjusted
according to the sensitivity of the area crossed by the TL.
Should any other TLs (or telephone lines) be required, these shall be subject to further study to confirm
electrocution and collision risks to wildlife.
Source: www.preformedsa.co.za

Source: http://www.dicasecuriosidades.net/2017/04/pra-que-servem-as-bolas-de-plastico.html
Figure 7-12 – Example of Bird Diverters (top) and Aviation Warning Devices (bottom)
Figure 7-13 – Example of Anti-Perching Devices to Prevent Bird Electrocution

Source: INMR (www.inmr.com)

D.1 Loss and Fragmentation of Faunal Habitat in TL Wayleave
Although a permanent impact, the residual impact of the loss of 70 ha of faunal habitat in the 38 km TL
wayleave remains non-significant. At least half the route traverses agriculture and settlement and the
clearance of a narrow 35 m wide corridor through the remaining natural habitat is considered of low
consequence for fauna. Elephants may be disturbed during construction but are expected to adapt and
modify their movement routes to other parts of the project area.
D.2 Mortality of Birds as a Result of Collision with TLs or Electrocution
The residual impact of the collision and electrocution risks of the TL on birds is expected to be reduced to
non-significant if all the bird protection measures are implemented on the entire route.
E.1 Transmission Line
Monitoring of bird collision and electrocution is recommended at least for the first year after construction
to determine the extent of impact. Monitoring should be undertaken twice, coinciding with seasonal
passage of migrants in November and March, which will be the periods of highest risk for collisions and
electrocutions because of increase number of large birds moving through the area. This will involve walked
transects along the TL searching for bird carcasses. Depending on the results from the first year of surveys,
the need for additional monitoring should be determined. This measure is referred to elsewhere in this
report as:
• [M 48] Twice yearly bird monitoring will be conducted along the transmission Line coinciding with
seasonal migration periods in November and March. Monitoring should be continued for the first
two years and if bird mortality is evident, then additional monitoring may need to be considered
based on the recommendations of the ornithologist (TANESCO).

Aquatic Habitats and MacroInvertebrates
The key IPFs and baseline elements that need to be considered in the assessment of impacts on aquatic
habitats and macroinvertebrates are summarised in Table 7.41.
Factors that would impact on aquatic habitats and macroinvertebrates overlap with those that affect (i)
hydrology because of altered flow patterns and water levels; (ii) water quality because of increased
pollution and turbidity; and (iii) sediment transport because of elevated turbidity, erosion, sediment
deposition and channel incision.
Table 7.41 – Key IPF & Baseline Elements for Dam Construction & Reservoir Filling on Aquatic Habitats
Construction
1. Bulk earthworks associated with • Aquatic habitats and associated • Reduced abundance and
construction of cofferdams, river aquatic macroinvertebrates that biodiversity of macroinvertebrates
diversion, access roads and dam. form an important link in the aquatic caused by loss and degradation of
food chain. aquatic habitats, with negative
consequences for fisheries
production.
2. Water quality deterioration from: • Surface water quality, particularly • Alteration of macroinvertebrate
• Accidental spills and leaks of elevated turbidity. species composition and
hazardous substances e.g. fuels abundance, particularly among taxa
• Contaminated runoff from
sensitive to water quality
worksites, vehicle parking areas and deterioration and elevated turbidity,
laydown areas such as Heptageniid mayflies,
limpets and dragonfly larvae.
• Discharges of sanitary and domestic
wastewater
3. Increased sediment transport during • Elevated turbidity. • As above
construction caused by bulk
earthworks, vehicle traffic and
unstable banks.
Reservoir Filling
4. Habitat alteration from reservoir • Permanent flooding of river and • Elimination of riverine
filling. riparian habitats; and macroinvertebrate taxa that need
• Change from lotic (flowing) to lentic flowing water and consequent
(standing) aquatic habitats. reduction in macroinvertebrate
biodiversity; and
• Increased risk of bilharzia within the
reservoir caused by inundation.
5. Sediment transport during filling. • Reduced turbidity and associated • Increased risk of bilharzia
increase in photic depth downstream of HPP caused by
downstream of the HPP caused by proliferation of benthic algae
trapping of sediments in the associated with increased photic
reservoir. depth.
6. Water quality deterioration during • Reduced Dissolved Oxygen (of 4-5 • Reduced abundance and diversity of
filling. mg/l) downstream of the HPP macroinvertebrates that are
caused by decomposition of sensitive to oxygen depletion, such
vegetation. as Heptageniid mayflies, with
negative implications for aquatic
biodiversity.
7. Hydrological changes during filling. • Reduced water levels downstream • Reduced abundance and diversity of
of the HPP and consequent aquatic macroinvertebrates in
reduction of recharge of seasonally seasonally flooded areas, with
inundated Floodplain Woodland / negative implications for fisheries
Thicket Habitat and Floodplain production.
Grasslands.

a Dam Construction Activities
Dam construction will involve the following activities that will impact on aquatic habitats and
macroinvertebrates:
• The bulldozing and excavation of vegetation in the dam wall footprint to prepare the ground for
construction of a diversion canal (to divert the river during dam construction); the dam wall, and
powerhouse foundations;
• Excavation of quarries, access roads and other infrastructure near the dam wall or on the slopes
and associated spoil deposition that would generate increased runoff of sediment; and
• Accidental spillage and runoff of cement (e.g. from batching plant), hydrocarbons, other chemicals,
waste water and possibly sewage into the Kagera River.
Access road construction is expected to involve widening of the existing track to the dam site and will involve
import of road building substrate to provide a level and wider foundation for the 6 m wide proposed road.
Culverts will need to be installed in places to allow flow of surface water. The precise road alignment has
not been finalised yet and may require deviations from the existing track.
It is assumed that standard good construction practice will be applied to minimise pollution risks to the
Kagera River. However, the high rainfall and steep erodible slopes in the dam construction area may
increase the risks of pollutant runoff into the river during construction.
b Reservoir Filling
Reservoir filling is likely to take 1-2 months (depending on the agreed downstream flow releases and
volume of water inflow at the time of filling). Woody trees and shrubs (excluding floodplain vegetation)
would be removed from the dam basin over a 12-month period prior to inundation to minimise risk of anoxic
water and elevated nitrogen and phosphorus release (see Section 7.3.2).
Reservoir filling will transform the current flowing river system (lotic) into a predominantly large still water
body (lentic). The changes expected during the filling phase result in the following changes which will impact
on aquatic ecosystems and component macroinvertebrates:
• Transform the current flowing river system (lotic) into a predominantly large still water body
(lentic),
• Water quality changes in the reservoir during inundation are described in Section 7.3.2.1. In
summary, these are expected to include:
- Increased [N] and [P] (<10% increase, which is insignificant);
- Lower Dissolved Oxygen [DO] (reduced from 8.5 mg/l to 4-5 mg/l). This is not expected to
have a detrimental impact on most macroinvertebrates as the baseline survey found that
most tolerate low levels of oxygen, but these levels are below the oxygen threshold for
most species of fish except for lungfish and catfish;
- High levels of suspended organic matter and vegetation debris;
- Reduced quantity of suspended material because of sedimentation; and
- Negligible change to water temperature as little stratification is expected in the dam.
• In addition, as the water velocity slows down in the reservoir, an accumulation and trapping of
water hyacinth is expected to occur from deposition of floating masses of weeds that will spread
along the margins and encroach into the main reservoir. The implications of this are discussed
under Operational Impacts in Section 7.4.3.2.
The text below provides a summary of the key features of the aquatic biotopes and their component
macroinvertebrate fauna as context for the interpretation of impacts arising from dam construction and
reservoir filling. A more detailed description is found in Section 5.
a The Kagera River
The aquatic habitats of the Kagera River in the Kakono HPP reservoir area comprise a 60m-wide, deeply
channelised river course fringed by floodplain vegetation dominated by a mosaic of Cyperus papyrus in
deeper water and hippo grass Vossia cuspidata and other floating grasses in shallow water and along the

channel margins. Beyond, is an outer zone of seasonally inundated floodplain woodland/forest dominated
by Vachellia kirkii trees. There are a few seasonal streams that drain runoff into the Kagera River with
riparian woodland along the stream banks. Further downstream of the Kakono HPP location, the river
gradient levels out and the floodplain biotopes extend over a wider area ranging between 500-1000m in
width along the river margins with increasing number of oxbows.
The Open Water biotope of the main Kagera River has a substrate of coarse gravels and boulders; and
carries a high abundance of suspended quartz granules. The river carries significant sediment from the large
upstream catchment and was moderately turbid and with moderate conductivity (18-31mS/m) at the time
of the February 2020 survey. Diatom analysis indicated elevated levels of nutrients, salinity and sediments,
but no indicator species associated with industrial impact or metal toxicity. Overall, biological water quality
is considered poor and the Present Ecological State (PES) is considered Largely Modified (Category D).
Aquatic biotopes within the mapped Floodplain Wetlands habitat unit comprise papyrus and hippo grass,
backwaters, slackwaters and floodplain woodland (Vachellia kirkii Floodplain Forest) (Figure 7.14). These
biotopes have predominantly low/slow water speed, and sediments with of decomposed organic matter
which provide habitats for various macroinvertebrates that are an important source of flood for floodplain
fish species.
Figure 7.14 – Aquatic biotopes of the Kagera River
The floating water weed water hyacinth Eichornia crassipes was abundant in the main channel and
along the river margins in the slower flowing backwaters, while other floating weeds Pistia stratiotes
and Lemna aequinoctialis were recorded in places.
Macroinvertebrate fauna were difficult to sample adequately across all biotopes due to poor access, deep
main channel and fast current speeds and so the taxa recorded are likely to have underestimated the actual
diversity. Taxa recorded were characterised by taxa associated with emergent vegetation with most taxa
(23) adapted to slow current speeds and tolerant of water quality deterioration. Only six taxa are considered
sensitive to water quality: freshwater shrimp (Atyidae), three mayfly families (Heptageniidae,
Leptophlebiidae and Polymitarcyidae) and two damselfly families (Calopterygidae and Lestidae). Of
interest, a high abundance of hover flies (Syrphidae; Eristalinus taeniops and Phytomia natalensis) were
recorded in the papyrus/hippo grass biotope, of which the larvae are aquatic air breathers restricted to
shallow water with limited saturated oxygen. The various macroinvertebrates provide an important food
supply for fish and wetland birds.
The moderate proportion of air breathing taxa (34%) suggest dissolved oxygen may be limiting while the
low proportion of sediment sensitive tax (20%) indicates a heavily sedimented system. No blackflies were
recorded despite the suitable papyrus and hippo grass habitat but their absence may be linked to the
scouring effect of suspended quartz. Using the Tanzania River Scoring System (TARISS) and based on the
29 TARISS taxa recorded suggests that the PES of aquatic macroinvertebrates is Moderately Modified
(Category C).

No threatened macroinvertebrate species were confirmed in the Kagera River or its tributaries. However,
one restricted range crab (Potamonautes kantsyore) is a data deficient species previously recorded at a site
25 km upstream of the proposed Kakono HPP full supply level and could possibly occur in the Kakono
reservoir area. Given the lack of work on crabs in the region it is likely that it is more widely distributed than
currently known.
Despite the Moderately Modified PES, the aquatic biotopes are assessed as natural habitat as the habitats
(despite the turbid water quality) are largely intact and comprise an array of indigenous species, and no
alien macroinvertebrates were recorded.
b The Kakono Stream
The Kakono Stream on the left bank just downstream of the Kakono HPP is ephemeral and contains
temporary shallow pools with mud substrate and interspersed rifle habitat with cobbles. A low abundance
and diversity of macroinvertebrates was recorded in this stream and included 2 species of blackfly and no
macroinvertebrates of ecological importance.
B.1 Loss and Degradation of Aquatic Habitats and Macroinvertebrates from Dam Construction
The impacts of dam construction on aquatic habitats and macroinvertebrates will arise from the following:
• Bulk earthworks. Bulk earthworks associated with the construction of the cofferdams, river
diversion, access roads and HPP would permanently modify aquatic habitats, including Floodplain
Wetlands and seasonally inundated Floodplain Woodlands. Macroinvertebrates that occur in these
habitats play an important role in the food chain, for example by filtering suspended material and
providing food for fish and birds. The abundance and diversity of macroinvertebrates in these
areas are expected to decline, and this would have negative implications for fisheries production.
However, these habitats are widespread along the Kagera River and the loss of habitat for dam
construction is considered non-significant because of the comparatively small area of these
habitats that would be permanently lost or modified within the construction footprint (relative to
the loss of habitat in the reservoir area).
• Water quality deterioration. Potential risks to water quality during construction are described in
Section 7.3.2.1. The main issues of concern for aquatic habitats and macroinvertebrates are spills
and leaks of hazardous materials such as hydrocarbons, bitumen, cement, blasting residues and
domestic wastewaters. Other potential sources of surface water contamination include runoff
from worksites, vehicle parking areas and leaching of nitrates from blasted waste rock. The
volume of water in the Kagera River would dilute most pollutants to concentrations that are
unlikely to be harmful to macroinvertebrates. The impact is reversible and would cease when
construction activities stop. Altered water quality impacts would be short-term (2-3 years) and
would be localised, extending no more than about 20 km from the dam. Overall, the impacts of
dam construction on aquatic habitats and macroinvertebrates through degradation in water quality
are expected to result in non-significant impacts to aquatic macroinvertebrates in the long term.
• Increased sediment transport. Mobilisation of sediments and elevated turbidity at construction
sites and in the river downstream pose a potential threat to aquatic habitats and
macroinvertebrates. Elevated turbidity is likely to be carried for several kilometres downstream
but unlikely to extend beyond the Lower Foothill Zone (i.e. >20 km) because of lower current
speeds beyond this. Elevated turbidity may not be directly harmful to macroinvertebrates found in
the Kagera River but is likely to be indirectly harmful through reduced light penetration, which
affects benthic primary production and thereby reduces food availability for grazing
macroinvertebrates, such as limpets. It would also impact negatively on predators that rely on
sight for feeding, such as dragonfly larvae. The eventual deposition of mobilised sediments could
also smother benthic habitats and reduce the abundance and diversity of macroinvertebrates, with
negative implications for fish. This impact is expected to persist for the duration of construction
but is reversible and would cease when construction activities stop, and in the absence of
mitigation is considered significant.
In summary, although the footprint of dam wall construction is small (relative to the reservoir) dam
construction phase impacts on aquatic habitats and macroinvertebrates are considered significant overall,
largely linked to the extent and duration of sedimentation in the absence of mitigation.

B.2 Alteration of Aquatic Habitats and Macroinvertebrates from Reservoir Filling
Reservoir filling would impact aquatic habitats and macroinvertebrates due to flooding of aquatic habitats;
changes to sediment transport; changes in water quality; and change in hydrological patterns. These
aspects are described in more detail as follows:
• Habitat alteration from reservoir filling. Reservoir filling would permanently flood terrestrial
habitats and transform the current flowing river system into a predominantly large standing water
body. About 600ha of aquatic habitats would be permanently altered through inundation of 35 km
of river. Aquatic habitats that would be inundated comprise 252 ha of Open River; 187 ha of
Floodplain Wetlands; and 161 ha of Floodplain Woodlands. These aquatic habitats are widespread
in the Kagera River Basin but are classified as Natural Habitat because they are structurally and
functionally intact and provide longitudinal connectivity with similar aquatic systems upstream and
downstream of the proposed dam. All flow-dependent macroinvertebrate taxa, such as blackflies
(Simuliidae) and the sponge Ephydatia fluviatilis, would be permanently eliminated from the
inundated river. The new reservoir at FSL would create 17 km2 of open, standing water, of which
71% (1,180 ha) would be formerly terrestrial habitat. The reservoir shoreline and bed would be
colonised by macroinvertebrate taxa that prefer standing water, such as gastropod snails,
chironomid larvae and the mayfly Povilla adusta. The water column is expected to be colonised by
zooplankton, such as copepods and cladocerans, but their populations are not expected to be high
because of the short residence time. Their abundance may also be affected by potential spread of
aquatic weed.
• Sediment transport during filling. The quantity of suspended sediments in the river downstream of
the HPP will decline during filling because of deposition of sediments in the reservoir. Turbidity is
therefore likely to decline, and this is likely to lead to the proliferation of benthic algae such as
Potamogeton schweinfurthii and Ceratophyllum demersum in the river downstream of the HPP.
Aquatic macroinvertebrates that are likely to colonise the new habitats including grazers such as
limpets and bilharzia snails. An implication of these changes is that the risks of bilharzia in the river
downstream of the HPP are likely to increase.
• Water quality deterioration during filling. Water quality changes in the reservoir during filling are
described in Section 7.3.2. In summary, major changes in water quality are not anticipated except
for the concentration of dissolved oxygen, which is expected to decline in the reservoir and in the
river downstream of the HPP. Most macroinvertebrate taxa recorded in the Project area are
tolerant of low oxygen levels and many were air-breathers, so these are unlikely to be affected by
low concentrations of dissolved oxygen. However, there were a few taxa that are sensitive to
oxygen limitation, such as heptageniid mayflies. These were recorded in the main channel and
would be negatively impacted by low concentrations of dissolved oxygen. The most vulnerable
period would be in the first five years following closure, when oxygen levels would be at their
lowest. This potential impact is likely to extend over the entire reservoir and downstream reaches
for approximately 20 km. The highest risks are expected in the shallows of the upper reaches, and
in tributary arms where current speeds would be low to zero, particularly along the left bank where
runoff of nutrients from the Kagera Sugar Estate could aggravate algal blooms. In the absence of
mitigation this impact is expected to be significant during filling and for at least for the first five
years following closure, but significance is likely to decline over time as the reservoir matures.
• Hydrological changes during filling. Filling of the reservoir could reduce the recharge of seasonally
inundated Floodplain Woodlands/Thicket habitats and Floodplain Grasslands downstream of the
dam, especially if filling takes place during a dry year. The implication of this would be reduced
abundance and diversity of aquatic macroinvertebrates, with negative implications for fisheries
production. This impact on its own is considered non-significant because: 1) such events have
occurred naturally in the past; 2) the probability that filling would take place during a dry year is
low; 3) filling is a once-off event; and 4) the impact is reversible.
The permanent loss and fragmentation of natural floodplain vegetation and transformation of aquatic
biota, (combined with change in water quality and downstream impacts during filling) is a significant impact
that will require mitigation and compensation to achieve no net loss of biodiversity.

C.1 Loss and Degradation of Aquatic Habitats and Macroinvertebrates from Dam Construction
a Clearance of aquatic vegetation
Partial mitigation of this impact can be achieved as follows:

• Riparian Buffer Zones. A riparian buffer zone of 50m width (measured from outer edge of riparian
zone) will be implemented within or adjacent to riparian habitats upstream and downstream of the
two proposed cofferdams within which no vegetation should be removed other than necessary
along the construction right of way;
• Riparian Corridor. Measures will be implemented to prevent bank destabilisation and erosion to
minimise sediment transport into rivers and streams;
• Rehabilitation. Rehabilitation of disturbed areas outside the reservoir full supply level will
commence as soon as possible after construction areas is completed with the aim of reestablishing
the same vegetation and habitats. Seeding of grasses and monitoring and controlling alien plant
invasion will be a priority, particularly along drainage lines; and

• [M 49] A riparian buffer zone of 50 m around riparian habitats will be maintained to prevent
erosion and sedimentation, rehabilitation and alien plant control will be applied after construction
to re-establish natural vegetation (EPC Contractor).
C.2 Water Pollution and Sediment Control
a Dam Construction
All mitigation measures for control of water pollution and sediment control described in Section 7.3.
b Reservoir Filling
All mitigation measures for reservoir filling described in Section 7.3. These measures would partially
mitigate potential impacts on aquatic habitats and macroinvertebrates. Compensation for the loss of
natural (and critical) habitats will be required to achieve no net loss and net gain, respectively, and is covered
under Section 7.5.
C.3 Downstream Environmental Flow
a Reservoir Filling
An environmental flow release of will be implemented on a continuous basis during reservoir filling to
maintain and sustain floodplain habitats. This is described in Section 7.3.1.1.
D.1 Loss and Degradation of Aquatic Habitats and Macroinvertebrates from Dam Construction
Implementation of water quality and sediment control measures is expected to reduce the severity of
potential water quality contamination on the Kagera River and its aquatic habitats around the dam location.
While all possible mitigation for erosion and sedimentation must be implemented to limit soil loss and
deposition from construction sites, a high degree of sedimentation and increased turbidity is expected to
occur in the immediate reach downstream of the cofferdam which cannot be effectively mitigated. However,
the floodplain vegetation along the riverbanks downstream of the dam will serve as a sediment trap that
would help to filter and disperse some of the sediment transported from the construction sites and the
aquatic biota is adapted to high levels of turbidity. Further, the large volumes of water carried by the Kagera
will help to distribute and disperse the sediment over a wider area.
The loss of habitat for dam construction cannot be adequately mitigated but implementation of
construction mitigation to control erosion and sedimentation and protect water quality will minimise
construction impacts on aquatic habitats and reduce this impact to non-significant.

D.2 Loss and Alteration of Aquatic Habitats and Macroinvertebrates from Reservoir Filling
There is no mitigation possible for the inundation and loss of aquatic habitats during reservoir filling. The
impact will be of high intensity given the transformation of the river to a 35 km long standing body of water.
Compensation The aquatic habitats are widely distributed, and do not have threatened or migratory
macroinvertebrate fauna which will be affected by habitat fragmentation or loss of connectivity. Therefore,
the impact of reservoir filling on aquatic habitats and macroinvertebrates is considered non-significant.
E.1 Water Quality Monitoring
Water quality monitoring for dam construction and reservoir filling are relevant to interpreting water quality
changes that will impact on aquatic habitats and macroinvertebrates. These are detailed in Section 7.3.2.1.
E.2 Aquatic Biomonitoring
Aquatic biomonitoring in the Kagera River upstream and downstream of the proposed dam will commence
at least one year prior to construction and continue annually through construction and reservoir filling. The
aim of aquatic biomonitoring prior to construction is to provide a more reliable baseline against which future
changes may be compared. The aim of aquatic biomonitoring during construction is to identify actions that
may be needed to minimise negative impacts of construction on aquatic ecosystems. Aquatic biomonitoring
will include the following:
• Annual surveys of aquatic habitats, aquatic weeds and macroinvertebrates (including bilharzia
snails) during the dry season (February). Monitoring during the wet season is not recommended
because of difficulties of collecting reliable data on macroinvertebrates when flows are high;
• A detailed aquatic biomonitoring plan will be developed prior to construction. The plan will identify
biomonitoring sites, survey methods, data to be recorded, data analysis, data storage, reporting
requirements, as well as health and safety protocols. The plan may need to be adjusted and
modified (if necessary) as new information becomes available and if circumstances should change;
• Biomonitoring must involve active participation of staff of local institutions such as the Tanzanian
Fish Research Institute (TAFIRI) to ensure that biomonitoring results and implications of the project
are known and understood by nationals.
This commitment for aquatic biomonitoring is referred elsewhere as:

• [M 50] An Aquatic Biomonitoring Programme will be developed and implemented for the Kagera
River upstream and downstream of the Kakono HPP on an annual basis, starting at least one year
prior to start of construction (TANESCO).
Operation – Large Reservoir Run of River
The key IPFs and baseline elements that need to be considered in the assessment of operation phase
impacts on aquatic habitats and macroinvertebrates are summarised in Table 7.42.
Specific assumptions and predictions which influence the assessment of operation phase impacts on
aquatic habitats and macroinvertebrates are based on the water quality assessment in Section 7.3.2.2.
These include:
• No temperature stratification is predicted to occur in the dam due to: i) small seasonal variations in
air temperatures; ii) shallow average depth of reservoir of around 10m; iii) turbines located at same
elevation as bottom of reservoir preventing anoxic water below the water intake level and iv) short
residence time of water in reservoir (12 days).
• Dissolved oxygen levels following reservoir inundation are predicted to be 3.6 mg/l without
vegetation clearing and 4.3 mg/l with vegetation clearing. These DO levels are expected to increase
and stabilise after 30 years at between 7.2 to 7.4 mg/l, respectively.
• Nitrogen (N) concentrations will increase by around 8.6% after reservoir filling, reducing to 5% after
5 years, and 2.3% after 30 years. Nitrogen levels are not predicted to be influenced by vegetation

clearing as aboveground biomass is negligible to that in soils. This degree of alteration is likely to
be less than inter-seasonal variations within 5 years of filling.
Table 7.42 – Key IPFs & Baseline Elements for Aquatic Habitats and Macroinvertebrates - Operational Phase
Reservoir impacts
1. Accumulation of • Water hyacinth • Increased risk of bilharzia within the reservoir; and
aquatic weeds • Reduced abundance and diversity of
during operation. macroinvertebrates sensitive to oxygen depletion,
such as heptageniid mayflies, with negative
consequences for aquatic biodiversity.
Downstream impacts
2. Reduced sediment • Reduced turbidity and associated • Increased risk of bilharzia downstream of the HPP
transport during increase in photic depth downstream of caused by proliferation of benthic algae;
operation. the HPP caused by trapping of • Reduced abundance of macroinvertebrate
sediments in the reservoir; scavengers, particularly freshwater shrimps, and
• Altered composition of stream bed associated decline in downstream fisheries
caused by trapping of sediments in dam; production; and
and • Altered composition of aquatic macroinvertebrates
• Bank erosion, particularly at exposed caused by changes in bed substrate composition.
cliffs that comprise unconsolidated
alluvial sediments.
3. Water quality • Reduced concentration of dissolved • Reduced abundance and diversity of
changes during oxygen downstream of the HPP caused macroinvertebrates that are sensitive to oxygen
operation. by continued decomposition of depletion, such as Heptageniid mayflies, with
vegetation and accumulation of water negative implications for aquatic biodiversity; and
hyacinth in the reservoir; and • Increased abundance of filter-feeding
• Increased abundance of phytoplankton macroinvertebrates, such as hydropsychid
and zooplankton that proliferate in caddisflies and blackflies.
standing water.
• Phosphorus (P) concentration: Increase in P after reservoir filling is very small (0.25% and 0.3%,
with and without pre-filling vegetation clearing, respectively). This degree of alteration is within
baseline inter-seasonal variations; the alteration can therefore be considered as negligible and will
decrease further over time. Phosphorus levels not predicted to be influenced by vegetation
clearing as main contribution to high P is inflowing water in the Kagera River which is influenced by
discharge of wastewater and fertilisers in the upper catchment.
• N:P Ratio: The N:P ratio is an indicator of eutrophication risk. For N:P <7, N is the limiting element,
and for N:P>7, P is the limiting element. Consequently, P is the limiting element for the baseline,
and for reservoir waters after reservoir filling and after 30 years of operation. The N:P ratio
currently is 10.73 which will increase to 11.6 after the first year of filling (with or without
vegetation clearance) and drop to 10.94 after 30 years. Therefore, the reservoir is not expected to
have much influence on the N:P ratio.
Specific predictions for bank and bed erosion from the sediment assessment (see Section 7.3.3.2) include:
• All bedload sediments (sand/gravel) (estimated at ~550,000m3 per year) will deposit at the upper
end of reservoir while 63% fine suspended sediment (silt and clay) would pass through the dam
with around 50% reaching Lake Victoria. This will result in bed incision and bank erosion
downstream of the dam.
• Bed lowering may occur in the order of 1-10cm/year causing reduction of 0.5 to 1m across the bed
mainly within the first 0 to 20 km downstream over 10-17 years. Some deposition of coarser
material (more than 10mm) is expected to occur further downstream (20 to 90 km) where the
existing finer bed material is expected to be eroded, propagating downstream over time. Largest
changes can be expected along bars and benches composed of finer material. However, there is a
high degree of uncertainty regarding the extent and rate of erosion and it will need to be monitored
(see Section 7.3.3.2E).
• An estimated 2-10 m of bank erosion under Run-of-river operation which will occur initially in the
first 20 km downstream, and progress incrementally downstream for up to 90 km or more from
the dam over the long term. Bank erosion will lead to some increase in suspended sediment loads
being delivered downstream.

• Bank erosion is expected to be of the order of 1 to 10 m along either bank on average extending
~90 km downstream as the river continues to erode laterally to balance the sediment load and
lower the gradient. Bank erosion is expected to occur first within the 0 to 20 km reach below the
dam, whereafter erosion may take place along the 20 to 90 km reach. The timing of the
contributions may follow bed erosion, with a possible lag effect, but this needs to be monitored.
High spatial variability in bank erosion is expected, occurring mainly on outside banks.
• Sediment flushing may take place periodically through a combination of sluicing and venting and
may contribute an extra 15-20% sediment. This will cause some anoxic water from the bottom of
the reservoir to be released which may have a DO of 3-4 mg/l.
The baseline description under Section 7.4.3.1A.2 is largely applicable to the impacts of dam operation on
the river reach downstream of the dam.
In particular, the key elements relevant to the downstream reach include:
• Below the Kakono HPP, the Kagera River widens and is fringed with a wider strip of Floodplain
Wetland comprising a mosaic of Cyperus papyrus and Vossia in lower lying areas and large stands
of Vachelia kirkii dominated Floodplain Forest/Thicket in places.
• The mosaic of vegetation is influenced by the seasonal hydrology of the system, flow velocity and
depth of water. Vossia is more adapted to fast-flowing water while papyrus has a narrow range of
flooding of 1.5 m (Sutcliffe & Parks, 1999). It is evident that the very high floods of 2020 resulted
in significant die-off of papyrus long the lower Kagera River. The maximum range of flooding is the
controlling factor determining the boundary of the floodplain.
• The river becomes a more meandering river with lower gradient and current velocity which allows
for more backwater and slackwater habitats which provide important emergent vegetation and
slower flowing habitats for macroinvertebrates and fish.
• Macroinvertebrates recorded in the river reach below the Kakono HPP are similar to those recorded
in the reservoir area. Notable indicator groups comprise those sensitive to flow and/or water
quality changes downstream e.g. filterfeeders (e.g. caddisflies; blackflies, bivalves); freshwater
shrimps (Caridina sp.); Heptageniid mayflies; and Syrphid flies (air-breathing larvae).
• The Mwisa River is the main river flowing into the Kagera River on the right bank near Kyaka (59 km
downstream of the Kakono HPP). This river is impacted by settlement and agriculture along its
banks. On the left bank is extensive sugar cane irrigation which is undoubtedly increasing the
levels of nutrient inputs (primarily Phosphorus) into the river through stormwater drainage lines
and ephemeral streams draining the plantations.
B.1 Reservoir Impacts on Aquatic Habitats and Associated Macroinvertebrates
• Change in Aquatic Ecosystem and Macroinvertebrate Community.

• After filling the reservoir will gradually settle into a stable phase where water quality will improve
(i.e. increased dissolved oxygen). However, the composition of macroinvertebrates is likely to be
much as that during filling and will comprise taxa that prefer standing water, such as gastropod
snails, chironomid larvae and the mayfly Povilla adusta. The water column will continue to be
colonised by zooplankton, such as copepods and cladocerans.
• Accumulation of Aquatic Weeds. Floating masses of water hyacinth from upstream are expected
to get trapped and accumulate in the reservoir. The weeds will accumulate mostly along the
margins but could extend over the entire surface of the reservoir during the dry season when the
dam is not spilling. The proliferation of water hyacinth could also be aggravated by nutrient
enrichment draining from the Kagera Sugar Estate on the left bank. Macroinvertebrates that
colonise these plants include grazing snails such as Bulinus spp. and Biomphalaria sp. These are
intermediate hosts for the parasites that cause bilharzia among humans and livestock. The
potential increased prevalence of bilharzia could have detrimental impacts of the health and
productivity of people and livestock in the area. Secondary and tertiary irrigation canals within the
Kagera Sugar Estate currently provide ideal habitat for these snails. However, available
information provided by the Kagera Sugar Estate, together with the baseline surveys conducted for
the initial ESIA (Norplan, 2016a), and the baseline survey for this report conducted in February

2020, indicated that human bilharzia was not an issue of concern within the Kagera Sugar Estate.
No information was available on bilharzia or liver fluke among livestock within the Project Area.
However, the baseline survey for this report confirmed the presence within the Project Area of
Bulinus and Biomphalaria species, as well as the snail Lymnaea natalensis, which is an intermediate
host of the parasite that causes liver fluke among livestock. The duration of this impact would be
permanent. This impact is considered non-significant because of the area of additional habitat
suitable for host snails created by the proposed Project is small compared to the area of such
habitat already present in the Project Area.
B.2 Downstream Impacts on Aquatic Habitats and Associated Macroinvertebrates
• Reduction in Sediment Transport. Changes in sediment transport during operation are expected to
have at least three consequences for aquatic habitats and macroinvertebrates as follows:
- Erosion of Aquatic Habitats. Trapping of sediments is expected to cause significant erosion
of the stream bed and banks especially within the first 20 km. There are steep cliffs of
unconsolidated alluvial sediments some of which are protected to some extent by papyrus
beds, but which are expected to erode, become undercut and collapse. Eroded sediments
will be moved further downstream, and some may deposit out in the reaches downstream
of Kyaka where there are reduced current speeds and lower velocity. Bank and bed erosion
will reduce the extent and quality of aquatic habitats and reduce diversity and abundance of
macroinvertebrates in the affected reaches, with knock-on effects for insect-eating fish
(invertivores) and birds. Given the slow rate of bank and bed erosion likely to occur under
run-of-river (in the order of decades) it is assumed that the aquatic habitats and
macroinvertebrates will adjust and adapt and will largely retain the typical mix of biotopes
and diversity, and the impact is therefore considered non-significant.
- Increased Risk of Bilharzia. Turbidity downstream of the HPP is likely to remain low
compared to inflowing water throughout operation, and this is likely to lead to the
continued proliferation of benthic algae such as Potamogeton schweinfurthii and
Ceratophyllum demersum in the river downstream of the HPP. Aquatic macroinvertebrates
that are likely to colonise such submerged plants are grazers such as limpets and bilharzia
snails. An implication of this is that the risks of bilharzia in the river downstream of the HPP
are likely to be elevated during operation. This impact is considered non-significant
because of the area of additional habitat suitable for host snails created by the proposed
Project is small compared to the area of such habitat already present in the Project Area.
- Reduced Abundance of Shrimps. Trapping of sediments is likely to reduce the abundance of
macroinvertebrate scavengers in the river downstream of the HPP, particularly freshwater
shrimps that feed on detritus and form the bulk of macroinvertebrate standing stock.
Populations of freshwater shrimp are typically elevated in areas of sediment deposition.
The predicted decline in the abundance of freshwater shrimps associated with the trapping
of sediments is likely to have a corresponding decline in fish abundance that could extend
more than 90 km downstream, possibly extending the Kagera Estuary. The impacts of
sediment trapping on the abundance of shrimps (with implications for fish productivity) is
considered significant.
• Water quality changes during operation. Changes in surface water quality during operation are
expected to have at least two consequences for aquatic habitats and macroinvertebrates as
follows:
- Reduced Abundance of Macroinvertebrates Sensitive to Oxygen Depletion. Reduced
concentrations of dissolved oxygen downstream of the HPP caused by continued
decomposition of vegetation and accumulation of water hyacinth in the reservoir is likely to
reduce the abundance and diversity of macroinvertebrates sensitive to oxygen depletion,
such as heptageniid mayflies. This impact is likely to most affect macroinvertebrates in the
first 2 to 5 km downstream until the river water is reoxygenated through exposure to air.
This impact is non-significant due to the relatively small river reach affected and because
most aquatic biota in the Kagera River can tolerate low concentrations of oxygen; and
- Increased Risk of Pest Blackflies. Increased abundance of phytoplankton and zooplankton
that proliferate in standing water is expected to lead to proliferation of filter-feeding
macroinvertebrates, such as hydropsychid caddisflies and blackflies, in the river
downstream of the HPP. This impact could be significant if the river is colonised by a

member of the blackfly species complex that causes river blindness among humans,
namely Simulium damnosum. However, there do not appear to be any records of this
complex in or near the study area. The probability of Simulium damnosum becoming a pest
species downstream of the HPP is unknown but considered to be low.
This section focuses on mitigation measures that will be implemented during the operation phase.
Mitigation that needs to be implemented during construction or prior to reservoir filling which will reduce
the severity of aquatic impacts are not repeated here.
C.1 Mitigation for Water Quality and Sediment Impacts
Mitigation requirements that lead to improved water quality and sediment delivery during operation and
which are important for enhancing the aquatic ecosystem are covered in Section 7.3.2 and 7.3.3.
Run-of-river operation will maintain a constant full supply level and thereby reduce erosion and sediment
losses around the reservoir, and no specific measures are required to stabilise soils to facilitate
reestablishment of aquatic habitat.
C.2 Alien Invasive Plant Management
Alien invasive plant management will be required throughout operation to reduce the effects of alien plant
(water hyacinth) spread in the reservoir and downstream area (through overtopping of spillway in high
flows).
This will be done in accordance with an Alien Invasive Species Management and Monitoring Plan which will
be developed in alignment with successful initiatives previously carried out for the Kagera River Basin
Management Project and in accordance with other ongoing initiatives in Tanzania. This shall include
consideration of both biological control measures and physical harvesting and will give due attention to
reuse of harvested plant material.
• [M 51] An Aquatic Alien Invasive Plant Management and Monitoring Plan will be developed and
implemented to minimise the potential emergence of bilharzia, maintain access to fish pass inlet
improve water quality and limit impact on fish diversity and abundance (TANESCO).
Monitoring of aquatic alien invasive plants will continue on an annual basis through operation phase to
ensure that the management measures that will be detailed in the Aquatic Alien Invasive Plant Management
and Monitoring Plan are effective and to confirm adaptive management requirements.
C.3 Bilharzia Management
Partial mitigation of this impact can be achieved by implementing an integrated programme to control
bilharzia and liver fluke as follows:
• The Proponent will engage with Kagera Sugar Estate, Missenyi Ranch to encourage the following:
- Create awareness of the risks of bilharzia, water behaviour, and symptoms through
educational programmes for workers, residents and livestock owners, including children
and people living in and around the dam area. This shall include putting up posters at key
locations such as pumping stations;
- Encourage the Kagera Clinic to conduct routine checks for bilharzia to monitor potential
increase and whether it becomes prevalent in the area;
- Removal of aquatic vegetation from irrigation canals to reduce habitat available for
colonisation of snails;
- Provision of piped water, ablution and laundry facilities to workers to ensure the dam or
other standing water is used for these purposes;
• Billboard/posters will be put up at dam site facilities to raise awareness of staff and visitors of
risks, life-cycle and symptoms of bilharzia.

• Awareness raising sessions will be undertaken with Missenyi Clinic and Karagwe Clinic to inform
nurses and other staff of potential risks of bilharzia.

• [M 52] Bilharzia awareness sessions will be organised for workers and local communities and
bilharzia management measures implemented (TANESCO).
D.1 Reservoir Impacts
• Change in Aquatic Ecosystem and Macroinvertebrates: There is no mitigation possible for flooding
and conversion of 35 km of aquatic habitats from a flowing river (lotic) to still water body (lentic).
Although the reservoir will fragment connectivity between river and riparian habitats, the impact of
the reservoir body will remain non-significant given the wide distribution of these habitats along
the Kagera River and lack of threatened, restricted-range or migratory macroinvertebrate or
instream aquatic plants in the system.
• Accumulation of Aquatic Weeds: Rigorous and effective monitoring and management of aquatic
weeds on an ongoing basis will reduce the impact of aquatic weeds on aquatic ecosystems to non-
significant.
D.2 Downstream Impacts
• Reduction in Sediment Transport: Impacts on aquatic habitats and macroinvertebrates associated

with sediment trapping cannot be effectively mitigated. Occasional sediment sluicing will help to
supplement suspended sediment but will not contribute to bedload and is therefore unlikely to
influence the extent or rate of bed erosion and associated impacts on benthic biota. Overall, the
residual impacts associated with sediment starvation and bed and bank erosion on downstream
aquatic habitats and macroinvertebrates is considered non-significant under run-of river-
operation. The impact on freshwater shrimps is however expected to remain significant.
• Water Quality Changes: Apart from design improvements to reoxygenate released water from the
lower levels of the dam, the impact of water quality changes on downstream macroinvertebrates is
difficult to effectively mitigate. Residual impacts on macroinvertebrates will however remain non-
significant as water will naturally reoxygenate downstream from the dam and most
macroinvertebrate taxa in the river are adapted to low oxygen levels.
Continued annual aquatic biomonitoring in the Kagera River upstream and downstream of the proposed
HPP, as well as within the Kagera reservoir, will be undertaken throughout operation as a continuation from
the construction and filling phases (see Section 7.4.3.1E.2).
Transmission Line Construction and Operation
The key IPFs and baseline elements that need to be considered in the assessment of impacts on aquatic
habitats and macroinvertebrates are summarised in Table 7.41.
Factors that will impact on aquatic habitats overlap with those that affect water quality, through increased
pollution and turbidity. The risk of alien invasive plant spread is covered under the terrestrial ecology
impacts of the TL in Section 7.4.1.3. No operational impacts of the TL on aquatic habitats are expected and
therefore none have been identified and assessed.

Table 7.43 – Key IPFs & Baseline Elements for TL Impacts on Aquatic Habitats
Construction
1. Access road for TL -construction in • Seasonally inundated wetland Access roads may destroy wetland
wetlands habitats habitat if routed through wetlands.
• Aquatic macroinvertebrates and Access road construction may cause
other aquatic fauna (e.g. frogs) altered hydrology if culverts are
incorrectly designed and placed
resulting in seasonal flooding of
habitats.
2. Movement of construction vehicles • Seasonally inundated wetland Uncontrolled movement of
habitats and biota construction vehicles in wetland areas
• Hydromorphic soils in wetlands may cause destruction of seasonal
wetland habitat, mobilisation of
muddy anoxic sediments with knock
on effects on wetland biota, including
macroinvertebrates, fish, frogs, and
birds.
3. Presence of construction workers • Seasonally inundated wetland Construction workers may trample
during TL construction and stringing habitats and biota wetland vegetation and cause
• Water quality pollution through using habitats
around wetlands as a toilet, washing
vehicles near water bodies, and
littering.
4. Import of fill material for road • Seasonally inundated wetland Introduction of alien invasive plants
construction and tower foundations habitats and biota that may spread into wetland habitats
The TL will be located within a 35 m wide servitude (17.5 m either side of the centre line) within which an
unpaved access road of 4.5 m width will be required for construction and maintenance. An estimated
117 lattice type towers will be required each of which requires a working of approximately 15 x 15 m.
Construction activities are expected to take 21 months and may require approximately 100 construction
staff (10% of 1,000 dam workers). Stringing of the TL across the Mwisa River will involve construction
activities on either side of the river to construction the towers, but no construction works are expected in
the river course. Temporary camps for materials and equipment are likely to be required at different points
along the TL route.
In the western half of the route, the TL traverses through an undulating area of open woody vegetation with
some seasonally wet areas (see Section 7.4.3.3A.2). In the eastern half it traverses through settlement and
cultivation, where it crosses one river system– the Mwisa River.
The Mwisa River occurs 59 km downstream of the Kakono HPP and was surveyed at the bridge crossing of
the B182 tarred road. It was evaluated as Critically Modified. Stones-in-current were covered in a thick
growth of unidentified benthic algae colonised by red midges (Chironominae sp.), typical of polluted
conditions. High numbers of adult mosquitoes of the genus Mansonia were recorded in aerial sweep netting
of the riparian vegetation. Its poor condition is likely due to proximity to a large settlement, quarry and
recently upgraded bridge works. There was evidence of litter and old fishing nets and traps in the river,
presumably used during the high flow season. The area of the TL crossing of the Mwisa River is bordered
on both sides by dryland cultivation. To the west of the B182 road the TL will cross an extensive area of
sugar cane fields that are being developed before traversing open woodland ranching land.
Seasonally wet and marshy areas occur within the TL route where water collects in high rainfall conditions.
While these seasonally wet areas are not important for species of conservation concern, they do provide
habitat to a variety of macroinvertebrates which are important in the food chain for frogs, birds and other
animals. TL impacts on flora and fauna are covered under Section 7.4.1.3 and 7.4.2.3, respectively.
These areas can become boggy and difficult to traverse by vehicles, which may become stuck and cause
hydromorphic soils to become gullied and disturbed. This may mobilise anoxic sediments causing localised
water quality deterioration through turbidity and low oxygen conditions which may affect frogs and other
aquatic dependent biota in these seasonally wet areas.

B.1 Loss and Degradation of Aquatic Habitats and Macroinvertebrates from TL Construction
No major risks to aquatic ecosystems from TL construction are anticipated as the line is routed through a
largely terrestrial open woodland area and can be constructed across the degraded Mwisa River without
significant impacts.
The main potential impacts of TL construction on aquatic ecology is possible from access road construction
depending on whether the route traverses any wetland systems. The main risk to wetlands or seasonally
wet areas is likely to arise from incorrect placement and design of culverts which may affect the natural
surface hydrology and cause ponding. This typically occurs when the surface of the culvert is higher than
the natural ground surface or where insufficient culverts are installed which impedes flow through the
culverts and causes ponding. Incorrect installation of the culvert base may create a barrier to movement of
aquatic biota such as tadpoles, maybe fish, and frogs through culverts.
In addition, ponding along new access roads may contribute to breeding of mosquitos in stagnant water
which can be a nuisance and increase malaria risks to local residents and workers. This is not considered a
significant impact given the few residents living in the TL corridor to the west of the Mwisa River. It is
assumed that existing roads will be used to construct the TL to the east of the Mwisa River.
Other construction impacts on seasonal wetland systems in the TL corridor may arise from:
• Pollution of water or soils by fuels or other hazardous materials from leaks or spills from storage
areas, vehicle maintenance and cleaning vehicles in/near streams, or from waste effluent from
temporary camps;
• Uncontrolled driving of vehicles through the seasonal wetland habitats;
• Degradation of wetland habitat from construction worker behaviour such as trampling, fires,
littering and harvesting of plants or animals; and
• Spread of alien vegetation into wetlands if introduced on construction vehicles or in fill material.
Overall, the impacts of the TL on aquatic ecology is expected to be short term, of minor intensity, and of low
significance. The majority of impacts can be adequately controlled with the mitigation measures presented
in Section C below, many of which are standard industry practice.
B.2 Loss and Degradation of Aquatic Habitats and Macroinvertebrates from TL Maintenance and Operation
Maintenance and operation of the TL is not expected to have an impact on aquatic ecology along the
wayleave and is not considered further. The key risk to seasonally wet systems may arise from alien
invasive plants if they are inadequately controlled during the construction phase.
C.1 Pollution Control and Prevention
The pollution prevention and control measures described in Section 7.3.2.1C.1 will be implemented.
C.2 Access Road Construction and Vehicle Management
• Access roads shall be routed to avoid any seasonally wet areas or wetlands.
• Culverts shall be designed and constructed to ensure unimpeded flow of water and avoid ponding
of water. The base of culvert shall be level with the natural ground level to allow movement of
wetland biota (e.g. tadpoles, frogs etc).
• Construction vehicles will be restricted to designated tracks and turning areas. No deviation of
construction vehicles into wetland areas shall be permitted.
• Vehicle tracks, turning areas, parking and maintenance areas shall be demarcated on site and on
worksite layout plans.
• No maintenance of vehicles shall be located within 50 m of a water course or wetland. Any
emergency vehicle work shall use a mobile ‘bund’ to catch any oil or fuels. Any spillage shall be
collected and disposed of at a suitable facility for hazardous materials.

• Plan construction activities in low lying or seasonally wet areas to be undertaken in dry (low
rainfall) season.
• [M 53] The Project will plan for routing of access roads for the TL to avoid seasonally wet areas;
and carefully manage vehicles to limit impacts on natural terrestrial and aquatic habitats (EPC
Contractor).
D.1 Loss and Degradation of Aquatic Habitats and Macroinvertebrates from TL Construction
With implementation of the mitigation described in Section [C] above, particularly the correct routing and
location and design of culverts, surface hydrology will be maintained across the TL route and impacts on
aquatic features will be minimal and of negligible significance.
D.2 Loss and Degradation of Aquatic Habitats and Macroinvertebrates from TL Maintenance and Operation
As long as alien plants are managed and controlled effectively during the construction phase, and the TL
route is routinely checked and any alien plants removed post-construction, no residual impact on aquatic
features is expected and the impact will be insignificant.
E.1 Monitoring of Terrestrial Alien Invasive Plants and Erosion
The EPC contractor shall prepare a method statement for monitoring terrestrial alien invasive plants. An
onsite ECO will be appointed during TL construction and will undertake routine monitoring along the
wayleave to check for bare soil, erosion and alien invasive plants.
b Operation Phase
Post-construction, monitoring and removal of alien invasive plants will be undertaken on an annual basis
initially. TANESCO will develop a Terrestrial Alien Invasive Plan Management Plan for the operation phase.
This shall specify the expected alien plant species; clearance and disposal measures, and the target
threshold or key performance indicators that will determine the frequency of ongoing monitoring.
• [M 54] A Terrestrial Alien Invasive Monitoring and Control Plan for the TL wayleave operation will be
developed and implemented during at least the first two years of operation after which the
requirement will be re-evaluated.

Fish
Key sources of project impacts and the baseline elements which may be affected by dam construction and
reservoir filling and result in potential impacts are summarised in Table 7.44.
Table 7.44 – Key IPFs & Baseline Elements for Dam Construction and Reservoir Filling - Fish
Construction
1. Dam wall and Fish habitats comprising: • Direct and permanent loss of fish habitat
infrastructure • Floodplain wetland habitats and biotopes: around the dam wall.
2. Contamination of soil > Floodplain wetlands of Cyperus papyrus • Contamination of water by fuel, building
and water from dam and Vossia grass with slackwaters and materials and other chemicals toxic to fish
construction activities backwaters that provide refugia for many used in construction which are toxic to fish.
(causing degradation of fish species, particularly smaller restricted
water quality range fish (Enteromius sp., and Critically
3. Runoff of sediment Endangered Labeobarbus victorianus) • Direct effects of increased sedimentation
> Floodplain Forest/Thicket which are
from construction sites, and turbidity on fish through abrasion of
roads, unstable banks, seasonally flooded and provide refugia living tissue and mucous coating on gills,
excavated areas causing and breeding /feeding habitats for small clogging gill rakers and filaments.
increased turbidity of fish such as barbs (Enteromius sp.)
> Open deep river channel with strong
Kagera River
current within which larger fish may
migrate up and downstream. • Knock-on effects on macroinvertebrate
> Abundance and diversity of sensitive
fish food availability, particularly for the
macroinvertebrates (e.g. freshwater invertivore guild, but also for juveniles of
prawns, mayflies, syrphids) as a result of most species. Gonad development of
degradation in water quality and turbidity sexually mature fish will be retarded, and
(described in Section 7.4.3.1) fecundity reduced. Growth of young fish
will be impaired, and recruitment reduced.
Reservoir Filling (Note: Dam as obstacle to migration is addressed in Section 7.4.3.2)
4. Inflow of water into • River with various flowing-water habitats • Loss of flowing-water-adapted (rheophilic)
reservoir transformed to open water body of reservoir. fish guilds with standing water (lentic) and
eurytopic tolerant fish guilds.
5. Inflow water quality • Water quality characteristics –levels of • Parts of the reservoir which fall below
influenced by Dissolved Oxygen, N and P altered as 5 mg/l will become uninhabitable to most
catchment remaining vegetation rots and becomes fish guilds except for the eurytopic
characteristics; naturally anoxic. tolerant guild.
high turbidity, nutrient
enrichment and floating
water hyacinth
6. Reduced volume of • Drying out of seasonally inundated • Loss or interruption of spawning by
downstream discharge Floodplain Woodland/Thicket Habitat floodplain-dependent species including
during filling (depending on season and annual runoff L. victorianus.
magnitude) • Loss of marginal slackwater, backwater
• Floodplain habitats near terrestrial margins and floodplain woodland habitats used by
may dry out depending on duration of low Enteromius barbs.
downstream discharge during filling. • Impacts will be temporary and reversible.
7. Downstream discharge • Dissolved oxygen thresholds in the river • DO levels below the tolerance limits for
with marginally downstream of the reservoir of 4-5 mg/l most fishes except for the eurytopic
increased Nitrogen and tolerant guild.
Phosphorous; lower • Fish adopt avoidance behaviour which
Dissolved Oxygen (of 4- would interrupt or migration.
5 mg/l)
A.2 Key Relevant Elements of Baseline
Aquatic habitats of importance to macroinvertebrates are applicable to fish and are adequately summarised
in Section 7.4.3.1A.2 above, and in the baseline chapter (Section 5). This section focusses on the fish guilds,
priority fish species and their specific habitat requirements (including river flow conditions) that will be
impacted by the Project.

Key elements of the baseline relevant to the discussion of project impacts on fish is set out below:
a River Reaches and Aquatic Habitats
The river reaches and aquatic habitats of the Kagera River in the AoI are characterised by:
• Upper reach (Kikagati Falls – Kakono (68 km): steeper gradient with faster flowing current; rapids
and braided sections, and narrow band of fringing Cyperus papyrus-Vossia dominated floodplain
vegetation. Few backwaters and slackwaters present.
• Middle reach (Kakono to Mwisa (59 km)); gentle gradient with slower water speeds, more
meandering river course and wider band of floodplain wetland vegetation (mosaic of papyrus and
Vossia) with occasional seasonally flooded oxbows. Some sections with steep cliffs of alluvial
sediments.
• Lower reach (Kyaka to Ngono (71 km): wide meandering river course of low to almost flat gradient,
with slower velocity and extensive mosaic of floodplain vegetation. Extensive grassy seasonally
flooded floodplains near the confluence of Ngono River 132 km downstream of Kakono HPP. More
human settlement and floodplain agriculture.
b Fish Guilds
The fish community of the Lower Kagera River can be classed into different fish guilds based on their habitat
preferences and tolerance of flowing versus standing water. These guilds help to determine how different
groups of fish will respond to changes brought about by the Project. In summary, the fish guilds and key
species within each are:
• Lotic & Semi Lotic (flowing and semi-flowing water) – comprising:
- Main channel (eupotamonic) residents that select moderate to high water current speeds
and rocky, or gravel substrates and for spawning (lithophilic). This includes Labeobarbus
altianalis (LC) and L. acuticeps (NT) which undertake medium distance migrations to
upstream riffles or rapids for spawning biannually between March to April and August to
September.
- Main channel species (eupotamonic) generally which spawn on vegetated (phytophilic)
floodplains. This includes the Schilbe and Labeo species, including the Labeo victorianus
(CR), an important critical habitat qualifying species. L. victorianus is believed to use
floodplains and spawns biannually (Mar-May, Sep-Nov). These species are most at risk from
the barrier to migration posed by the Kakono HPP.
- Species requiring intermediate conditions between flowing and standing backwater and
slackwaters along channel margins (parapotamonic). This includes many of the Enteromius
barbs which do not have strong swimming abilities and inhabit the channel margins of the
Kagera i.e., the interface between high and slower current speeds in proximity to marginal
vegetation. This guild accounts for 25% of the species richness in the lower Kagera River.
• Lentic (standing water) comprising:

- Species tolerant of lentic (standing water) in the floodplain with low oxygen / anoxic
conditions (plesiopotamonic). This includes species like the lungfish (Protopterus
aethiopicus) and smoothhead catfish (Clarias liocephalus) which are the dominant fish
caught by local fishermen. These fish are more adaptable to a range of conditions and less
likely to be impacted by the Kakono HPP. They are widely distributed, common, and none
are considered restricted range or threatened.
• Eurytopic (generalist) comprising:

- Species using a wide range of main channel and floodplain habitats (eupotamonic benthic).
This group comprises mostly the mormyridae which use a wide a range of main channel and
floodplain habitats and which undertake longitudinal and lateral migrations onto floodplains
and swamps on river margins for breeding.
- Species using a wide range of vegetated habitats in lakes and rivers (eupotamonic
phytophilic). This includes the cichlids (Haplochromis, Oreochromis and Astatotilapia) which
use the main channel, floodplains and riparian and emergent vegetation along channel
margins.

- Species known to spawn in rock substrate (eupotamonic lithophilic). This includes a single
species – semutundu (Bagrus docmak) which is likely migratory in the Kagera River.
• Eurytopic (tolerant) comprising:

- Species tolerant of a wide range of flow and water quality conditions and represented by
the sharptooth catfish (Clarias gariepinus). This guild is expected to comprise a greater
proportion of the community under altered flow and degraded habitat conditions.
The lentic and eurytopic guilds are considered likely to adapt to lake or reservoir environments, as well as
to more uniform flow conditions in reaches regulated up upstream impoundments.
c Threatened and Range-Restricted Species
Threatened and restricted range species in the Kakono HPP AoI are summarised in Table 7.44. Eleven fish
species trigger critical habitat in the whole AoI; three species under Criterion 1: Endangered and Critically
Endangered; four species under Criterion 2: Range-restricted and five species under Criterion 3: Migratory
species. More detail on these fish is provided in Section 5 (Priority Fish and Potential New Species) and in
the Critical Habitat Assessment (Section 7.5). The most important ones are:
• Labeo victorianus (ningu): Critically Endangered, Migratory and Endemic to Lake Victoria Basin).
Occurs in several feeder rivers and Lake Victoria but Kagera River considered an important refuge
for this once widespread abundant species which has been overfished throughout its range.
Individuals were caught upstream of Kakono HPP near Kikagati and in the reach below the dam
(just upstream of Mwisa). It triggers critical habitat for Criterion 1 and 3.
• Oreochromis variabilis and O. escultentus have been included as their EOO includes the lower
Kagera River where they have been confirmed upstream of Kakono, although neither were caught
during the 2020 surveys.
• Enteromius barbs: Three undescribed species are considered restricted range to the middle and
lower Kagera River Basin of which two species were collected in the reservoir area in 2020 and
later found elsewhere in the Kagera Basin in 2022. In the Kagera River, these barbs appear to
prefer the slower flowing backwaters along or within floodplain vegetation but two species were
recorded in the fast-flowing Ngono River.
• Migratory species: Several species of migratory fish occur in the Kagera of which five are
considered Critical Habitat-qualifying species. Of these, only one is listed by IUCN as threatened:
L. victorianus (CR). Labeobarbus altianalis and L. acuticeps are considered rheophilic and migrate to
spawn in upstream rapids, while Brycinus and Labeo victorianus are floodplain spawners. The two
Brycinus species were not recorded during the 2020 surveys. Other species believed to be
migratory in the Kagera and confirmed during the 2020 surveys include Bagrus docmak, Schilbe
intermedius, Clarias gariepinus and² Synodontis afrofischeri.
B.1 Loss and Degradation of Fish Communities During Dam Construction
The impacts of dam construction activities on the fish community in the Kagera River within the immediate
vicinity and downstream of the dam construction site will arise from:
• Direct loss of aquatic habitat: Dam construction will cause a permanent loss of fish habitats for
construction of the dam wall, coffer dams, diversion canal and other facilities in or immediately
adjacent to the Kagera River. Affected aquatic habitats will include main channel, slackwater and
backwater habitats, together with floodplain wetlands and woodlands within which restricted
range species such as Enteromius barb species and some individuals of critically endangered Labeo
victorianus have been recorded. Although the aquatic habitats affected by dam construction
represents a relatively small proportion of the total available fish habitat in the Lower Kagera River,
dam construction will destroy and fragment fish habitat which is evaluated as critical habitat for
fish and the impact is therefore considered significant.
• Water quality degradation: Contamination of soil and water by runoff of fuel, building materials and
other chemicals toxic to fish from dam construction activities. All aquatic habitats downstream of
the construction areas will be affected. Most fish guilds will be affected except for the eurytopic
tolerant guild (esp. Clarias gariepinus). Affects will last for the duration of the construction phase
and attenuate with increasing distance downstream as contaminants become increasingly diluted,

i.e., effects will be medium-term and localised. Pollution events are likely to coincide with high
rainfall-runoff events when contaminants will be washed into the river. The toxicity to fish will
depend on the size of the spill and concentrations in the receiving river. Most pollution events are
likely to be sub-lethal. Fish populations may adopt avoidance behaviour, i.e., the fish may move
away from affected areas and recolonisation from downstream refuges is expected following
cessation of the contamination events. The impact is limited in spatial and temporal extent, and is
considered non-significant.
• Increased sediment loads: Runoff of sediment from construction sites, roads, unstable banks and
excavated areas. The degradation of water quality by high sediments releases into the river may be
sporadic and associated with high rainfall-runoff events and will last for the duration of the
construction phase activities. Higher sediments loads will increase turbidity which impairs prey
capture by fish which will impact the invertivore guild (including Enteromius barbs) and the larval
and juvenile phases of most other fish guilds. Suspended sediment increases abrasion of living
tissue, removes mucous coating on gills and clogs gill rakers and filaments. This is likely to be sub-
lethal but will result in increase in stress levels will contribute to reduced growth rates and
fecundity and fish condition. Effects are expected to be sub-lethal medium-term depletion of fish
populations and result in avoidance behaviour, i.e., fish are likely to move away from the affected
areas (i.e., 10 to 30 km downstream of the construction site). Recolonisation from downstream
refuges is expected following cessation of activities. Avoidance of the affected reaches may also
interrupt fish migrations for the duration of the elevated suspended sediment loading. Increased
sediment deposition along channel margins and floodplains may smother fish habitat and
spawning areas and reduce fish recruitment and abundances of floodplain spawners including
L. victorianus. The impact is limited in spatial and temporal extent, and because fish are relatively
tolerant of high suspended sediment loads, the impact is considered non-significant.

Table 7.45 –Summary of Fish Species that Trigger Critical Habitat in Different Zones of the Kagera Basin
IUCN Critical Habitat Criteria Extent of Occurrence Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3
Species Fish Family
status 1[1] 2[2] 3[3] (km2) Downstream Kakono Upstream
Labeo victorianus Cyprinidae 1a 1a 1a
CR Yes - Yes 206,062
3a 3a (?) 3a
Oreochromis variabilis Cichlidae CR Yes - - 261,828 1a 1a 1a
Oreochromis esculentus Cichlidae CR Yes - - 208,622 1a - -
Enteromius “3-spot” (cf. cercops) Cyprinidae NE - Yes - Unknown 2a 2a
Enteromius “3-spot” (anal spot) Cyprinidae NE - Yes - Unknown 2a 2a
Enteromius cf. atkinsoni Cyprinidae NE - Yes - Unknown 2a 2a -
Enteromius “broken stripe” Cyprinidae NE - Yes - Unknown 2a 2a -
Enteromius nyanzae Cyprinidae LC - Yes - 13,827 - 2a 2a
Zaireichthys sp. nov Amphiliidae NE (DD?) - - - - 2a -
Labeobarbus acuticeps Cyprinidae NT - Yes - 3,257 - (?) 2a
Brycinus jacksonii Alestidae LC - - Yes 230,691 3a 3a(?) 3a(?)
Brycinus sadleri Alestidae LC - - Yes 3a(?) 3a(?) 3a
Labeobarbus altianalis Cyprinidae LC - - Yes 244,889 3a(?) 3a 3a
Labeobarbus acuticeps Cyprinidae NT - - Yes 3,257 - 3a(?) 3a
Notes
[1]
Criterion 1: (a) CR/EN Species and (b) VU species: 1a) Areas that support globally important concentrations of an IUCN Red-listed EN or CR species (≥ 0.5% of the global population AND ≥ 5 reproductive units of a
CR or EN species) and 1b) Areas that support globally important concentrations of an IUCN Red-listed Vulnerable (VU) species, the loss of which would result in the change of the IUCN Red List status to
[2]
Criterion 2: Endemic & Restricted Range Species: Areas that regularly hold ≥10% of the global population size AND ≥10 reproductive units of a species.
[3]
Criterion 3: Migratory Species: Areas known to sustain, on a cyclical or otherwise regular basis, ≥ 1 percent of the global population of a migratory or congregatory species at any point of the species’ lifecycle.
(?) = EOO (IUCN 2018) suggests it does occur here but has not been recorded in surveys or has been recorded in surveys but not in the EOO.

B.2 Loss and Degradation of Downstream Fish Habitats and Associated Fish from Water Quality Changes During
Reservoir Filling
The impacts of dam construction activities on the fish community in the Kagera River within the immediate
vicinity, as well as upstream and downstream of the dam construction site will arise from:
• Inflow of water: Inflow of water into the reservoir will permanently transform previously flowing
water (lotic) aquatic habitats to standing water (lentic) aquatic habitats along 35 km of river and
~625 ha of aquatic habitat. This will include main channel flowing-water habitat, Floodplain
Wetlands (154 ha) and Floodplain Woodland (135 ha) which are considered critical habitat for fish.
The loss will be permanent for main channel habitat, but some Floodplain habitat will establish
along the newly inundated reservoir shoreline. The fish community structure will shift in favour of
guilds and species better adapted to lake-like environments with attendant loss of flowing-water
adapted (rheophilic) fish guilds. Floodplain habitats will be drowned out, but new floodplain habitat
will become available along parts of the reservoir margins (discussed more under Operational
Phase Impacts in Section 7.4.4.2). The impact is considered significant since it would impact a
considerable proportion of flowing water habitats associated with the lotic parapotamonic guild
(including the Enteromius barb community) which may be competitively excluded by a shoreline
community dominated by cichlids.
• Water quality in reservoir: The release of nutrients by flooded biomass in the inundated reservoir is
expected to deplete Dissolved Oxygen (DO) to 4 to 5 mg/l in the first year after filling from 8.5 mg/l
for the baseline. Those parts of the reservoir which fall below 5 mg/l will become uninhabitable to
most fish guilds except for the eurytopic tolerant guild (Clarias and Protopterus spp.) which are
resistant to low DO levels. These are species targeted by local subsistence fishers therefore
livelihoods will not be impacted. DO levels will remain low (5 to 6 mg/l) during the first five years
post-filling and those parts of the reservoir which are not mixed may remain uninhabitable for fish
guilds with a low tolerance for reduced DO. During the reservoir filling phase, the impact on water
quality and fish is limited in spatial and temporal extent and is considered non-significant.
• Reduced volume of downstream discharge during filling: Filling the reservoir during a dry year
would prevent floodplain activation downstream of the dam. Failure of floodplain activation would
prevent spawning by floodplain-dependent guilds in the year of filling but is not considered
significant since it would not induce irreversible impacts since such failures have occurred naturally
in the past and reservoir filling is a once-off event.
• Lower dissolved oxygen downstream of dam: Dissolved oxygen thresholds in the river downstream
of the reservoir of 4-5 mg/l are considered below the tolerance limits for most fishes in the Kagera
River except for the eurytopic tolerant guild (Clarias and Protopterus spp.). These effects are
predicted to occur for the first ~5 km downstream of the reservoir in the first year after filling.
Thereafter, they will increase and remain above acceptable limits for the lifespan of the dam. Thus,
the impacts will be localised and reversible, inducing avoidance behaviour which may also disrupt
migration in the year following filling. However, since the impact is limited in spatial and temporal
extent, it is considered non-significant.
While some of the individual impacts of reservoir filling described above are non-significant, the overall
impact of reservoir filling on fish is significant primarily due to the permanent loss and fragmentation of
aquatic habitats which qualify as critical habitat for fish, notably Labeo victorianus and other migratory fish,
and restricted range Enteromius barbs (although none of these species are restricted entirely to the Project
Area of Influence). This will require compensation measures to achieve net gain of biodiversity to meet
lender policies. Options to achieve net gain are described further under Section 7.5 and are not evaluated
here.
Mitigation measures comprise measures proposed for the control of water pollution (Section 7.3.2),
sediment control (Section 7.3.3) and aquatic habitats (Section 7.4.3). A fish pass has been recommended as
a mitigation measure for fish migration (see Section 7.4.4.2C.1) but the impacts of its construction and
operation on the Kakono Stream is discussed below.

D.1 Impact on the Kakono Stream due to Construction and Operation of a fish pass
Construction of the fish pass using the Kakono Stream will require excavation of a connecting open channel
of approximately 330 m between an inflow control structure in the embankment dam to regulate and
convey water from the reservoir into the stream. The channel would have embedded rocks and other
features to provide for hydraulic sheltering and flow resistance to enhance ecological functionality. From
this newly created open channel, the additional water would then flow down the natural Kakono stream for
300 m before flowing out into the Kagera River below the dam wall. Currently, the Kakono Stream is a small
natural water course of approximately 2-3 m width and with partial rock banks and other mud banks
stabilised by riparian trees and shrubs.
Vegetation types along the lower Kakono Stream comprises i) Riparian forest/thicket with dominant species
of Drypetes gerrardii, Teclea nobilis and Argomuellera macrophylla; and ii) Floodplain woodland with low
thicket dominated by V. kirkii; Ipomoea rubens and Triumfetta cordifolia. An estimated 69 species was
recorded in riparian woodland and 91 in floodplain woodland in the project area. No threatened, near
threatened or restricted range species were found in either habitat types. Riparian forest has a high
ecological importance due it being highly localised with potential to host species of conservation concern
and is generally in a relatively intact ecological state. Bird diversity in riparian forest and floodplain woodland
are relatively high with 69 and 90 species, respectively, of which eight were found only in riparian
forest. Mammal diversity and abundance is also relatively high in the Kakono stream area compared to
other surveyed sites in the project area, with evidence of olive baboon, duiker, reedbuck, bushbuck, various
mongooses, and aardvark. No threatened or restricted range bird or mammal species were recorded.
In terms of aquatic habitats, during the low flow season, these comprise temporary shallow pools with mud
substrate interspersed by riffle habitat with cobble substrate, and overhanging vegetation. The Kakono
Stream was confirmed to be of low ecological importance for aquatic macroinvertebrates, exhibited by the
low abundance and diversity and lack of sensitive species. Macroinvertebrates were dominated by the
Gerridae (Limnogonus sp.) in pool habitats with two species of blackflies recorded in riffle habitats, namely
Simulium unicornutum and a member of the S. alcocki group. No fish were collected due to the low water
levels.
The stream comprises a mix of reaches with rock, pebbles and mud substrates and overhanging vegetation
which provides diverse fish habitats. the Kakono Stream annual average flow would be between 0.2 and
0.05 m3/s. In order to operate as a fish pass the volume of water conveyed from the dam to the fish pass
would need to maintain a flow rate of 2-4 m3/s. An additional ~0.5m3/s would be released in flood periods
to simulate spawning conditions. However, a higher flow totalling 5-7m3/s would be required at the outlet
of the Kakono Stream in the Kagera River to create attraction flows to stimulate and facilitate the fish to
preferentially move up the Kakono Stream. This additional water would either be released from the
embankment wall down the full Kakono Stream or via a channel from the tail race outfall area.
The use of the Kakono Stream as a fish pass will therefore affect the ~300 m length of stream downstream
of the reservoir outflow to its confluence with the Kagera River. The increased flow volume and velocity
down the Kakono Stream is anticipated to cause bank erosion without preventative measures. This issue
will be addressed through bank reinforcement and reshaping of the stream profile to achieve a 1:100
average slope where needed, including the creation of resting pools for fish as they move
upstream. Riparian vegetation along the river course will be retained as far as possible to maintain a near-
natural stream course. These measures are expected to be effective at preventing significant erosion if
design and protection measures are executed correctly and monitored for erosion, with implementation of
additional corrective measures where required. Detailed design would determine the precise design and
protection measures for the fish pass, including management of sediment deposits and tree root incursion.
The alteration of the water course to cater for the fish pass is likely to have a non-significant impact on the
ecology of the Kakono Stream.
D.2 Loss and Degradation of Fish Communities During Dam Construction
• Direct loss of fish habitat: The loss of aquatic habitat attributable to the dam wall and project
infrastructure footprint and construction facilities and quarries cannot be mitigated but will require
compensation to achieve net gain of critical habitat. Although the fish habitats contain threatened
and restricted range fish species, the loss of habitat for dam construction is limited to a relatively
small footprint and the affected habitats are widely available upstream and downstream of the

dam. Although the construction-related habitat loss represents a small proportion of the total
available fish habitat in the system the loss and fragmentation of aquatic habitat for dam
construction is considered significant. However, the loss of habitat for the reservoir is much greater
than the area impacted by dam construction, and is discussed under D2 below.
• Water quality degradation: Contamination of soil and water during dam construction by runoff of
fuel, building materials and other chemicals toxic to fish can be mitigated to an extent by standard
pollution control measures. However, some level of contaminants may enter directly, or leach into
the river. The residual impacts are considered insignificant since contamination events may be
sporadic or temporary (associated with high rainfall events or accidental spills), of limited duration
in the construction phase) and pollutants will be rapidly diluted downstream.
• Increased sediment loads: Runoff of sediment from construction sites, roads, unstable banks and
excavated areas is still likely to occur despite mitigation and to result in degradation of water
quality by high sediments with knock on effects for fish. This will occur particularly during high
rainfall events throughout the construction phase until disturbed areas are reinstated. The residual
impact of sediment loading is considered insignificant based on the reversibility of the impact, the
relatively short duration construction phase, the limited extent of river affected (10 -30 km
downstream, diluting with distance) and the fact that most fish guilds are tolerant to the naturally
occurring fairly high suspended sediment loads.
D.3 Loss and Degradation of Downstream Fish Habitats and Associated Fish from Water Quality Changes During
Reservoir Filling
• Inflow of water: The impact of reservoir filling on aquatic habitats and replacement with standing
water (lentic) habitats cannot be mitigated. The residual impact of the permanent loss of 600 ha of
riverine and floodplain habitats for 35 km of river remains a significant impact due to the confirmed
presence of the critically endangered L. victorianus and other migratory species as well as low
numbers of three restricted range and undescribed Enteromius barb species. The barbs are unlikely
to adapt to the new reservoir but have been confirmed to occur in other locations in the Kagera
Basin, while the migratory species are expected to adapt to the reservoir (if an effective fish pass is
installed).
• Water quality: Clearing of vegetation from the reservoir prior to filling is expected to reduce the risk
of DO levels dropping below 5 mg/l which is above the threshold considered limiting to most fish
and which is predicted to facilitate establishment of fish in the reservoir. Parts of the reservoir
where DO levels are below 5 mg/l may remain uninhabitable to some fish guilds which are less
resistant to low DO levels until DO levels reach an equilibrium. Overall, the impact of water quality
changes in the reservoir on fish during filling is considered insignificant.
• Reduced volume of downstream discharge during filling: If the recommended environmental flow is
maintained during the few weeks of reservoir filling, a drop in floodplain activation in that year may
result in some reduction in fish recruitment but which is likely to be within the range of normal
naturally occurring events. Since reservoir filling is a short, once-off event, the possible reduction
in fish recruitment that may occur is considered insignificant.
Overall, the residual impact of construction and reservoir filling on fish remains significant primarily due to
the permanent loss, fragmentation and transformation of aquatic habitats that comprise critical habitat for
fish. Options for compensating this impact (e.g. protection of similar habitats in other parts of the
catchment) are described in Section 7.5.
Fish monitoring of the upstream and downstream reaches of the Kagera River will commence at least one
year prior to dam construction and continue through construction and reservoir filling and will be
undertaken twice per year until results confirm stabilisation of the fish community. Additional fish survey
data will serve to improve the baseline understanding of fish diversity, abundance, habitat preferences and
seasonality and may provide additional information that will allow adaptive management and
improvements in design of the fish pass and attraction flows. The monitoring will include:
• Biannual surveys during the period of dam construction and reservoir filling should be undertaken
at intermediate flows on the rising flow (April/May) and falling flow (October/November). Surveys
should be undertaken in the reservoir area and along the lower Kagera River (including the Kagera
Estuary).

• A detailed Fish Monitoring Plan will be developed prior to construction in partnership with the
Directorate of Fisheries Resources in Uganda and the Tanzanian Fish Research Institute (TAFIRI).
The plan will set out the survey sites, survey methods, data to be recorded, data analysis and
reporting requirements, responsibilities, and shall include templates for field data and data entry. It
should also include a protocol for data sharing.
• The fish monitoring shall involve active participation of staff of local institutions such as the
Tanzanian Fish Research Institute (TAFIRI) to ensure survey results and implications of the project
are known and understood by nationals.
• Fish monitoring results shall be publicly disclosed and stored in a publicly available repository e.g.
TAFIRI.

• [M 55] A fish monitoring programme will be undertaken in partnership with the Ugandan and
Tanzanian Fisheries Departments in the Kagera River upstream and downstream of the proposed
dam, including Kagera Estuary, on a biannual basis. Monitoring will start at least one year prior to
construction and continue until fish community stabilises or results confirm extent of impact.
Monitoring results will be publicly disclosed (TANESCO).
Run-of-River Operation
Key impact producing factors and the main baseline elements which lead to potential impacts on fish are
summarised in Table 7.46 as context for the assessment of fish impacts in this section.
Table 7.46 – Key IPFs & Baseline Elements for Dam Operation - Fish
1. Dam wall of 31 m height above river • Presence of migratory fish in • Dam will pose a barrier preventing
level surface across the Kagera River. Kagera River such as Critically migration of fish upstream of the
Endangered Labeobarbus Kakono reservoir in absence of a viable
victorianus and several other fish pass.
more widespread species. • Dam will fragment previously genetically
• Presence of Nsongezi and continuous populations into
Kikagati Falls upstream of subpopulations.
proposed Kakono reservoir. • Downstream migrating fish will be
hindered. Physical trauma or mortality
may result from fish being drawn into
the turbines or over the spillways.
2 Downstream migration and turbine All fish guilds • The dam wall will present a barrier to
mortality. downstream migrating fishes.
• Turbine mortalities will be incurred
through blade strike or extreme
pressure or hydrostatic shock.
3 Fragmentation of previously All fish guilds • Previously continuous populations will
continuous fish populations. be structured into genetically distinct
subpopulations and reduce
opportunities for recolonisation which
will reduce a species resilience to
environmental change over the long
term.
4 Presence of 35 km long water body of • Variety of fish species adapted • Change of dam to a lentic (still) water
in place of flowing river. to flowing river and feeding and body will lead to altered fish community
spawning in floodplain habitats. favouring those adapted to still water
• Few alien invasive fish present in e.g. haplochromine cichlids. This will
Kagera River in Kakono HPP depend on how many fish populate the
area, including only occasional reservoir from upstream and how
catches of Nile perch. None successful the proposed fishway will
caught during 2020 surveys. allow colonisation from downstream.
• Reservoir may encourage development
of aquaculture projects for alien invasive
Nile perch and tilapia, which may


predate on L. victorianus and other
native species in the reservoir.
5 The increased permanently flooded Subsistence fishers • Fish production is expected to be highest
lentic conditions following inundation immediately after dam closure with
is likely to increase fish production in increased productivity as a consequence
the reservoir. Fishers are likely to of the decomposition of newly flooded
benefit from the higher catch rates vegetation, will decline thereafter, but
which will support livelihoods and will remain higher than in the pre-
generate higher income levels than is impoundment river.
presently the case in the Kakono HPP • Fishers will benefit from higher
reach. abundance and diversity of catches.
6 Invasion of the reservoir by alien fish All fish species, notably • Increasing the availability of lentic
species, notably Nile perch and tilapia. Enteromius barbs and habitat in the inundated reaches
haplochromine cichlids. upstream of the dam would increase the
risk of the spread of invasive alien fishes
which may prey on or outcompete the
native fish communities present in the
reservoir notably Enteromius barbs and
haplochromine cichlids.
7 Decline in abundance and diversity of Invertivore fish guild. • Increased turbidity of Kagera River water
sensitive macroinvertebrates (e.g. downstream of dam impacting on fish
freshwater prawns, mayflies, syrphids) through macroinvertebrates as food for
as a result of degradation in water fish with knock on effects on fish
quality and turbidity (described in abundance.
Section 7.4.3.1). Change in • Decline in the abundance of some
macroinvertebrates from benthic flow- Mormyrid species, favourable habitats
dependent species to zooplanktonic created for pelagic and semi-pelagic fish
taxa. species.
8 Sediment trapping in dam leading to • Riverbanks and cliffs of highly • Erosion of riverbanks downstream of
drop out of larger sand and cobbles at erodible, unconsolidated alluvial the dam wall leading to bank collapse
upper end of reservoir and transport of sediments downstream of dam. will degrade the quality of slackwater
large proportion of suspended • Floodplain wetland habitats and and backwater habitats for the
sediment with nutrients through biotopes: Enteromius barb and haplochromine
turbines. • Floodplain wetlands of Cyperus cichlid communities which likely use
papyrus and Vossia grass with these habitats spawning and feeding
and to escape high velocities in the main
slackwaters and backwaters that
provide refugia for many fish channel.
species, particularly smaller • Erosion of floodplain edge and reduced
restricted range fish (Enteromius sedimentation used by L. victorianus for
sp.), and Critically Endangered spawning.
Labeobarbus victorianus.
• Floodplain Forest/Thicket which
are seasonally flooded and
provide refugia and breeding
/feeding habitats for small fish
such as barbs (Enteromius sp.).
• Open deep river channel with
strong current within which
larger fish may migrate up and
downstream.
A.2 Key Relevant Elements of Baseline
The baseline features of the area of influence of dam operation are described under Dam Construction and
Reservoir Filling in Section 7.4.4.1. Specifically, the area affected includes the reaches downstream of the
dam which comprises a widening of the Kagera River main channel and floodplain habitats of increasing
width as the river gradient declines and river flow velocity drops. As for the reservoir area, the river reaches
below the dam also comprise critical habitat for restricted range species such as Enteromius sp.; threatened
species such as the Critically Endangered Labeo victorianus and several other migratory species.

The impacts of dam operation on fish habitats and fish are described below:
B.1 Dam Structure as a Barrier to Upstream Migration
The dam wall will present a barrier to cyclically predictable seasonal fish migrations for spawning and
feeding purposes. Migrations onto floodplains by phytophilic guilds (e.g. L. victorianus), or to riffles or rapids
by lithophilic guilds (e.g. L. altianalis) for spawning is expected to occur among Kagera River fish populations
in the affected reaches. Migration of local populations of L. victorianus in the vicinity of the Kakono HPP will
be affected if they are not able to access upstream floodplains but subpopulations will persist in reaches
downstream of the reservoir where there is sufficient floodplain spawning habitat available. L. altianalis are
believed to be rheophilic gravel-bed spawners and likely to migrate upstream up to 80 km to spawn during
the wet season. The presence of suitable rheophilic environments in the reaches potentially inundated by
the Kakono HPP suggests that these reaches provide important habitat for this species. However, both L.
victorianus and L. altianalis may adapt to the lake environment formed by the dam provided they can access
upstream rheophilic and floodplain spawning areas. In addition to these species, a number of other obligate
migratory fish species in the Kagera River may require access to upstream habitats. Without mitigation (in
the form of a viable fish pass), the dam wall as a barrier to upstream migration is considered a significant
impact since it will preclude access to upstream spawning and feeding sites by migratory fish species and
because it would render fishways being constructed or planned on the Kikagati and Nsongezi HPPs
ineffective.
B.2 Fragmentation, Gene Flow and Recolonisation
The dam wall structure will divide previously continuous fish populations into genetically distinct
subpopulations potentially causing inbreeding depression. Opportunities for recolonisation from upstream
and downstream reaches following disturbance events like droughts and floods will also be reduced. The
Kakono HPP will form a barrier to gene flow and recolonisation for all fish guilds which will reduce species
resilience to environmental change over the long term. The Kagera River upstream of Nsongezi is
considered an important refuge for L. victorianus populations. If environmental disturbances (e.g.
eutrophication of Lake Victoria, or increased fishing pressure) impact lake populations, the Kagera River
would be an important source of recruits from refuge populations. To some extent the severity of this
impact is reduced by the 175 km downstream reach of the Kagera River with extensive floodplains that
would also serve as source areas for recolonisation (but which are subject to higher fishing pressures). In
the absence of mitigation, the impact of Kakono HPP on fish population fragmentation and gene flow is
considered significant since it will permanently fragment subpopulations and reduce potential for
recolonisation of downstream reaches and Lake Victoria by upstream fish populations over the long term.
B.3 Downstream Migration & Turbine Mortality
The dam wall will present a barrier to downstream migrating fish species. Downstream migrations are
important for adult fish wishing to return to downstream feeding habitat, or juvenile fish moving
downstream post-spawning. Active downstream migrations are undertaken by adult fish returning to
feeding habitats after spawning. Passive migrations are undertaken by the larvae or juveniles of some
species post-hatching. These are carried downstream by the water current to more favourable
environments for growth and development. Larger-bodied fish (>18cm total length) will experience
physical trauma if their speed over the spillway exceeds 15 to 16m/s which is expected to occur on the
Kakono HPP spillway. Furthermore, fish mortalities will occur during downstream migrations as a result of
fish being drawn through the turbines, or when fish are flushed over spillways that have a height sufficient
to cause physical trauma. Turbine mortalities will be incurred through blade strike or extreme pressure
changes (hydrostatic shock). Blocking the downstream migration of Kagera River fish is considered
significant a significant impact since it precludes recolonisation of downstream reaches and fragments
populations (see Fragmentation, gene flow and recolonisation below).
B.4 Presence of Reservoir on Fish Community
The reservoir will permanently transform 600 ha of previously flowing water (lotic) aquatic habitats to
standing water (lentic) aquatic habitats as described under Reservoir Filling in Section 7.4.4.1B.1. This
transformation will have the following consequences on fish:

• The fish community structure in the reservoir will shift in favour of guilds and species better
adapted to lake-like environments as well as to eurytopic (low oxygen) tolerant species such as
Clarias and Protopterus spp. The new reservoir fish community is expected to resemble the
upstream wetland-lake fish communities more closely, but only to the extent that species are able
to disperse into and colonise the reservoir from upstream.
• The transition from river to a lake-adapted fish community structure is likely to follow a
successional pattern with different species dominating at different post-filling stages. Not all
rheophilic (flowing water) species are likely to be lost however, and the fish community is likely to
follow a cline from lotic- to lentic-adapted species from the upper end of the reservoir to the dam
wall.
• Cichlids and the eurytopic tolerant guilds species are likely to stay the same or increase, minor or
no changes are expected to the eupotamonic phytophilic guild (including L. victorianus) provided
they have access to suitable floodplain spawning habitats. Mormyrids and rheophilic Labeobarbus
spp. are expected to decline. An increase in competition and predation along the shallow lake
margins by a more diverse and abundant cichlid community may impact the lotic parapotamonic
guild (Enteromius barb community) that currently inhabits the marginal slackwaters, backwaters
and flooded woodlands.
• Floodplain Wetlands (154 ha) and Floodplain Woodland (135 ha) will be permanently drowned in
the reservoir, but new floodplain habitat will form along the reservoir shoreline where the
topography allows and if the full supply level is maintained (as is intended under Run-of-river
operation).
Inundation and decomposition of terrestrial vegetation would release nutrients into the reservoir during
and after the filling phase for a decade or more. This is expected to result in an increase fish yield and
productivity, but low species diversity. Availability of food items would shift from benthic flow-dependent
to zooplanktonic invertebrate taxa (although in relatively low numbers because of the short residence time
of water in the reservoir). This would be beneficial to pelagic (open water) or semi-pelagics such Alestidae
or dagaa (Rastrineobola argentea) which are not currently common in the river system, but which may thrive
should they be introduced. The disappearance of the benthic invertebrate community has been found to
impact some Mormyrid species more so than other species and abundance of species in this family may
decline. The higher secondary plankton production would be beneficial to young fish and increase
recruitment of those species able to exploit the inshore reservoir habitats. Following filling, nutrient
availability may decline as plant nutrients are exhausted and a species succession is likely with a possible
‘trough’ in productivity before new niches become occupied during the post-filling operational phase.
The combined impact of the Kakono reservoir on aquatic habitats and the indigenous fish community and
food base is considered significant. This impact is further compounded by the likelihood of spread of aquatic
hyacinth on oxygen levels and invasion of the reservoir by alien fish (Nile perch) (see below).
B.5 Invasion of the Reservoir by Alien Fish Species
The risk of Nile perch (Lates niloticus) Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus), being present in the reaches before
filling, or entering, or being deliberately introduced into the reservoir by fishers post-closure is considered
moderate to high, particularly since these are attractive commercial species. Nile perch were recorded in
the Kagera River in the reaches downstream of the Kakono HPP thus there is a risk that individuals would
be present in the river pre- and post-dam closure. Increasing the availability of lentic habitat in the
inundated reaches upstream of the dam would increase the risk of the spread of these invasive alien fish
species, both of which are adapted to lentic environments. The Nile perch is a predatory fish able to grow
to a large size and rapidly colonise new habitats due to its high fecundity. They are likely to predate on the
native fish communities present in the dam. The impact is considered significant since the introduction of
an alien predator and/or competitor is likely to change the fish community present in the reservoir,
impacting the restricted range Enteromius barb community and preying on juvenile L. victorianus.
Furthermore, the inundated reservoir area would provide a ready source of propagules for invasion of
upstream reaches by Nile perch. The Nsongezi Falls are passable to fish under certain hydrological
conditions. In the event Nile perch are either trapped by reservoir waters or introduced into the dam. The
potential impact of Nile perch using the Kakono HPP as a stepping-stone to invade beyond the Nsongezi
Falls and Kikagati rapids to the reaches upstream is considered significant because a number of endemic
and undescribed cichlid species are known to occur in this region.

B.6 Sediment Trapping and Erosion of Fish Habitats Downstream
Sediment trapping in the reservoir will lead to sediment-starved water in downstream reaches eroding the
floodplain and riverbanks. Incision of the river channel immediately downstream of the Kakono HPP is likely
to reduce the availability and degrade the quality of backwater and floodplain woodland habitats, as well as
lower the base level of tributaries and side channels. These impacts will reduce with distance downstream
from the reservoir. Important habitats for the Enteromius barbs and Haplochromine cichlids including
backwaters and inundated floodplain woodlands will become degraded over time. A more incised river
channel will reduce the availability of slackwaters – regions of slower water velocities in the main channel
– which provide hydraulic cover for a variety of main channel adult and juvenile species including the
Cyprinids and Mormyrids as well as the undescribed and restricted range Enteromius barbs.
B.7 Reduction in Suspended Sediments and Nutrients on Fish Productivity in Lower Kagera River
Sediment trapping in the dam will result in an estimated 50% reduction in suspended sediment and nutrient
delivery to downstream floodplains (see Section 7.3.3.2) with possible effects on nutrient levels and fish
prey (e.g. shrimps) that are important for fish spawning and migration. These effects may extend as far
down as the Kagera estuary at Sango Bay in Lake Victoria (175 km), possibly resulting in reduced fish
productivity in these reaches. This area has been identified by the Ugandan Department of Fisheries as an
important fish breeding ground and aggregation site for spawning, which is linked to the volume of silt
contributed by the Kagera River (Sayer et al., 2018) (see monthly satellite images of estuary in Figure 7-9,
Section 7.3.3). Fish that congregate at the river mouth prior to upstream migration for spawning include
Barbus altianalis, Labeo victorianus, Clarias gariepinus, Marcusenius victoriae and Schlibe intermedius. These
congregations attract large numbers of fishers who undertake largely unregulated gill-netting at the river
mouth, including fry returning to the lake. The Kagera River is considered a refuge for L. victorianus since
the decline of this species in the lake in the 1960’s. The estuary (extending 1 km from the river mouth and
500 m either side) is an identified Key Biodiversity Area (KBA) for migratory fish while the Sango Bay Area is
a confirmed Important Bird Area (IBA) (Sayer et al. 2018) for wetland birds, including piscivorous birds
attracted to the fish congregations. The degree of the impact on fish productivity from reduced silt and
nutrient inputs as a result of the Kagera hydropower cascade (Rusumo HPP, Kikagati HPP, Kakono HPP) will
depend on the relative contribution and importance of additional nutrient inputs from tributaries and
riverbanks in the lower reaches. However, given the silt trapping function of papyrus, and the flat gradient
and extensive wetlands along the Mwisa and Ngono Rivers it is expected that limited silt inputs are
contributed from these sources relative to that delivered via the Kagera River. Over the long-term, this could
contribute to the existing anthropogenic pressures on the aquatic biodiversity of the Sango Bay IBA and
Kagera Estuary KBA.
B.8 Fisheries & Aquaculture
The increased permanently flooded lentic conditions following inundation is likely to increase fish
production in the reservoir. Fishers may potentially benefit from the higher catch rates which will support
livelihoods and generate higher income levels than is presently the case in the Kakono HPP reach. Fish
production is expected to be highest immediately after dam closure with increased productivity as a
consequence of higher nutrient status, provided Dissolved Oxygen levels do not fall below 5 mg/l in most
parts of the dam and will decline thereafter. The estimated fisheries production potential of the reservoir at
FSL (17 km2) is estimated at approximately 125 tonnes per annum. Productivity and access to fishing will
however depend on the extent of water hyacinth and success of management and control measures.
There may be potential for developing an aquaculture facility for L. victorianus in the reservoir, but there is
a high risk that developing a Nile perch or Nile tilapia fishery may be a more attractive option which would
have negative consequences on indigenous fish biodiversity. The significance of the potential negative and
positive impacts on fisheries cannot be assessed at this stage and the potential costs and benefits (and
trade-offs) will need to be subject to a Fisheries Feasibility Study (see C.6 below).
C.1 Provision of a Fishway
The Project will provide a fishway linking the reservoir with the downstream Kagera River using the Kakono
River as a bypass channel to mitigate the barrier effects of the Kakono HPP. To be effective, such a fishway
facility should be passable to a diversity of fish species across a wide size and age-class range, it should

provide an adequate attraction flow (1 to 5% of the magnitude of flows through the turbines) and it should
be relatively easy to locate i.e. its entrance should be as close to the dam wall as possible where upstream
migrating fish are likely to gather and away from interference by turbine releases. The fishway has been
conceptualised to comprise the following main features, which will require further detailed design to
confirm the size and dimensions:
• An inflow control structure at the upstream end of the dam wall for limiting the discharge rate
through the fish pass;
• An excavated channel to connect the inflow control structure to the Kakono River;
• The Kakono River will require bank stabilisation in some places to carry a discharge rate of
approximately up to 7 m3/s (depending on design and source of attraction flows);
• A diversion of the Kakono-Kagera confluence from its current location to a point immediately
beneath the dam wall which would facilitate fish locating the entrance to the fishway with an
attraction flow of 5 to 7 m3/s;
• An impoundment on the Kakono River to facilitate the diversion structure;
• Supplementary attraction flow at the from the confluence of the fishway with the downstream
Kagera River within the vicinity of the tailrace outflow, but away from the main turbine areas –
roughly 10 m3/s piped directly from the dam wall to the outflow tailrace.

• [M 56] To facilitate fish migration and gene flow in order to avoid severe reduction of Critical
Habitat, the dam will be equipped with a fish pass via the Kakono Stream with an attraction flow of
5-7 m3/s. Bank stabilisation and erosion protection measures will be required (TANESCO).
C.2 Provision of Fish-Friendly Turbines
Since fish migrating in a downstream direction from the reservoir to the downstream Kagera River will need
to pass through the turbines (at a depth of 21 m below surface), the project will incorporate fish-friendly
turbines as the most appropriate measure to mitigate fish mortality. The following factors will lead to
greater survival rates of downstream migrating fish passing through the turbines:
• Reducing the number of blades on the runner reduces the chances of blade strike;
• Reducing the rotational speed of the runner reduces the chances of fish suffering trauma if they
are struck by the blades;
• Simplifying flow pathways through the turbine reduces stress and thereby the impact and severity
of hydrostatic shock to fish;
• The greater the gap between the blades reduces shear stress and therefore trauma and lowers the
probability of blades strike;
• A smaller gap between the distal end of the blades and the runner reduces the chances of fish
being caught between the blade and the housing and reduces shear stress and therefore the
chances of physical trauma.
The Project will use Kaplan turbines with advanced Minimum Gap Runner (MGR). The advantages of MGR
technology over traditional turbine technology have been field-tested and include increased turbine
efficiency and enhanced fish survival rates from 88% to 95% due to reduced rapid and extreme pressure
changes, shear stress, turbulence and blade strike.
• [M 57] Viability of fish-friendly turbines such as Kaplan turbines with advanced Minimum Gap
Runner technology will be investigated, and if feasible installed (EPC Contractor).
C.3 Aquatic Water Weed Management
Management of aquatic water weeds is described in Section 7.4.3.2C.2 and will be important to enhance
oxygen levels in the reservoir to optimise fish diversity and abundance.

C.4 Alien Fish Policy and Management
The project will develop and implement an Alien Fish Policy and Management Plan with the participation of
the Tanzania Fisheries Research Institute (TAFIRI) and the Missenyi District Fisheries Office. The
management plan will:
• Review policy and regulatory framework governing the introduction and spread of alien species in
Tanzania with specific reference to the Project;
• Examine the multiple pathways which may promote the introduction and spread of alien invasive
fish species into the Kakono HPP reservoir;
• Establish a framework for action to prevent, minimize and mitigate the risks of alien fish
introductions into the Kakono HPP reservoir, including monitoring;
• Develop effective mitigation measures (e.g. targeted fishing) should alien invasive species
populations establish in the reservoir.
This mitigation is referred to elsewhere as:

• [M 58] An Alien Fish Policy and Management Plan will be developed and implemented in
coordination with the Tanzanian Fisheries Research Institute (TAFIRI), species to be addressed to
include Nile Perch (TANESCO).
C.5 Sediment Flushing
As described in Section 7.3.3.2C, the project will undertake periodic sediment sluicing to released sediments
trapped in the dam, which will help to supplement sediment delivery to downstream fish habitats by 5-20%.
C.6 Fisheries Policy and Management
The Project will conduct a Fisheries Feasibility Study as described in Section 7.6.7.
• [M 83] TAFIRI and the Missenyi District Fisheries Office will be engaged to conduct a Fisheries
Feasibility Study and if viable develop a Fisheries Management Plan, including L. victorianus
breeding programme, management of Project-induced fishermen in-migration and Nile Perch
control (TANESCO).
D.1 Dam Wall as a Barrier to Upstream Migration
Total fishway efficiency, i.e., the proportion of migrating fish locating and entering the fishway, together
with the proportion of fish successfully negotiating the fishway and entering the upstream reservoir is
estimated at approximately 10%. Thus, only a relatively small proportion of seasonally migrating fish are
likely to find their way to upstream spawning habitats and spawn successfully. However, many fish species,
including sub-population of L. victorianus will be able to persist where there is spawning floodplain habitat
available downstream of the reservoir. The success of the fishway for mitigating cyclically predictable
seasonal spawning migrations will be limited and the impact will remain significant.
D.2 Fragmentation, Gene Flow and Recolonisation
Only a small proportion of fish migrating between subpopulations annually are required to maintain gene
flow between previously continuous populations of fish. The proposed fishway is considered adequate to
mitigate this impact and the residual impact on gene flow is considered non-significant. Recolonisation of
upstream reaches by downstream populations will also be mitigated with no residual impacts.
D.3 Downstream Migration & Turbine Mortality
The effectiveness of a fish-friendly turbines in passing fish through them without physical trauma is
estimated at >90% and is therefore considered an effective mitigation measure to reduce turbine fish
mortality. However, the proportion of fish successfully negotiating the reservoir and finding their way either
through the turbines (which are located in relatively deep water of a minimum of 21 m below surface), or
through the fishway, may depend on fish behaviour (e.g. swim depth). Thus, the installation of the fish-

friendly turbines is considered partially effective and may be selective in terms of which fish find their way
through.
D.4 Presence of Reservoir on Fish Community
As described under reservoir filling, the reservoir will permanently transform previously flowing water (lotic)
aquatic habitats to a still (lentic) water body with a permanent change in fish community. No mitigation is
possible for impacts on fish restricted to flowing water such as the Enteromius barbs. The only mitigation
to enhance conditions for a diversity of lotic-adapted fish is to regularly (and possibly continually) clear the
reservoir of alien invasive plants (water hyacinth) to optimise oxygen levels. However, the residual impact
of the reservoir on indigenous range-restricted fish will remain significant.
D.5 Invasion of the Reservoir by Alien Fish
The risk that Nile perch or Nile tilapia will either access (via fishway) or be deliberately introduced into the
reservoir remains high and will be difficult to control or manage effectively. There is a high probability that
alien fish will establish in the reservoir over time and outcompete the indigenous lotic-adapted fish. Given
the high risk and low likelihood of effective management and control of alien fish establishing in the
reservoir the residual impact remains significant.
D.6 Sediment Trapping and Erosion and Reduction in Suspended Sediment and Nutrients on Fish Productivity in
Lower Kagera River
Mitigation in the form of periodic sediment sluicing and venting will contribute an additional 5-20% of
suspended sediment from the bottom of the dam to the downstream reaches. No bedload sediment
(coarser fraction) is expected to pass through the dam. Sluicing and venting on annual basis is predicted to
improve the levels of suspended sediment reaching the lower Kagera River by only 3-6% resulting in an
overall reduction of silt (with nutrients) reaching the estuary by 32 and 45% (See Table 7.31). Given the
relatively poor contribution of sluicing and venting to suspended sediment and the likelihood that this would
only be undertaken every 2-3 years the residual impact of sediment trapping on aquatic habitats and fish
through bank erosion and reduced silt and nutrient delivery as far as the Kagera Estuary remains significant.
D.7 Fisheries & Aquaculture
The residual significance of the positive and negative impacts of the reservoir on fisheries cannot be
confirmed based on a high degree of uncertainty over the feasibility of a sustainable fishery in the reservoir
and the trade-offs between the costs (impacts to indigenous fish) and benefits (fisheries for livelihoods).
Confirmation of the potential risks and opportunities can only be confirmed through a Fisheries Feasibility
Study that includes assessment of the viability of a fishery based on L. victorianus.
Fish monitoring will be continued from the Construction and Reservoir Filling Phase into Operation in
accordance with a Detailed Fish Monitoring Plan. This measure is referred to elsewhere in this report as:
• [M 55] A fish monitoring programme will be undertaken in partnership with the Ugandan and
Tanzanian Fisheries Departments in the Kagera River upstream and downstream of the proposed
dam, including Kagera Estuary, on a biannual basis. Monitoring will start at least one year prior to

The summary ecological impacts and mitigation measures is provided in the table on the following pages.

Table 7.47 - Summary of Ecological Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Environmental or Social Value Impact Producing Factor Phase Assessment of significance without mitigation or Commitments Predicted
compensation residual
High Hi - Moderate M - Low Lo – Not Known NK impact
Main construction
Reservoir filling
Operation
1 Aquatic Ecology
1.1 Aquatic Habitats & Macroinvertebrates
1.1.1 Aquatic habitats Loss and degradation of ◼   Hi Likelihood: Certain [-] • Mitigation for water quality and geomorphology: see Table M
and aquatic habitats & Extent: 95 ha (local) (for dam wall & related 7.32.
macroinvertebrates macroinvertebrates from construction) and water quality degradation for 10- • [M 53] The Project will plan for routing of access roads for the
dam construction (from 20 km TL to avoid seasonally wet areas; and carefully manage
earthworks, water quality Duration: Permanent loss of aquatic habitats during vehicles to limit impacts on natural terrestrial and aquatic
alteration and sediment construction; short term water quality impacts. habitats (EPC Contractor).
transport) Magnitude: Moderate due to irreversible habitat loss
but water quality impacts are reversible
1.1.2 Aquatic habitats Alteration of aquatic  ◼  Hi Likelihood: Certain [-] • [M 49] A riparian buffer zone of 50 m around riparian habitats M
and habitats & Extent: 600 ha aquatic habitat flooded; 1,718 ha will be maintained to prevent erosion and sedimentation,
macroinvertebrates macroinvertebrates from open water created extending 35 km along river for rehabilitation and alien plant control will be applied after
–reservoir filling reservoir filling (from reservoir: local to regional scale. construction to re-establish natural vegetation (EPC
inundation; sediment, Duration: Permanent loss during filling. Contractor).
water quality and Magnitude): High intensity due to irreversible habitat • Mitigation for water quality and geomorphology: see Table
hydrology changes) loss 7.32.
• Note: Compensation for loss of aquatic habitat will be required
to achieve net gain, as discussed in Section 7.5. However, this
is not taken into consideration in scoring the residual impact.
1.1.3 Fish Habitat – Loss Loss of fish habitat for ◼   Hi Likelihood: Certain [-] • Mitigation for item 1.1.1 above M
and Degradation dam wall construction Extent: 95 ha (local) (for dam infrastructure)
(Construction) and associated water Duration: Permanent loss of fish habitat
quality degradation and Magnitude: High due to irreversible impact although
sedimentation. localised habitat loss.
1.1.4 Fish Habitat and Loss and degradation of  ◼  Hi Likelihood: Certain [-] • Mitigation for item 1.1.2 above Hi
Community – Loss floodplain habitats with Extent: 600 ha of fish habitat (local) (for reservoir) • Note: Compensation for loss of aquatic habitat will be required
and Degradation threatened and restricted Duration: Permanent loss of fish habitat and change to achieve net gain, as discussed in Section 7.5. However, this
(Reservoir Filling) range fish species in fish community is not taken into consideration in scoring the residual impact.
Magnitude: High intensity due to irreversible impact
and presence of critical habitat-qualifying fish
species
1.1.5 Fish Migration Dam wall as barrier to   ◼ Hi Likelihood: Certain [-] • [M 56] To facilitate fish migration and gene flow in order to M
fish migration to access avoid severe reduction of Critical Habitat, the dam will be
spawning sites and loss

Main construction
Reservoir filling
Operation
of gene flow Extent: Dam wall and 35 km of reservoir will equipped with a fish pass via the Kakono Stream with an
(connectivity) interfere with fish migration between downstream attraction flow of 5-7 m3/s
and upstream reaches
Duration: Permanent fish barrier
Magnitude: High due to presence of critical habitat-
qualifying migratory fish species
1.1.6 Fish Mortality Fish mortality in turbines   ◼ M Likelihood: Likely [-] • [M 57] Viability of fish-friendly turbines such as Kaplan M
Extent: fish migrating downstream to spawning turbines with advanced Minimum Gap Runner technology will
sites on floodplains or for recruitment be investigated, and if feasible installed (EPC Contractor).
Duration: Permanent
Magnitude: High due to presence of critical habitat-
1.1.7 Fish Community in Long term change in fish   ◼ Hi Likelihood: Highly likely [-] Little mitigation is possible to prevent change in fish community NK
Reservoir community including Extent: Reservoir 35 km or 17 km2 (local) in lotic environment. See alien fish control in Item 1.1.8.
impacts on critical habitat Duration: Permanent
qualifying species Magnitude: High due to presence of critical habitat-
(especially restricted qualifying migratory fish species
range species)
1.1.8 Alien Fish (Nile Invasion of reservoir by   ◼ Hi Likelihood: Highly likely [-] • [M 58] An Alien Fish Policy and Management Plan will be Hi
perch) Nile perch and predation/ Extent: fish migrating downstream to spawning developed and implemented in coordination with the
competition with sites on floodplains or for recruitment Tanzanian Fisheries Research Institute (TAFIRI), species to be
indigenous fish Duration: Permanent addressed to include Nile Perch (TANESCO).
Magnitude: High due to presence of critical habitat- • Effective alien fish control is likely to be difficult.
1.1.9 Sediment trapping Loss of downstream fish   ◼ Hi Likelihood: Highly likely [-] • [M 31] During Project operation, suspended sediment M
and bank erosion habitat caused by bank Extent: Reservoir 35 km or 17 km2 longitudinal transit through the reservoir will be enhanced by
erosion Duration: Long-term using a combination of sediment venting, sluicing and
Magnitude: Moderate as fish expected to shift prey pressure flushing undertaken every year during the high-flow
items and adapt to rate of bank erosion / habitat period (TANESCO).
loss
1.1.10 Downstream fish Decline in sediment and   ◼ Hi Likelihood: Highly likely [-] • [M 31] During Project operation, suspended sediment M
productivity in nutrient to maintain fish Extent: 175 km to Kagera Estuary (KBA and IBA) longitudinal transit through the reservoir will be enhanced by
Lower Kagera River productivity including Duration: Long-term using a combination of sediment venting, sluicing and
Kagera Estuary (KBA & Magnitude: High as 50% reduction in suspended pressure flushing undertaken every year during the high-flow
Sango Bay IBA) sediment including nutrients predicted period (TANESCO).
• [M 50] An Aquatic Biomonitoring Programme will be
developed and implemented for the Kagera River upstream
and downstream of the Kakono HPP on an annual basis,

Main construction
Reservoir filling
Operation
starting at least one year prior to start of construction
(TANESCO).
• [M 55] A fish monitoring programme will be undertaken in
partnership with the Ugandan and Tanzanian Fisheries
Departments in the Kagera River upstream and downstream
of the proposed dam, including Kagera Estuary, on a biannual
basis. Monitoring will start at least one year prior to
construction and continue until fish community stabilises or
results confirm extent of impact. Monitoring results will be
publicly disclosed (TANESCO).
1.1.11 Fisheries and Potential for increased   ◼ NK Likelihood: Highly likely [-] • [M 83] TAFIRI and the Missenyi District Fisheries Office will be NK
Aquaculture fisheries in the reservoir Extent: Reservoir 35 km or 17 km2 engaged to conduct a Fisheries Feasibility Study and if viable
(requires further Duration: Short-Medium (depending on fishing develop a Fisheries Management Plan, including L. victorianus
assessment) intensity and sustainable use) breeding programme, management of Project-induced
Magnitude: Medium but uncertain as depends on fishermen in-migration and Nile Perch control (TANESCO).
fish productivity after filling of reservoir
2 Terrestrial Ecology
2.1 Vegetation and Flora
2.1.1 Vegetation and Loss, fragmentation and ◼ ◼  Hi Likelihood: Certain [-] Limited effective mitigation for habitat loss. Minimisation M
Flora - dam degradation of natural Extent: 2124ha natural vegetated habitats (local to measures include:
construction & habitats and flora for regional) (for dam construction and reservoir • [M 37] Construction work site planning shall seek to minimise
inundation dam construction footprint) impacts on vegetation and an Environmental Compliance
facilities and quarries and Duration: Permanent loss of vegetation and flora Officer with ecological experience will oversee site clearance
inundation during construction and filling phase. No threatened and ensure control measures are implemented (EPC
or range restricted species. Contractor).
Magnitude: High due to irreversible habitat loss • [M 38] Construction site clearance activities will be
implemented in a manner to minimise loss of vegetation by
restricting footprints of vegetation removal, stockpiling and
vehicle access (EPC Contractor).
• [M 39] During construction, topsoil management will be
implemented in accordance with a Topsoil Management Plan
that defines the location, storage, size/shape and protection
measures for topsoil stockpiles (EPC Contractor).

Main construction
Reservoir filling
Operation
2.1.2 Vegetation and Loss and degradation of ◼ ◼  Hi Likelihood: Certain [-] • [M 40] A Terrestrial Alien Invasive Plant Management, M
Flora - dam natural habitat through Extent: 2,124 ha (local to regional) Monitoring and Control Plan for the HPP and TL construction
construction & establishment and Duration: Permanent loss of vegetation and flora activities will be developed and implemented (EPC Contractor).
inundation spread of invasive alien during construction and filling phase. No threatened • Biodiversity offset to compensate for loss of natural habitat
plants or range restricted species. (e.g. by investing in nearby protected areas) as discussed in
Magnitude: High intensity due to irreversible habitat Section 7.5. However, this is not taken into consideration in
loss scoring the residual impact.
2.1.3 Vegetation and Loss of harvestable plant ◼ ◼  Lo Likelihood: Certain [-] • Limited effective mitigation available Lo
Flora - dam resources Extent: 2,124 ha (local to regional)
construction & Duration: Permanent loss of vegetation and flora
inundation during construction and filling phase.
Magnitude: Moderate as limited community use
currently, although impact will cause irreversible
resource loss
2.1.4 Vegetation and Loss, fragmentation and ◼  ◼ M Likelihood: Certain [-] • [M 54] A Terrestrial Alien Invasive Monitoring and Control Plan Lo
Flora – construction degradation of terrestrial Extent: 132 ha (localised within 35 m wayleave for for the TL wayleave operation will be developed and
and operation of TL habitats and flora for TL 38.5 km) (61 ha natural and 71ha modified) implemented during at least the first two years of operation
construction Duration: Permanent and temporary loss of after which the requirement will be re-evaluated.
vegetation and flora. • [M 41] Terrestrial alien invasive plant management,
Magnitude: Moderate as some clearance is partly monitoring and control measures will be conducted along the
reversible TL wayleave and access routes during construction (EPC
Contractor).
2.1.5 Vegetation and Loss and degradation of   ◼ M Likelihood: Certain [-] • [M 31] During Project operation, suspended sediment Lo
Flora – run of river floodplain natural Extent: mostly impacting 20 km river reach longitudinal transit through the reservoir will be enhanced by
operation habitats due to floodplain downstream of dam using a combination of sediment venting, sluicing and
and riverbank erosion Duration: Long-term incremental impact. pressure flushing undertaken every year during the high-flow
Magnitude: Moderate intensity closer to dam, period (TANESCO).
attenuating with distance downstream. Irreversible
but occurs at slow rate and may reach stable state.
2.2 Terrestrial Fauna
2.2.1 Terrestrial Fauna – Loss, fragmentation and ◼ ◼  M Likelihood: Certain [-] • As for 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 M
construction and degradation of faunal Extent: 2,124 ha regional) • Limited effective mitigation for habitat loss
reservoir filling habitats in dam and Duration: Permanent loss of faunal habitat
reservoir area Magnitude: High, irreversible impact.
2.2.2 Terrestrial Fauna – Loss of or disturbance to ◼ ◼  M Likelihood: Likely [-] • [M 42] The Construction Traffic Management Plan will set Lo
construction and fauna due to speed limits (30 km/h on the dam and TL access roads and 20
reservoir filling km/h on other internal roads), and define speed control

Main construction
Reservoir filling
Operation
construction-related Extent: Local, focussed in construction footprint measures, tracking of construction vehicles and penalties for
activities near dam wall, quarries, camps and along access non-compliance by staff (EPC Contractor).
road • [M 43] Faunal protection measures will be implemented that
Duration: Temporary, limited mostly to construction will include snake rescue and translocation, faunal escape
period. measures, checks in open trenches, and wildlife awareness
Magnitude: Moderate, largely reversible impact. training of staff (EPC Contractor).
• [M 44] TAWIRI will be engaged to conduct surveys of large
wildlife around the reservoir during filling to verify if large
potentially dangerous animals (crocodile, hippo, elephant) are
displaced and pose a risk to communities, ranchers and KSC
(TANESCO).
2.2.4 Terrestrial Fauna – Barrier to Movement and   ◼ M Likelihood: Likely [-] • [M 45] If found to be required, elephant control measures will Lo
run-of-river Increase in Human - Extent: Local-Regional be identified and implemented with input of TAWIRI on the
operation Wildlife conflict Duration: Long-term to permanent effect on fauna. right bank of reservoir to minimise elephant damage on
Magnitude: Moderate community and irrigated agriculture. This could include
consideration of the need for electric fencing (TANESCO).
2.2.5 Terrestrial Fauna – Change in bird   ◼ Lo Likelihood: Likely [-] • No mitigation possible Lo
run-of-river community in reservoir Extent: 1,718 ha (35 km length)
operation Duration: Permanent.
Magnitude: Low intensity, irreversible change in bird
community.
2.2.6 Terrestrial Fauna – Loss of or disturbance to   ◼ M Likelihood: Possible [-] • [M 46] Access to the dam site along the new access road will Lo
run-of-river fauna through in- Extent: Local (along access road and near dam site) be restricted possibly by installing a manned gate at the
operation migration of people due Duration: Long-term entrance from the tarred road between Kyaka and Karagwe
to improved access Magnitude: Low intensity, potentially reversible (TANESCO).
2.2.7 Terrestrial Fauna – Loss and fragmentation ◼  ◼ M Likelihood: Possible [-] • As for 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 Lo
construction and of faunal habitat in TL Extent: Local (along TL corridor)
operation of TL wayleave Duration: Long-term
Magnitude: Low intensity, potentially reversible
2.2.8 Terrestrial Fauna – Mortality of birds as a  ◼ ◼ Hi Likelihood: Likely [-] • [M 47] The TL design will include bird protection features on M
construction and result of collision with Extent: Regional-International (may affect global the entire TL to reduce risk of bird collision and electrocution
operation of TL TLs or electrocution threatened migratory species) (EPC Contractor) - Spacing between diverters should be
Duration: Long-term -Permanent adjusted according to the sensitivity of the area crossed by the
Magnitude: Moderate-High intensity (if globally TL
threatened species impacted), irreversible • [M 48] Twice yearly bird monitoring will be conducted along
the transmission Line coinciding with seasonal migration

Main construction
Reservoir filling
Operation
periods in November and March. Monitoring should be
continued for the first two years and if bird mortality is
evident, then additional monitoring may need to be
considered based on the recommendations of the
ornithologist (TANESCO).

7.5 Critical Habitat Impact Assessment
The lenders policies require no net loss and net gain for significant adverse impacts on Natural Habitat and
Critical Habitat, respectively (see Section 5). However, AFD do not ascribe to implementation of biodiversity
offsets and do not fund projects which may result in destruction of critical habitat. The sections below
summarise the potential impacts on natural and critical habitat and propose options for achieving no net
loss and net gain.
Impacts on Natural Habitat
The Kakono dam and reservoir is situated in an Endangered ecoregion (the Victoria Basin Forest-Savanna
Mosaic Ecoregion) and will have a significant adverse effect through directly and permanently removing or
flooding up to 2,124 ha of natural habitats with high botanical and bird biodiversity and which still retains
large fauna such as Endangered African savanna elephant and Vulnerable hippos and crocodiles. In addition,
a further 61 ha of Natural Habitat will be cleared for the 35 m wide and 38.5 km long TL corridor.
Options to compensate for loss of terrestrial habitat will need to be further investigated and planned
through the implementation of a Biodiversity Compensation Strategy but could include investment in
improved management and protection for existing forest reserves such as Minziro Forest, Burigi-Chato
National Park and/or Rumanyika-Karagwe National Park. Minziro Forest is a lowland swamp forest sited
140 km (river length) downstream of the proposed Kakono dam. Minziro Forest is not represented in the
direct footprint of the Kakono Project but is of high conservation importance. While Rumanyika-Karagwe
National Park (21 km to the west of the dam) and Burigi-Chato National Park (78 km to the south of the
dam) were recently gazetted. Both are expected to contain similar floodplain and woodland habitats to that
along the Kagera River. Support could be in the form of direct investment in staff and equipment as well as
improved research on flora or fauna to improve protection (e.g. elephant tracking using telemetry). Further
investigation and planning will be required to determine appropriate investment for habitat protection but
will be a commitment of the Project as a percentage of the annual energy revenue.
• [M 59] Biodiversity compensation for significant adverse impacts on natural habitat to meet no net
loss requirements – e.g. investment in existing nearby protected areas (TANESCO).
Impacts on Critical Habitat
Habitat in the Kakono HPP project area is assessed to include critical habitat because of the presence of
14 threatened, restricted range and/or migratory fish species. Most notably, these include the Critically
Endangered Labeo victorianus which was confirmed in the reservoir and downstream area; five undescribed
species (four Enteromius species and one Zaireichthys species) and four other migratory species, which are
not threatened. The extent and timing of fish migration for the different migratory species is not well
understood and it is believed that some migratory fish may reside in sub-populations in specific reaches of
the river while others migrate up and downstream between populations. Impacts on fish which trigger
critical habitat in the lower Kagera River are assessed in Section 7.4.3.
In summary, impacts of the Kakono HPP are predicted to have significant impacts on critical habitat
qualifying fish through: i) direct loss and fragmentation of fish habitats with confirmed presence of the
critical habitat trigger species, including restricted range and undescribed Enteromius barb species; ii)
change to fish community in the reservoir including potential invasion of Nile perch and predation leading
to reduction of indigenous fish; iii) decline in water quality in reservoir and downstream (possibly also linked
to growth in aquatic weeds (e.g. water hyacinth); iv) riverbed and bank erosion affecting 20-60 km of
floodplain and seasonally flooded woodland forest downstream; and v) reduction of suspended sediments
and nutrients with potential for decline in fish productivity in the downstream floodplain reaches down to
Kagera Estuary (located within a KBA and IBA) and with knock-on effects for fish-dependent wetland birds.
Mitigation for these impacts to critical habitat and the qualifying fish species are as follows:

• [M 56] To facilitate fish migration and gene flow in order to avoid severe reduction of Critical
Habitat, the dam will be equipped with a fish pass via the Kakono Stream with an attraction flow of
5-7 m3/s. Bank stabilisation and erosion protection measures will be required (TANESCO).
• [M 15] Vegetation from the reservoir footprint (excluding floodplain papyrus) will be removed prior
to reservoir filling to reduce lowering of dissolved oxygen levels and reduce reservoir GHG
emissions (EPC Contractor).
• [M 51] An Aquatic Alien Invasive Plant Management and Monitoring Plan will be developed and
implemented to minimise the potential emergence of bilharzia, maintain access to fish pass inlet
improve water quality and limit impact on fish diversity and abundance (TANESCO).
coordination with the Tanzanian Fisheries Research Institute (TAFIRI), species to be addressed to
include Nile Perch (TANESCO).
• [M 31] During Project operation, suspended sediment longitudinal transit through the reservoir will
be enhanced by using a combination of sediment venting, sluicing and pressure flushing
undertaken every year during the high-flow period (TANESCO).
• [M 60] Ensure transparency, develop a Project website, disclose the ESIA findings locally.
• Monitor sediment, water quality, macroinvertebrate and fish starting prior to construction and
continuing through operation at sites between the Kakono Reservoir and the Kagera Estuary under
an integrated monitoring programme and implement adaptive management as required.
With implementation and fulfilment of all the above requirements to a high standard, the impacts of the
Project under a Run-of-river operation will be reduced but will not be totally mitigated. This is because there
is a high degree of uncertainty in the predictions related to fish migration and actual use of the fish pass;
poor knowledge of the importance of the Kagera River for restricted range and threatened fish relative to
other rivers in the Lake Victoria Basin; low confidence in the Project’s ability to control and manage the
introduction of Nile perch in the reservoir and spread of aquatic weeds, and uncertainty on the extent and
effect of reduced suspended sediment and nutrients reaching the lake on shrimp and fish productivity. It is
possible that the impacts on fish may manifest and become increasingly apparent over the next 10 to
20 years.
The precautionary principle is a strong tenet of the World Bank ESS6 which promotes the need to
demonstrate the mitigation hierarchy has been applied and for sufficient evidence prior to taking
irreversible actions or decisions. It is therefore recommended that:
• [M 61] the Project will be discussed and agreed at a transboundary level prior to decision-making
so that the relevant stakeholders in Uganda and Tanzania are aware of the downstream impact on
sediment and nutrient contributions to the lower Kagera River and Kagera Estuary on Lake Victoria
and the barrier to upstream fish migration, and the key importance of effectively implementing the
proposed mitigation and monitoring measures to avoid significant adverse effects on the lower
Kagera river and estuary and are in agreement that these risks are acceptable.
Additional compensation actions will need to be implemented to achieve improved conservation of aquatic
habitats and fish in the catchment. To achieve an overall net gain for loss of critical habitat, project funds
(possibly allocated from project revenues) should be invested in improved protection of nearby forest
reserves with swamp forest and protected areas with similar aquatic biodiversity to that affected by the
Kakono HPP, as has been recommended for the loss of Natural Habitat (above). A Biodiversity
Compensation Strategy will need to be developed which evaluates the options for conservation investment
and which defines the target area/s based on additional surveys; confirms the biodiversity values present;
the measures to be taken; the key performance indicators to be reached and the timelines for achieving no
net loss and net gain for biodiversity.
The summary of impacts on critical habitat and mitigation measures is provided in the table on the following
page.

Table 7.48 - Summary of Impact on Critical Habitat and Mitigation Measures

Main construction
Reservoir filling
Operation
Critical habitat Physical presence of   ◼ Hi Likelihood: Certain [-] • [M 56] To facilitate fish migration and gene flow in order to avoid severe reduction of M
14 threatened, the dam Extent: Dam wall and 35 km of Critical Habitat, the dam will be equipped with a fish pass via the Kakono Stream with an
restricted range representing a reservoir will interfere with fish attraction flow of 5-7 m3/s. Bank stabilisation and erosion protection measures will be
and migratory barrier to fish migration between downstream required (TANESCO).
fish species migration and and upstream reaches • [M 15] Vegetation from the reservoir footprint (excluding floodplain papyrus) will be
access to spawning Duration: Permanent fish barrier removed prior to reservoir filling to reduce lowering of dissolved oxygen levels and reduce
sites and loss of Magnitude: High due to presence reservoir GHG emissions (EPC Contractor).
gene flow of critical habitat-qualifying • [M 51] An Aquatic Alien Invasive Plant Management and Monitoring Plan will be developed
(connectivity). migratory fish species and implemented to minimise the potential emergence of bilharzia, maintain access to fish
Fish species can pass inlet improve water quality and limit impact on fish diversity and abundance
also be impacted by (TANESCO).
alteration to water
quality and lowering
coordination with the Tanzanian Fisheries Research Institute (TAFIRI), species to be
of DO levels and
addressed to include Nile Perch (TANESCO).
trapping of
sediment in the • [M 31] During Project operation, suspended sediment longitudinal transit through the
reservoir reservoir will be enhanced by using a combination of sediment venting, sluicing and
pressure flushing undertaken every year during the high-flow period (TANESCO).
• [M 61] the Project will be discussed and agreed at a transboundary level prior to decision-
making so that the relevant stakeholders in Uganda and Tanzania are aware of the
downstream impact on sediment and nutrient contributions to the lower Kagera River and
Kagera Estuary on Lake Victoria and the barrier to upstream fish migration, and the key
importance of effectively implementing the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures
to avoid significant adverse effects on the lower Kagera river and estuary and are in
agreement that these risks are acceptable.
• [M 59] Biodiversity compensation for significant adverse impacts on natural habitat to
meet no net loss requirements – e.g. investment in existing nearby protected areas
(TANESCO).
• Monitor sediment, water quality, macroinvertebrate and fish starting prior to construction
and continuing through operation at sites between the Kakono Reservoir and the Kagera
Estuary under an integrated monitoring programme and implement adaptive
management as required.

7.6 Social Impact Assessment
Land Acquisition & Restrictions on Land Use
A.1 Land Requirements
The Project will require land as follows:

• Land for permanent facilities: dam site, reservoir footprint, access roads, permanent camp and
offices, switchyard, TL wayleave, and expansion of the existing Kyaka sub-station.
• Land for temporary facilities: construction camp and site installations, quarry areas, borrow areas,
spoil disposal areas, TL access roads, and worksite access roads. These structures are considered
as temporary because they will be used during the construction period only. Upon completion of
the construction period, the area affected by the temporary works will be rehabilitated.
All land within the TL wayleave corridor will be legally acquired by TANESCO prior to the start of construction.
No human activities are allowed inside the wayleave as the area is regarded as unsafe for human
activities. Any activities in the wayleave are illegal and in violation of public safety and TANESCO's
Safety rules (TANESCO, 2008).
The total land requirements for the Project are 1,862 ha as shown by Table 7.49.
Table 7.49 - Land Requirements per Project Component

Components / sites Total land take area (ha)
a
Reservoir footprint at full supply level and Dam site and associated facilities 1,713
Southern access road b 18
TL wayleave c 131
Total 1,862
a
Includes permanent works (Dam and embankments, Powerhouse, Switchyard, Permanent camp and office, Services roads) and
temporary facilities (Quarry areas, Construction camp, Technical installations and Disposal areas). The assumption is that disposal
areas will be either located in the dam site facilities perimeter, or within the reservoir dead volume.
b
28 km length with 6m wide right of way.
c
38.5 km length with 35m wide wayleave, include Kyaka substation extension.
It should be noted that the area does not include the 498 hectares occupied by the Kagera River and land
within a buffer area extending 60 m of each side of the river channel that belongs to the government. This
area is not included in the land acquisition and excluded from the area calculations.
In total 1,862 ha of land will need to be acquired. All impacts will be permanent. No temporary impacts are
expected during the construction activities outside the Project direct footprints. All the land required for
construction activities will be subject to the Land Acquisition Process developed by the Project, whether it is
required for temporary or permanent use.
The Tanzanian legal framework defines a 60 m buffer from the bank of any river body where no activity is
allowed. Consequently, this 2022 ESIA assumes that this will apply to the Kakono reservoir and that houses
or structures situated within 60 m from the banks of the future reservoir are considered as affected.
The Project construction will lead to the physical displacement of households living in the Project footprint
and economic displacements for both households and institutional stakeholders who own or use land in
the Project footprint. No public or communal infrastructure will be affected by the land acquisition.
The following points regarding the assessment are noteworthy:

• The assessment is based on the 2019 Basic Design which was prepared without accurate
topographical data to delineate the reservoir footprint. Therefore, for the assessment the reservoir
footprint was determined using the ALOS Global Digital Surface Model (AW3D DSM) a publicly
available Digital Elevation Model and the elevation of the reservoir full supply level (1,189 m).
Consequently, there may be some discrepancies between predicted and actual impacted
households, and this will need to be managed through the GRM.
• A key input to this 2022 assessment is the 2018 Valuation Report which was based on the 2014
Feasibility Design data – which assumed a TL wayleave width of 27 m. The project design was
updated in 2019 and the wayleave width defined as 35 m. Consequently, the land requirements in
this 2022 assessment include an additional 67 ha of land that was not considered in the 2014 ESIA.
• The census of the affected people and the asset inventory are slightly different from the Valuation
Report due to the TL wayleave extension, change in population numbers caused by deaths, out-
migration and in-migration. The assessment is therefore based on the data collected during the
2020 social field surveys and Resettlement Action Plan (RAP).
B.1 Physical Displacement
Physically displaced people are defined as people who will lose their residential structure (house) they are
residing in on a permanent basis. Some families are losing residential structures, but are not considered as
physically displaced, because (i) their affected structure are shelters used occasionally when conducting
farming activities away from their house, (ii) the affected structures are unfinished residential houses under
construction (and they are living in another house elsewhere), or (iii) they have abandoned the affected
structures.
In total, there are 8 households affected by physical displacement (57 people or household members). They
are all affected by the construction of the TL as they are located within the wayleave. They will be
permanently displaced and resettled. No physically displaced households have been identified in the future
reservoir area, dam site or the access road ROW. Table 7.50 below shows the physically displaced people
split by gender of the head of the household.
Table 7.50 – Persons Physically Displaced

Gender of head of household Number of households Number of persons
Men 6 47
Women 2 10
Total 8 57
B.2 Economic Displacement
Households economically displaced are those affected by loss of land, assets or access to land or assets,
leading to loss of income sources or other means of livelihood. In total, there are 85 households affected
by economical displacements. The affected land and or assets are either located in the reservoir footprint
or in the TL Wayleave. They will be permanently lost. Table 7.51 below shows the economically displaced
people by gender of the head of the household.
Table 7.51 – Households Economically Displaced

Gender of head of household Number of households Number of persons
Men 66 509
Women 19 102
Total 85 611
In addition, some institutional stakeholders will also be economically affected by the Project. It is not
anticipated that institutional stakeholders will lose any structure or buildings but only parts of land over
which they have legitimate rights. The affected land will be permanently lost by the reservoir impoundment
or the access road right of way. The following institutional stakeholders will be impacted:
• Kyaka, Mugaba, Bugara and Businde villages. Loss of communal land because of the reservoir
impoundment.

• Kagera Sugar Company (KSC). Loss of land because of the reservoir impoundment and the TL.
• NARCO Myssenyi Ranch and Kitengule Ranch. Loss of land because of the reservoir impoundment
and the access road right of way.
• Private companies leasing NARCO lands. Loss of land because of the reservoir impoundment.
• Kitengule prison. Loss of land because of the TL wayleave.
Kitengule Prison and Kagera Sugar Company will also lose crops, as they are undertaking farming activities
in the areas affected by the Project.
Missenyi and Kitengule Ranch are both leasing land to private companies. On the left bank of the reservoir,
2 private companies are leasing blocks of Missenyi Ranch at the tail of the reservoir while, on the right bank,
7 private companies are leasing blocks of NARCO lands in Kitengule Ranch; 6 will be affected by the access
road, and 1 will be affected by the dam site and reservoir.
a Loss of land
Table 7.52 provides a summary of the land lost by households and institutional stakeholders. The land plots
of affected households in the reservoir area are not fenced nor enclosed by other farming land plots.
Therefore, the total area of affected plots under undocumented customary Right of Use for households in
the reservoir area is based on an estimation or the plot size, based on the declaration of the affected
households. In total, 108 land plots representing 1,862 ha will be acquired.
Table 7.52 does not detail the types of crops and trees impacted as the complementary socioeconomic
surveys performed in 2020 did not include such an inventory. The tree and crops will be performed during
the preparation of the next asset inventory and valuation exercise for the TL (see RAP).
Table 7.52 – Summary of Loss of Land

Affected parties Number of plots Total area affected
Kagera Sugar Company 2 950.5 ha
Kitengule Prison 1 29 ha
NARCO Myssenyi Ranch and Kitengule Ranch 2 588 ha
(Including Private companies leasing blocks of NARCO lands) (9) (208 ha)
Village lands – Communal lands 4 Kyaka: 0.25 ha*
Businde: 96.5 ha*
Bugara: 165 ha*
Mugaba: 8 ha
Village lands – Customary right of Occupancy (with Certificate 91 24.75 ha
or undocumented)
Total 108 1,862 ha
* No accurate data was available on the village lands boundaries and/or the reservoir boundaries. Therefore, the figures given here are estimated,
based on the 2018 Valuation Report and the available Project layout. The area inside a 60 m buffer each side of the minor bed of the river banks is
excluded from the area calculations.
b Loss of structures
Twenty-two structures will be lost (including the 8 houses of the physically displaced people), belonging to
15 households, as shown in Table 7.53. Most of these structures (18) are affected by the TL and the
extension of Kyaka Substation. On the right bank in the reservoir, 5 derelict houses will be inundated but
they are not used anymore, and their owners have moved to other locations. On the left bank, the structures
are located on Kagera Sugar Company land and have been abandoned for several years.
Table 7.53 – Residential and non-residential structures affected by the Project

Type of structures Number of structures Number of households claiming ownership of the structures
House 11 9
Unfinished house 2 2
Derelict house 5 3 on the right bank
On the left bank 2 abandoned structures with unidentified owners
on Kagera Sugar Company lands
Foundations 2 2

Type of structures Number of structures Number of households claiming ownership of the structures
Latrine 1 1
Outdoor kitchen 1 1
Storage 1 1
Total 22 15*
* Some households own more than one structure
Based on the impacts severity assessment developed in the RAP the adverse impacts of the land acquisition
on households and institutional stakeholders’ livelihoods are considered to be moderate to high for the
physically and economically displaced people and minor to moderate for the institutions losing part of their
land.
The strategy to mitigate the impacts of the land acquisition process is described in detail in the RAP. A
topography survey will be undertaken of the reservoir and the limit of the FSL will be physically demarcated
in order to confirm the extent of physical and economic impacts on communities. The Project will also work
with the government valuators of the Missenyi District to update (i) the census of affected persons and (ii)
the inventory and valuation of affected assets and land plots, taking into consideration the Lenders
requirements defined in the 2022 RAP. As part of the RAP, compensation, resettlement assistance and
livelihood restoration will be implemented for the affected people and institutions. A GRM will be
established to answer all complaints related to land acquisition and restriction of land use. These measures
are referred later in this report as:
• [M 62] A topography survey of the reservoir will be undertaken and the FSL reservoir footprint
physically demarcated (EPC Contractor).
• [M 63] The 2018 Valuation Report will be updated. The census of affected persons will be updated
including an update of the inventory and valuation of affected assets and land plots and taking into
consideration the Lenders requirements as defined in the 2022 RAP (TANESCO).
• [M 64] Implement the RAP (TANESCO).
• [M 65] Compensation will be paid before the start of construction, and resettlement assistance and
livelihood restoration will be provided to affected persons (TANESCO).
• [M 66] Develop and implement a GRM to resolve all grievances related to land acquisition and
restriction of land use (TANESCO).
If the resettlement and livelihood restoration measures are not implemented as planned, there is a risk that
people physically and economically displaced may not be sufficiently compensated and assisted to fully
overcome the material loss and psychological effects caused by the resettlement. However, the internal
and external monitoring of the resettlement planned by the RAP, and the GRM should reduce this risk.
E Monitoring Measures
The objective of the RAP implementation is to ensure that the affected households and institutional
stakeholders’ standards of living and livelihoods at least remain at their pre-Project level and preferably
improve because of the Project. Monitoring is the means of documenting the success in achieving this
objective. The monitoring strategy is described in detail in the RAP. Internal monitoring and independent
external monitoring will both be carried out. These measures are referred to later in this report as:
• [M 67] Internal monitoring of RAP implementation (TANESCO RAP unit).
• [M 68] External monitoring of RAP implementation carried out for 3 years following payment of
compensations (Independent RAP Consultant).
No additional land to that acquired for construction will be required for the Project operation. Therefore, no
additional impact has been anticipated and no additional mitigation measures proposed.

Risks to Agricultural Land due to Bank Erosion
The erosion of riverbanks downstream from the dam caused by the Project is a long and slow process. It is
caused by a reduced sediment loading in the river resulting from the trapping of sediment in the reservoir.
River waters have a capacity to transport sediment and sediment starved waters have a tendency to erode
the riverbed and riverbanks and mobilise sediment of a size that can be carried downstream by the flow of
the waters. This phenomenon is expected to commence with the start of reservoir filling and to continue
during the operation of the scheme. However, no bank erosion is expected during the dam construction
prior to reservoir filling as the sediment transported by the Kagera River will continue to be carried
downstream through the deviation channel. The duration of the reservoir filling is 1-2 months whereas the
operation of the scheme will be 50-100 years, and as the impact is a long and slow process, and to avoid
repetition, the impacts are discussed in the section on operation (Section 7.6.2.2).
Sediment transported by the Kagera River will be trapped by the reservoir, leading to bedload sediment
starvation of the downstream reaches and, as a result, riverbed and riverbank erosion (see Section 7.3.3).
Some cultivated plots of land have been identified on the riverbanks on the reach downstream from the
dam where local people are conducting flood recession farming and consequently these people may be
impacted by the Project.
Along the banks of the 93mk-long reach downstream from the dam a total of 580 plots used for flood
recession farming have been identified. The plots are farmed by KSC workers or by people from the 7
villages located on KSC land (Omundongo, Kyaka, Bulifani, Kassambya, Nyhabihanga, Gabulanga and
Mushasha). Th plots are used for growing annual crops such as sweet potatoes, beans, spinach and maize.
Farmers plant their crops as the seasonal flood water recede and the produce is usually for household
consumption but can sometimes be sold as a cash crop to supplement household income.
The trapping of sediment is expected to cause riverbed erosion and the loss of bank toe protection. The
banks will be exposed to a fluvial erosion undercutting the non-cohesive lower bank material and leading
to a progressive bank collapse. This process will follow the bed erosional process, starting at the dam and
progressing downstream. Furthermore, the reduction in sediment will also have an effect on floodplain
vertical aggradation, possibly resulting in gradual floodplain lowering. The more obvious change will be the
soil degradation and the loss of bank that will reduce the area for cultivation.
The assessment of the impact of bank erosion on flood recession farming comprises 3 steps:
• Evaluation of the sensitivity of flood recession farming - to assess if people engaged in flood
recession farming are dependent on it for their livelihood and whether they own additional land.
• Evaluation of magnitude of bank erosion at 4 locations downstream from the dam.
• Evaluation of the magnitude of lost land at the 4 locations.
B.1 Sensitivity of Flood Recession Farming
The social field survey conducted in October and November 2020, found that farmers cultivating along the
riverbanks along the reach through the KSC land are KSC workers, for whom the flood recession farming is
an essential source of additional income as they cannot live solely on their wages from KSC. Although some
of the workers have land and a residential home outside the KSC farm at their home village the sensitivity
of plots used by KSC workers is considered as high as the produce is not an extra income but is essential for
their livelihood while they are working at the KSC farm – which may be for several years.
The majority of people from the Omundongo, Kyaka and Nyabihanga village are farmers. Of the 85 people
interviewed from these villages, 5 declared to only own the riverbank plot, and of those, 3 were completely
reliant on the income generated by the riverbank plot. The interviews found that of the 80 farmers who own
more than 1 plot, 60 (70.59%) own a second land plot outside the floodplain and 20 (30%) own 2-4 plots.

According to the interviewed farmers in Omundongo, cultivating close to the riverbank guarantees
agricultural productivity during the dry season and most of the harvest would be sold to get quick cash. This
situation prevails in Omundongo village due to the floodable nature of the southern part of the village
connected to the Kagera river. This area forms a basin often flooded during high seasonal flows. All the land
located in this area are part of the village land, but they do not have the same customary land status as the
dry land located further up. According to interview, it would rather be an additional cultivated area, excepted
for the 4 individuals who do not have an additional plot.
The situation is different in the other villages located downstream from the Bulifani bridge. In these villages,
the riverbanks are flooded but without forming a basin and are therefore considered part of the dry
customary lands adjacent to the riverbank. Therefore, they are not considered as additional cultivated area.
To conclude, people from the villages located downstream from the dam and who cultivate a plot located
on the riverbanks are overwhelmingly farmers whose resilience capacity is limited as their income mostly
depend on agriculture. Overall, the sensitivity of plots of land located on the Kagera riverbanks is high.
B.2 Bank Erosion and the Potentially Impacted Land Plots
The social field survey conducted in October and November 2020 identified 580 plots used for flood
recession farming along the 93 km long reach downstream from the dam:
• 43 upstream plots on KSC land and cultivated by KSC workers, in general each plot occupies about
400 m2. The number might be underestimated because plots were hidden and difficult to find as
they are prohibited by KSC.
• 535 plots downstream from KCS located in the villages of Omundongo, Kyaka, Bulifani,
Kassambya, Nyhabihanga, Gabulanga and Mushasha. The number/size of plots might be
underestimated because when the survey was conducted the waters were unusually high
hindering farmers from cultivating their plots. Therefore, whereas the average width of plots was
measured to be 15 m, it is assumed they normally have an average width of 25 m.
Table 7.54 presents the estimates for the bank erosion impact at different distances from the dam as well
as the consequences of bank erosion on the cultivated plots. It shows that bank erosion estimations range
from 5-100 cm maximum per year according to the distance from the dam. Furthermore, the closer to the
dam, the earlier the peak erosion will occur. For the first 19 km, erosion is expected to be more intense
between years 1-10. However, further downstream the peak erosion will occur later, though it is not
possible to predict time scales. However, the time to reach the maximum erosion magnitude increases with
distance from the dam.
As a result, the impact of bank erosion on flood recession farming is likely to be more pronounced over the
first 40 km but will take several years to materialise as it is a slow process – giving communities time to
adapt. Farmers have been described as very sensitive receptors with limited resilience capacities due to the
dominant agrarian economy. Therefore, it is unlikely that farmers can find alternative source of incomes to
overcome their loses. However, fewer than 50 farmers are cultivating plots along this 40 km reach and in
addition farming is conducted illegally as it is on KSC land where informal farming is prohibited.
There are more farmers cultivating on the riverbanks downstream from km56 to km93. However, peak
erosion is predicted to occur later along this reach and to a less severe extent than further upstream. It is
noteworthy that farmers are already facing variable arable land availability which is related to inter-annual
variations in high seasonal flows and water level. As a result, farmers do not always cultivate the same area
each year and adapt their farming practice to land availability in the floodplain. To conclude, the impact of
bank erosion on flood recession farming is likely to be of low significance.
C Mitigation measure
The proposed mitigation measure to reduce bank erosion is explained in Section 7.3.3.2C. It seeks to
enhanced suspended sediment transit to limit bank erosion. TANESCO will support agricultural
enhancement initiatives (e.g. small-scale irrigation) through existing NGOs or institutions aiming at reducing
farmers dependencies on flood recession farming and rainfed agriculture. Activities will target be of
knowledge and awareness nature. This measure is referred to elsewhere in this report as:
• [M 69] Agricultural enhancement initiatives (knowledge and awareness) through existing NGOs or
institutions aiming at reducing farmers dependencies on flood recession farming and rainfed
agriculture will be supported by the Project (TANESCO).

Table 7.54 – Bank Erosion Impact on Flood Recession Farming

Site Bank erosion (see Section 7.3.3.2) Impacted cultivated plots Size of the impacted cultivated plots Peak erosion
From the dam down to km20 High and systematic erosion of bank toe 10 cultivated plots identified • 5 cm of erosion per year: 0.2% of land loss Peak erosion years 1-10
downstream KSC lands leading to bank collapse, 5 to 100 cm • Average size of 1 plot: 400 m² • 100 cm of erosion per year: 4% of land loss
maximum per year • Average length: 16 m
• Average width: 25 m
From km20 down to km40 High and systematic erosion of bank toe 33 cultivated plots identified • 5 cm of erosion per year: 0.2% of land loss Peak erosion years 3-20
downstream KSC lands leading to bank collapse 5 to 100 cm maximum • Average size of 1 plot: 400 m² • 100 cm of erosion per year: 4% of land loss
per year • Average length:16 m
From km40 to km60 downstream High and systematic erosion of bank toe 60 cultivated plots identified. • 5 cm of erosion per year: 0.2% of land loss Peak erosion years 5-30
KSC Territory and Omundongo village leading to bank collapse 5 to 80 cm maximum • Average size of 1 plot: 750 m² • 80 cm of erosion per year: 3.2% of land loss
per year • Average length: 30 m
From km60 to km93 downstream Moderate and systematic erosion of bank toe 477 cultivated plots identified • 5 cm of erosion per year: 0.2% of land loss Peak erosion years 10-75
Omundongo, Kassambya, Niabihanga, leading to bank collapse 5 to 50 cm maximum • Average size of 1 plot: 750 m² • 50 cm of erosion per year: 2% of land loss
Gabulanga, Kyaka, Bulifani, Mushasha per year • Average length: 30 m
villages • Average width: 25 m

D Residual Impact
The proposed mitigation measures for bank erosion will not significantly the erosion process. However, the
bank erosion is a slow and progressive processes allowing sufficient time for affected people to adapt.
Nevertheless, changing farming practices will be progressive and some farmers may resist change and
refuse to adapt their farming methods. However, as the impact of bank erosion on flood recession farming
is likely to be of low significance, no residual impact is anticipated.
E Monitoring measure
The proposed bank erosion monitoring measures are described in Section 7.3.3.2E. The proposed
monitoring activities will be implemented by TANESCO and will allow to monitor bank erosion by measuring
the edge and the angle of the bank regularly to document monthly changes. Appropriate measures will be
taken if the monitoring reveals a more significant impact than anticipated.
TANESCO will control the effectiveness of the agricultural enhancement initiatives they will propose to
farmers. This measure is referred to elsewhere in this report as:
• [M 70] Effectiveness of agricultural enhancement initiatives proposed to flood recession farmers
will be monitored twice yearly (TANESCO).
Project-Induced In-Migration
One of the issues associated with the construction phase is the project-induced in-migration (or influx),
which involves the movement of people into an area in anticipation of, or in response to, economic
opportunities.
To assess the risk and magnitude of the project-induced in-migration and its potential impacts, the
methodologies used are those defined in:
• The IFC handbook on Project-induced in-migration (IFC, 2009); and
• The World Bank Guidance Note on Managing the Risks of Adverse Impacts on Communities from
Temporary Project Induced Labour Influx (World Bank, 2016).
The significance of the potential impacts from Project-induced in-migration depends on:
• The likelihood and anticipated magnitude of the influx;
• The absorption capacity or resilience of the host communities, and
• The capacity of the project to manage the risks related to project-induced in-migration.
A.1 Assessment of Project-Induced In-Migration Risk and Magnitude
The importance and scale of in-migration depends on project characteristics and socioeconomic conditions
such as:
• The number of unskilled jobs offered locally by the Project;
• The education level of the population living in the Project area;
• Accommodation strategy of the Project’s workforce;
• Accessibility of the Project area and its possible enhancement by the Project;
• Perceived opportunities to speculate on compensation during the Project’s land acquisition
process;
• Proximity with international borders and existence of transnational migrations;
• Level of employment in the area without the Project;
• Existing local patterns of migration;
• Attraction of fish abundance due to reservoir impoundment, and
• Proximity to important urban centres.

Table 7.55 below provides the assessment of each of the above factors, the likelihood and potential
magnitude of influx in the Project’s area. Overall, the risk of project-induced in-migration is medium, and
the possible magnitude of such influx would be moderate.
Based studies of large mining projects, the IFC (2009) estimates that every direct job creates 3-10 indirect
jobs in the Project area. This ratio is for projects with a stronger attraction potential due to long life project
cycle (>10 years) and more than 3,000 workers. Unlike the mining sector, the Kakono Project will only be
attractive during the construction phase and the number of required workers will be limited. Taking into
consideration the Project scale, the remoteness of the area, as well as the mobility of the rural population,
it is likely that 1 direct job could create 2-3 indirect ones. The indirect jobs will be within various fields such
as catering, transportation, maintenance and security. According to the experience of the Project area, it is
likely that the job-seekers will come from the neighbouring rural districts. Hence the magnitude of the influx
would be 2,000-3,000 persons, as the Project will create 1,000 direct jobs for the construction.
A.2 Assimilative Capacity of Local Communities
The impacts of Project-induced in-migration will depend on the assimilative capacity of communities:
• Ability of natural resources (i.e. access to land and water) to accommodate increased resource use
without degradation;
• Ability of infrastructure, services and utilities to meet the needs of higher levels of demand
associated with a larger population;
• Social factors such as the strength and capacity of government, the level of economic
development, security risks, health risks, and socio-cultural factors, such as the degree of insularity
or acceptance of newcomers.
Communities likely to be impacted by influx are the villages of Mushabaiguru, Mugaba, Bugara and Businde
located close to the dam construction camps and which are located upstream of the proposed dam. The
construction of the TL may require temporary camps to be established at intervals along the TL wayleave
and as the TL crosses the Kyaka, this village could also be attractive to job-seekers.
Spontaneous settlements on KSC land and the Kitengule ranch land are unlikely. KSC is a large, highly
structured company that has security guards and Kitengule ranch is sub-leasing much of the grazing land
to private companies and illegal spontaneous settlements on this land is not expected as people will be
quickly moved off the land.
Table 7.56 provides the local capacities of Mushabaiguru, Mugaba, Bugara, Businde and Kyaka villages and
assesses their resilience capacity in case of an in-migration influx of 2,000-3,000 persons. Overall, the
resilience capacities of the villages are likely to be low.

Table 7.55 - Assessment of Risks and Magnitude of Project Related In-Migration

Factors Risk Description of situation Risk / Magnitude of influx
Number of unskilled jobs Uncontrolled employment The Kakono HPP Project will, at peak construction period, require 1,000 workers. The whole construction period is estimated at Low risk / Low magnitude
offered by the Project opportunities that will increase 52 months and the peak construction phase is planned after 12 months, when the early works that include all the activities to make
the number of migrants the site accessible will be over. Among the 1,000 workers, 117 will work as managers, 707 will be semi-skilled or skilled workers and
seeking for unskilled job 176 will be hired as unskilled workers. 10 to 20% of the required workforce will be mobilized for the construction of the TL. The EPC
opportunities Contractor will largely communicate on the local employment targets and objectives to avoid a massive influx of job-seekers. It is
estimated that the EPC Contractor will be required to have local residents ensuring that 100% of the unskilled workers are locals. This
will minimize employment opportunities for outsiders as scale of job-seeker influx depends on perceived employment opportunities.
There will be few opportunities for potential migrants as local people will be prioritised for skills development and employment and
this may deter potential in-migrants.
Education level of the There will be less opportunities Most of the households living in the Project area did not go further than primary school and a large majority are self-reliant farmers. High risk / moderate
population living in the of employments for Therefore, it should be difficult to hire local residents with specialist skills. magnitude
Project area uneducated people. It could
therefore increase
opportunities for potential
migrants with better skills.
Accommodation of Lack of official The construction camp has the capacity to accommodate 1,000 workers. However, some of the workers will be local and not all will Low risk / Low magnitude
workforce accommodations for workers be accommodated in the construction camp. Furthermore, the construction of the TL may require the construction of compounds at
could result in higher in intervals along the TL, should the distance between the worksite and the main construction camp be too long or should construction
migration be done simultaneously from either end. Therefore, required workers will all be accommodated by the Project.
Accessibility of Project A better accessibility to the The Project’s area is not easily accessible. On the right bank, the main road leading to the dam is crossing through the Kagera Sugar Medium risk / moderate
area Project area may increase in plantations in Missenyi District, north of the Project area. To access the construction camp on the right bank, there are currently two magnitude
migration as it will facilitate possibilities. First, there is an existing track, a dirt road in bad condition branching from B182 near Kihanga village and parallel to the
mobility and, as a result, new access road proposed for the Project. Second, the site can be accessed via the new access road which follows a narrow existing
business opportunities track, then turns into a small footpaths or cattle trails for the last 2 kilometers. Therefore, the widening and improvement of this road
will make the site more accessible. Therefore, it could facilitate mobility and, as a result, increase in migration.
Perceived opportunities Unsecure land tenure system Less than 100 households will receive compensation for both economic and physical displacements. The Tanzanian legislation Low risk / low magnitude
to speculate on could lead to speculation on recognises village land and Customary Right of Occupancy. Households and individuals who do not have a formal title deed are
compensation land compensation protected. Furthermore, in each village, a village council is in charge of managing land issues. Therefore, land issues are not private
and unregulated subjects where speculation could be easily done. It is unlikely that land issue attracts speculators.
Proximity with Proximity with international The Project area is located less than 30 km from the Ugandan borders. However, only 3 families from Rwanda and Uganda were Low risk / moderate
international borders borders can result in higher risk found in the Project area and those who were interviewed were all legal migrants well known by the villages’ authorities. The region magnitude
of in-migration has, in the past, been subject to the arrival of people from Rwanda and Uganda who have settled in the region. Tanzania authorities in
coordination with the governments of Rwanda and Uganda have undertaken a process for people illegally present in the region to
return to their home countries. Authorities are consequently sensitive regarding population influx. It is therefore unlikely that the
Project attract opportunity seekers from outside Tanzania.
Level of employment in Unemployment increases in- The level of employment in the Project area is not known. However, the social field surveys have indicated that most of the Medium risk / Moderate
the Project area migration as people will seek households are engaged in agriculture as self-reliant farmers or in livestock farming. There are limited economic alternatives. It is magnitude
for better economic likely that the Project will create job expectations.
opportunities elsewhere

Factors Risk Description of situation Risk / Magnitude of influx

Existing patterns of Populations tendencies to The social surveys performed in 2020 have revealed that 2 types of migration patterns are occurring in the Project area. First, Medium risk / Moderate
migration mobility means high risk of in- foreigners who have migrated from neighbouring countries like Rwanda, Burundi and Uganda have mainly settled upstream of the magnitude
migration dam, in the village land adjacent to the proposed reservoir. According to the qualitative and quantitative interviews, foreigners do not
represent a large population in the Project area. Second, people are also migrating from the neighbouring Districts of Muleba, Bukoba
and Biharamulo, in search for business opportunities and agricultural land.
The social field surveys have indeed revealed that internal migrations from rural District to other rural areas is therefore common in
the Project area. Physical mobility includes individuals who also return to the Project area after years spending outside their rural
origins. The prospect of finding employment within the Project or its suppliers, or in the businesses and services that grow out of the
resulting economic development, will attract migrants to settle in the area with their families.
Therefore, there is an existing tendency to mobility within the population that could increase in-migration.
Proximity with urban Projects located far from larger The nearest urban centre is Bukoba Municipality located approximately 90 km west from the Project site. However, the area Low risk / Low magnitude
centres urban centres tend to be neighboring the dam site are either belonging to KSC or to Kitengule ranch. Therefore, it is very unlikely that job-seekers could settle
associated with specific influx on private land and it is rather anticipated that they will chose the closer villages such as Mushabaiguru, Bugara, Mugaba and Businde
footprints, as the incoming village.
population will not be absorbed
within the city
Source: adapted from IFC 2009: “Projects and People: A Handbook for Addressing Project-Induced In-Migration”

Table 7.56 – Assimilative Capacities of the Local Communities Located Close to Project Construction Camps
Local Resilience
Description of situation in Mushabaiguru, Mugaba, Bugara and Businde villages Description of situation in Kyaka village
capacities capacity
Access to land Mugaba, Bugara and Businde villages are all located on the top of Chabadaki hill. The Kyaka is divided into private residential/agricultural land and communal Low
land located down the hill, near Kagera river, is communal village land mainly used by village land. Private lands are divided between families. The only plots which
cattle keepers. The agricultural lands are located up the hill. They are divided between are not divided per family are the communal village lands. Part of the Kyaka
families. The only plots which are not divided per family are the communal village down village land is impacted by the TL wayleave. Communal village land is
the hill. This large area is however not used for farming because of the increased mainly used as grazing land and to collect natural resources (medicinal
elephant attacks. In Mushabaiguru, agricultural lands are also divided by families. plant, firewood). However, when a household does not have access to a plot
However, village land is smaller, and interviews have highlighted that cattle keepers are of land, the Village Council allows it to farm and live on the communal
suffering from grazing land shortage. village land, which is becoming smaller due to population increase.
Access to Mushabaiguru, Mugaba, Bugara and Businde villagers are using streams and the Kagera Kyaka villagers are all mainly using water pumps and/or the Kagera raw Medium
water raw river water for those living down the Chabadaki hill. There are no water pumps. river water.
Waste There is no waste management system. Waste is disposed of by burning, burial in pits or The waste management system in Kyaka is similaire to the one described Low
management simply dumping it. for Mushabaiguru, Mugaba, Bugara and Businde villages.
system
Infrastructures Infrastructures are very poor in all 4 villages. Roads are not asphalted, there is no police Infrastructures are very poor in Kyaka. Roads are not asphalted, there is no Low
station, no access to electricity or running water. police station, no access to electricity or running water.
Political All villages have the same political system strongly linked to a pyramidal administrative Kyaka has the same political system as in Mushabaiguru, Mugaba, Businde Moderate
system system. At the village level, the institutions are based on direct democracy. There are and Bugara villages. This system is homogeneous in the Project area and is
two main planning organs: The Village Council and the Village Assembly. Villages are legitimized by the local communities.
sub-divided by hamlets. There is one head-chairman for each hamlet and village. Each
level of the pyramidal administrative system is deeply connected.
Economic All villages are agrarian communities where agriculture is the dominant source of Kyaka village economy is mainly based on subsistence farming. There are Low
development income. However, Mushabaiguru, Mugaba, Bugara and Businde villages’ economies few job opportunities outside the farming sector.
could be considered as mixed due to the importance of livestock production. However,
job opportunities outside those two sectors are almost inexistant.
Health The health facilities are poor in the 4 villages (long waiting times, poor-quality The health facilities are poor in Kyaka village (long waiting times, poor- Low
healthcare delivery, old and poorly maintained infrastructure, and poor disease control quality healthcare delivery, old and poorly maintained infrastructure, and
and prevention practices). Businde village is the only one to have a health centre and poor disease control and prevention practices for instance). There is a health
there is a dispensary in Bugara. Villagers have access to KSC hospital, but it is located far centre in Kyaka and in Bunazi, a small town located close to Kyaka.
from the 4 villages. However, the construction of the new bridge will facilitate its access. However, Kyaka villagers are located far from KSC hospital.
Security The social baseline conducted in the 4 villages did not reveal any major security issue. The social field surveys conducted in Kyaka village did not reveal any major Low
However, elephants were cited as a serious risk for residents living on the Chabadaki hill, security issue.
in the reservoir footprint. Movements of elephants have increased significantly in the
last 5 years, as well as the number of human-elephant accidents.
Insularity Locals are used to mobility. Firstly, there are foreigners from Rwanda and Uganda living According to interviews, Kyaka village does not attract foreigners. However, Medium
in the area. They are generally valued as shepherds. Secondly, residents are used to people are used to migrating from neighboring Districts in search for
rural in-migration. They move from one rural district or ward to another. business opportunities and agricultural land.
Source: adapted from IFC 2009: “Projects and People: A Handbook for Addressing Project-Induced In-Migration”

B.1 Potential Adverse Impacts on Communities
Implications associated with in-migration could be serious if it were to materialize. The required
1,000 workers will be accommodated at the Project site in a construction worker camp. This will minimize
interactions with local communities and reduce pressure on the existing infrastructure, services, and
utilities.
The in-migration (excluding the 1,000 Project workers) is predicted to be potentially 2,000-3,000 persons,
which represents 11-16% of the total population of the villages of Mushabaiguru, Mugaba, Bugara, Businde
and Kyaka village (18,320 people). Potential adverse impacts on the local communities could be:
• Rapid population growth and large increases in the absolute numbers of people resident within the
project area can strain public infrastructure, services, and utilities;
• Rapid population growth and large increases in the absolute numbers of people resident within the
project area can lead to spontaneous and anarchic settlements;
• Increased problem of lack of security and alcohol. Increase in occurrence of social incidents such as
domestic violence and rape, child labour, intra- and intergroup jealousies. This could result in an
increase in crime and violence and cause a general breakdown of law and order;
• Risk of prostitution, sex workers that will lead to the spread of sexual diseases such as HIV and
tuberculosis;
• Failure of inadequate drainage systems due to rapid population growth. The accumulation of
standing pools of water which serve as breeding sites for the mosquitoes that spread malaria,
increasing risks to employee and community health;
• Depletion of natural resources (i.e. fuelwood, water, aquatic resources, land). Increased and
unsustainable land use may also lead to land degradation such as loss of soil fertility or erosion,
causing decline in productivity;
• Local inflation of prices, including pressure on accommodation;
• Increased risk of communicable diseases and burden on local health services;
• Increased economic vulnerability for marginal groups;
• Increase in traffic and related accidents.
Given the predicted importance of the influx and the low resilience capacities of the villages, the magnitude
of these impacts is likely to be moderate to high. As the local social environment is considered sensitive, the
impacts above are likely to be of high significance.
B.2 Risks Factors Related to Influx
The World Bank Guidance Note on “Managing the risks of adverse impacts on communities from temporary
project induced labor influx” (World Bank 2016) suggests that the potential impacts from Project-induced
in-migration could be further exacerbated by the local social, institutional and organisational Project
implementation situation. A high-risk situation requires more stringent management measures than a low-
risk one. The following criteria must be considered to assess if the Project’s implementation situation
increases the risks related to influx management or not:
• Institutional capacity of the implementing agency
• Capacities of EPC Contractors regarding workers management and health and safety policies
• Anticipated volumes of labour influx
• Pre-existing social conflicts or tensions
• Situation of local law enforcement
• Prevalence of gender-based violence and social norms towards it in the community
• Local prevalence of child and forced labour
Table 7.57 below assesses the importance of risk of the social, institutional and organisational context of
the Project, in regard to the factors listed above.

Table 7.57 – Factors Increasing the Potential Impacts from Project-Induced in-Migration
Risk Factors Description of situation Importance of risk
Institutional capacity of the TANESCO has a strong institutional capacity. Low risk
implementing agency
Capacities of EPC Contractors The EPC Contractor will apply the international standards regarding Low risk
regarding workers management workers management and health and safety policies.
and health and safety policies
Anticipated volumes of labour See above. Medium risk
influx About 1,000 workers will be present on site at peak. Among them,
about 176 employees would be unskilled workers.
It is estimated that between 2,000 and 3,000 additional job-seekers
could participate in the influx. Additionally, 200 fishers could also
seek for fisheries opportunity due to the reservoir impoundment.
Pre-existing social conflicts or Not significant in the Project area Low risk
tensions
Interviews did not mention issue regarding law enforcement, but Medium risk
Situation of local law enforcement
petty corruption can obstruct access to employment and services.
Prevalence of gender-based See section 5 (baseline situation) Medium risk
violence and social norms towards Gender based violence exists in the Project area
it in the community,
Local prevalence of child and Not occurring in the Project area Low risk
forced labour.
Source: adapted from World Bank 2016, “Managing the Risks of Adverse Impacts on Communities from
Temporary Project Induced Labor Influx”
Based on the above criteria, the social, institutional and organisational context of the project do not
constitute a high-risk environment for the management of Project-induced in-migration. Overall, before
mitigation, the significance of the Project’s impacts on in-migration during operation and reservoir filing is
likely to be moderate to high.
C Mitigation measures
The following measures mitigate the potential adverse impacts that could affect the communities located
near the construction camps.
C.1 General Mitigations Measures
TANESCO will develop in coordination with local authorities an Influx Management Strategy for the
construction phase (local recruitment, accommodation, transportation, community health) and operation
(community health, planning the construction of public amenities, community consultation mechanism,
reservoir fisheries management).
Guided by the Influx Management Strategy the EPC Contractor will implement actions to reduce the
potential influx such as:
• Development of a worker’s codes of conduct focusing on respect of the communities’ beliefs and
customs;
• Advertisement of the labour management principals and the local Recruitment Policy of the
construction workforce (e.g. number and nature of each required work will need to be
communicated);
• Control of the in-migration influx in collaboration with the local authorities in each of the working
sites neighbouring villages;
• Control of inflation in each of the working sites neighbouring villages;
• Development of an urban/spatial plans for existing and new settlements within targeted host
communities;
• Conduct of health awareness training for workers and in the neighbouring villages including
sexually transmitted diseases;
• Control of the communicable diseases prevalence rate in each of the working sites neighbouring
villages.
The Influx Management Strategy will define monitoring methods and objectives to track the plan’s progress
and weakness. The effectiveness of the above activities will depend on the implication of the local

authorities. Therefore, the strategy will need to be developed in cooperation with the villages, the wards
and the districts authorities concerned by the potential population influx.
• [M 71] An Influx Management Strategy will be developed for construction (local recruitment,
accommodation, transportation, community health) and operation (community health, planning
the construction of public amenities, community consultation mechanism, reservoir fisheries
management). (TANESCO).
• [M 72] Community investment initiatives in education, economic and social needs in the lower
Kagera valley between Businde and Kyaka (e.g. rehabilitation or construction of schools, rural
electrification roads) (TANESCO).
C.2 EPC Contractor Workforce Management
The EPC Contractor will develop and implement a Human Resources policy and labour management
principles in line with national and Lenders’ Policies. The HR policy and labour management principles will
clearly state that there will be no forced labour and child labour. The documentation will be available in the
Project area in English and in Ki-Swahili languages.
As far as local employment is concerned, the EPC Contractor shall clearly define the local employment
objectives and targets. This local recruitment policy will be disseminated widely using local media in order
to reach the local population of the required construction workforce.
As a contractual requirement, EPC Contractor will maximize the use of local workforce and local people3 will
represent 100% of the un-skilled employees. The recruitment will be carried out at a designated
recruitment office, which will be at a suitable location to be determined with local authorities. These
measures will avoid miscommunication and false hopes which will limit the in-migration influx. These
measures are referred to elsewhere in this report as:
• [M 73] Human Resource and Labour Management Principles for the construction workforce will be
developed in alignment with national and Lenders’ Policies. The documentation will be available in
English and Ki-Swahili (EPC Contractor).
• [M 74] The Human Resource Policy and Labour Management Principles for the construction
workforce will clearly state that there will be no forced labour and child labour (EPC Contractor).
• [M 75] The Local Recruitment Policy for the construction workforce will be widely communicated
(EPC Contractor).
• [M 76] Recruitment of local people for the construction will be maximised, with a target of 100% of
unskilled workers to be local people (EPC Contractor).
• [M 77] Support to vocational training centres during construction to increase local employment
potential for the operation phase (TANESCO).
C.3 Urban/Spatial Plans for Existing and New Settlements
To avoid spontaneous and unplanned informal growth in housing, TANESCO will work together with local
authorities at the District level to develop and implement urban/spatial plans for existing and new
settlements within targeted communities. These plans should allow for controlled development through
zoning and regulation. In this way, they will promote better management in the development of
infrastructure, services, and utilities. These plans should also assess the current communities’ capacities
against predicted population increases. The project may therefore develop mechanisms to share
responsibility for development of infrastructure and utilities in the targeted host communities. This
measure is referred to elsewhere in this report as:
• [M 78] The Project will coordinate with district authorities with regard to the development and
implementation of urban/spatial plans for existing and new settlements affected by the Project-
induced influx (TANESCO).
3
The local residents are the people living in the three impacted Districts being Missenyi, Karagwe and Kyerwa district.

Regarding potential health issues, all recommended mitigation measures to avoid development and
spreading of diseases in the camps and in the neighbouring communities are cited in Section 7.6.4.
C.4 Community Grievance Procedure
To facilitate early identification of problems and to target appropriate mitigating interventions by the
Project, a Community Grievance Procedure will be established. The Procedure is described in Section 9.
Information on how to use the Community Grievance procedure to report issues will be provided to the
communities in the Project area. This measure is referred to elsewhere in this report as:
• [M 79] A Community Grievance Procedure will be developed and implemented (TANESCO).
D Residual Impacts
Despite the effectiveness of the mitigation measures, the residual impacts regarding in-migration are likely
to remain minor or moderate, depending on the flow of migration. As the assimilative capacities of the local
communities located close to Project construction camps are low, the adverse impacts are likely to increase
if the number of job-seekers exceeds predictions. The above mitigations measures should control the influx
migration and provide guidance to efficiently manage the job-seekers settlements. However, social tension
cannot be entirely avoided.
As described in Section 7.6.4., the EPC Contractor will implement community health management measures
and which will be monitored by TANESCO. TANESCO will also monitoring the implementation of the Influx
Management Plan. These measures are referred later in this report as:
• [M 80] Monitoring of the implementation of the Community Health Management by the EPC
Contractor during the construction phase (TANESCO).
• [M 81] Monitoring of the implementation of the Influx Management Strategy actions by the EPC
• [M 82] Audit of EPC Contractors labour management, human resources, working conditions and
supply chain will be conducted by an independent organisation (TANESCO).
The operation of the scheme will only require a small number of staff, in the order of 50 skilled people. The
maintenance of the TL would require annual inspections from the ground directly performed by TANSECO
team. The number of required workers during operation will therefore be very low.
B.1 Uncontrolled Fishing and Social Tension over Fish Resources
Most of the in-migration is expected to occur during construction phase when the Project demands for
labour and goods and services will be at their peak. As the number of staff required for the operation of the
scheme is very small and entirely composed of skilled workers, a flow of in-migration is not anticipated
during run of river operation. However, based on studies by Lassailly-Jacob (1983), Bernacsek (1997a), and
Togola (2009) the reservoir could represent a favourable environment for fisheries and attract fishers.
At the time of writing, the villages of Mushabaiguru, Mugaba, Bugara and Businde, which are near the future
reservoir, are not fishers communities. The social surveys performed in 2020 found that fishing is not a
significant economic activity in these villages. Fishing is practiced by a few people throughout the year. The
quantities of fish caught are small and mostly consumed at household level. Fishing is said to not be a
widespread activity because people usually do not know how to fish, the river flow is too strong and
dangerous, and many fear wild animals like crocodiles and hippos.
However, the reservoir impoundment will result in a reduced river velocity and the banks will become more
accessible, making fishing more accessible and attractive. Consequently, fishers from downstream and
from neighbouring rural districts may be attracted to the area and local people who do not currently fish
maybe interested in starting fishing. Therefore, the villages of Mushabaiguru, Mugaba, Bugara and Businde

could become attractive for the development of fisheries over a period of several years, the time needed
for the development of a fish population in the reservoir. Moreover, the Project area is located 90km from
Lake Victoria where fishing is an important economic activity, so even though fishing is not currently popular
within the Project area, there is a strong fishing culture in the region which may encourage influx of fishers.
Project-induced fishers in-migration during operation could therefore lead to uncontrolled fishing, tension
over fish resources, but also to impacts on the livelihood strategies and community health of people
resident near the reservoir. In the 4 cited villages, there is no local fishing control or established fishing
groups due to the almost non-existence of this economic activity. Despite the existence of village
environmental committees, these have not managed issues concerning fisheries. Therefore, a large and
unprepared influx of fishers into these villages is likely to be a source social tension. In the Project area,
most of the fishers do not have a licence. During the fishery survey conducted in 2020, only 10 fishers out
of the 82 interviewees had a legal fishing licence. It is highly probable that fishers settling in Mushabaiguru,
Mugaba, Bugara and Businde could conduct fishing activities without being registered, leading to illegal and
uncontrolled fishing.
Additionally, fishers in-migration could lead to broader adverse impacts on the host communities such as
spontaneous informal settlements, depletion of natural resources, increase of violence and social incidents.
Those potential impacts were assessed under the in-migration impact in Section 7.6.3.1B. As the
assimilative capacities of the local communities located close to Project construction camps were assessed
as low, the significance of these impacts was assessed to be moderate. Therefore, without mitigation, the
significance of Project-induced fishers in-migration is likely to be also moderate.
C Mitigation Measures
C.1 Fisheries Policy and Management
The Project will conduct a Fisheries Feasibility Study to assess the future fisheries potential of the reservoir.
Should this prove viable, a Fishery Management Plan (FMP) should be developed with the participation of
the Tanzania Fisheries Research Institute (TAFIRI) and Missenyi District Fisheries Office to better control the
potential influx of fishers. The FMP main objectives will be to regulate and manage the influx of fishers, but
also to develop sustainable fishing practices among the local communities. The Plan will be in line with the
national, regional and local fishing regulations and will propose specific activities that will be undertaken to
minimize the impact on the local community and to develop sustainable fishing such as:
• Development of secure fishing grounds along the reservoir;
• Regulation to prevent overexploitation of fisheries (e.g. fishing quotas with size limits, including
minimum, maximum, and protected size ranges);
• Creating fisheries groups to empower local people;
• Training on fishing (sustainable practices and potential gear restrictions), and
• Regular control to fight illegal fishing and promotion of fishing licences.
The FMP will need to define monitoring methods and objectives in order to track the plan’s progress and
weakness. The effectiveness of the FMP will also depend on the local authority’s involvement. Therefore,
the FMP will also need to be developed in cooperation with the villages, the wards and the districts
authorities concerned by the potential fisher’s influx.
• [M 83] TAFIRI and the Missenyi District Fisheries Office will be engaged to conduct a Fisheries
Feasibility Study and if viable develop a Fisheries Management Plan, including L. victorianus
breeding programme, management of Project-induced fishermen in-migration and Nile Perch
control (TANESCO).
D Residual impacts
Despite the effectiveness of the mitigation measures, the residual impacts regarding fishers in-migration
are likely to remain minor or moderate, depending on the flow of migration. As the assimilative capacities
of the local communities located close to Project construction camps are low, the adverse impacts are likely
to increase if the number of fishers exceeds what the local population can absorb. The above mitigations
measures should control the influx migration and provide guidance to efficiently manage the job-seekers
settlements. However, social conflicts cannot be entirely avoided.

E Monitoring measures
Missenyi District Fisheries Office will be in charge of monitoring the implementation of the Fishery
Management Plan and will report to TANESCO. This measure is referred later in this report as:
• [M 84] Missenyi District Fisheries Office will be engaged to monitor the implementation of the
Fishery Management Plan (TANESCO).
Community Health
With the arrival of project construction workers, adverse impacts on community health could occur. The
baseline data on community health shows that in the Project area the main diseases affecting the local
population in decreasing order are (i) upper respiratory infections, (ii), malaria, (iii), urinary tract infections,
and (iv) diarrhoea. Within KSC workers camps, interviews have found that one of the health challenges the
camps are facing is child malnutrition caused by poor diet. There is no updated data regarding HIV
prevalence in the Project area, but the latest survey performed in 2018 found that it reaches 6.1% among
the 15-49 age group in the Kagera region, which was above the national average of 4.7% (see Section 5).
Within the Project area, the health facilities are poor (long waiting times, poor-quality healthcare delivery,
old and poorly maintained infrastructure, and poor disease control and prevention practices for instance).
Health facilities lack human and material resources to treat patients. There are high rates of transmissible
diseases and poor environmental health conditions. The only good health infrastructure in the Project area
is the KSC hospital. Health centres are more easily accessible, but many villages do not have any health
provision (e.g. Kassambya, Omundungo, Gabulanga, Mushabaiguru and Mugaba villages) and residents
need to rely on the health facility in the nearby village. In Tanzania, Kagera region has a relatively low health
facility density (0.17 per 10,000 population in 2016). The communities located close to the project area are
already facing communicable diseases such as HIV, and malaria. However, as health provision is poor in the
Project area, it could represent a risk in the event of spread of communicable diseases. Additionally, these
communities could also suffer from common impacts to all major infrastructure construction projects such
as noise, dust and vibration due to traffic on public roads.
Health hazards and adverse impacts that could affect community health during construction are presented
in Table 7.58. The main hazards are (i) noise, dust and vibration from traffic and worksites, and (ii) increased
risk of communicable diseases due to project construction workers and project induced migration.
Communities located near the dam site can be considered sensitive as they are rural and not familiar with
large infrastructure projects. Additionally, they are vulnerable due to the poor health infrastructures lacking
human and material resources, the local communities would be unable to face a fast increase of prevalence
of communicable diseases. The dam worksites are located far from villages and KSC workers camps, and
access roads are not widely used by local people. However, the communities at Kyaka could be disturbed
by noise, dust and vibration from Project traffic and any nearby worksites as the TL crosses Kyaka village
and its surrounding areas are crossed by asphalted roads that concentrate the majority of the traffic in the
Project area. Furthermore, temporary access tracks to access the TL are likely to cross residential areas in
the village.
C.1 Noise, Dust and Vibration
A Traffic Management Plan will be put in place to manage and mitigate adverse impacts from road traffic
affecting local communities (see Section 7.6.6). Key measures to reduce noise, dust and vibration are as
follows:
• Definition and enforcement of speed limits;
• Maintaining road vehicles in good working order;
• Maintaining roads in good condition.

Where locations of the construction sites, construction compounds and access roads are not yet defined,
TANESCO will require the EPC Contractor to locate them at least 200 m from residential areas where
possible to avoid potential disturbances from noise, dust, exhaust emissions. In Tanzania, the General
Tolerance Limits for Environmental Noise, based WHO guidelines (WHO, 1999)4 sets the noise at 55 dB(A)
during the day and 45dB(A) during the night in residential areas. The noise level will be maintained below
these values. Noise-intensive works such as piling, demolition, metalworking, and blasting (in quarries) will
not be permitted during night-time. This measure is referred in this report as:
• [M 85] Construction Traffic Management Plan(s) for dam and TL construction works will be
developed and implemented, the plan(s) will provide information on public roads used by the
Project, will be publicly disclosed and provided to local community leaders (EPC Contractor).
• [M 42] The Construction Traffic Management Plan will set speed limits (30 km/h on the dam and TL
access roads and 20 km/h on other internal roads), and define speed control measures, tracking of
construction vehicles and penalties for non-compliance by staff (EPC Contractor).
• [M 86] Project construction activities and road use will comply with Tanzanian legislation, WHO and
IFC guidelines for noise and air quality (EPC Contractor).
• [M 87] Construction facilities, worksites and new access tracks (other than TL towers) shall be
<200m from residential areas, wherever feasible (EPC Contractor).
• [M 88] Construction activities shall comply with the General Tolerance Limits for Environmental
Noise in Tanzania (EPC Contractor).
• [M 89] Noise-intensive works such as piling, demolition, metalworking, and blasting (in quarries)
will not be undertaken at night (EPC Contractor).
GRM procedures will be made easily accessible to local communities and KSC workers camps. Project
workers will be made aware of the GRM procedures. In the event of a noise, dust or vibration complaint
during construction, TANESCO will investigate the complaint and work with the EPC Contractor to establish
if there is a need to alter construction techniques (e.g. methods and duration of working) and whether there
is a need to monitor noise levels at the relevant receptor. Where necessary, appropriate measures will be
employed. These measures are referred to elsewhere in this report as:
• [M 90] The Project will resolve grievances related to noise, dust or vibration received during
construction and where required will establish the need to alter the construction methods and
determine if additional protection measures are needed (TANESCO).
C.2 Community Exposure to Communicable Diseases
The EPC Contractor will prepare and implement a Community Health and Safety Plan which will include
measures for communicable diseases to protect the communities living close to the working sites. Key
measures are listed below:
• Recruitment target of 100% local people for unskilled positions to reduce the number of workers
from outside the 3 impacted districts;
• Construction workers will be accommodated in a worker camp, with controlled access;
• Provide sufficient safe water drinking and sanitary facilities at the worker camp;
• In coordination with local health authorities, health awareness campaigns will be organised for
those communities situated close to worker accommodation camps;
• Construction workers (including contractors) will be subject to health screening. During induction,
workers will be provided with health awareness training including with regard to STDs. Periodic
refresher training will be provided;
• Free condoms will be available at the project’s first aid and medical centres at the construction
sites and worker camps;
4
Noise schedules for various areas, undated. EMDC 6 (1733) P 2: Acoustics - General tolerance limits for environmental noise.
Tanzania Bureau of Standards. National Environmental Standards Compendium. From:
http://www.tzdpg.or.tz/fileadmin/_migrated/content_uploads/National_Environmental_Standards_Co mpendium.pdf.

• [M 91] Development and implementation of a Community Health and Safety Plan for the
construction phase (EPC Contractor).
An action plan to protect and fight against HIV/AIDS, Covid 19 and other STDs at a District and ward scale
will be prepared with local authorities. The Project will provide assistance in the preparation of the plan. To
prevent and limit the spread of communicable diseases, the Project will coordinate with local health centres
to conduct preventive health campaigns. In case of a disease outbreak, assistance to affected health centres
to access appropriate medication will be provided. These measures are referred to elsewhere in this report
as:
• [M 92] Assistance to local authorities to prepare an action plan to protect and fight against
HIV/AIDS, Covid-19 and other STDs at a District and ward scale will be provided (TANESCO).
• [M 93] The Project will coordinate with local authorities to conduct preventive health campaigns
regarding communicable diseases (TANESCO).
• [M 94] Support to existing health centres will be provided through support to health governmental
agencies as implementing body: infrastructure, staffing, essential medicine, waterborne and
communicable disease prevention actions for construction and operation phases. In the event of
disease outbreak, assistance to impacted health centres to obtain access to appropriate
medication will be provided (TANESCO).

Table 7.58 – Potential Impacts on Community Health During Construction

Frequency of
Hazard Source of impact Risk of impact Communities/people potentially affected by the source of impact Local context Risk/Magnitude
the impact
Noise dust and Road traffic • Dust, noise and vibration • Most of the road traffic will be between the construction camps, the The impact will • Very sparsely populated area. Low risk/Low
vibration potentially affecting quarry/borrow areas and the spoil disposal areas, all located at the be intermittent Low traffic. In KSC territory, magnitude
communities. dam site. but through the people are used to see the
• Inappropriately • On the right bank, the dam worksite will be accessible using the new full construction company trucks using the non-
managed general access road crossing the Kitengule ranch where there are only period paved road.
construction work may shepherds living temporarily in camps belonging to KSC or in small • Near the new access road,
generate offsite dust, structures. They are all located around 250 m west from the road. shepherds are mobile people
noise and vibration at Structures belonging to Chaburwa Ranch were also found 430 m west moving along with their cattle.
levels exceeding public of the new access road. They usually do not stay close
health human health • On the left bank, the dam will be accessible using the non-paved road to roads but are looking for
threshold values B181 going through KSC. The road passes close to camp n°6, 9 and grazing land to feed their cattle.
(defined by World 10.
Health Organization –
Construction at WHO). • On the right bank, the dam worksite is located in a remoted area The impact will • The communities are located in Low risk/ Low
dam site relatively far away from villages. The closest village is Mushabaiguru be intermittent rural areas, away from urban magnitude
but there is no road to connect the village to the dam site. By foot, but during the centres. They are not used to
pedestrian access is around 7 km to access the dam site and the end full construction the construction of large
of the new access road. By road, vehicle access is around 35 km. The period infrastructures.
other villages are Bugara, Mugaba and Businde and they are located • KSC workers will not be at the
further north from Mushabaiguru. KSC camps during the day as
• On the left bank, the closest KSC workers camps are located around most of them will be working in
4 km from the dam site. the sugar cane plantations
located north or west of the
dam site.
TL, substation and • The TL will not be easily accessible. The proposed line is crossed once The impact will • The communities are located in Medium
access road by the B182 road, after Kyaka village, but also by a dirt road leading to be intermittent rural areas. However, Kyaka risk/Moderate
the new bridge under construction in KSC territory. but during the village is located close to the magnitude
• The TL will cross Kyaka agricultural and residential land. Temporary full construction asphalted road B182 and
access tracks could cross the village. However, precise location of the period Bulifani village where most of
construction compounds, access tracks and working sites are not yet the economic activity of the
known. area is taking place. Kyaka
village is therefore used to
• The extension of the Kyaka sub-station will also take place in Kyaka
village close to residential houses. traffic.

Frequency of
Hazard Source of impact Risk of impact Communities/people potentially affected by the source of impact Local context Risk/Magnitude
the impact
Community Increase of STI/HIV • About 1,000 • The communities living close to the dam site are likely to be the most Impact during • In 2018, the HIV prevalence was High risk/High
exposure to prevalence and construction workers impacted by exposure to communicable diseases. If the construction the full relatively high as it affected magnitude
communicable communicable will be employed during camp is located relatively far from Mushabaiguru, Mugaba, Bugara construction 6.1% of the 15-49 aged
diseases diseases by the peak, out of which 176 and Businde village, part of the in-migration flow is likely to settle in period peaking population in the Kagera region.
required will be unskilled those villages. after the first • Malaria and Diarrhoea are the
workforce and workers. Some workers • Kifaru and camp n°10 are the closest KSC camps to the dam site, year two main waterborne diseases
jobseekers may come from outside respectively located 4.5 km north east and 6 km west. However, the in the Project area.
the Project area, though construction camp where workers will be accommodated will be • The only good health
from within Tanzania. located on the other side of the riverbank.. infrastructure in the Project area
Few expatriated foreign
• The location of the temporary construction compounds for the TL are is the KSC hospital. Overall, the
workers are expected. not yet known. However, it is likely that some compounds will be health facilities lack competent
• Job-seekers attracted located in Kyaka village. human resources and materials.
by the Project are
estimated to be 2,000-
3,000. Their presence
may potentially increase
the incidence of
communicable diseases,
including STI/HIV (see
Section 7.6.3).
Impacts on The materials at • Water resources may be • The potentially impacted communities will be those located near the Impact during • According to interviews, only the High risk /
availability and the dam site, the affected by the dam site: Mushabaiguru, Mugaba, Bugara and Businde village on the the full people from Mushabaiguru, Moderate
quality of water earthworks as well following: left bank and the Kifaru and the camp n°10 on the right bank. construction Mugaba, Bugara and Businde magnitude
resources as the domestic • Increased sediment • If temporary construction compounds are needed for the construction period villages leaving or working
representing wastewater from loading in the Kagera of the TL it is likely that some will be located in Kyaka village. down the Chabadaki hills are
health hazards the construction river from earthworks using the Kagera river on a daily
camps • Accidental spills and basis. About 30 people live
leaks from the storage permanently down the hill.
and handling of • KSC workers from Kifaru camp
hazardous materials and camp n°10 are also using
which may contaminate the kagera river for domestic
surface and consumption on a daily basis.
groundwater • Villagers from Kyaka locate near
• Discharge of sanitary the riverbank are using Kagera
and domestic river. This is not the case for the
wastewater villagers who will be impacted
by the TL because the power
line is not located near the river.
Only the first settlements near
the Kyaka substation are
located close to the river.

C.3 Availability and Quality of Water Resources
The EPC Contractor will prepare and implement a Construction Environmental and Social Management Plan
(ESMP) that will include measures to prevent impacts on water resource availability and quality. Key
measures are listed below:
• At the construction camp, sanitary and domestic wastewater will be collected and treated prior to
discharges. All discharges will comply with Tanzanian discharge limits and limits defined by IFC
General EHS guidelines;
• Sediment traps will be used to prevent runoff with high sediment load draining from worksites to
surface water;
• The EPC Contractor will provide alternative sources of household safe drinking water if wells or
springs used by a household are affected by the Project.
- [M 13] Construction site pollution prevention and protection plans, and measures will be
developed and implemented for the dam and TL worksites (EPC Contractor).
- [M 95] If wells or springs used by a household are affected by the Project, an alternative
source of household potable water will be provided (EPC Contractor).
D Residual Impacts
Significance of residual impacts on community health is dependent on the effectiveness of the Project’s
health management systems, and the capacity of the local authorities to manage potential increased
prevalence of communicable diseases in the population as a result of Project induced in-migration. It should
be feasible for the Project to manage health for a 1,000-worker camp. However, there are uncertainties
regarding the limited capacity of the local public health infrastructure to manage potential increase in
diseases. Consequently, there is a residual risk that community health issues may materialise. However, the
Project will coordinate with local authorities and monitor health in order to minimise the risk.
E.1 Noise, Dust and Vibration
The EPC Contractor will carry out regular noise level measurements (Leq, dBA), using standard sound level
meter, to demonstrate compliance with WHO and Tanzanian noise guidelines.
• [M 96] Regular noise level monitoring will be performed during construction to demonstrate
compliance with WHO and Tanzanian noise guidelines (EPC Contractor).
E.2 Community Exposure to Communicable Diseases
TANESCO will monitor the implementation of the Community Health Management measures put in place by
the EPC Contractor. These measures are referred to elsewhere in this report as:
• [M 97] Implementation of the Community Health Management measures by the EPC Contractor
during construction will be monitored (TANESCO).
E.3 Availability and Quality of Water Resources
Groundwater and river water quality will be monitored as described in 7.3.2.1E.
A.1 Waterborne Diseases in the Project Area
During operation, the creation of the permanently flooded area could create a habitat which is favourable
for the development of vectors of waterborne diseases. The social baseline has revealed that malaria is the
most common waterborne disease in the Project area (see Section 5). Malaria has been endemic in the

Kagera region for a long time due to the presence of the floodplain. Malaria is a leading cause of mortality,
especially in children under age 5 and pregnant women as they have insufficient immunity against malaria.
However, while Tanzania has one of the highest prevalence rates of schistosomiasis (also known as
bilharzia) in Sub-Saharan Africa, none of the interviews performed during the social field surveys mentioned
bilharzia - Kichocho in Kiswahili - as a common disease. Interviews conducted in several dispensaries have
confirmed the absence of Kichocho as they only had four diagnosed people in two years. Indeed, the overall
prevalence rate of bilharzia in Kagera Region was less than 10% in 2012. Interviews highlighted that the
speed of the river may be unsuitable for the snails to proliferate. Academic literature confirmed the absence
of these intermediate hosts.
Human African Trypanosomiasis (HAT) or sleeping sickness, has not been mentioned as a common disease
during the interviews. Tsetse fly control campaigns during the 90s has led to a great decline of
trypanosomiasis. In 2006 in Tanzania, only five regions have reported sleeping sickness cases and a large
number originated from Kigoma. Kagera region was not cited.
A.2 Health Infrastructures in the Project Area
As described in section 7.6.4, the health facilities are poor in the Project area (i.e. long waiting times, poor-
quality healthcare delivery, old and poorly maintained infrastructure, and poor disease control and
prevention practices for instance). Health facilities all lack human and material resources.
A.3 Noise
Noise sources in operating the hydropower power facilities consist mainly of turbines and generators. It is
unlikely to impact neighbouring communities due to the remoteness of the dam site.
As far as the TL is concerned, households living near the TL wayleave and the substation could be disturbed
by a buzzing corona noise often heard around high voltage power lines. Such noise reaches its maximum
during periods of precipitation, though the sound of rain typically masks the noise produced by the TLs, but
under certain atmospheric conditions the noise can be troubling to nearby residents. In addition, ozone, a
colourless gas with a pungent odour, may also be produced at the substation.
The TL will cross agricultural and residential land located in Kyaka village. The TL does not cross the main
village settlements but rather passes through a sparsely populated areas where agricultural lands are
dominant. However, some of the households located close to the TL and the substation could be impacted
by the corona noise.
The two main impacts related to community health that could occur during operation are an increase in the
number of waterborne diseases cases and a discomfort that could be caused by the buzzing of the TL and
substation.
B.1 Waterborne Diseases
Eichhornia crassipes (water hyacinth) an invasive plant species is present in the Project area. It is a free-
floating aquatic plant brought by the river current from the upstream. The Project dam will obstruct the
flow of water hyacinths, thereby leading to accumulation in the reservoir and to potential reproduction from
seeds deposited on the moist soil at the water edge. This predicted proliferation of water hyacinths can
therefore become a breeding ground for disease vectors such as mosquitoes, which transmit malaria.
However, the area near the reservoir is sparsely populated (30 households on the lower slopes of Chabadaki
hill and the KSC Kifaru camp located 500 m from the reservoir) which could reduce the potential for malaria
propagation. Nevertheless, it should be noted that recent academic research has revealed that mosquitoes,
such as the Anopheles gambiae mosquito that carry the malaria parasite, can cross hundreds of km,
contradicting the accepted scientific assumption that mosquitoes are stay-at-homes with a lifetime range
of no more than 5 km (Wadman, 2019). Therefore, there is a risk that the villages and KSC camps near the
reservoir may be impacted.
Regarding bilharzia, the social field survey has confirmed that it was not cited as a common disease in the
Project area. Furthermore, although snails of the genera Bulinus and Biomphalaria - which are the main
vectors of bilharzia - were found in a temporary agricultural channel near the Kagera river during the study,
none were infected with bilharzia. However, the construction of hydroelectric dams and development of

irrigations schemes have sometimes created favourable environmental conditions for the snail
intermediate hosts and a corresponding spread of schistosomiasis to areas that were not previously known
to be endemic (Mazigo & all, 2012). Recent studies have highlighted that, one of the potential causes of
favourable environmental conditions for the snail could be linked to prawn populations declining due to
dam construction. Dams could facilitate schistosomiasis transmission by increasing the density of
intermediate snail hosts through lower salinity; more stable water flows (which reduces shear forces
harmful to schistosome larvae); increases in vegetation on which snails depend for food and habitat, and
reductions in predation on snails as the dams could block reproduction of the migratory river prawns
(Sokolow & all, 2016). The aquatic survey performed in Kagera river in 2020 did not find any prawns.
Therefore, if they are present, they are certainly not common and, as such, would have no significant impact
on current snail populations. Indeed, freshwater prawns seem to prefer riffle habitat where rocks are
exposed while Kagera channel is deep, and the margins are vegetated. Nevertheless, the proposed HPP is
likely to increase the risk of bilharzia (Schistosomiasis) among humans and livestock as the shoreline of the
proposed impoundment, plus accumulation of the water hyacinth within the impoundment, could provide
ideal habitat for aquatic macroinvertebrates that occur in standing water. Furthermore, water released
from the proposed HPP is likely to be comparatively clear and the improved light penetration is expected to
create conditions suitable for the proliferation of benthic algae in the river downstream of the HPP. Benthic
algae is typically found in impoundment tailwaters include submerged macrophytes such as Ceratophyllum
demersum and/or Potamogeton schweinfurthii. Macroinvertebrates in such habitats include grazing snails
such as Bulinus spp. and Biomphalaria spp. These are intermediate hosts for the parasites that cause
bilharzia among humans and livestock.
Whether it is for malaria or bilharzia, as the health facilities all lack of human and material resources to treat
their patients in good conditions, the consequences of their prevalence on neighbouring communities will
be more severe because the infected individuals will not be able to get proper treatment.
Overall, there is a high risk that water hyacinths become a breeding ground for disease vectors such as
malaria, and that the shoreline of the proposed impoundment could provide ideal habitats for bilharzia‘s
intermediate hosts. Given the sensitivity of the local communities and the poor conditions of the health
facilities, the impact of waterborne diseases on health communities is likely to be of moderate to high
significance.
B.2 Noise
Regarding the noise of the turbines and generators, it is unlikely that could impact local communities as
they will be located in enclosed building structures for protection against the elements. Therefore, it will
significantly attenuate the noise and the significance of the impact is expected to be low.
Corona noise could however be of concerned for the neighbouring communities living close to the TL
wayleave. Recent evidence-based studies on three 220 kV power lines in Ireland have shown that during
day and night-time on a rainy day, the weather-adjusted noise levels are below the WHO threshold limits
(EirGrid, 2016).Corona noise was measured under the TL. During the day, the noise emissions were
respectively 45.3, 41 and 39.1 dB LAeq, while the WHO daily time threshold limits for serious annoyance is
55dB LAeq and 50 dB LAeq for moderate annoyance outdoor living areas. At night, the studies revealed that
the noise emissions were respectively 40,8, 35.9 and 34.5 dB LAeq while WHO night-time free-field
threshold limit is 45 dB (LAeq) for preventing negative effects on sleep limits (World Health Organisation,
1999). In Tanzania, the General Tolerance Limits for Environmental Noise in Tanzania 5states that when
high-voltage lines pass through rural areas, the audible noise is required to be no higher than 55dB(A)
during the day and 45 dB(A) during the night. Therefore, the Tanzanian environmental noise legislation is in
line with the WHO community noise guidelines.
The proposed TL is of 220 kV and the corona noise is, therefore, likely to be low and mostly heard within
the wayleave only, especially during high air humidity in the rainy season. As shown by recent evidence-
based studies, noise emission under a line on a rainy day do not exceed the Tanzanian and WHO noise
emission limits. The people most at risk as far as corona noise is concerned are the ones that would live
under the wayleave. In Tanzania, no human activities are allowed within the TL wayleave. As detailed in
Section 5, the 8 identified households located inside the wayleave will be resettled.
5
Noise schedules for various areas, undated. EMDC 6 (1733) P 2: Acoustics - General tolerance limits for environmental noise.
Tanzania Bureau of Standards. National Environmental Standards Compendium. From:
http://www.tzdpg.or.tz/fileadmin/_migrated/content_uploads/National_Environmental_Standards_Co mpendium.pdf.

In total, 8 households were living within 12.5 m of the wayleave at the time of writing - they live 32.5 m
away from the centre of the line - and there is no habitation located within 30 m of the Kyaka substation.
At such a distance, the corona noise would be in the worst-case scenario at 44 dB(A) (RTE, 2007), below the
WHO daily and night-time threshold limits. As one moves away from an TL, the audible noise decreases
approximately in inverse proportion to the square root of the distance. The corona noise would decrease of
approximately 3 dB as the distance from the power line doubles. As a result, it is very unlikely that the
corona noise be audible at such a distance (RTE, 2007).
Overall, this is unlikely that the corona noise could affect the households living 15 m from the wayleave of
the TL. Therefore, the above cited impact on community health is likely to be of low significance.
C.1 Waterborne Diseases
In order to prevent an increase in prevalence of malaria and schistosomiasis (bilharzia), TANESCO will put in
place preventative measures. In collaboration with the local health centres, they will undertake public health
campaigns targeting employees and communities near the reservoir to address issues of behavioural
change, transmission modes and prevention measures for malaria and schistosomiasis. Local communities
will also be informed of the dangers of bilharzia by means of information signs at key locations, such as
cattle water points, crossing boats sites, KSC workers camps and KSC pumping stations. Malaria home packs
containing mosquito nets will also be distributed to the communities living close to the reservoir. These
measures are referred to elsewhere in this report as:
• [M 98] Public health awareness campaigns for communities near the reservoir will be conducted in
collaboration with the local health centres, and will address issues of behavioural change,
transmission modes and prevention measures for malaria and schistosomiasis (TANESCO).
• [M 99] Bilharzia information signs will be installed at key locations near the reservoir to inform
people of danger, with message(s) that should be customized to be most effective and understood
by the population (TANESCO).
• [M 100] Malaria home packs containing mosquito nets will be distributed to each community living
close to the reservoir in collaboration with the local health centres (TANESCO).
In case of malaria and schistosomiasis (bilharzia) development, support to health centres to access
appropriate medication will be provided.
The measure is referred to elsewhere in this report as:
• [M 101] Support to health centres to access appropriate medication in case of increased
prevalence of malaria and schistosomiasis (bilharzia ) will be provided (TANESCO).
C.2 Corona Noise
The TL will be designed to meet the limits defined in by the WHO and the Tanzanian legislation with respect
to corona noise. The GRM procedures will be made easily accessible to local communities and KSC workers
camps. In the event of corona noise complaint, TANESCO will investigate the compliant to establish if the
noise is above the WHO and Tanzanian limits. Where necessary, appropriate measures will be employed.
• [M 102] The TL will be designed to comply with WHO and Tanzanian General Tolerance Limits for
Environmental Noise during operation (EPC Contractor).
• [M 103] The Project will seek to resolve grievance related to corona noise from operation of the TL
and where required will established appropriate measures (TANESCO).
D Residual Impacts
D.1 Waterborne Diseases
Significance of residual impacts on prevalence of waterborne diseases is dependent on the effectiveness of

the Project preventive measures, and the capacity of the local authorities to manage increased prevalence
of malaria and introduction of bilharzia. There are uncertainties around the effectiveness of preventive
measures and the likelihood of the development of bilharzia. However, the Project will coordinate with local
authorities to minimise the risk.

D.2 Corona Noise
No residual impact is anticipated regarding the corona noise.
TANESCO will ensure that surveillance and control of schistosomiasis (bilharzia) and malaria is extended to
the direct impact zone at the dam site. TANESCO will control the prevalence of malaria and schistosomiasis
at the local health centres monthly. Regarding schistosomiasis, ecological surveillance of snails in the
slackwaters of the Kakono reservoir and slackwaters of the Kagera River in the first 10 km downstream
from the proposed dam will conducted monthly in the first year of operation. If snails no snails are found
the monitoring will be conduced twice yearly in subsequent years. However, if a snail population is found to
be developing, monitoring will continue to be performed monthly.
• [M 104] The evolution of the prevalence of malaria and schistosomiasis will be monitored on a
monthly basis by consulting the records at local health centres located in the communities near the
reservoir (TANESCO).
• [M 105] Monthly monitoring of the presence and number of snails (genera Bulinus and
Biomphalaria) carrying schistosomiasis in slackwaters in the Kakono reservoir and slackwaters of
the Kagera River 10 km downstream from the proposed dam will be conducted. The frequency of
monitoring can be reduced to twice yearly after 1 year in the absence of snails carrying
schistosomiasis (TANESCO).
Electromagnetic Fields Exposure from the Transmission Line
A.1 Tanzanian EMF Guidelines/Legislation
Electric and magnetic fields (also known as electromagnetic fields, EMF) are invisible lines of force emitted
by and surrounding any electrical device, including power lines and electrical equipment. All equipment that
generates, distributes, or uses electricity produces EMFs. Electrical fields are produced by voltage, they
increase in strength as the voltage increases, and they are measured in volts per meter (V/m). Electric fields
are blocked or shielded by materials that conduct electricity, and other materials such as trees and
buildings. Magnetic fields depend on the electrical currents flowing, which vary according to the electrical
power requirements at any given time and are measured in microteslas (µT). Magnetic fields pass through
most materials and are difficult to shield but both electric and magnetic fields decrease rapidly with distance
from the source and are present in all areas where electricity is in use, arising from electric cabling and
equipment in the area. Project activities that will generate EMF include operation of the energised TL and
substations. EMF frequencies for the 220 kV Line will be 50 Hz. It is considered as Extremely Low Frequency
(ELF).
In Tanzania, the Atomic Energy Commission (TAEC) is mandated to protect members of the Public and the
Environment from the effects resulting from the use of both ionizing and non-ionizing Radiation. The
Commission had dedicated one of six departments to deal with issues relating to Non-Ionizing Radiation,
especially, EMF. However, at the time of writing, the Commission has neither developed regulations nor
written guidelines to guide users on limiting exposure to EMF. Tanzania is therefore following the
International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) limits for general public exposure.
A.2 Local Communities Living Near the Proposed TL
The social baseline has revealed that the TL is crossing a sparsely populated area. Outside the wayleave,
few households have their house near the TL. Indeed, 8 households were living within 15m from the end of
the wayleave at the time of writing. Therefore, they live 32.5 m away from the centre of the line. There is
no habitation located within 30 m of the Kyaka substation. The closest dwelling near the substation is
located at 35 m. The households living near the TL and the Substation could be exposed to electromagnetic
fields during operation.

There is public and scientific concern over the potential health effects associated with exposure to EMF for
surrounding communities living or working near TLs and substations. However, there is limited empirical
data demonstrating adverse health effects from exposure at levels of 50 Hz from TLs and equipment6 -
50 Hz corresponds to the proposed 220 kV TL utility frequency. The IFC and the International Commission
on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) recognise that evidence of adverse health risk from exposure
to EMF is weak, but still sufficient to warrant limited concern. The European Union argues that there is some
evidence that EMF magnetic fields can cause cancer in humans. However, result studies have not been
confirmed or explained via experiments on animals and cell cultures and a need for more research was
highlighted (SCENIHR, 2007).
During operation, exposure to EMF could impact the immediate communities living in the neighbourhood of
the TL and the substation. As there will be no buildings or human activities within the wayleave, only
households situated close to the wayleave and the substation could potentially be affected. The WHO
recommends that average and peak public exposure levels should remain below ICNIRP recommendations
for Public exposure (ICNIRP, 1998). Limits for general public exposure to a TL of 50 Hz frequency are
5,000 V/m and 100 µT.
As previously mentioned, the TL is crossing a sparsely populated area. The 8 households living in the
wayleave will be physically displaced and no human activities will take place within the wayleave. The
closest people live within 15 m from the end of the wayleave, and more than 35 m away from the
substation. Overall, it is unlikely that EMF frequencies could affect the households living or conducting
activities close to the TL and the substation. Therefore, the above cited impact on community health is likely
to be of low significance.
The WHO recommends that average and peak public exposure levels should remain below the International
Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) recommendations for Public exposure.
Therefore, the Project’s TL will be designed to meet the limits defined by the WHO with regard to EMF
exposure. The Design and Construction EPC Contractor(s) are contractually required to comply with these
limits. Indeed, a TL can be constructed to minimise EMF by shielding specific metal alloys, increasing the
height of towers, changing the size, design and spacing of conductor lines.
As no human activities are supposed to take place within the wayleave, the exposure of neighbouring
communities to EMF will, therefore, be within the guideline levels, and there can be no likely significant
impacts from EMF.
The ban on human activities within the wayleave should be fully respected by the local communities in order
to avoid health impacts that could be caused by EMF. To avoid informal structures or inappropriate issue of
building permits within the wayleave during operation, TANESCO will undertake regular monitoring of the
absence of structures in the TL wayleave and engage the local authorities to ensure no building permits are
issued.
• [M 106] Regular monitoring/patrolling of the TL wayleave to check on the absence of structures,
and awareness raising in communities with regards to TL land use restrictions and risks of
infringing restrictions (TANESCO).
• [M 107] Local authorities will be engaged regularly to check that no building permits are issued nor
spontaneous informal settlements are developing in the TL wayleave (TANESCO).
• [M 108] The TL will be designed to comply with ICNIRP guidelines with regard to EMF exposure
(EPC Contractor).
D Residual Impacts
No residual impact is anticipated regarding EMF public exposure.
6
The World Health Organization (WHO) 2007’s review of EMF research has concluded that EMF do not cause any long-term, adverse
health effects (WHO, 2007).

No monitoring measure is proposed.
Sugar Cane Production
The social baseline has found that, at the time of writing, KSC has one new pump station (Pump Station
NRP2) under construction located upstream of the proposed Kakono dam on the left bank. The pump is
located in PH2B* area, in the footprint of the future reservoir. There is no pump station located upstream
of the dam on the right bank.
Downstream of the dam, KSC has 7water pumps on the left bank of the river which extract water from the
Kagera River. At the time of writing, KSC was expanding its sugar cane fields, and new pump stations needed
to be built along the Kagera riverbanks. On the left bank, downstream of the proposed Kakono dam, 6 new
pump stations have been under construction since 2019 while, on the right bank, KSC is planning to build
6 new pump stations before the end of 2022. Currently, 1 pumping station located near camp n°6 is under
construction.
All the pumping stations are owned and used by KSC to irrigate sugar cane and sometimes to provide raw
water to workers camps. During normal conditions, KSC pumping stations are in use during the low rain and
irrigation in the fields, which is from November to February and then again from June to September.
Both upstream and downstream KSC pumping stations could be impacted by the reservoir filling as it would
change the river inflow and potentially prevent the pumps from functioning.
The reservoir filling may take several weeks. During that time, pumping from the future reservoir shore may
not be possible until the full supply level is reached. TANESCO will engage KSC when preparing the Reservoir
Filling Plan to anticipate and minimize any interruption of irrigation, when the construction schedule has
been finalized by the EPC Contractor.
Any pumping stations operating in the reservoir footprint will need to be removed ahead of the start of the
reservoir filling and be rebuilt along the future reservoir shore. The Kakono reservoir will occupy a footprint
that encroaches on the KSC Pump Station NRP2 and consequently the pump station will need to be replaced
by a new pump station located on the banks of the future reservoir. The reservoir filling may take several
months. During that time, pumping from the future reservoir shore may not be possible until the full supply
level is reached.
Regarding the downstream pumping stations, they could also be impacted by the reservoir impoundment,
with a discharge from the dam which could generate water level downstream of the dam which are lower
than the minimum operating level of the existing pumping stations. See Section 7.3.1.2 for detailed
analysis. WI though careful planning, all the 7 pumping stations located downstream of the dam could be
impacted during the reservoir filling period.
Overall, the reservoir filling could have a significant impact on the upstream and downstream KSC pumping
stations. Even though the impact will be time-limited, the KSC pumping stations could be affected when
sugar cane fields need to be irrigated. Therefore, without mitigation measure the impact on the Sugar cane
irrigation and production is likely to be of high significance.

As the pumping stations downstream of the dam cannot operate at inflow below 140 m3/s, it is
recommended to maintain a minimum flow during the filling period as defined in Section 7.3.1.1.
Overall, TANESCO should regularly engage with KSC in order to discuss possible water supply issues due to
the reservoir impoundment. These measures are referred to elsewhere in this report as:
• [M 1] The Kagera River flow continuity will be maintained at any time during the construction
period, including for the reservoir filling period. The river flow immediately downstream of the dam
site should never be lower than the minimum flow regime specified in the 2022 ESIA or than the
reservoir inflow.
• [M 2] Should the Project needs to reduce the time needed for the reservoir filling, an agreement
with operators of irrigated sugar cane plantations will be required s to minimise impairment of
irrigation for sugar cane fields. Whatever is the agreement with operators of irrigated sugar cane
plantations at that time, the minimum flow downstream of the dam should not be lower than
either the flows indicated in the 2022 ESIA below or than the reservoir inflow.
D Residual Impacts
After implementation of the mitigation measures, no residual impact on KSC downstream pumping stations
is anticipated maintaining a minimum discharge during reservoir filling will prevent the KSC pumps from
running dry. Lastly, if the reservoir impoundment occurs when KSC does not use the pumping stations to
irrigate the sugar cane field there will be no residual impact on the upstream pumping station.
No monitoring measure is proposed as no additional impact is anticipated.
Run of river mode of operation will not cause river flow variations that could hinder the functioning of the
KSC pumping stations. However, the reservoir will trap bedload and suspended sediment, resulting in
reduction in sediment to downstream reaches leading to sediment starvation, bed and bank toe erosion
(See Section 7.3.3). Consequently, there is a risk that the KSC pumping stations’ foundations are destabilised
by erosion as they are adjacent to the Kagera river.
As detailed in Section 7.3.3 there will be a slow progressive erosion of the riverbanks downstream from the
dam, primarily the banks extending 50 km downstream. Several centimetres of the banks may
progressively be eroded each year and the erosion will continue over the Project life. Consequently, the
foundations of the KSC pumping stations may be slowly eroded, possibly representing an operability issue
which could have an impact on the irrigation system and thus, on sugar cane production. However, the
erosion phenomenon is slow, which will give time for KSC to take preventive actions and to find solutions to
reinforce the foundations of the pumping stations. It is also noteworthy that the baseline situation is that
the Kagera riverbanks are subject to a natural erosion and that the erosion caused by the sediment trapping
by the dam represents an acceleration of the natural erosion. Therefore, the potential destabilisation of the
pumping stations’ foundations is not a new issue for KSC. Overall, it is possible that, over decades, bank
erosion could impact KSC pumping stations and, as a result, the Sugar cane production. However, because
banks erosion is a very slow and gradual phenomenon but also an issue already faced by KSC, the impact is
likely to be of low significance.

The proposed mitigation measure to reduce bank erosion is explained in 7.3.3.2C. It seeks to enhanced
suspended sediment transit to limit bank erosion. In addition, engagement with KCS that started during
construction will continue:
• [M 109] Coordination with operators of irrigated sugar cane plantations for (i) reservoir filling (and
impact on upstream pumping station and downstream minimum flow), (ii) long-term riverbank
erosion downstream from the proposed dam and protection of pumping stations, (iii) elephant
management (TANESCO).
D Residual Impact
The proposed mitigation measures will not significantly slow bank erosion due to the fine nature (clay and
fine silt) of the released sediment that will not deposit along the banks despite relatively low velocities. The
impact of bank erosion on KSC pumping stations remains of low significance.
The proposed bank erosion monitoring measures are described in Section7.3.3.2E. The proposed
monitoring activities will be implemented by TANESCO and will allow to monitor bank erosion by measuring
the edge and the angle of the bank regularly to document monthly changes. Appropriate measures will be
taken if the monitoring reveals a more significant impact than anticipated and mitigation options with the
participation of KSC will be defined.
Community Safety
Community safety hazards foreseen for the Project construction comprise the reservoir where there is a
risk of drowning of people trapped by rising waters and Project traffic which represent a risk of road
accident. A significant part of the road traffic will be between the construction camps, the quarry/borrow
areas and the spoil disposal areas, all located at the dam site. As all temporary facilities will be within the
area around the dam site, most of the construction traffic will remain off-roads apart from delivery of
construction equipment and supplies.
The type of vehicles that will be used during construction will include:
• Light vehicles (<3.5 tonnes) such as cars, SUV’s, minibus and pickups;
• Heavy vehicles for transportation of goods (>3.5 tonnes) such as conventional trucks, fuel
browsers, cement delivery trucks, semi-trailer trucks;
• Tippers used for transporting loose material such as sand and aggregates as well as mobile
concrete mixers and cement bulkers;
• Large articulated dump trucks for much of the main earthmoving. These are generally off-road
trucks but will be used for access road construction;
• Mobile plants and equipment such as: mobile cranes, earth moving equipment (e.g. concrete pump,
backhoe, mobile cranes, loader), rock excavation drills, air compressors, boring machines,
bulldozers; and
• Flatbed trucks for the transportation of heavy loads such as construction equipment and
formwork. Oversize loads require more space than is available on a closed body, such as turbine,
transformers, and will be transported with lowbed or flatbeds truck with special care.
The construction activities will generate additional traffic on public roads especially during the first year
when equipment, vehicles and other supplies will be delivered. At the time of writing, there is very low traffic
on the main road leading to the dam site. Local communities are not used to adverse impacts due to dense
traffic. Therefore, it is likely that traffic induced by the dam construction could impact the neighbouring
communities.

Regarding the working sites, they will be dangerous areas for the surrounding communities. At the dam
site, the construction activities will require various yards and technical installations such as:
• Crushing and screening plant to crush quarry blocks into the appropriate aggregate size;
• Batching plant to produce the concrete required for the dam and the powerhouse;
• Workshop to maintain and repair all vehicles, plants and other machinery used on site;
• Warehouse to store the construction material such as cement bags, iron steel;
• Refuelling station to provide fuel to the project vehicle fleet;
• Parking areas to park cars, trucks and machinery; and
• Explosive magazine if blasting is required for the foundation works or the quarry areas.
Furthermore, hazardous materials will be stored at working sites and are expected to include:
• Diesel fuel for construction vehicles and machinery;
• Lubricating oils;
• Used oils;
• Small amounts of diverse paints, solvent & chemicals;
• Transformer oil; and
• Hazardous waste.
The construction of the TL will necessitate the clearance of the site and preparation of the ground project
working area, and the necessary equipment for the construction of the TL will be stored in construction
compounds and/or the dam working site, places that could be dangerous for the surrounding communities.
Lastly, as defined in Section 7.6.3, the total order of magnitude of the influx is likely to be between
2,000 and 3,000 persons, excluding the 1,000 workers required for the Project construction phase.
The surrounding communities living close to the working sites are at risk of being impacted by (i) road traffic,
(ii) working site hazards and increase expression of vices such as criminality due to a rapid influx of workers
and jobseekers during operation phase. People conducted activities in the river or near the riverbank during
the reservoir impoundment could be at risk of drowning due to the increase of water level.
B.1 Risk of Drowning
In the Project area, most of the villagers living in the dam site neighbouring communities cannot swim.
During the reservoir impoundment, the people conducted activities in the water or near the riverbanks (e.g.
fishing, crossing the river or fetching water) could be taken by surprise as the water level will increase. As
most of the people do not know how to swim, there is a high risk of drowning.
The Project area is not densely populated, and the reservoir impoundment will only take place for a
maximum of 2 months. The likelihood of accident happening due to drowning is low. However, the
consequences could be important, as it could lead to death of local residents. Therefore, without mitigation
measures, the significance of such impacts is likely to be high.
B.2 Road Traffic Risks for Local Communities
Traffic will be mainly concentrated on the asphalted road B182, the new access road and the road B181.
The construction activities which can be potential source of impacts on public traffic are:
• Additional traffic on the existing roads generated by normal construction activities, to bring
equipment, machinery or concrete and workers to the construction sites;
• Additional traffic on the new access road as it will become a new 6m wide asphalted road;
• Abnormal loads used for the delivery of the larger items such as turbine, transformers or pylons
for the TL towers’ sections. These vehicles or convoys will be too long or too wide to use the road
in normal conditions and will have to be escorted and will need to drive slower than the rest of the
traffic.

This additional traffic and the abnormal loads have the potential to impact on the existing traffic on public
roads in the following ways:
• Deterioration of local roads by heavy goods vehicles;
• Delays to and obstruction of local traffic, especially during abnormal loads; and
• Risk of accidents in areas where the road traffic will increase or around the worksites.
However, the volumes of Project construction traffic will vary during the construction period, and most
traffic will be during the first year of construction and abnormal loads will be limited to the installation of a
few items of equipment such as turbines.
The communities located near the roads used by the Project are the ones most exposed to the road traffic
risk. However, the Project area is located in a remote sparsely populated area and the main access to the
site will be a new access road from the road B182. The new access road crosses the Kitengule ranch and
KSC land where there are only people watching their cattle and living temporarily in small structures or in
camps belonging to KSC. At the time of writing, only one part of that road already exists. The last quarter is
however no larger than a cattle path. Structures belonging to Chaburwa Ranch were also found some
distance (400 m) from the new access road. Therefore, there are very few social receptors. The situation is
slightly different on the left bank where, even though there is no proper village located close to the
worksites or near the roads that will be used for traffic, the dam will be accessible using the non-paved road
B181 going through KSC. This road passes close to camp n°6, 9 and 10. At the time of writing, the road is
being used by KSC to transport equipment for the sugar cane plantations but also by local communities to
reach camps and access villages like Bugango or Kakunyu located north of the river.
Some social areas are more sensitive than others. Schools, hospitals, elderly or disabled people, children,
and livestock, will be more exposed to project related traffic hazards, when they walk or travel along the
roads used by Project vehicles. For example, on the left bank, road B181 passes near camp n°10 where
there is a school regularly attended by workers’ children from camp n°6 and 9. Regarding livestock, cattle
were found freely grazing on the sides of the new access road and would also be exposed to these risks.
The access tracks required for the construction of the TL are likely to cross Kyaka village settlements. No
health centre or schools were found near the TL, but the tracks could pass close to households or
agricultural fields.
Without specific speed control measures, vehicles could be driven faster than they were previously and
therefore represent a danger for those sensitive receptors. The local population has probably not been
exposed to such driving conditions. As for any new situations the changes of behaviour, in particular from
children, will take some time and during this period required to adapt, accidents caused by collision could
happen.
It is therefore possible that residents and animals may get injured due to contact with increased traffic. Even
if the likelihood of such accidents is low, the consequences could be important, potentially leading to injuries
or lethal accidents. Without mitigation measures, the significance of such impacts is likely to be high.
B.3 Hazardous Materials and Worksite Hazards
There is a risk that residents in the immediate vicinity of the dam and TL construction sites could get injured
in contact with heavy equipment due to unauthorised entry to worksites by member of community.
Accidents such as trip, fall or electrocution could happen.
Locals could also be accidently exposed to hazardous materials. Transport, storage and handling of
combustible, inflammable or explosive material could represent a risk for the neighbouring communities as
loss of containment (leak, spillage, accidental event) may cause fire and explosion or release toxic fumes.
The principal combustible material is diesel fuel, and the principle explosive material is the explosive used
for blasting. Both these materials will be transported to worksites by road and stored in dedicated facilities.
In the case of an accidental event during transport workers and communities may be affected by the
consequences of the fire and/or explosion.
The neighbouring communities may be exposed to blasting hazards if required for the foundation works or
the quarry areas. Any exposed excavation could also lead to falls and injuries if not fenced off. However, the
dam and TL worksites are located in a remote sparsely populated area which will limit the risk of accident
at working site. The potential social receptors are the same than the one identified for the road traffic
impacts. The likelihood of accidents due to hazardous materials happening at working site is low. However,

the consequences could be important, potentially leading to injuries or lethal accidents. Therefore, without
mitigation measures, the significance of such impacts is likely to be high.
B.4 Safety and Security Issues Related to Induced In-Migration
As explained in Section 7.6.3, Project development may lead to significant and permanent change in the
social and economic environment of the project area of influence and In-migration is an underlying cause
driving many of these changes. The communities that would be mostly impacted by in-migration are
described in Section 7.6.3.
A rapid influx of workers and jobseekers can profoundly impact the social fabric of local communities. It
could increase frequency of vices such as prostitution, gambling, alcoholism, and drug use, which can have
significant negative social impacts and consequences. Increased criminality, conflict, and violence and
declining law and order may also present additional social challenges for both local communities and the
Project, and put the local communities at risk for their safety. This potential impact is expected to mainly
affect the communities neighbouring the dam and TL working sites. Furthermore, it may only occur
throughout the construction phase when job-seekers will be in search of economic opportunities.
Without mitigation measures, the significance of the impact on community safety due to Project induced in-
migration is likely to be moderate.
C.1 General Safety Mitigation Measures
Firstly, avoidance of impacts is made through the location of the dam construction site and the design
iterations of the TL routing. The Project Component locations have been selected to avoid urban centres
and densely populated area as much as possible. The dam site and most parts of the TL are located in
sparsely populated areas.
Secondly, the Project will manage the safety hazards through the implementation of the following
measures:
• The Project Company will recruit a health and safety team that is responsible for the supervision of
the EPC Contractor, including checking conformity of plans, procedures, drawings, and site work.
• The EPC Contractor will establish an appropriate ESMS in alignment with OHSAS 18001. The
system will include occupational health & safety related plans that are included in the ESMP.
• The occupational health and safety aspects of all work by the EPC Contractor will be in alignment
with the requirements of WB’s ESSn°4, IFC’s Performance Standards and the IFC General EHS
guidelines.
All these measures will be integrated into the Health and Safety Plan mentioned in [M 91] .
C.2 Reservoir Impoundment
During the reservoir impoundment, no activities should be allowed in the impounded reach of the Kagera
River or near the riverbanks. Local communities will be informed of the dangers of the reservoir
impoundment by means of advertising billboards at key locations, such as the camps and villages located
near the reservoir. Additionally, the footprint of the future reservoir will be physically demarcated to inform
the communities of the no-go zone limits.
• [M 110] Access to the Kagera river within the reservoir footprint will be forbidden during the
reservoir impoundment. Warning signs will be placed in all KSC camps and villages located close to
the reservoir (EPC Contractor).
• [M 62] A topography survey of the reservoir will be undertaken and the FSL reservoir footprint
physically demarcated (EPC Contractor).

C.3 Road Traffic Hazards
Locations of the construction sites, construction compounds and access roads are not yet defined. TANESCO
will require the EPC Contractor to locate them at least 200 m from all residential areas as much as possible
and wherever feasible to avoid accidents that could be caused by Project activities.
If any damage is caused by the EPC contractor's fleet of trucks and vehicle during construction, it will be
automatically repaired.
A Traffic Management Plan will be developed to control movement of vehicles and equipment at each of
the working sites. This will include the following measures:
• Information of the administrative authorities of the itinerary used by the fleet of vehicle and
machinery;
• Repair of local roads to avoid road damage due to intensified flow of traffic;
• Avoidance of obstruction of local traffic due to the work activities;
• Maximise use of existing roads and tracks.
• No project-related traffic will be authorised in the villages from 20:00 to 08:00, except for rare
occasions such as exceptional convoys that may circulate in the night-time to avoid obstruction of
local traffic;
• Define and implement specific measures for sensitive receptors, such as schools and cattle grazing
grounds, including additional signs and flagmen if necessary;
• Enforce strict adapted speed limits for construction vehicles.
In addition, the following measures will be implemented:

• Use, possession, distribution or sale of illegal drugs, controlled substances (as per local
regulations) and alcohol is totally prohibited for all Project workers, including drivers. Any person
suspected by to be under the influence of alcohol or controlled substances will be immediately
suspended from his position, pending the results of medical examination.
• Drivers will be trained to ensure these policies are known by all drivers. The implementation of
these policies will be monitored.
• As the Project moves forward the Traffic Management Plan will be communicated to the head of
local communities and will be disclosed in the villages of Kyaka, Mushabaiguru, and the KSC
workers camps n°10, 9 and 6 as well as Kifaru camp to raise awareness on traffic-related risk
during the construction period.
• Truck controls of covering loads will also be implemented to prevent loose rocks from trucks from
falling off and hitting cars.
• Provide advance public notification of the schedule of main vehicles convoys, frequency and road
risks to road users.
These measures are referred in this report as:

• [M 85] Construction Traffic Management Plan(s) for dam and TL construction works will be
developed and implemented, the plan(s) will provide information on public roads used by the
Project, will be publicly disclosed and provided to local community leaders (EPC Contractor).
• [M 42] The Construction Traffic Management Plan will set speed limits (30 km/h on the dam and TL
access roads and 20 km/h on other internal roads), and define speed control measures, tracking of
construction vehicles and penalties for non-compliance by staff (EPC Contractor).
• [M 111] The Project will involve local authorities and neighbouring communities when planning
timing exceptional convoys (EPC Contractor).
• [M 112] Local authorities and communities will be informed in advance of the arrival of exceptional
convoys (EPC Contractor).
• [M 113] Construction vehicle drivers and equipment operators will be provided with training on
safe driving (EPC Contractor).
• [M 114] Awareness campaigns will be organised with local communities, including school children,
to ensure they are aware of construction traffic related risks (EPC Contractor).

• [M 115] The Project will maximise the use of existing roads and tracks, vehicles used for
construction activities will use already existing roads and corridors as far as possible (EPC
Contractor).
• [M 116] No project-related traffic will be authorised in residential areas between 20:00- 08:00,
except for rare occasions such as exceptional convoys that may travel at night to avoid local traffic,
and only after TANESCO approval (EPC Contractor).
• [M 117] The Project will put in place specific road safety measures in sensitive areas, such as
schools or cattle grazing grounds, including additional signs, speed-humps or speed bumps and
flagmen if necessary (EPC Contractor).
The GRM defined in the SEP (included in the ESMP) will be disclosed to neighbouring communities and
implemented. Grievances related to traffic will be registered and addressed on a case-by-case basis.
• [M 118] Communities affected by Project-traffic will be engaged with regard to Project-related
traffic schedules and activities (EPC Contractor).
• [M 119] Grievances from communities regarding Project construction traffic will be managed
through the GRM (Supervised by TANESCO for EPC contractor to comply with).
C.4 Hazardous Materials and Worksite Hazards
The offsite effects of accidental spills or leaks of hazardous materials or consequence of accidental events
caused by hazardous substances – such as fire and explosion – are prevented through the same measures
that are adopted in Section General Safety Mitigation Measures.
Regarding, hazardous substances, the EPC Contractor will prepare and implement a hazardous substances
management plan, which will include (but not be limited to) the following:
• Handling and storage conditions;
• Emergency procedures in case of a spill;
• Pollution control equipment to be installed at the storage sites: anti-pollution kits, extinguishers;
• Training of employees in charge of handling chemical substances and hazardous materials;
• Use of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and emergency measures in case of an incident;
Hazardous substances will be transported to the site by licenced transport contractors in compliance with
Tanzanian transport regulations and their storage facilities will be designed by the EPC Contractor in
alignment with Tanzanian health and safety regulations.
TANESCO ’s health and safety team will also review and validate the design of facilities from a health and
safety perspective and check the conformity of facilities and transport during construction.
In addition, a suitable safety distance will be adopted between onsite areas for storage and handling of
hazardous substances and offsite residential areas. The following measures will be implemented:
• Hazardous substance areas will have suitable safety signs;
• Fuel storage will have secondary containment with 110% capacity;
• Refuelling tanks will have double a skin;
• Fuels will be transported in designated vehicles only, and
• Hazardous waste areas will be separated from other waste areas and secured.

• [M 120] A Hazardous Substances Management Plan for the construction phase will be developed
and implemented (EPC Contractor).
• [M 121] Construction site layout will adopt appropriate safety distances between onsite areas for
storage and handling of hazardous substances and offsite residential areas (EPC Contractor).
In addition, hazards will be managed by the EPC Contractor through the establishment on site of a fenced
perimeter to prevent unauthorised entry. Access to the site will be controlled and communities will be
informed about construction activities. Awareness-raising campaigns on restriction zone and safety risks
due to construction activities will be put in place. These measures are referred in this report as:

• [M 122] Construction worksites will be fenced, access controlled, and entry permitted only to
authorised personnel who have received health and safety training/induction (EPC Contractor).
• [M 123] Communities will be informed of the start of any construction activities at least one week
in advance (EPC Contractor).
• [M 124] Warning signs and (barbed wire) barriers will be installed to prevent people climbing onto
TL towers (EPC Contractor).
• [M 125] Education/public outreach will be organised in the neighbouring communities to prevent
people approaching potentially dangerous equipment and to inform local people of access
restrictions (EPC Contractor).
• [M 126] Regular community meetings on safety and construction hazards will be organised during
the construction works (EPC Contractor).
C.5 Safety Risks Related to Induced In-Migration
Safety risks related to induced in-migration can be mitigated by implementing on site awareness-raising
campaigns on culturally appropriate methods for interacting with local populations and establishing a
strong cooperation with the police force of Nyabihanga village as they are the closest police station in the
Project area. Additionally, the Grievance Redress Mechanism will be made easily accessible to local
communities and KSC workers camps. Project workers will be made aware that local people have easy
access to such GRM procedures.
• [M 127] Construction workers will be briefed on culturally appropriate behaviour for interacting
with local populations to minimize disturbing communities or giving offence to local population
when workers are off camp in urban centres (EPC Contractor).
• [M 128] The Project will coordinate with the local police on matters related to safety risks related
to Project-induced in-migration (EPC Contractor).
D Residual Impacts
The proposed mitigation measures are preventive. Even though the likelihood of accidents due to
hazardous materials happening at working site is low, the consequences could be important, potentially
leading to injuries or lethal accidents. Therefore, despite the effectiveness of the mitigation measures, the
residual impacts regarding safety risks is likely to remain of low to moderate significance.
The EPC Contractor will put in place a Community Health and Safety Plan including community health
management measures. TANESCO will be in charge of monitoring the implementation of the community
health management measures. These measures are referred to in this report as [M 91] .
Community safety hazards during the operation mainly concern road traffic, hazardous substances, high
voltage electrical power line, stability of reservoir slopes, dam break and emergency releases of stored
reservoir water. No impact on navigation is anticipated: because the Project will not prevent local people
from crossing the river by boat and because the river flow velocity will not be different from what the local
communities are used to.
Road traffic will mainly occur during construction when the number of workers will be at peak. During
operation, the scheme will require only a small number of staff in the order of 50 people. Therefore, the
traffic will be very limited at the dam. Regarding the TL, the project related traffic will be limited to
maintenance along the TL wayleave and substation. It is unlikely that the traffic could impact the
neighbouring communities.
However, during operation, hazardous substances which are transported to, and stored at, Project sites –
and which comprises mainly diesel fuel and transformer oils could impact neighbouring communities in
case of accidental loss of containment during transport. Furthermore, residents that illegally enter the

Project’s facilities could get injured as a result of an accident such as trip, fall, electrocution. Within the
wayleave, the power line could also endanger the villagers in case of direct contact with high-voltage
electricity or from contact with tools, vehicles, ladders, or other devices that are in contact with high-voltage
electricity.
There are exceptional accidental situations when the water level downstream of the dam may rise and
cause impacts. This could be in the highly unlikely case of partial or total dam failure caused by structural
failure inadequate maintenance, seismic event, inadequate spillway design, or debris blockage of spillways.
Downstream flooding can also occur during sediment flushing if there is a malfunction with the opening of
the bottom outlet allowing a flow of water exceeding the planned flow rate to be released.
B.1 Road Traffic
At the dam site, the Project related traffic will be limited to maintenance for servicing of the dam and its
appurtenances with the intention of avoiding over-vegetation, animal impacts, equipment deterioration,
mechanical malfunction, flooding, or failure. Corrective maintenance may be required to correct these
damages if they do occur. Therefore, the traffic will be very limited, and, because of the remoteness of the
dam site, it is very unlikely that it will impact on the local population.
Regarding the TL, the project related traffic will be limited to maintenance along the TL wayleave and
substations and will not interact with community infrastructures. It is not expected that heavy goods
vehicles will be used unless there is a requirement to undertake major repairs on the lines or substations.
The likelihood of this occurring is very low. No road traffic impact is therefore anticipated during operation.
B.2 Downstream Flooding
Operation of the proposed HPP as a run-of-river scheme would have no impact on downstream water levels
for most of the time - See Section 7.3.1. However, there may be short periods when flows are modified,
either intentionally for routine maintenance such as sediment flushing, or unintentionally due to
malfunction or a human error.
The Kakono dam will be equipped with a bottom outlet which is normally maintained closed. The gate is
only opened in very rare emergency situations when there is a need to lower the reservoir water level -
which may occur for example following during sediment flushing. Any such interruptions in discharge could
have indirect negative impacts on the downstream communities. The duration of such stoppages could
range from hours to days, and intensity is rated as High. During such an event people and animals may be
present in the Kagera river. Local people are conducting many activities in or near the banks of the Kagera
river, especially downstream of the dam where the river velocity is less. Indeed, a significant part of the local
communities is daily using the river water river for domestic purposes. The social baseline has also revealed
that there is a small fisher community in the Project area and that cattle are using the river as water sources.
In the case of a rapid increase in flow rate, they may be taken by surprise and there is a risk that drowning
could happen.
This potential impact is expected to be restricted to the Lower Foothill portion of the river that extends 23
km downstream from the dam. The impact is unlikely to extend further because of the reduced gradient
and reduced current speeds in the lowland portion of the river.
This risk will be a long-term risk, as it will last as long as the Project operates. Furthermore, even though
sediment flushing rarely happens and the likelihood of accident happening due to drowning is low, the
consequences could be important as it could lead to death of local residents or cattle. Therefore, without
mitigation measures, such impact on community safety is of high significance.
B.3 Dam Break and Emergency Releases
In the very unlikely event of a dam failure there would be a rapid release of the water stored in the reservoir
causing extensive downstream flooding. The extent of the flooding and will be determined using modelling
and included in the Emergency Response Plan prepared by the Project. A similar unlikely event is that there
is a malfunction or failure of the dam gates resulting in an uncontrolled discharge of water from the
reservoir. This would also lead to downstream flooding.
Emergency releases are also unlikely and could occur if there is a need to lower the reservoir water level
rapidly by opening the bottom outlet. This is only undertaken in exceptional situations such as if there is a

dam stability issue or following a seismic event – also unlikely as the area is not seismic. The bottom outlet
is designed to allow the emergency discharge of 640 m3/s, which is significantly higher than the normal
turbining rate and would cause some degree of downstream flooding.
B.4 Electrocution
Regarding the TL, adverse impacts on community safety during the operation phase mainly concern risk of
electrocution from direct contact with high-voltage electricity or from contact with tools, vehicles, ladders,
or other devices that are in contact with high-voltage electricity.
Neighbouring residents could also be electrocuted or harmed by accidental falling towers and live lines in
case of line or tower failure, due to high winds for example, though such occurrences are considered to be
highly unlikely. Additionally, theft of materials and/or vandalism of the towers or other Project assets during
operation could also lead to electrocution. Even if the likelihood of such accident is low, the consequences
could be fatal, potentially leading to injuries or lethal accidents. This risk will be a long-term risk as it will
last as long as the Project operates. Before any mitigation measure, the impact significance is likely to be
high.
B.5 Erosion of Reservoir Slopes
There is a risk that the slopes around the proposed reservoir become unstable over time and could be
potentially dangerous for the local residents living or conducting activities near the reservoir. As previously
mentioned in Section 7.6.1.1B, when the Basic Design for the Project was prepared in 2019, there was no
accurate topographical data available to delineate the reservoir. Therefore, it was not possible to accurately
assess how many households have their house close to the reservoir, but also the distance between them.
However, the social field surveys conducted in 2020 combined with a detailed review of the available
satellite images have revealed that there are 7 dwelling located within 100m after the reservoir boundaries;
4 located on Bugara and 3 on Mugaba communal village land.
The social field surveys have also confirmed that people from Mushabaiguru, Mugaba, Bugara and Businde
villages are also conducting activities near the riverbanks. Several cattle water points and 3 boat crossing
points were found adjacent to the future reservoir. Therefore, local residents could be directly concerned
by the risk of erosion of the reservoir.
This risk will be a and long-term one as the erosional process will last as long as the Project operates.
However, erosion is a slow process over several years and people will not be directly impacted but they will
have time to adapt to the situation. Therefore, before any mitigation measure, the impact significance is
likely to be low.
C.1 Downstream Flooding
The adverse impacts of downstream flooding could be well anticipated and mitigated when it results from
intentional human actions. Therefore, when flows are modified intentionally for routine maintenance such
as sediment flushing, the local population will be informed in advance and the access to the river will be
prohibited.
To avoid accidents, the opening of the proposed dam’s bottom outlet will be subject to strict operating rules
and its correct functioning will be checked annually. Second, on the rare occasions that the gate is operated
it shall not be opened to its maximum capacity but to an extent that allows the reservoir water level to be
lowered without causing downstream flooding. These measures are referred to elsewhere in this report as:
• [M 129] Prior to undertaking planned activities that result in rapid change in downstream water
levels, the local population will be informed at least one week in advance and advised to keep away
from the river (TANESCO).
• [M 130] Strict operating rules will be developed for the operation and testing of the proposed
dam’s bottom outlet (EPC for procedure development, TANESCO for implementation during
operation).

C.2 Dam Break and Emergency Releases
The measures to reduce the risk of dam break the following will be undertaken:
• [M 131] An Independent Panel of Experts for dam safety will be appointed. The panel will be
required to review the design and all aspects of the work, including flood hydrology, hydraulics,
seismology, geology, concrete technology and turbines designed to operate in sediment laden
water (TANESCO).
• [M 132] A dam break risk assessment will be undertaken in alignment with the approach
recommended by the International Commission on Large Dams (ICOLD). Risk reduction measures
will be integrated into the design to ensure that the overall risk of dam break is tolerable as per
ICOLD risk acceptability criteria. (EPC Contractor).
• [M 133] An Emergency Response Plan including a dam failure or gate failure/malfunction will be
prepared and include flood modelling of the worst-case scenario. (EPC Contractor).
• [M 134] A comprehensive Dam Safety and Operation Manual will be developed and maintained.
The manual will meet the World Bank’s Dam Safety Policy concerning the design, construction,
operation and maintenance of the Project and downstream users (EPC contractor).
C.3 Electrocution
To prevent electrocution, the local communities should be informed of the TL’s electrical hazards, especially
risk of electrocution. It will be part of a broader education/public outreach performed in the neighbouring
communities to prevent public contact with potentially dangerous equipment and to inform and refresh
local people regarding restriction zone requirements. Signs and barriers will be placed along the TL to
prevent access to the general public near the towers. These measures are referred to elsewhere in this
report as:
people approaching potentially dangerous equipment and to inform local people of access
restrictions (EPC Contractor).
• [M 124] Warning signs and (barbed wire) barriers will be installed to prevent people climbing onto
TL towers (EPC Contractor).
C.4 Erosion of Reservoir Slopes
Because there is an uncertainty regarding the reservoir boundaries and its proximity to potential dwellings,
it is proposed that a 5-year reservoir shore erosion line will be estimated in areas adjacent to the identified
structures. It will represent a conservatively located line beyond which the security of residents can be
reasonably assured. However, because of the uncertainties with regard to the shore erosion process and
time-scales the additional land take to encompass the larger reservoir footprint including the 5-year
reservoir shoreline erosion will be managed through the GRM.
• [M 135] A 5-year reservoir shore erosion line will be estimated in areas adjacent to the identified
structures located in the proposed reservoir, and the resulting incremental increase in land take for
Mugaba and Bugara villages will be managed through the GRM (TANESCO).
D Residual Impacts
The proposed mitigation measures are all preventives. Even though the likelihood of accidents due to
accidental extensive downstream flooding happening at working site is low, the consequences could be
important, potentially leading to injuries or lethal accidents. Therefore, despite on the effectiveness of the
mitigation measures, the residual impacts regarding safety risks is likely to remain of moderate significance.
E.1 Erosion of Reservoir Slopes
The proposed monitoring measures are described in Section7.3.3.2E. The proposed monitoring activities
will be implemented by TANESCO and will allow to monitor bank erosion by measuring the edge and the
angle of the bank regularly to document monthly changes.

E.2 Dam Structure Stability
The stability of the dam structure will be monitored as per ICOLD guidelines so that any instability issues
can be detected before there is a risk of dam failure and so that corrective actions can be taken.
• [M 136] Dam inspection and maintenance procedures will be developed and implemented to
ensure the integrity of the Project structures and equipment as per ICOLD guidelines. (EPC
Contractor for procedure development, TANESCO for implementation during operation).
Fisheries
Fishing is not an important economic in the Project area of influence:

• Upstream of the dam, less than 20 people from Mushabaiguru, Mugaba, Bugara and Businde
villages are fishing. The quantities of fish caught are small and mostly consumed at family level.
The sale of a surplus is rare. As a result, fish caught locally are not a significant source of protein
for the community. Fishing is said to not be a widespread activity because few people know how to
fish, the river flow is too strong and dangerous, and many are scared of wild animals like crocodiles
and hippos.
• Downstream of the dam, the social field surveys conducted in 2020 have confirmed that there are
more fishers downstream of the dam, where the river velocity decreases and where the banks are
further modified by man-made actions. However, as KSC does not authorize camp residents to
fish, it is likely that there are more fishers downstream from the bridge located in Bulifani village.
According to the fishery survey conducted in 2020, only 39% of the interviewed fishers considered
fishing as their main source of income among other sources. Furthermore, fishers do not only sell
their catch as about 45.2% of interviewed fishers eat fish almost daily in a week.
In the Project area, fish is part of the common meal consumed by the villagers. However, it is not considered
as staple food. The results of the fishery survey have shown that only 43% of heads of household consider
fish as the main source of their daily meal while beans/legumes and vegetable scored as an alternative
source to them (56.9%).
Fish supply in the Project area does not only depend on the Kagera river fishes. As showed by the fishery
survey performed in 2020, fishes from Lake Victoria supplement the fish supply for food.
During construction, there is a risk that the direct loss of aquatic habitat, the water quality degradation and
the increased sediment loads during sediment flushing have adverse impacts of the fish species targeted
by the fishers. Additionally, there is a risk of drowning for fishers located upstream of the dam as the level
of water will daily increase during the reservoir impoundment and fishers could be taken by surprise.
B.1 Fish Abundance
Dam construction will cause a permanent loss of fish habitats for construction of the dam wall, coffer dams,
diversion canal and other facilities in or immediately adjacent to the Kagera River, and the water quality may
be temporarily modified by runoff of sediment from construction sites, roads, unstable banks and
excavated areas. However, all the identified adverse impacts are not going to affect all fish species in the
same way. Certain fish species such as the Enteromius barb, Labeo victorianus will be more affected by the
cited impact as they will be less resilient to the disruptions caused by the dam. However, the eurytopic guild
(esp. Clarias gariepinus and P. aethiopicus) are more tolerant to degraded habitats and will marginally be
impacted. According to the fishery survey undertaken in 2020, they are the most targeted fish species by
fishers in the Project area. According to the fish survey, E. Barbs has not been inventoried as a caught fish

species and L. victorianus is rarely caught as it only represented 3% of the catch encountered during the fish
survey.
The identified adverse impacts on fish should mainly affect the first 10-15 km downstream of the dam.
From the dam up to km56, on both side of the river, the land belongs to KSC. KSC forbids any type of activity
which is not correlated to sugar cane processing which limits the number of fishers fishing in KSC territory.
Additionally, interviews also highlighted that river velocity and wild animals also limit fishing activities.
Fishing is more popular at village level, at the confluence with Mwisa river. As a result, the impacts on fish
caused by the dam construction should better affect particular fish species which are not targeted by fishers
and should mainly occur near the dam, in a limited distance. The impact on fisheries is therefore likely to be
of minor significance. As a result, impact on fish supply is not anticipated and people are unlikely to reduce
the quantity of fish they eat every week.
However, reservoir filling is likely to increase fish abundance. The reservoir will permanently transform
625ha of previously flowing water (lotic) aquatic habitats to standing water (lentic) aquatic habitats as
described under Reservoir Filling in Section 7.4.4.1B.1. The increased permanently flooded lentic conditions
following inundation is likely to increase fish production in the reservoir. Although fishing is not a developed
economic activity upstream of the dam, it could be seen as a positive impact leading to the development of
a local fishing economy. The adverse impacts likely to occur because of the increase of fish abundance are
described and assessed in Section 7.6.3.2B.1.
B.2 Risk of Drowning
The construction of the dam might prevent fishers from accessing fishing grounds upstream of the dam for
safety reasons, especially during the reservoir impoundment.
As described in Section 7.6.6.1, there is risk for local communities undertaking activities in the Kagera river
or near the riverbanks, to be taken by surprise as the level of water will slowly increase to fulfil the reservoir.
The impact has been assessed under Section 7.6.6.1B.1.
C.1 Fish Abundance
As previously assessed, the impact on fish is likely to not be significant as it will neither concerned areas
where most of the fishing activities are taken place, not affect the fishes targeted by fishers. The Community
GRM will be functional in all the villages and KSC camps potentially affected by the Project. In case of any
unanticipated impacts affecting fishers, the communities would be able to file a complaint and appropriate
mitigation measures will then be proposed.
C.2 Risk of Drowning
The mitigation measures are:

• [M 110] Access to the Kagera river within the reservoir footprint will be forbidden during the
reservoir impoundment. Warning signs will be placed in all KSC camps and villages located close to
the reservoir (EPC Contractor).
D Residual Impacts
No residual impact is anticipated regarding fish abundance as the anticipated impact is likely to be minor.
Regarding the risk of drawing, the riverbanks will be declared as a no-go zone during the reservoir
impoundment. Therefore, no residual impact is anticipated.
• [M 137] The project will monitor the fisheries activities downstream of the dam, to confirm the
predictions of the 2022 ESIA or undertake corrective measures if a change against the baseline is
detected and is caused by the project operation.

The baseline elements regarding fisheries are the same than the ones developed for the construction and
reservoir filling.
During operation, there is a risk that certain fish’s species be perturbated by the variations in flow velocity
that could lead to loss of fish feeding and breeding habitat, and, as a result, to a reduction in fish abundance.
Therefore, it could have an impact on the fisher’s communities.
The dam will alter the aquatic ecology and river hydrology upstream and downstream, affecting water
quality, quantity and breeding grounds. The reservoir itself may have an impact on the original fish fauna.
During operation, the main impact on fish will concern the migratory spices. Indeed, the dam will present a
barrier to cyclically predictable seasonal fish migrations for spawning and feeding purposes. Migration in
the vicinity of the Project will be affected if fishes are not able to access upstream spawning and feeding
sites. Similarly, the dam will present a barrier to downstream migrating fish species. Indeed, fish mortalities
will occur during downstream migrations as a result of fish being drawn through the turbines, or when fish
are flushed over spillways that have a height sufficient to cause physical trauma. Therefore, it might reduce
the stock of fish downstream and upstream of the dam if no mitigation measure is implemented.
As the stock of fish available in Kagera river may decrease over time during operation without mitigation
measures, fishers that used to fish in the Kagera river might be impacted.
B.1 Loss of Income Due to the Decrease in Fish Catch
The impact on fisheries will depend on which fish species will be blocked by the dam barrier, precluding
access to upstream and downstream spawning, and feeding sites by migratory fish species. According to
the fish impact assessment, the run of river system will mainly impact E. Barbs and L. victorianus, migratory
fish species. E. Barbs has not been inventoried as a caught fish species and L. victorianus is rarely caught. It
was observed that fishers generally prefer the Clarias gariepinus (catfish) and the P. aethiopicus (lungfish),
two species which are not migratory species.
This impact will mostly be significant up to Mwisa confluence where there are fewer fishers fishing because
the river velocity is high, and the river crosses the KSC lands up to km56 where KSC forbids any type of
activity which is not related to sugar cane processing.
As the impact on fish abundance will first mostly concern fish species rarely caught by fishers and will affect
the first 40 km of Kagera river where few fishing activities are taking place, few fishers are likely to be
impacted, and the impact on fisher’s livelihood should be of low significance. As the impact on fish
abundance will be low, the local communities are not expected to change their fish consumption.
The proposed mitigation measures to reduce the impact on fish abundance are described in Section 7.4.4.
As the impact on fisher’s livelihood is likely to be of low significance, no specific mitigation measure has
been proposed. However, the Community GRM will be functional in all the villages and KSC camps
potentially affected by the Project. In case of any unanticipated impacts affecting fishers, the communities
would be able to file a complaint and appropriate mitigation measures will then be proposed.
D Residual impact
No residual impact is anticipated regarding fish abundance as the anticipated impact is likely to be minor.

• [M 137] The project will monitor the fisheries activities downstream of the dam, to confirm the
predictions of the 2022 ESIA or undertake corrective measures if a change against the baseline is
detected and is caused by the project operation.
Cultural Heritage
During the construction phase, adverse impacts could affect tangible and intangible cultural heritage in the
Project area.
The social survey performed in July-August 2020 confirmed that 7 graves belonging to 4 households are
located in the TL wayleave and potentially will be impacted. According to the social survey performed in
2013 as part of the 2016 ESIA (Norplan, 2016a), tangible cultural heritages were also found close to the
Project site. An extensive Kagera war site was discovered near Rwekubo Hill, south of the dam site, just
outside the study area. The Kagera war site has defensive stone walls and some trenches surrounded by
stones which were used by Tanzania People’s Defence Force soldiers during the war between Tanzania and
Uganda (1977-1979). A few artefacts from the Late Iron Age traditions were also discovered in the vicinity
of the planned reservoir area. Lastly, two churches located down the Chabadaki hill in Mugaba and Businde
villages were found within 500m from the proposed reservoir. Therefore, they are outside of the project
footprint.
As far as intangible cultural heritage is concerned, there is no official list of the Tanzanian Intangible Cultural
Heritage. Furthermore, as the Tanzanian government has abolished the institution of chieftaincy by
removing all their executive powers in 1963, there are no chieftaincy traditions or ruling customs. Apart
from regular customs concerning all aspects of daily life such as housing, food or weddings, no strong
customs and traditions were mentioned by the local communities.
However, one sacrifice site located in Bugara village, in the proposed reservoir footprint, has been identified
during the social field surveys. One special family is in charge of doing sacrifices when the rain is late to
come. Most of the time, one chicken or one goat is scarified in the name of the ancestors of the village. They
are seen as protectors of the community to whom request should be addressed in case of critical issues
impacting the village. However, the social field surveys have revealed that ritual is less and less practiced
and is now rarely performed. As an inherited tradition from the past, this site is the only intangible cultural
heritage discovered in the Project footprint. Therefore, it will be impacted.
B.1 Tangible Cultural Heritage
The Project will directly impact the 7 graves located in the TL wayleave. However, beliefs and traditions in
the project area allow graves to be relocated if it is done in a culturally sensitive way. Furthermore, the
Tanzanian legislation through the Grave removal Act of 1969 has set up a procedure for the re-instatement
of the grave and the re-interment of the dead bodies in a place approved by the late family.
The Kagera war site and the artefacts from the Late Iron Age traditions were found outside the reservoir
footprint. However, their discovery attests of the possible archaeological potential of the Project area.
Underground heritage resources could exist, and their loss would mean denial and/or loss of history of the
area and the country as a whole.
Lastly, the 2 churches in Mugaba and Businde villages are located far from the reservoir. No adverse impact
is anticipated. Residents will continue to have access to the churches during the reservoir impoundment.
Overall, before mitigation, the significance of the Project’s impacts on tangible and intangible cultural
heritage during operation and reservoir filing is likely to be moderate.

B.2 Intangible Cultural Heritage
Daily life customs and traditions participate in shaping local identities at the community level. During
construction phase, an estimated 1,000 workers will be required at peak construction period. Influx of
project workers, their families and other people visiting the Project or seeking opportunities may bring
different cultures to the communities of which some might be contravening local customs and traditions.
As detailed in Section 7.6.3, between 2,000-3,000 people are expected to settle in the neighbouring
communities seeking for employment/business opportunities due to the development of the dam. There is
a risk of a deterioration of the social context in which the Project is operating. Influx of outsiders can
profoundly impact the social and cultural fabric of local communities, threatening their values, norms, and
traditions. The 4 villages located upstream of the proposed dam as well as Kyaka village are the main
communities concerned.
The sacrifice site will be impacted by the reservoir impoundment. According to the discussions with locals
and the village leaders, the use of the sacrifice site in Bugara village is strongly declining, and it can be
relocated as it only need to be located near the river. There is no structure at the sacrifice site to be displaced
or rebuilt. However, living heritage management is a new field in Tanzania and the definition of cultural
heritage is still centred on physical objects.
Overall, before mitigation, the significance of the Project’s impacts on tangible and intangible cultural
heritage during operation and reservoir filing is likely to be moderate.
C.1 Tangible Cultural Heritage
The 2018 Valuation Report (Missenyi District, 2018) established the compensation for each Project affected
grave should be based on section 8 of the Grave removal Act of 1969 and interviews with PAPs and local
residents not impacted by the Project. The compensation covers all the necessary costs for grave removal,
including transportation and reinstatement of the grave, as well as all rites or ceremonies costs. Beliefs and
traditions will need to be respected as the practices of relocating graves could differ from one tribe to
another or even from one religious’ denomination to another. However, the Valuation Report needs to be
updated as some of the Project’s land requirements have changed between the 2014 Feasibility stage
design and the 2019 Basic Design and, second, the valuation validity of 2 years after the Chief Government
Valuer approval of the valuation report has expired. Therefore, the amount proposed in the valuation report
(500,000 TZS for each grave) should be reassessed with locals and the affected persons when preparing
the new Valuation Report.
• [M 138] When preparing the new Valuation Report, interviews will be performed with affected
persons and local residents to reassess the costs for grave reinstatement, including transportation
and reinterment, as well as all rites or ceremonies costs (TANESCO).
• [M 139] The management of Project affected graves will take into account peoples’ beliefs and
traditions, any re-interment is to be in a place approved by the deceased person’s family
(TANESCO).
As far as the archaeological potential of the Project area is concerned, the EPC Contractor will firstly consult
the neighbouring communities to confirm identification of all cultural heritage elements of local value and
optimise the design. Secondly, the EPC Contractor will educate the construction workforce of the need to
be vigilant in the detection and reporting of, and the prevention of disturbance and damage to, objects and
sites of physical and cultural resources. Thirdly, the EPC Contractor shall prepare a detailed Chance Find
Procedure compliant with the Antiquities Act of 1964 amended in 1979. If any person discovers a physical
cultural resource, such as (but not limited to) archaeological sites, historical sites, remains and objects, or a
cemetery and/or individual graves during excavation or construction, the EPC Contractor shall:
• Stop the construction activities in the area;
• Demarcate the discovered site or area;
• Secure the site to prevent any damage or loss of removable objects. In cases of removable
antiquities or sensitive remains, a night guard shall be arranged until the responsible local
authorities take over;

• Notify TANESCO who in turn will notify Division of Antiquities and the responsible local authorities
immediately (within 24 hours or less).
The Division of Antiquities and Local government are in charge of protecting and preserving the site before
deciding on subsequent appropriate procedures. This would require a preliminary evaluation of the findings
to be performed by archaeologists who will assess the significance and importance of the findings according
to the various criteria relevant to cultural heritage stipulated by the Cultural Heritage Policy of 2008 and
Antiquities Act of 1964 amended in 1979. If the material found is significant, a detailed archaeological
assessment will be required in order to quantify the extent of the material. Decisions on how to handle the
finding shall be taken by the Division of Antiquities. Implementation for the authority decision concerning
the management of the finding shall be communicated in writing by relevant local authorities, and
construction works could resume only after permission is granted from the Division of Antiquities.
• [M 140] Prior to the start of construction works, each community affected by the Project will be
engaged to confirm cultural heritage elements of local value and establish where if and where any
modifications to Project design are required (TANESCO).
• [M 141] Awareness sessions will be organised for construction works to inform them of the
sensitivity of archaeological artifacts (EPC Contractor).
• [M 142] A Chance find procedure compliant with the Antiquities Act of 1964 will be developed and
implemented (EPC Contractor).
• [M 143] If an artefact of national or international significance is discovered, the EPC Contractor
report it immediately to TANESCO who in turn will notify the Division of Antiquities and the
responsible local authorities (EPC Contractor and TANESCO).
C.2 Intangible Cultural Heritage
To avoid erosion of local customs and traditions, foreign workers through the Workers Code of Conduct of
the Construction EPC Contractors will be sensitised on local culture, norms and values. It will also prohibit
alcohol, drugs and gambling. Regarding the sacrifice site, its relocation should be planned with the special
family in charge of doing sacrifices. Appropriate rites or ceremonies should be discussed with residents of
Bugara village and TANESCO.
• [M 144] A Workers’ Code of Conduct will be developed for the construction workforce and will
include measures regarding respect for the beliefs and customs of the populations and community
relations in general, and specific responsibilities related to any cultural heritage encountered
during construction (EPC Contractor).
• [M 145] The Workers’ Code of Conduct for the construction workforce will include strict “no alcohol
or drugs” and no gambling policy at all times (EPC Contractor).
• [M 146] Appropriate rites or ceremonies to relocate sacrifice sites will be discussed with the
affected communities (TANSECO).
After mitigation, the significance of the Project’s impacts on intangible cultural heritage during operation
and reservoir filing is likely to be low.
D Residual Impacts
Residual impacts on intangible cultural heritage is likely to be of low significance if the above mitigation
measures are well implemented. No residual impact on tangible cultural heritage is however anticipated.
E.1 Tangible Cultural Heritage
An opinion survey among the households affected by the graves’ reinstatement will be undertaken by
TANESCO one week after the ceremonies. The opinion survey will indicate if the affected populations are
satisfied with the transportation and reinstatement of the grave, as well as all rites or ceremonies.

In case of the Chance Find Procedure is activated, the EPC Contractor will document each and every one of
the cultural heritage evidences. Writing and photographic documentation will be kept and archived,
including communities’ interviews if relevant. A weekly report will be issued by the EPC Contractor.
• [M 147] Households affected by reinstatement of graves will be surveyed one week after the
relocation (TANESCO).
• [M 148] All chance finds of cultural heritage items during the construction will be documented and
archived on a weekly basis (EPC Contractor).
E.2 Intangible Cultural Heritage
No monitoring measure is proposed.
No land acquisition will be required during the run of river operation. Furthermore, the social field survey
performed in October and November 2020 downstream of the dam has not identified any tangible or
intangible cultural heritages on the riverbanks that could be impacted in case of river low variation.
No impact on tangible and intangible cultural heritage due to the dam operation is anticipated as, on one
hand, there will be no land acquisition during operation, and on the second hand, no tangible or intangible
cultural heritage has been identified downstream of the dam on the riverbanks.
C Mitigation measures
As no impact on tangible and intangible cultural heritage caused by the dam operation is anticipated, no
mitigation measure is proposed.
D Residual impact
As no impact on tangible and intangible cultural heritage caused by the dam operation is anticipated, there
will be no residual impact.
As no impact on tangible and intangible cultural heritage caused by the dam operation is anticipated, no
monitoring measure is proposed.
Visual Amenity
The dam site, the reservoir, the new access road and the TL are all located in a rural remote sparsely
populated area where there is no infrastructure, apart from one asphalted road, and very limited human
activity. The environment is, therefore, mainly undisturbed and the construction is likely to cause a visual
impact by changing the environment.
Tanzania does not have a landscape legislation that protects landscape designation and neither the ESS of
the World bank nor the OS of the African Development Bank require a separate assessment of landscape
and visual impacts. However, in the World Banks guidelines natural features and landscape that embody
cultural values have to be included in the cultural heritage assessment (WB ESS 8). The cultural heritage
baseline has been described in Section 5 and the cultural heritage impact assessment is presented in
Section 7.6.8.

In addition to WB guidelines, the European Landscape Convention developed by the Council of Europe has
also been considered even though that convention has not been signed by the Government of Tanzania.
Landscape, as defined in the European Landscape Convention, is defined as “an area, as perceived by people,
whose character is the result of the action and interaction of natural and/or human factors”, (Council of
Europe, 2000). Landscape does not apply only to special or designated places, nor is it limited to
countryside. The Convention states that “the landscape is an important part of the quality of life for people
everywhere: in urban areas and in the countryside, in degraded areas as well as in areas of high quality, in
areas recognised as being of outstanding beauty as well as everyday areas”.
To provide a high-level assessment of potential landscape and visual effects of the proposed project, the
definition of the zone of the visual influence will be identified as well as the existing receptors. Finally, the
assessment of the value of the landscape and of the sensitivity of the visual receptors will be established.
A.1 Zone of Visual Influence
The zone of visual influence of the Project used for this baseline has been defined based on the Project
definition and the topographical characteristics of the area within which it will be located.
The Project includes several components (i.e. the reservoir, the dam site, the New Access Road, the TL and
the extension of the Kyaka Substation) that will be developed along different area. The tail of the reservoir
up to the dam will cover a footprint of 17 km² at full supply level (FSL) and it will extend over 35 km. The
dam will be 61 m high and 284 m long. Therefore, the zone of visual influence is limited to the area
dominated by a ridge divided by the Kagera River forming the Rwubuko and Chabadaki Hills on the south
side and the Rubira Hills on the north side. It goes from Businde ward up to the kitengule ranch land on the
right bank and from NARCO land up to KSC territory on the right bank.
Regarding the new access road, the footprint does not exceed 6m wide and it will extend over 28 km
through open woodland belonging mostly to Kitengule ranch, mostly following an existing dirt track to
reach the Kakono HPP dam. Therefore, the area of the new access road visual impact will only follow the
direct footprint of the road. Lastly, the TL is crossing Kyaka village and the institutional land of the Kitengule
prison. The power line will be composed of 117 towers of maximum 40 m hight. The line will be visible from
a certain distance as Kyaka village and the prison territory are located on flat lands. The zone of visual
influence is however limited to the area inside the Kyaka village and the Kitengule land.
A.2 Potential Receptors
Key visual receptors within the area of visual impact comprise four main categories:
• Local permanent residents of settlements, and
• Road users using the new access road and the B181 road.
The area where the project will be constructed along with the main villages located close by are not touristic
places. Therefore, tourists were not considered as potential receptors.
The sensitivity of these key visual receptors is assessed in Table 7.59.

Table 7.59 – Assessment of Sensitivity of Visual Receptors

Project Visual Description Sensitivity
component receptors
Local The dam site is located in a very remoted area sparsely populated. Mushabaiguru Low
residents village, the closest settlement on the right bank, is located 7 km west from the dam.
The few settlements located down the Chabadaki hill are also located around 8 km
west from the dam. On the left bank, there is no village located close to the dam
site. However, the KSC workers camp n°10 and the Kifaru camps are respectively
located 4,5 km north east and 6 km west from the dam site. This is unlikely that
project site will be directly seen by any of those receptors.
The dam site could visually impact the Mugaba and Bugara villages located at the
Dam top of Chabadaki hill. However, the villages main settlements are further located
inland and not on the hillside. Therefore, it will not easily be seen.
Road users There is only two roads that can lead to the dam site and they are not much used. Low
The new access road is only used by the Kitengule ranch and KSC shepherds,
including the dairy compagnies employees, and the road B181 is essentially used by
KSC agents as well as sugar cane workers. None of these roads are used for public
transport. Therefore, the landscape changes are unlikely to be noticed by locals
using these roads.
Local The new access road is also located in a very remoted area. It only crosses grazing Low
residents land belonging to Kitengule ranch and KSC. Only one shepherd camp and offices
owned by a dairy company have been identified close to the road.
New access
road
Road users The new access road is only used by the Kitengule ranch and KSC shepherds, Low
including the dairy compagnies employees.
Local The TL is crossing two types of landscapes. First, it will cross Kyaka village Medium
residents agricultural and residential lands. Kyaka village is the only settlements located close
to the TL. However, the area is rural and sparsely populated. Second, it crosses the
Kitengule prison land mostly use as agricultural and grazing land. No settlement is
located close and mostly prisoners cultivating the prison land are found in the area.
TL Lastly, it crosses the KSC territory that is planned to be used for sugar cane
plantations.
Road users The TL is crossing the asphalted road B182. The landscape change due to the TL Low
construction line will be noticed by the road users.
Overall, the sensitivity of the potential receptors to the landscape transformations is likely to be low.
A.3 Landscape Features, Character, and Value
The following description provides an overview of the key features and characteristics of the Project area.
The Project dam will be situated on the riverbanks of the meandering Kagera River and is split into northern
and southern banks by the river which flows in a northwest-southeast direction before turning into a
southwest-northeast direction near Kakono. The Kagera River is encased in a relatively narrow valley with
steep to modest inclination in the alluvial plain reaching upstream along the whole length of the planned
reservoir. The most widespread vegetation community at the dam site and in the footprint of the future
reservoir is Woodland/bushclump mosaic. The dominant land uses in the Project area are Sugarcane
plantations in KSC and commercial livestock production in Missenyi and Kitengule ranches. At the village
land level, on the left bank of the river, less than 10 locals cultivate, and the land is mostly use as community
grazing land.
This narrow valley is surrounded by three small hills: the Rwubuko and Chabadaki Hills on the south side
and the Rubira Hills on the north side. The Chabadaki hill rises to an elevation of 1,700 m, while valley
bottoms near the river are at elevations of around 1,200 m. Of the 3 hills, only the Chabadaki hill is
populated with the settlements of Mugaba, Bugara and Businde located on its top. Their territories extend
further east down to the river through flat bushy areas. In this flat area, there are only a few houses
scattered in bushy areas. The Rwubuko and Rubira Hills rise to an elevation of 1,350 m but are not
populated.
The proposed dam is located far from the nearest game reserves and forest reserves. It is rather located in
a remote sparsely populated area. The new access road is also located in a rural remote area. It starts from
the dam and joins the asphalted road B182. There is no village located close by as it mostly crosses the
Kitengule ranch where landscape comprises woodland used as livestock grazing for commercial purposes.

The TL is also located in a predominantly rural area with limited settlement pattern. It will cross Kyaka village
agricultural and residential lands and Kitengule prison land mostly used as agricultural and grazing land. No
settlements are located close the prison lands.
The Project area is not valued for its cultural heritage assets. Apart from few artefacts such as local pottery
and grinding stones discovered near the dam site and churches and mosques located at village centres,
only one place used as a sacrificial site has been identified in Bugara village in the footprint of the reservoir.
Overall, the dam site, the reservoir, the new access road and the TL are all located in a rural remote area
sparsely populated where there is no infrastructure, apart from the asphalted road B182, and very limited
human activities.
The criteria for assessing landscape value are described in the following table:
Landscapes which by nature of their recognised value and high quality, are sensitive to > Landscape of high value
change, and include elements that cannot be substituted.
For example: areas officially designated as protected landscape, or likely to be officially
designated as such
Landscapes which by nature of their recognised value and high quality, are moderately > Landscape of medium value
sensitive to change, and include some elements that could be substituted.
For example: common places, locally recognized
Landscapes which by nature of their recognised value and high quality, are not > Landscape of low value
sensitive to change, and which could be substituted.
For example: Degraded landscape.
The landscape in the zone of visual influences for all component is not recognised for its value by any form
of character-based designation. However, the combination of landform, Kagera river (and other water
courses) and land cover gives rise to a landscape that has scenic qualities and sense of naturalness. Its
predominately rural character also gives rise to a tranquil and wild landscape. Therefore, even though the
Project area is not a locally recognised place, and based on the criteria presented above, it is considered
that the landscape in the area in which the proposed development would be located is of medium value.
The valley is not linear in form, with multiple changes in the direction of the river and orientation of the
valley sides as well as dense vegetation influencing the nature of views that can be obtained. Therefore,
they are places where the landscape is more open, and potential visibility of the proposed development will
typically be associated with individual or a small number of elements at one time. It will not be possible to
see all elements or structures associated with the proposed development from a single location. Regarding
the new access road, as it is a linear and relief-free infrastructure, it will however only be seen by the locals
working inside Kitengule ranch and passing close to the road. The pylons of the TL will however be seen
from multiple locations due to the height of the pylons.
Therefore, landscape impacts are presented for the 3 zones of visual influence and impacts on visual
receptors are presented by group of Project components.
B.1 Landscape
a Dam
During the construction phase, there would be considerable disturbance to the landscape:
• The clearance of land and removal of vegetation would result in direct effects on the fabric of the
landscape over a wide area.
• Construction traffic, compounds and working areas would result in a large increase in activity
levels. Noise and lighting associated with both traffic and construction areas would influence
landscape character, notably through effects on perceptual qualities, particularly tranquillity.
• The creation of the quarries and deposit areas would result in recurring disturbance. Assuming the
working areas are restored following construction, elements of these deposit areas and quarry
works will be temporary and reversible. However, the removal of vegetation and creation of new
landforms will take time to restore to the extent that they blend with the adjacent landscape.
Some the elements that form part of the construction phase would be temporary and reversible e.g.
construction areas would be removed, and the land restored following the completion of works. Many

structures, such as the dams and the powerhouse would remain following the construction phase. Their
impact on landscape is assessed for the operational phase. The main element that will modify significantly
the landscape is the reservoir and its impact is also assessed for the operation phase.
b New access road
The construction of the new access road will have less impact on the landscape. Indeed, the new access
road will be constructed on an existing dirt road for at least three quarter of distance of the new road design.
Therefore, the clearance of land and removal of vegetation will happen but on a very limited scale. However,
construction traffic will also result in a large increase in activity levels that will influence landscape character.
c Transmission line
The construction of the TL will also necessitate clearance of land and removal of vegetation beneath the
line and at the pylon’s construction location. New temporary access tracks would be likely to be required to
provide suitable access for the delivery of materials, plant and the workforce to the working areas.
Vegetation clearance and the traffic will influence landscape character and change the undisturbed nature
of the area.
B.2 Visual Effects
The visual effects on views experienced by residents would depend on the visual prominence of the
construction sites and activities.
a Dam
All permanent and temporary facilities at the dam site (i.e. the dam, the powerhouse, the construction camp,
the switchyard, the quarry and disposal areas) will be visible from the top of the Chabadaki hill, essentially
for the Mugaba residents. However, the distance will prevent people from distinguishing separately each
element and the working site will be more seen as whole.
b New access road
The road construction works will only be seen by the shepherds working for KSC, and the employees (cattle
keepers and agents) of the dairy companies who are leasing a block to Kitengule ranch.
c Transmission line
As a high and linear infrastructure, the TL works will be seen, in Kyaka village, by any households located
close to the line. Part of the line passing through kitengule line will only be seen by the kitengule prisoners
who are conducting agricultural and livestock activities. As the line will cross the asphalted B182 road, the
TL will also be seen by any road user.
B.3 Assessment of Construction Visual Impacts
The proposed development would introduce a number of new elements that would fundamentally change
key characteristics of the area of visual impact and the nature of the views experienced by people who live
within in it, visit it or travel through it. Lighting associated with both traffic and construction activities would
influence landscape character, notably through effects on perceptual qualities, particularly tranquillity
within the valley. However, the topography will limit the visibility of most of the construction activities.
The significance of the visual impacts will vary with different receptors, as shown in Table 7.60 below.

Table 7.60 – Significance of visual impacts during the construction phase

Project Visual receptors Project activities visible Impact significance
component
Local residents Dam Receptors sensitivity is low, visual
Mugaba and Bugara Powerhouse impact magnitude is low. Impact is
villages from the top Construction camp considered to be of low significance
of Chabadaki hill Quarries
Disposal areas
Dam
Switchyard
Road users Locals using the road B181 passing through Receptors sensitivity is low, visual
KSC will potentially see the quarries located impact magnitude is low. Impact is
on the left side of the bank as well as the considered to be of low significance
dam
Local residents Ne access road Receptors sensitivity is low, visual
Shepherds and dairy impact magnitude is low. Impact is
companies’ employees considered to be of low significance
New access Road users Only the locals working for KSC or dairy Receptors sensitivity is low visual
road companies located inside the kitengule ranch impacts magnitude is low. Impact is
are using this road. It will not be used by any considered to be of low significance
other group of people as it does not serve
any villages located in the neighbouring area.
Local residents TL Receptors sensitivity is moderate,
Kyaka villagers visual impacts magnitude is moderate.
KSC workers Impact is considered to be of medium
Prisoners significance
TL
Road users Locals using the asphalted road B182 will Receptors sensitivity is low, visual
noticed landscape change due to the impact magnitude is low. Impact is
construction of the power line and the pylons considered to be of low significance
which are crossing the road.
Finally, the receptors’ opinions about the Project should be taken into consideration in order to refine the
visual impact assessment. Indeed, the visual impact of infrastructure developments, including hydropower
plants, is to a large extent a subjective matter determined by individual preferences. The physical structures
might be seen as architectural monuments and symbols of development, or as an intrusion in the natural
landscape. These perceptions are largely dependent on people's opinions about the project itself- almost
90% of the interviewed affected people have a good opinion of the Project. It should contribute to keep the
significance of the visual impact on local community low.
C Mitigation Measure
Any construction of hydropower development of the scale of the Project would have adverse landscape and
visual effects. There is no specific mitigation measure that could be proposed to reduce the visual and
landscape impacts during construction phase. However, mitigation measures proposed to manage road
traffic and the location of the temporary access tracks for the construction of the TL could contribute to
minimize the visual and landscape impacts during construction phase.
D Residual impact
The residual impact is likely to remain of low to medium significance.
E Monitoring measure
No monitoring measure is recommended.
The baseline elements are similar to those described in Section 7.6.9.1.

The Project development will change the zone of visual influence, albeit on river that already have three
under construction or planed hydropower schemes (i.e. the Rusumo, the Kikagati-Murongo and the
Nsongezi HPP schemes). Indeed, the Rusumo dam is located in Rwanda, at the border with Tanzania,
250 km from the Kakono dam site, the Kikagati-Murongo HPP is located in Uganda, at the border with
Tanzania, 50 km from the Kakono dam site and lastly the planed Nsongezi HPP is located 15 km upstream
of the upper part of the Kakono reservoir.
The most transformative elements in the area of visual influence will be the dam and the reservoir. These
would become the largest scale elements within the area. However, as described in Section 7.6.9.1, the dam
site is not located in a populated area and, therefore, will not be seen by many receptors. The reservoirs
would cover large areas resulting in changes that are large in scale, extend over a large geographic area
and are permanent.
Management of the reservoir during the operational phase has the potential to also affect landscape
receptors. However, such changes are likely to be relatively localised. The level of effect would depend on
the nature of the reservoir variations, however their scale in relation to other components of the operational
phase would be limited and, as a run-of-river system, the flow variations will be limited to specific
maintenance operations as sediment flushing.
The multiple areas of disturbance associated with quarries and deposit areas would also result in effects
that extend into the operational phase. It will take time for new planting to replace vegetation that is
removed. The changes in landform would also be permanent. However, providing effective restoration of
these areas take place, the land should gradually blend with the local context.
Regarding the new access road operation impacts, they are not different from those identified for
construction phase as there are few road users and locals doing business in the area. However, it is possible
that improved road infrastructure could have a consequential effect of increasing the business in Kitengule
ranch. As far as the TL is concerned, the impacts would also be similar to the ones identified for the
construction phase.
The combined effects of all the components of the proposed development are expected to result in a
substantial change in the character of the zone of visual influence. The alterations would be profound, and
the changes would extend over a large area. Overall, it is anticipated that these changes in relation to
landscape character have the potential to be of medium significance.
Mitigation of potential landscape and visual effects would primarily comprise restoration of areas disturbed
during the construction phase, through planting to help soften and integrate new structures.
Areas used for construction, including the disposal areas, should be restored following the completion of
this phase. Buildings, areas of hardstanding and tracks should be removed, and the land restored to a use
and land cover compatible with the immediate surroundings.
Native tree and shrub planting either side of the dam structures would help to soften the appearance of the
structures. This would not alter the perception of the scale of the structures, but it would help to integrate
them with the local landscape. Overall, Native tree and shrub planting, together with appropriate ground
cover (e.g. grass/wildflower mix) would mitigate some of the effects of the Project.
These measures are referred to in this report as:
• [M 149] Areas disturbed during the construction phase will be restored to their pre-project state
(EPC Contractor).
• [M 150] Landscape planning will be conducted for new permanent structures (EPC Contractor).
D Residual Impact
The residual impact is considered to remain of low to medium significance.
E Monitoring Measure
No monitoring measure is recommended.

The summary of social impacts and mitigation measures is provided in the table on the following pages.

Table 7.61 - Summary of Social Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Environmental Impact Producing Factor Phase Assessment of significance without Commitments Predicted
or Social Value mitigation or compensation residual
Main construction
Reservoir filling
Likelihood, Magnitude, Extent,
Duration
Operation
Land acquisition Land is required for the ◼   Hi Likelihood: Certain [-] • [M 62] A topography survey of the reservoir will be undertaken and the FSL reservoir M
& Restriction on construction of permanent and Extent: 1,862 ha footprint physically demarcated (EPC Contractor).
Land Use temporary facilities. Duration: prior to the start of • [M 63] The 2018 Valuation Report will be updated. The census of affected persons will be
construction updated including an update of the inventory and valuation of affected assets and land plots
Magnitude: medium and taking into consideration the Lenders requirements as defined in the 2022 RAP
(TANESCO).
• [M 65] Compensation will be paid before the start of construction, and resettlement
assistance and livelihood restoration will be provided to affected persons (TANESCO).
• [M 66] Develop and implement a GRM to resolve all grievances related to land acquisition
and restriction of land use (TANESCO).
• [M 68] External monitoring of RAP implementation carried out for 3 years following
payment of compensations (Independent RAP Consultant).
Risks to The erosion of riverbanks   ◼ Lo Likelihood: Certain [-] • [M 69] Agricultural enhancement initiatives (knowledge and awareness) through existing Lo
Agricultural downstream from the dam is Extent: Downstream of the NGOs or institutions aiming at reducing farmers dependencies on flood recession farming
Land due to caused by a reduced sediment dam and rainfed agriculture will be supported by the Project (TANESCO).
Bank Erosion loading in the river resulting from Duration: throughout the • [M 70] Effectiveness of agricultural enhancement initiatives proposed to flood recession
the trapping of sediment in the project life farmers will be monitored twice yearly (TANESCO).
reservoir, leading to, riverbed and Magnitude: minor
riverbank erosion.
Project-Induced During construction, the project- ◼   M Likelihood: Certain [-] • [M 71] An Influx Management Strategy will be developed for construction (local recruitment, Lo
Migration induced in-migration involves the Extent: in the villages located accommodation, transportation, community health) and operation (community health,
movement of people into an area near the construction site planning the construction of public amenities, community consultation mechanism,
in response to economic Duration: during the reservoir fisheries management). (TANESCO).
opportunities. construction period • [M 73] Human Resource and Labour Management Principles for the construction workforce
Magnitude: medium (2,000- will be developed in alignment with national and Lenders’ Policies. The documentation will
3,000 persons) be available in English and Ki-Swahili (EPC Contractor).
• [M 74] The Human Resource Policy and Labour Management Principles for the construction
workforce will clearly state that there will be no forced labour and child labour (EPC
Contractor).
• [M 75] The Local Recruitment Policy for the construction workforce will be widely
communicated (EPC Contractor).
• [M 76] Recruitment of local people for the construction will be maximised, with a target of
100% of unskilled workers to be local people (EPC Contractor).

Main construction
Reservoir filling
Duration
Operation
• [M 78] The Project will coordinate with district authorities with regard to the development
and implementation of urban/spatial plans for existing and new settlements affected by the
Project-induced influx (TANESCO).
• [M 81] Monitoring of the implementation of the Influx Management Strategy actions by the
EPC Contractor during the construction phase (TANESCO).
• [M 72] Community investment initiatives in education, economic and social needs in the
lower Kagera valley between Businde and Kyaka (e.g. rehabilitation or construction of
schools, rural electrification roads) (TANESCO)
• [M 77] Support to vocational training centres during construction to increase local
employment potential for the operation phase (TANESCO).
• [M 82] Audit of EPC Contractors labour management, human resources, working conditions
and supply chain will be conducted by an independent organisation (TANESCO).
• [M 127] Construction workers will be briefed on culturally appropriate behaviour for
interacting with local populations to minimize disturbing communities or giving offence to
local population when workers are off camp in urban centres (EPC Contractor).
• [M 128] The Project will coordinate with the local police on matters related to safety risks
related to Project-induced in-migration (EPC Contractor).
Project-Induced During operation, fishers may be   ◼ M Likelihood: Possible [-] • [M 83] TAFIRI and the Missenyi District Fisheries Office will be engaged to conduct a Lo
Migration (cont.) attracted to the reservoir to Extent: in the villages located Fisheries Feasibility Study and if viable develop a Fisheries Management Plan, including L.
develop fisheries near the reservoir victorianus breeding programme, management of Project-induced fishermen in-migration
Duration: during the operation and Nile Perch control (TANESCO).
Magnitude: moderate • [M 84] Missenyi District Fisheries Office will be engaged to monitor the implementation of
the Fishery Management Plan (TANESCO).
Community Noise dust and vibration from ◼   M Likelihood: Possible [-] • [M 85] Construction Traffic Management Plan(s) for dam and TL construction works will be Lo
Health Project traffic during construction Extent: in the villages located developed and implemented, the plan(s) will provide information on public roads used by
near the construction site the Project, will be publicly disclosed and provided to local community leaders (EPC
Duration: during the Contractor).
construction period • [M 42] The Construction Traffic Management Plan will set speed limits (30 km/h on the dam
Magnitude: low and TL access roads and 20 km/h on other internal roads), and define speed control
Contractor).
• [M 86] Project construction activities and road use will comply with Tanzanian legislation,
WHO and IFC guidelines for noise and air quality (EPC Contractor).

Main construction
Reservoir filling
Duration
Operation
Community Adverse impacts on community ◼   M Likelihood: Possible [-] • [M 87] Construction facilities, worksites and new access tracks (other than TL towers) shall Lo
Health (cont.) health due noise, dust and Extent: in the villages located be <200m from residential areas, wherever feasible (EPC Contractor).
vibration at construction sites near the construction site • [M 88] Construction activities shall comply with the General Tolerance Limits for
Duration: during the Environmental Noise in Tanzania (EPC Contractor).
construction period • [M 89] Noise-intensive works such as piling, demolition, metalworking, and blasting (in
Magnitude: low quarries) will not be undertaken at night (EPC Contractor).
construction and where required will establish the need to alter the construction methods
and determine if additional protection measures are needed (TANESCO).
• [M 97] Implementation of the Community Health Management measures by the EPC
Contractor during construction will be monitored (TANESCO).
Community exposure to ◼   M Likelihood: Possible [-] • [M 91] Development and implementation of a Community Health and Safety Plan for the Lo
communicable diseases during Extent: in the villages located construction phase (EPC Contractor).
construction related to Project- near the construction site • [M 92] Assistance to local authorities to prepare an action plan to protect and fight against
induced influx Duration: during the HIV/AIDS, Covid-19 and other STDs at a District and ward scale will be provided (TANESCO).
construction period • [M 93] The Project will coordinate with local authorities to conduct preventive health
Magnitude: low campaigns regarding communicable diseases (TANESCO).
• [M 94] Support to existing health centres will be provided through support to health
governmental agencies as implementing body: infrastructure, staffing, essential medicine,
waterborne and communicable disease prevention actions for construction and operation
phases. In the event of disease outbreak, assistance to impacted health centres to obtain
access to appropriate medication will be provided (TANESCO).
Community Project impact on water ◼   M Likelihood: Possible [-] • [M 13] Construction site pollution prevention and protection plans, and measures will be Lo
Health (cont.) availability and quality of water Extent: 10-20 km developed and implemented for the dam and TL worksites (EPC Contractor).
resources downstream from proposed • [M 95] If wells or springs used by a household are affected by the Project, an alternative
dam source of household potable water will be provided (EPC Contractor).
Duration: construction period
Magnitude: medium
Risk of increased prevalence of   ◼ M Likelihood: Possible [-] • [M 98] Public health awareness campaigns for communities near the reservoir will be Lo
waterborne diseases because of Extent: near the reservoir and conducted in collaboration with the local health centres, and will address issues of
the physical presence of the close to the TL behavioural change, transmission modes and prevention measures for malaria and
reservoir Duration: throughout the schistosomiasis (TANESCO).
project life • [M 52] Bilharzia awareness sessions will be organised for workers and local communities
Magnitude: medium and bilharzia management measures implemented (TANESCO).

Main construction
Reservoir filling
Duration
Operation
• [M 99] Bilharzia information signs will be installed at key locations near the reservoir to
inform people of danger, with message(s) that should be customized to be most effective
and understood by the population (TANESCO).
• [M 100] Malaria home packs containing mosquito nets will be distributed to each community
living close to the reservoir in collaboration with the local health centres (TANESCO).
• [M 101] Support to health centres to access appropriate medication in case of increased
prevalence of malaria and schistosomiasis (bilharzia ) will be provided (TANESCO).
• [M 104] The evolution of the prevalence of malaria and schistosomiasis will be monitored
on a monthly basis by consulting the records at local health centres located in the
communities near the reservoir (TANESCO).
• [M 105] Monthly monitoring of the presence and number of snails (genera Bulinus and
Biomphalaria) carrying schistosomiasis in slackwaters in the Kakono reservoir and
slackwaters of the Kagera River 10 km downstream from the proposed dam will be
conducted. The frequency of monitoring can be reduced to twice yearly after 1 year in the
absence of snails carrying schistosomiasis (TANESCO).
Risk of EMF and corona noise   ◼ M Likelihood: Possible [-] • [M 102] The TL will be designed to comply with WHO and Tanzanian General Tolerance Lo
from TL operation Extent: communities close to Limits for Environmental Noise during operation (EPC Contractor).
the TL • [M 103] The Project will seek to resolve grievance related to corona noise from operation of
Duration: during operation the TL and where required will established appropriate measures (TANESCO).
period • [M 106] Regular monitoring/patrolling of the TL wayleave to check on the absence of
Magnitude: moderate structures, and awareness raising in communities with regards to TL land use restrictions
and risks of infringing restrictions (TANESCO).
• [M 107] Local authorities will be engaged regularly to check that no building permits are
issued nor spontaneous informal settlements are developing in the TL wayleave (TANESCO).
• [M 108] The TL will be designed to comply with ICNIRP guidelines with regard to EMF
exposure (EPC Contractor).
Impairment of The reservoir filling could prevent  ◼  Hi Likelihood: Certain [-] • [M 1] The Kagera River flow continuity will be maintained at any time during the construction Lo
Sugar Cane irrigation of sugar cane fields and Extent: all the KSC pumping period, including for the reservoir filling period. The river flow immediately downstream of
Production and impact KSC’s production. station location upstream and the dam site should never be lower than the minimum flow regime specified in the 2022
Irrigation downstream of the dam ESIA or than the reservoir inflow.
Duration: during construction • [M 2] Should the Project needs to reduce the time needed for the reservoir filling, an
period agreement with operators of irrigated sugar cane plantations will be required s to minimise
Magnitude: major impairment of irrigation for sugar cane fields. Whatever is the agreement with operators of
irrigated sugar cane plantations at that time, the minimum flow downstream of the dam
should not be lower than either the flows indicated in the 2022 ESIA below or than the
reservoir inflow.

Main construction
Reservoir filling
Duration
Operation
• [M 4] The Reservoir Filling Plan will be discussed with communities and operators of
irrigated sugar cane plantations to make sure that any interference with the operation of the
pumping stations downstream of the dam has been factored into the plan.
The KSC pumping stations’   ◼ Hi Likelihood: Possible [-] • See mitigations measures presented in section 7.3.3.2C. Lo
foundations could be destabilised Extent: all the KSC pumping • [M 109] Coordination with operators of irrigated sugar cane plantations for (i) reservoir
by erosion as they are adjacent to station location downstream filling (and impact on upstream pumping station and downstream minimum flow), (ii) long-
the Kagera river. of the dam term riverbank erosion downstream from the proposed dam and protection of pumping
Duration: throughout the stations, (iii) elephant management (TANESCO)
project life
Magnitude: major
Community Safety risks related to Project ◼ ◼  Hi Likelihood: Possible [-] • [M 120] A Hazardous Substances Management Plan for the construction phase will be M
Safety construction worksites, and Extent: near the dam and TL developed and implemented (EPC Contractor)
hazardous materials stored and Duration: during construction • [M 121] Construction site layout will adopt appropriate safety distances between onsite
handled period areas for storage and handling of hazardous substances and offsite residential areas (EPC
Magnitude: major Contractor).
• [M 122] Construction worksites will be fenced, access controlled, and entry permitted only
to authorised personnel who have received health and safety training/induction (EPC
Contractor).
• [M 123] Communities will be informed of the start of any construction activities at least one
week in advance (EPC Contractor).
• [M 124] Warning signs and (barbed wire) barriers will be installed to prevent people climbing
onto TL towers (EPC Contractor).
• [M 125] Education/public outreach will be organised in the neighbouring communities to
prevent people approaching potentially dangerous equipment and to inform local people of
access restrictions (EPC Contractor).
• [M 126] Regular community meetings on safety and construction hazards will be organised
during the construction works (EPC Contractor).
Risks of traffic accident related to ◼ ◼  Hi Likelihood: Possible [-] • [M 85] Construction Traffic Management Plan(s) for dam and TL construction works will be M
Project-traffic during construction Extent: communities near developed and implemented, the plan(s) will provide information on public roads used by
roads used by the Project the Project, will be publicly disclosed and provided to local community leaders (EPC
Duration: during construction Contractor).
period • [M 42] The Construction Traffic Management Plan will set speed limits (30 km/h on the dam
Magnitude: major and TL access roads and 20 km/h on other internal roads), and define speed control
Contractor).
• [M 111] The Project will involve local authorities and neighbouring communities when
planning timing exceptional convoys (EPC Contractor).

Main construction
Reservoir filling
Duration
Operation
• [M 112] Local authorities and communities will be informed in advance of the arrival of
exceptional convoys (EPC Contractor).
• [M 113] Construction vehicle drivers and equipment operators will be provided with training
on safe driving (EPC Contractor).
• [M 114] Awareness campaigns will be organised with local communities, including school
children, to ensure they are aware of construction traffic related risks (EPC Contractor).
• [M 115] The Project will maximise the use of existing roads and tracks, vehicles used for
construction activities will use already existing roads and corridors as far as possible (EPC
Contractor).
• [M 116] No project-related traffic will be authorised in residential areas between 20:00-
08:00, except for rare occasions such as exceptional convoys that may travel at night to
avoid local traffic, and only after TANESCO approval (EPC Contractor).
• [M 117] The Project will put in place specific road safety measures in sensitive areas, such as
schools or cattle grazing grounds, including additional signs, speed-humps or speed bumps
and flagmen if necessary (EPC Contractor).
• [M 118] Communities affected by Project-traffic will be engaged with regard to Project-
related traffic schedules and activities (EPC Contractor).
• [M 119] Grievances from communities regarding Project construction traffic will be
managed through the GRM (Supervised by TANESCO for EPC contractor to comply with).
Community Electrical hazards represented by   ◼ Hi Likelihood: Possible [-] • [M 124] Warning signs and (barbed wire) barriers will be installed to prevent people climbing Lo
Safety (cont.) the TL during operation Extent: close to the TL onto TL towers (EPC Contractor).
Duration: throughout the • [M 125] Education/public outreach will be organised in the neighbouring communities to
project life prevent people approaching potentially dangerous equipment and to inform local people of
Magnitude: major access restrictions (EPC Contractor).
Dam break, uncontrolled release   ◼ Hi Likelihood: Possible [-] • [M 131] An Independent Panel of Experts for dam safety will be appointed. The panel will Lo
and emergency release of Extent: downstream from the be required to review the design and all aspects of the work, including flood hydrology,
reservoir water dam hydraulics, seismology, geology, concrete technology and turbines designed to operate in
Duration: throughout the sediment laden water (TANESCO).
project life • [M 132] A dam break risk assessment will be undertaken in alignment with the approach
Magnitude: major recommended by the International Commission on Large Dams (ICOLD). Risk reduction
measures will be integrated into the design to ensure that the overall risk of dam break is
tolerable as per ICOLD risk acceptability criteria. (EPC Contractor).
• [M 133] An Emergency Response Plan including a dam failure or gate failure/malfunction
will be prepared and include flood modelling of the worst-case scenario. (EPC Contractor).
• [M 134] A comprehensive Dam Safety and Operation Manual will be developed and
maintained. The manual will meet the World Bank’s Dam Safety Policy concerning the

Main construction
Reservoir filling
Duration
Operation
design, construction, operation and maintenance of the Project and downstream users (EPC
contractor).
• [M 136] Dam inspection and maintenance procedures will be developed and implemented
to ensure the integrity of the Project structures and equipment as per ICOLD guidelines. (EPC
Contractor for procedure development, TANESCO for implementation during operation).
Community Risk of drowning   ◼ Hi Likelihood: Possible [-] • [M 110] Access to the Kagera river within the reservoir footprint will be forbidden during the M
Safety (cont.) Extent: communities near the reservoir impoundment. Warning signs will be placed in all KSC camps and villages located
reservoir and river close to the reservoir (EPC Contractor).
downstream from the • [M 62] A topography survey of the reservoir will be undertaken and the FSL reservoir
proposed dam footprint physically demarcated (EPC Contractor).
Duration: throughout the
project life
Magnitude: major
During operation of the proposed   ◼ Hi Likelihood: Possible [-] • [M 129] Prior to undertaking planned activities that result in rapid change in downstream M
HPP, there may be short periods Extent: near the dam, the water levels, the local population will be informed at least one week in advance and advised
when flows are modified, and in reservoir to keep away from the river (TANESCO).
the case of a rapid increase in flow Duration: throughout the • [M 130] Strict operating rules will be developed for the operation and testing of the
rate, people conducting activities project life proposed dam’s bottom outlet (EPC for procedure development, TANESCO for
near the riverbank may be taken Magnitude: major implementation during operation).
by surprise and there is a risk that
• [M 135] A 5-year reservoir shore erosion line will be estimated in areas adjacent to the
drowning could happen. There is a identified structures located in the proposed reservoir, and the resulting incremental
risk that slopes around the increase in land take for Mugaba and Bugara villages will be managed through the GRM
proposed reservoir become
(TANESCO).
unstable over time and could be
potentially dangerous for the local
residents.
Fisheries Dam construction and operation ◼ ◼  Lo Likelihood: Possible [-] • [M 110] Access to the Kagera river within the reservoir footprint will be forbidden during the Lo
will cause a permanent loss of fish Extent: Upstream and reservoir impoundment. Warning signs will be placed in all KSC camps and villages located
habitats that reduce fish downstream of the dam close to the reservoir (EPC Contractor).
abundance. Therefore, it might Duration: During construction • [M 137] The project will monitor the fisheries activities downstream of the dam, to confirm
reduce the stock of fish period the predictions of the 2022 ESIA or undertake corrective measures if a change against the
downstream and upstream of the Magnitude: minor baseline is detected and is caused by the project operation.
dam and induce a loss of income
for local fishers. The construction
of the dam will also prevent
fishers from accessing fishing
grounds upstream of the dam for
safety reasons, especially during
the reservoir impoundment.

Main construction
Reservoir filling
Duration
Operation
The dam will present a barrier to   ◼ Lo Likelihood: Possible [-] • See measures for fish impact management Lo
downstream migrating fish Extent: Upstream and
species and it might reduce the downstream of the dam
stock of fish downstream and Duration: throughout the
upstream of the dam and induce a project life
loss of income for local fishers. Magnitude: minor
Cultural The Project will directly impact the ◼ ◼  M Likelihood: Certain/possible [- • [M 138] When preparing the new Valuation Report, interviews will be performed with Lo
Heritage 7 graves located in the TL ] affected persons and local residents to reassess the costs for grave reinstatement,
wayleave. The project area has a Extent: Under the TL and at including transportation and reinterment, as well as all rites or ceremonies costs (TANESCO).
possible archaeological potential the reservoir footprint • [M 139] The management of Project affected graves will take into account peoples’ beliefs
and underground heritage Duration: during construction and traditions, any re-interment is to be in a place approved by the deceased person’s
resources could be drown during period family (TANESCO).
the reservoir filling. Additionally, Magnitude: moderate • [M 140] Prior to the start of construction works, each community affected by the Project will
one sacrifice site will be impacted
be engaged to confirm cultural heritage elements of local value and establish where if and
by the reservoir impoundment. where any modifications to Project design are required (TANESCO).
• [M 141] Awareness sessions will be organised for construction works to inform them of the
sensitivity of archaeological artifacts (EPC Contractor).
• [M 142] A Chance find procedure compliant with the Antiquities Act of 1964 will be
developed and implemented (EPC Contractor).
• [M 143] If an artefact of national or international significance is discovered, the EPC
Contractor report it immediately to TANESCO who in turn will notify the Division of
Antiquities and the responsible local authorities (EPC Contractor and TANESCO).
• [M 144] A Workers’ Code of Conduct will be developed for the construction workforce and
will include measures regarding respect for the beliefs and customs of the populations and
community relations in general, and specific responsibilities related to any cultural heritage
encountered during construction (EPC Contractor).
• [M 145] The Workers’ Code of Conduct for the construction workforce will include strict “no
alcohol or drugs” and no gambling policy at all times (EPC Contractor).
• [M 146] Appropriate rites or ceremonies to relocate sacrifice sites will be discussed with the
affected communities (TANSECO).
Visual Amenity During construction, the main ◼ ◼  M Likelihood: Certain [-] • - M
impacts that could occur will be Extent: the area inside Kyaka
caused by change of landscape village and the
due to the construction of new Kitengule/Missenyi land.
elements. Duration: during construction
It will change key characteristics period
of the area and the nature of the Magnitude: moderate
views experienced by people who

Main construction
Reservoir filling
Duration
Operation
live within in it, visit it or travel
through it.
As imposing constructions, the   ◼ M Likelihood: Certain [-] • [M 149] Areas disturbed during the construction phase will be restored to their pre-project M
dam, the transmission line and Extent: the area inside Kyaka state (EPC Contractor).
the new access road will cause village and the • [M 150] Landscape planning will be conducted for new permanent structures (EPC
visual amenity and change the Kitengule/Missenyi land. Contractor).
character of the zone of visual Duration: throughout the
influence. project life
Magnitude: moderate

7.7 Ecosystem Services Assessment
The ecosystem services assessment methodology is based on the guidance developed by the World
Resources Institute7 according to 3 key criteria:
• Does the Project change the quality or quantity of the service?
• If yes, whether the change would adversely affect users significantly, for example by tipping them
over a threshold, or making demand outstrip supply, or changing perceptions about availability?
• If yes, whether the service is important for livelihoods?
When all 3 criteria are met, the impact on the service can be characterised as an affected ‘priority’ ecosystem
service 8. First, the potential impacts that may affect the provision of services by ecosystem and the impacts
that may prevent the beneficiaries from obtaining the services provided by the ecosystems have been
identified. Secondary, the beneficiaries of the ecosystems’ services have been described to scope in or out
the potentially impacted ecosystem services. Based on this work, a prioritization of the relevant ecosystem
services has been performed (see annexe 5.18 of the social baseline – Section 5).
The ecosystem impact assessment therefore considers only the services that have first been recognised as
potentially impacted and, second, that have been recognised as priority ecosystem services.
The assessment of ecosystem services impact is presented in the following table. Ecosystem services are
considered across multiple topic areas, with an emphasis on interlinkages between social and
environmental aspects. Therefore, the assessment considers all the impacts already assessed in the ESIA
as well as the associated mitigation measures.
Table 7-62 – Mitigation Measures for Impacted Ecosystem Services

Service Ecosystem Source and description of potential impact Section of the ESIA where mitigation
providing the on biophysical receptor measures are identified
service
Cultivated Floodplain • Reduced area available for crop RAP:
Crops Ecosystem cultivation caused by Project land take • Minimize physical and economic
Anthropized (e.g. physical and economical displacement.

ecosystem displacements). • Develop, implement and monitor the RAP.
• Land plots that will be lost will be • Compensation, resettlement assistance
compensated as part of the RAP. and livelihood restoration.
Livestock Woodland / • At the village level, the cattle graze RAP:
farming Grassland freely without formal control, and are • Minimize physical and economic
Ecosystem usually taking to open areas on village displacement.
land. The 2 ranches (Missennyi and • Develop, implement and monitor the RAP.
Kitengule) are using specific allocated
• Compensation, resettlement assistance
blocks. Blocks are leased to
and livelihood restoration.
Floodplain businessmen. KSC is also using
Ecosystem uncultivated areas for livestock farming.
• Reduced area available for livestock
farming caused by Project land take.
• The reduction of pasture area availability
from land take for the Project is not
anticipated to be significant and will be
compensated through the RAP
Freshwater Lotic Ecosystem • Cattles and villagers will continue to • Impact on availability and quality of water
for domestic have access to the river during resources: the EPC Contractor will prepare
purposes, construction and operation. People will and implement a Construction ESMP that
industrial / Floodplain continue to be able to fetch water and will include measures to prevent impacts.
farming Ecosystem use the river for transportation. Key measures are:
activities and • Water resources may be affected by the > At the construction camp, sanitary and
transportatio following: domestic wastewater will be collected
n of goods > Increased sediment loading in the and treated prior to discharges. All
and people Kagera river from earthworks. discharges will comply with Tanzanian
7
World Resources Institute (2013).
8
The WRI methodology also considers health, safety and culture: these topics are assessed separately.

service
> Accidental spills and leaks from the discharge limits and limits defined by
storage and handling of hazardous IFC General EHS guidelines;
materials may contaminate surface > Sediment traps will be used to prevent
and groundwater. runoff with high sediment load draining
> Discharge of sanitary and domestic from worksites to surface water;
wastewater. > The EPC Contractor will provide
> There is a risk that the new KSC alternative sources of household safe
pumping station upstream from the drinking water if wells or springs used
dam will not be functional until the by a household are affected by the
reservoir water level reaches the Project.
intake which may take 1-2 months. • Access to water for KSC pumping stations
There is a risk that the reduced flow during construction:
downstream during reservoir filling > Impact on the pumping station located
lowers water level to below the upstream of the dam could be avoided
minimum operating level of KSC if the reservoir impoundment is
pumping stations. scheduled when KSC does not need to
irrigate the sugar cane fields.
> Impact on pumping stations
downstream of the dam cannot operate
at inflow below 150 m3/s, it is
recommended to maintain a minimum
flow equal to150 m3/s during the filling
period.
> Overall, TANESCO should regularly
engage with KSC in order to discuss
possible water supply issues due to the
reservoir impoundment.
Fishing Lotic Ecosystem • Overall, fishing is not an important • Impacts on fish species typically caught by
Floodplain economic in the Project area of influence fishers is predicted to be very minimal. The
Ecosystem even though more fishers have been Community GRM will be functional in all
identified downstream of the dam. the villages and KSC camps potentially
During construction, the main impacts affected by the Project. In case of any
caused by the dam will affect fish unanticipated impacts affecting fishers,
habitats in a limited distance close to the the communities would be able to file a
dam, where few fishing activities occur, complaint and appropriate mitigation
and it will not affect the main fishes measures will then be proposed.
targeted by fishers. During operation,
the dam will alter the aquatic ecology
and river hydrology upstream and
downstream, affecting water quality,
quantity and breeding grounds, leading
to a reduction in fish abundance.
However, it will mainly concern
migratory fish species which are not
targeted by fishers. Therefore, the
fishing impact on the communities is not
considered as significative.
Regulating services
Erosion Lotic Ecosystem Retention of sediment in reservoir will lead Implement sediment flushing plan (see
regulation to increased riverbank and bed erosion Section
downstream initially in first 20 km
downstream but progressively increasing
over time with implications for fisheries
productivity and floodplain crop
cultivation.
Disease Lotic Ecosystem Velocity of the Kagera River flushes water Management of water hyacinth in reservoir
regulation hyacinth downstream and reduces Bilharzia awareness and prevention
clogging of main river channel (thereby
permitting fishing and boating). High flow
minimises availability of still water areas
where water borne vectors of disease can
proliferate thereby minimising prevalence
of disease such as bilharzia.
Supporting services
Nutrient Lotic Ecosystem Reservoir trapping of suspended sediment • Clearance of woody vegetation
cycling and nutrients will reduce contribution of • Implement sediment flushing plan
nutrients to downstream river with effects (periodic sluicing and venting of sediments
on fish feeding, spawning and productivity from the reservoir)
possibly reaching as far as Kagera Estuary • Management of water hyacinth in reservoir
on Lake Victoria.

service
• Cross reference to NB water quality
mitigation
Soil formation Lotic Ecosystem Trapping of suspended sediment and • Implement sediment flushing plan
nutrients in dam will cause riverbank (periodic sluicing and venting of sediments
erosion and loss of floodplain area for from the reservoir)
cultivation. Bank and bed erosion may lead
to deposition of sediment and smothering
of floodplains with negative effects on
fisheries.
Habitat Lotic Ecosystem Trapping of suspended sediment and • Implement sediment flushing plan
provision nutrients in dam will cause riverbank (periodic sluicing and venting of sediments
erosion and gradual loss of floodplain from the reservoir)
habitats and seasonally flooded woodland,
important for fish breeding and refugia.
However, impacts on fish species typically
caught by fishers is predicted to be
minimal.

7.8 Greenhouse Gas Assessment
Construction GHG Emissions
The Construction GHG emissions have been estimated using an approach that is in alignment with that
developed by United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization/International Hydropower
Association (UNESCO/IHA) (2016).
The manufacture, transportation and installation of Project infrastructure can lead to emissions of GHG.
These emissions are a one-off source of GHG that can be attributed to the services that the reservoir
provides. The estimate of the construction phase GHG emissions provides an indicative estimate of the
construction phase emissions which includes the manufacture of raw materials, transportation of materials
to, from and around the site, and the energy use from plant use for installation of Project infrastructure.
The assessment provides an order of magnitude level of accuracy, as the emissions are predicted to be
small in comparison with the reservoir. The calculation of GHG emissions is based on a simple set of
equations that relate the amount of material, plant or unit of transport to a GHG emission factor, along the
following logic:
GHG Emissions = Amount of Consumption or Activity x Emission Rate per Unit of Activity
Material consumption is expressed in terms of volume or mass. Construction plant is expressed in terms of
energy expressed as electricity use. Construction transport is expressed in terms of tonne-kilometre, which
is a unit that combines the amount of material being transported over a distance. The calculation used in
this assessment is as follows:
GHG = Concrete (m3) x concrete material Emission Factor (EF) (kgCO2e/m3)

+ mass (tonne) x distance (km) x transport EF (kgCO2e/tkm)
+ concrete (m3) x plant EF (kgCO2e/m3)
Each unit of activity is combined with an Emission Factor (EF), which have been sourced from the following
references:
• Materials:
- The Inventory of Carbon and Energy (ICE) V2.0, The University of Bath, 2011
- The World Bank Carbon Emissions Estimating Tool (CEET), 2014
- The Civil Engineering Standard of Method and Measurement Fourth Edition (CESMM4), 2012
• Construction Transport
- The Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Protocol
• Construction Plant
- The Civil Engineering Standard of Method and Measurement Fourth Edition (CESMM4), 2012
The input data for construction GHG emissions are presented in Table 7.63 and emissions calculation and
estimated emissions provided in Table 7.64.

Table 7.63 – Estimated Quantities of Construction Materials

Item (1) Unit Quantity (1] Density (kg/m3) Quantity (tonnes)
Embankment dam
Excavation in soil / weathered rock m3 510,300 2,000 1,020,600
Excavation in slightly weathered rock m3 54,000 2,000 108,000
Rockfill embankment construction m3 430,500 2,000 861,000
Inspection gallery concrete m3 10,999 2,400 26,398
Plinth concrete m3 10,700 2,400 25,680
Non-overflow dam
Excavation in soil / weathered rock m3 387,000 2,000 774,000
Roller compacted concrete m3 338,200 2,400 338,200
Overflow dam - spillway
Reinforced concrete m3 1,800 2,400 4,320
Bottom outlet and control building
Reinforced concrete m3 260 2,400 260
Powerhouse
Reinforced concrete m3 37,200 2,400 89,280
Backfill m3 45,900 2,000 91,800
Switchyard
Reinforced concrete m3 600 2,400 1,440
Hydraulic steel structure
Intake tonnes 450 N/A 450
Spillway tonnes 80 N/A 80
Bottom outlet tonnes 45 N/A 45
Draft tube stoplog tonnes 50 N/A 50
Crane tonnes 2 N/A 2
Notes
(1] Source: (Studio Pietrangeli, 2019)
Table 7.64 – Estimated GHG Emissions from Construction

General Earth and Rock Concrete Steel
Unit of Material (UoM) m3 m3 Tonnes
Quantity 1,769,700 514,699 627
Material
kg/UoM 2,300 2,300 1,000
Emission Factor (kgCO2e/UoM) 21.224 342 3,190
Transport
Distance (km) 5 5 1000
EF (kgCO2e/t.km) 0.2035 0.2035 0.2035
Plant
EF (kgCO2e/UoM) 1 5.07 0
kgCO2e 43,471,353 179,846,253 2,127,725
Total CO2e (tonnes) 225,445

Reservoir GHG Emissions
Reservoir GHG emissions comprise the carbon dioxide (CO 2) and methane (CH4) released as a result of the
biodegradation of the flooded biomass. The method used for estimating the biodegradation of biomass is
described in the assessment of impact on water quality (Section 7.3.2.1 A3).
Emissions of GHGs from the reservoir are estimated on a yearly basis over the 100-year operating life of
the Project.
It is assumed that all flooded organic carbon is progressively biodegraded to either CO 2 or CH4 through
aerobic or anaerobic biodegradation process.
It is assumed that the biodegradation process is mostly aerobic. However, as a precautionary approach is
adopted, it is assumed that although eutrophic conditions are conditions are unlikely, (see Section 7.3.2.2
D, page 7-39), there may be some limited anaerobic biodegradation producing methane. The GHG
estimation has been undertaken with the assumption that 6% of organic carbon is biodegraded
anaerobically producing methane which has a Global Warming Potential (GWP) of 34 over a 100-year
period.
A hypothetical 5-year half-life is used as the time constant for the biodegradation of the soft biomass, i.e.
50% of the biomass has biodegraded in the first 5 years following inundation and 75% will have
biodegraded after 10 years. A 20-year half-life is used as the time constant for the biodegradation of the
hard biomass.
The adapted hypothetical time constants are considered as precautionary. This is because when using these
values, the theoretical amount of carbon dioxide produced during the operating life of the reservoir is
maximised. Use of a faster decay rate would predict the same total amount of carbon dioxide produced
during the operating life of the Project – though produced in a shorted time-period, which is probably not
realistic. A longer decay rate would assume that not all the carbon was biodegraded in operating life of the
Project, and this would minimise the potential amount of carbon dioxide that could be produced.
The evolution of the reservoir GHG emissions over a 100-year period is presented in Figure 7-15 below and
a benchmarking comparison provided in Figure 7-16.
Reservoir GHG Emissions

80,000
70,000
60,000
50,000
tCO2eq
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 64 67 70 73 76 79 82 85 88 91 94 97 100
Year after first impoundment
With vegetation clearing prior to reservoir filling Without vegetation clearing prior to reservoir filling
Figure 7-15 – Reservoir GHG Emissions

Source: (Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2012)

Figure 7-16 – Comparison of Reservoir Emissions with Worldwide Benchmark Values
Overall GHG Emissions
The overall GHG emissions covering the construction period and a 100-year operation period represents
are presented in Table 7.65.
Table 7.65 – Overall GHG Emissions from Construction and Reservoir Operation over 100 Years
Without
With vegetation
vegetation
GHG Emission Units clearing prior to
clearing prior to
reservoir filling
reservoir filling
Construction GHGs Tonnes 225,445 225,445
Reservoir GHGs Tonnes 1,687,445 1,452,049
Combined GHGs Tonnes 1,912,890 1,667,494
Average annual emission Tonnes/year 19,129 16,775
Average annual emissions per square metre of reservoir area gCO2eq/m2/year 1,125 987
Project emissions per unit of energy gCO2eq/kWh 36.5 32.0
Typical Benchmark emissions per unit of energy* gCO2eq/kWh Ranging from 4-160
* (Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2012)
The total combined emissions from construction and reservoir over the 100-year period are presented in
the pie charts in Figure 7-17 below. It is noteworthy that the clearing of the reservoir vegetation prior to the
filling of the reservoir reduced overall emissions by 235,396 tonnes of CO2e (12.3% reduction).

Total emissions = 1.91 million tonnes CO2e Total emissions = 1.68 million tonnes CO2e
Reduction
CO2e from Construction,
Construction, reservoir 225,445
225,445 clearing ,
235,396
Reservoir CO2e
(as CO2), 943,145 Reservoir CO2e (as
Reservoir CO2e Reservoir CO2e (as CH4), 640,471
(as CH4), 744,300 CO2), 811,578
Emission without vegetation clearing prior to reservoir filling Emission with vegetation clearing prior to reservoir filling
Figure 7-17 – Total GHG Emissions - Construction & Reservoir Operation over a 100-Year Period
Comparison of Project GHG Emissions with Alternative Technologies
GHG emissions for alternative technologies (oil, gas and coal) have been estimated using the method
described in the Greenhouse Gas Assessment handbook (World Bank, 1998). The method comprises
estimating the fuel consumption of oil, gas and coal based on energy requirements and the energy
efficiency of the different fuels and the carbon content of the fuel per unit of energy. The calculation is
presented in Table 7.66.
Cumulative emissions over a period of 30 years for thermal power plant firing oil, gas, coal are compared
with the emissions from the hydropower scheme, including the dam construction emissions.
The emission calculation is provided in Table 7.66 and the emissions presented in Figure 7-18.
Table 7.66 – Estimated GHG Emissions from Alternative Technologies

Parameter used in the calculation Oil Gas Coal Units
Input
Plant power capacity 87.7 87.7 87.7 MW
Annual electricity production 5.24 x 108 5.24 x 108 5.24 x 108 kWh/year
Calculated Fuel Requirements
Conversion factor 3.6 x 106 3.6 x 106 3.6 x 106 J/kWh
*
Conversion efficiency 0.35 0.4 0.33 None
Conversion factor 1.0 x 1012 1.0 x 1012 1.0 x 1012 TJ
Fuel requirement 5.39 x 103 4.72 x 103 5.72 x 103 TJ/year
Calculation of GHG emissions
Average carbon content 20 15.3 27.6 Tonnes C/TJ
Carbon emission 1.08 x 105 7.22 x 104 1.58 x 105 Tonnes C/year
Emission factor 44/12 44/12 44/12
CO2e emission per year 0.40 0.26 0.58 MtCO2e/year
Emission Intensity 772 587 1,107 gCO2e/kWh
* Modern state-of-the-art thermal power plants may have slightly higher efficiencies than those indicated. However, efficiencies
used in the calculations are representative values for a wide range of equipment types. Consequently, the estimated emissions
indicate orders of magnitude and are indicative of the relative performance of the different technologies in terms of emissions
with or without the use of state-of-the-art equipment.

20,000
18,000
16,000
14,000
12,000
ktonnes Coal
10,000
CO2-Eq Oil
8,000
Gas
6,000 Kakono HPP
4,000
2,000
0
1 6 11 16 21 26 31
Year
Figure 7-18 – Comparison of the Project GHG Emissions with Alternative Technologies
Comparison with Tanzania’s National GHG Emissions and Worldwide

Emissions
The Kakono GHG emissions compared with Tanzania’s national and worldwide emissions are presented in
Table 7.67.
Table 7.67 – Project Emissions Compared with National and Worldwide Emissions
Emissions (tonnes per year)
GHG Emissions Percentage Project Emission
(average – including dam construction)
a
Kakono Project emissions 19,129 -
National GHG emissions for 2020 b 115,000,000 0.017%
Worldwide GHG Emissions c 52,000,000,000 0.00003%
Notes:
a
Average over 100 years and including construction emissions and no assuming vegetation clearing prior to reservoir filling
b
Tanzania’s Nationally Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (Tanzania, 2021)
c
IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, 2015 (IPCC, 2021)
GHG Offsets Resulting from Project Implementation
GHG emissions avoided by the implementation of the Project have been computed by comparing the
Project’s GHG emissions with emissions from generating the equivalent of the Project’s power generation
capacity with Tanzania’s current power mix (see Table 7.68).
Generating 524 GWh of power with Tanzania’s current power mix (445 gCO2e/kWh) will generate
232,939 tCO2e/year.
The Kakono Project will produce on average 19,129 tCO2e/year (without vegetation clearing) and
consequently represents a reduction of 213,810 tCO2e/year.

Table 7.68 – GHG Emissions from Tanzania’s power Mix

Type of power production Annual Power Production (TWh)* GHG emission intensity (gCO2e/kWh) **
Oil-fired power plants 1.5 772
Back-up oil-fired generators 0.4 772
Gas-fired power plants 3.0 587
Hydropower schemes 2.3 24
Bioenergy and other renewables 0.2 32
Total power mix 7.4 445
*
Source EWURA, 2019
**
see Table 7.66

7.9 Climate Resilience Assessment
Hydropower projects are directly influenced by meteorological, hydrological, geotechnical, and geological
processes, all of which are susceptible to climate change. Given the long design life of hydropower projects
and their susceptibility to climate impacts, it is now best practice for hydropower projects to be developed,
operated and maintained to be resilient for a range of potential climate change scenarios, and climate
change resilience to be integrated into project planning, design and operation. Consequently, the Kakono
Project ESIA scope has included this Climate Resilience Assessment, which has been conducted by following
the hydropower sector climate resilience guide (IHA, 2019). The assessment has been undertaken as 4
phases as summarised in the following table.
Table 7.69 – Overview of the Phases of the Climate Resilience Assessment

Phase Objective Key tasks
Phase 1 Characterisation the vulnerability of the • Determination of project characteristics and context.
Climate Risk project to climate change, considering its • Collection of hydrometeorological data.
Screening geographic, regulatory, technical and • Identification of uncertainties.
socioenvironmental characteristics.
• Identification of options for project adaptations.
• Identification of performance criteria and metrics.
• Assessment of the need for climate risk assessment.
Phase 2 Definition of a baseline climate change • Collection of additional data

Initial Analysis scenario based on the analysis of climatic • Analysis.
data. • Definition of a climate baseline.
Phase 3 Assessment of the project performance • Determination of the approach
Climate Stress under different possible future climate • Stress test
Test scenarios. •
Phase 4 Identification of adaptions to the project • Identification of resilience measures.

Climate Risk design – and/or project design adaptive • Identification of project design options.
Management measures – to ensure it is resilient to climate
• Resilience analysis.
changes.
• Identification of measures for a Climate Risk Management
Plan
Source: (IHA, 2019)
Phase 1 - Climate Risk Screening
A qualitative climate risk screening has been carried out to assess the Project climate change risks. The
objective was to understand the vulnerability of the Project to climate change. The screening was based on
a review of the project’s characteristics and context, and initial hydrological and climate change data.
Project Characteristics and Context
The first step in the screening comprised Project characterisation and contextualisation. The general climate
change context, Kagera River basin features and the key project characteristics are provided in Table 7.70,
Table 7.71 and Table 7.72.

Table 7.70 – General Climate Change Context

Source Short-term changes Mid-term changes Long-term changes
Temperature
Intended Nationally Year 2025: Year 2100:
Determined +0.5°C +4°C (5)
Contributions (1)
Second National Year 2050: Year 2100:
Communication to the +1.8°C +3.3 to +3.4°C (mean temp.)
UNFCCC (2) (3) +3.6°C (dry season - June-August)
World Bank Group (4) Period 2080-2099:
Monthly maximum temperatures:
+0.6 to +3.3°C (RCP4.5)
+2.6 to +6.0°C (RCP8.5)
Monthly minimum temperatures:
+1.2 to +3.7°C (RCP4.5)
+ 2.7 to + 6.3 °C (RCP8.5)
Precipitation
Intended Nationally Progressive decrease for Progressive decrease for Year 2100
Determined most parts of country most parts of country -12%
Contributions (1)
Second National Year 2050 Year 2100
Communication to the +11 to +12% (mean annual) +18 to +23% (mean annual)
UNFCCC (2) (3) -41 to +45% (dry season)
World Bank Group (4) Year 2080-2099
-31 to +14 mm (RCP4.5)
-35 to +106.7 mm (RCP8.5)
Extreme Events
Tanzania is predicted to be the 26th country in the world most affected by Climate Change, with a higher temperature increase
than the average global increase (USAID ATLAS, 2018):
• Increase in duration of heat waves (by 7-22 days) and dry spells (by up to 7 days)
• Change in average annual rainfall between -3% to 9%, with likely rainfall decline July-September.
• Increase in heavy rainfall event frequency (7%-40%) and intensity (2%-11%).
• Increase in evaporation rates.
USAID (USAID ATLAS, 2018) reports that Tanzania is the most flood affected country in East Africa, with 2014 to 2017 floods
affecting critical infrastructure, destroying roads, bridges and public and private buildings:
• A prolonged dry spell in October 2015 led to a near cessation of hydropower production across Tanzania.
• Tanzania is affected by the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO), with the El Niño causing higher than normal rainfall from
October to December and La Niña causing drier than normal conditions from December to February.
The 1997-1998 El Niño events in Tanzania was associated with floods caused by rains that were disastrous for Tanzania (U.R.
Tanzania, 2014).
Notes
(1)
Source: (United Republic of Tanzania, 2020).
(2)
Source: (United Republic of Tanzania, 2014)
(3)
Predictions for Lake Victoria Basin, including Kagera Basin
(4)
Source: (World Bank Group, 2021). Based on a multi-model ensemble of the IPCC’s AR5 GCMs
(5)
With more warming over the South Western part of the country
(6)
Mean seasonal rainfall is projected to decrease consistently and progressively for the most parts of the country, but more
significantly over the North-eastern highlands, where rainfall is projected to decrease by up to 12% in 2100
Source: (MHYD, 2021)

Table 7.71 – Kagera River Basin Features

Characteristic Description
Catchment area 46,470 km2.
Average annual runoff 213 m3/s (1950-2017) / 6,717 hm3 (1950-2017) (1).
Location / geographical boundary The Kagera river basin is a transboundary river basin that crosses Rwanda, Burundi,
Uganda and Tanzania.
Geology The HPP area geology is characterised by sandy and mildly metamorphosed phyllites,
argillites and low grade sericitic schists. The soils comprise alluvial deposits and products
of rock weathering. The Kagera Basin is characterised by erosive soils (2).
Swamps and lakes area The Kagera river meanders through extensive areas of swamps upstream the Kakono
HPP which influence the hydrological response of the catchment (3).
Land use and land cover Almost 50% of the basin's area for agricultural activities Approximately 25% of the
basin's area is natural vegetation. The rest of the area are rangelands for pasture lands
with around 5% of the total Basin area occupied by water bodies, including wetlands.
Presence of aquatic or terrestrial The lower Kagera river sustains IUCN Red-Listed and migratory fish species.
species or areas of conservation
interest (legally protected or
internationally recognized) in the
project's area of influence
Invasive species The most significant invasive species in the Basin which affects the water bodies is the
water hyacinth.
Water resources use and Since the project is located in a remote area away from a developed urban centre, local
constraints residents and companies regularly use water for daily domestic purposes and economic
activities (e.g., drinking water, crop cultivation, hand or flood irrigation, as water point for
village or ranch cattle)
Upstream and downstream Rusumo Falls HPP (under construction), 80 MW HPP (run-of-river scheme), located on a
water/river uses reach of the Kagera river that represents the Tanzania-Rwanda border; Kikagat-Murongo
HPP (under construction), 16 MW HPP (run-of-river scheme), located on a reach of the
Kagera river that represents the Tanzania-Uganda border; Nsongezi HPP (construction
not started yet), 35-40 MW (run-of-river scheme), located on a reach of the Kagera river
that represents the Tanzania-Uganda border, 13 km downstream the Kikagat-Murong
HPP and 15 km upstream of the upper part of the Kakono reservoir.
Part of the villagers use Kagera river for their livelihood (e.g. water point for animals,
fisheries). There are several water cattle points along the river; There are existing sugar
cane plantations along the proposed Kakono reservoir and along the Kagera river
downstream of the Kakono dam. Pumping stations operating downstream of the dam
from the Kagera River. Additional pumping stations to be built upstream and downstream
of the dam, which might be affected by flow alteration due to the Kakono HPP operation.
Notes
(1)
(2)
Source: (Aurecon, 2012)
(3)
It is a poorly drained basin with a slow hydrological response. Flow is attenuated by the extensive lake and swamp system
above and below Rusumo Falls.

Table 7.72 – Key Project Characteristics for the Climate Resilience Assessment
Characteristic Description / Features
Dam structures
Type Gravity Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) in the riverbed /
Concrete Face Rockfill Dam (CFRD) on the left and right
abutments
RCC structure height (m) 61.4
RCC structure length (m) 284
RCC structure crest elevation (m asl) 1,194
CFRD structure height (m) 42
CFRD structure length (m) 1,380
CFRD structure crest elevation (m asl) 1,191.4
Annual energy production (GW/year) 524
Installed capacity (MW) 87.8
Spillway
Description Gated spillway along the RCC dam crest ending with flip
buckets directing the floods into a pre-excavated plunge
pool, 3 bays, each controlled by a radial gate (12 m x
5.5 m)
Design Q10,000 (m3/s) 810
Design PMF (m3/s) 1,240
Sill (m asl) 1,184.0
Energy dissipation Stilling basin
Bottom outlet
Description 3 gates with 2.6 m x 4.5 m with inclined bellmouth-
shaped inlet equipped with stoplogs to close the inlet and
outlet
Capacity (m3/s) 640
Sill (m asl) 1,153
Water intake
Description Frontal equipped with trash racks
Sill (m asl) 1,155
Minimum operating level (m asl) 1,169
Reservoir and tailrace
Reservoir volume (hm3) 150
Live volume (hm3) 90
Reservoir area at full supply level (km2) 15
Full Supply Level (FSL) = Design flood level (m asl) 1,189
Minimum operating level (m asl) 1,180
Drawdown range (m) 1
Regulating volume when peaking (hm3) 6.8
Tailrace level at full load (Q = 316 m3/s) (m asl) 1,158
Tailrace level at minimum capacity (Q = 32 m3/s) (m asl) 1,154
Tailrace level at exceptional flood level (Q10,000 = 810 m3/s) (m asl) 1,160
Powerhouse
Description Outdoor structure located at the dam toe
Total installed capacity (MW) 87.8
Head (m) 33
Tailrace channel length (m) 40
Electromechanical equipment
Type 2 vertical Kaplan turbines
Flow rates (m3/s) 2 x 158
Capacity (MW) 2 x 44
Switchyard 220 kV air insulated switchyard located on the right bank
TL 38.5 km length connecting Kakono HPP to the existing
Kyaka substation 220 kV of single circuit type strung on
117 lattice towers, one every 335 m
Fish pass Fish passage with a flow discharge of 2-4 m3/s

Table 7.72 – Key Project Characteristics for the Climate Resilience Assessment
Characteristic Description / Features
Complementary infrastructure
Main access road: 6m-wide asphalted road, located on the right bank,
branching from the paved public Regional road T038,
extending 28 km through open woodland mostly
following an existing dirt track.
Two service roads: 6 m wide asphalted road bifurcating from the main road,
with direct access to the crest, powerhouse and the
switchyard, extending 460 and 470 m.
Secondary access: 0.9 km long, 6 m wide gravel surface road on the left bank
connecting the existing dirt roads going through the
Kagera Sugar Estate to the dam embankment on the left
bank
Permanent camp and owner’ camp: Located on the right bank will include 20 houses for
management and 24 multiple accommodation for
workers, a clinic, canteen facilities and a school.
Hydrometeorological Data
To evaluate the need for a climate risk assessment (the final step in the climate risk screening), it was
necessary to establish a time horizon and collect and review existing hydro-meteorological data.
Table 7.73 summarises the types, sources and periods of data availability. The climate data time horizons
for the assessment and the sources of data are as follows:
• Hydro-meteorological conditions considered in the project: 1981-2014
• Mid-term hydro-meteorological conditions to be evaluated in the assessment: 2034-2067
• Long-term hydro-meteorological conditions to be evaluated in the assessment: 2066-2099
Uncertainties
Climate change may be a threat multiplier that may accentuate some of the risks that affect project
performance. Likewise, there may be opportunities that may be enhanced by climate change (e.g., increased
energy demand). Consequently, to complement the data referred to in Section 7.9.1.2 other parameters
not specifically viewed as related to climate change, but which might affect the screening analysis were
identified and are presented in Table 7.74.

Table 7.73 – Historical Meteorological, Hydrological and Climatic Data

Climate variable Data source Period Scale (1]
Precipitation (2) CHIRPS (3)
1982-2014 C
Temperature (4) CHIRTS (5) 1983-2016 C
Runoff Kyaka Ferry Gauging Station daily flow 1967-2009 R
Kyaka Ferry Gauging Station monthly flow 1950-1966
2009-2012
Nyakanyansi G. Area Pumping station daily flows 2013-2018
Flood Kyaka Ferry gauging station annual maximum daily discharges 1967-2017(6) R
Rainfall-Runoff modelling
Drought Kyaka Ferry gauging station annual minimum daily discharges 1967-2017(6] R
Rainfall-Runoff modelling
Sediment yield 1 million tonnes/year - solids and associated flows (7) (8) (9) R
Concentration of suspended solids and associated flows
reported in the Project Basic design (7):
• Kagera River and Rusumo Falls - 61 samples August 1975 - June 2009
• Nyaborongo river at Kigali and near Gashora downstream of August 1975 - June 2009
Kigali - 43 samples
• Ruvunu river just upstream of its confluence with Kagera February 1986 - June 2009
river - 34 samples
Notes
(1) C = Country scale, R = Regional scale
(2) Several rainfall stations providing coverage of the project area analysed during Basic Design, but only 6 with observations extending over the
80’ up to 2014. CHIRPS data reliability was assessed by comparing the average monthly and yearly cumulate of 8 of the available rainfall
stations and CHIRPS dataset (Studio Pietrangeli, 2019)
(3) Climate Hazards Group InfraRed Precipitation with Station data (CHIRPS), high resolution (0.05° x 0.05°) quasi-global gridded dataset
(4) Due to lack of data in the Basic Design Report, data from Bukoba meteorological station temperature data is used.
(5) Climate Hazards Center (CHC) high-resolution (0.05° x 0.05°) quasi-global gridded dataset of maximum and minimum temperatures
(6) Several gaps, 36-year time series
(7) Source: (Studio Pietrangeli, 2019), (BRL, 2008)
(8) Source: (BRL, 2008)
(9) Based on 15 sediment samples collected between March 1971 and August 1972 (BRL, 2008) and data collected by LVEMP from 2000 to
2005. Value conservatively adopted in the Basic Design (Studio Pietrangeli, 2019)
Table 7.74 – Potential Threat Multiplier Parameters

Parameter Comments
Economic lifetime of the HPP The economic lifetime of the Project powerplant has been defined as 50 years (1)
Discount rate The discount rate of 7% was considered in the Project*
Requirements for environmental flows May vary with rising temperatures and water conflicts, hampering peaking
possibilities
Public policy - political support for project Attention may be deviated for other priorities
Issues related to intergenerational equity Linked with the discount rate and economic lifetime
Operational expenditures May vary with increasing sediment loads and more frequent flushing operations
Given the expected population growth, that will almost double by 2032 (2) the
Population trends water abstraction may increase, decreasing the water availability for energy
generation
Notes
(1)
(Studio Pietrangeli, 2019)
(2)
(Aurecon, 2012)

Options for Project Adaption
As part of the Project screening, the possibility of options for structural and functional adaptation measures
to increase climate resilience and flexibility were considered and are outlined below:
• Options for power generation design change: The Project has completed the basic design, and it
should be possible for changes to the power generation design to be made during the next stage
to give the power generation more flexibility, for example installing three turbines instead of two.
• Options for safety design change: As it should be possible to modify the design in the next stage of
the Project, changes to safety design such as increasing the spillway capacity can be made.
Risk and Opportunity Register
A preliminary risk and opportunity register was prepared during the Phase 1 screening, and which was
refined during subsequent phases. The preliminary register covered all potential climate stressors relevant
to the Project and was as exhaustive as possible., including threats/opportunities associated with each
climate stressor and an estimate of the likelihood and potential loss/gain of each threat/opportunity. The
refined register is provided in Section 7.9.3.3 and the identified climate stressors and possible impacts on
the Project are presented in Table 7.75 and Table 7.76.
Table 7.75 – Project Features - Possible Vulnerabilities

Project Feature Possible Impact or Stressor
Climate Stressor: Rising temperatures and longer dry spells
• Increased evaporation losses which might reduce the downstream water releases impairing existing and
future downstream water uses.
• Potential eutrophication issues with floating vegetation/algae increase. The occurrence of floating water
Reservoir hyacinth in the swamps and wet area which is carried by the current enhances this risk.
• Decrease of water quality with impacts on the other water uses.
• Increase in waterborne diseases (e.g. cholera, typhoid) and vector-borne diseases (e.g. malaria).
• Increased temperature within powerhouse potentially leading to equipment failures due to heat.
Powerhouse • Increased water temperatures causing problems for alternators.
• Material durability issues and expansion/contraction causing concrete cracking.
Electro- The increase in water temperature and operating temperatures may lead to corrosion/damage to turbines,
mechanical blockage by algae/vegetation, increased maintenance requirements and reduced efficiency of
equipment electromechanical equipment, as well as reduced durability.
• Increase in temperature drops conductor efficiency and TLs durability decreases.
TLs (1) • Increased frequency, distribution and severity of wildfires that damage TLs.
• Increased maintenance frequency since vegetation grows faster with warmer air temperature.
Complementary Increased temperature within the camps potentially leading to bad working conditions.
infrastructure
Climate Stressor: Decrease of annual rainfall/increasing inter-annual variability
Energy Low energy production (2).
generation
Climate Stressor: Increase in frequency and intensity of heavy rainfall
Energy May lead to a seasonal generation levels shift and to a shift in demand and load factor, leading to a non-
generation planned operating regime with an energy output different from the planned.
Dam Dam safety issues, due to erosion at toe of the dam due to increased spillway discharge.
Spillway Insufficient size to pass floods leading to dam safety issues, like damage to spillway in high flow events.
Bottom outlet Increased sediment load potentially causing clogging damage with additional flushing frequency needed.
Intake Increased sediment load potentially clogging intakes.
• Reservoir slope instability causing landslides into reservoir.
• Increased flood flow resulting in variable HPP inflow.
Reservoir • Increased trash and vegetation in reservoir from increased runoff.
• Increased sediment loads impacting operating regime of the reservoir and HPP, including of flushing
events.
• Flooding of powerhouse due to increased fluvial flow.
Powerhouse • Flooding of powerhouse from direct precipitation.
• Increased risk of slope instability which may block the tailrace.
Electromechani Varied flows result in different sediment loads which can cause turbine corrosion/damage, increased
cal equipment maintenance requirements and reduced efficiency of electromechanical equipment.
Switchyard Increased risk of slope instability leading to potential equipment damages and operation constraints.

Table 7.75 – Project Features - Possible Vulnerabilities

Project Feature Possible Impact or Stressor
TLs Increased risk of slopes instability that may damage the TLs.
Complementary • Increased surface water on roads and roads flooding with possible damages.
infrastructure • Increased risk of slope instability causing road damage.
• Increased debris from higher or flashy surface runoff.
Increased risk of flooding and of slope instability that may lead to damage in the camp's infrastructure.
Notes
(1) Recent literature (dated 2014 and 2019) assessing the global change in wind speed distributions and extremes using
CMIP5 GCM models indicate no significant change is projected for the Project area in terms of wind speed distribution and
extremes for RCP8.5 scenario till the end of the century. Wind climate generation processes are generally not the primary
result of atmospheric climate model and are quite influenced by ground features, in particular regarding extreme events.
In the specific case of Kakono project, large regional water bodies such as Lake Victoria may play a governing role in wind
climate. Following literature review, a preliminary conclusion is that wind is not one of the main climate stressors for the
project, although it is highly recommended to implement wind velocity measurements in the framework of the project
allowing to monitor such parameter and re-assess its impact of the project across its lifetime.
(2) There is high uncertainty regarding annual rainfall in the watershed. Mean annual runoff is expected to decline in the future
(Global Water Partnership, 2021). Results from trend analysis of mean annual rainfall time-series for different RCP
scenarios predict a slightly declining non-significant trend and monthly precipitation change in the range -31 mm to
+14 mm (RCP4.5) and -35 mm to +106.7 mm (RCP8.5) for a wider watershed, embracing Kagera watershed, for the period
2080-2099 (when compared to 1986-2005), based on a multi-model ensemble of the GCM used in IPCC, AR5 report
(World Bank Group, 2021). There is uncertainty in this change given that some models predict a decrease in monthly
precipitation, while others predict an increase.
Table 7.76 – Basin Features - Possible Vulnerabilities

Project
Possible Impact or Stressor Comments
Feature
Rising temperatures and longer dry spells
Location/ Water availability will also Most of Rwanda (84%) and about 50% of Burundi fall within the Basin. The lower
Geographical depend on neighbouring part of the Kagera river is shared with Uganda, thus, downstream flow
boundary. countries development discharges also affect Uganda region and water uses, since Kagera river mouth
is in Uganda. Therefore, the knock-on effect on downstream areas in Uganda
must be taken into account.
Invasive Eutrophication and water The rise in temperatures, the soil erosion and increased nutrient loads (due to
species. quality problems, possible the higher sediment loads caused by the increase in frequency and intensity of
clogging. heavy rainfall) encourage water hyacinth growth. Flash floods also increase the
spread/dissemination of this species.
Water Water right conflicts KSC currently holds water permits totalling 200,000 m3/day and an application
resources use between irrigation and for a further 870,000 m3/day made. KSC owns pumping stations operating
and domestic water uses and downstream of the dam from the Kagera River, additional pumping stations are
constraints/ energy production which to be built upstream and downstream of the dam, which might be affected by
Upstream and can result in lower water flow alteration due to the Kakono HPP operation. KSC is the largest water user in
downstream availability and constrained Missenyi District in terms of quantity extracted from the river system. There are
water/river energy generation no public water supply facilities within the villages located upstream the dam.
uses. Mushabaiguru, Mugaba, Bugara and Busind villagers rely on wells, and springs
for drinking water. People who do not have access to streams use the Kagera
river for domestic purposes. Kyaka and Omundongi villagers use the Kagera
river water for their daily life activities, including drinking for some households;
Upstream of the dam, and to a lesser extent downstream of the dam, the
Kagera river is widely used as water point for either village cattle or ranch cattle.
Given the expected population growth, that will almost double by 2032
(Aurecon, 2012) the water abstraction may increase, decreasing the water
availability for energy generation.
Upstream Constrained (cascade) Upstream reservoirs may impact evaporation losses. (BRL, 2008) reports that
HPPs: energy generation the current evapotranspiration rate in the wetlands is estimated to be similar to
Rusumo Falls the evaporation rate of the future reservoir, concluding that the net loss of
HPP (on water due to Rusumo falls reservoir is expected to be minimal. No similar
Kagera River) studies are available for the Kikagat-Murongo and Nsongezi reservoirs and
Kikagat- therefore as a precautionary approach it is assumed that there may be some
Murongo HPP increase in evaporation losses that may reduce Kagera flow. However, the
(on Kagera impact on Kakono is expected to be small or within the accuracy of the
River) estimation methods. However, operation of upstream HPPs may constrain
Nsongezi HPP operation of Kakono HPP situated downstream; however, since the volume of
(on Kagera these reservoirs with regards to their annual inflows is small, they have little
River). regulation capacity and their operation is expected to be run-of-river and so
negative impacts on Kakono's annual power generation is not expected.
Increase in sediment yield

Table 7.76 – Basin Features - Possible Vulnerabilities

Project
Possible Impact or Stressor Comments
Feature
Geology. Sediment inflows to the Unconsolidated and erodible alluvial deposits exist in the Kakono HPP reservoir
reservoir may increase area, which increases the landslide risk and the risk of higher sediment loads.
leading to enhanced
sedimentation and need
for sediment management
operations
Increase in frequency and intensity of heavy rain
Land use and The deforestation, and land Agriculture in the basin is often characterized by poor farming practices and
Land cover. use, with poor farming severe land degradation (Aurecon, 2012).
practices and severe land Deforestation is one of the major threats to the Basin's resources. The major
degradation, livestock causes for deforestation include expansion of agricultural land, urbanization,
grazing and human bush fires and need for wood (Aurecon, 2012).
settlements due to
population growth may
lead to higher soil erosion
with higher sediment loads
Decrease of annual rainfall / increasing inter-annual variability / Increase in frequency and intensity of heavy rain
Swamps and The change in the The swamp area provides: i) flood regulation by diminishing the peak of the
Lakes area precipitation may lead to a flood; ii) sediment filter; iii) ground water recharge; iv) storm protection, since
change in vegetation which the vegetation occupying these areas (tree and papyrus) increase the roughness
may decrease the swamp factor which diminishes the water velocity, diminishing its erosive capacity. If the
area and alter run off change in precipitation affects vegetation decreasing the swamps area, the
previous functions will be affected
Performance Criteria and Metrics
The screening included the identification of Project performance characteristics that could potentially be
affected by climate change and identified criteria and metrics which can be used to measure the extent to
which the Project may be affected by climate change. The performance criteria related to the functions of
the project components are presented in Table 7.77.
Table 7.77 – Project Characteristics Potentially Affected and Criteria

Main Functions Potentially Affected Project Characteristic Performance Metric Trend (1)
• Generation • Energy generation Annual/seasonal average run off (m3/s) Decrease (2)
• Electromechanical equipment Annual/seasonal average water availability Decrease
at intake (m3/s)
Annual/seasonal energy production Decrease (3)
(GWh/year or GWh/month)
• Generation • Energy generation Evaporation losses (as deduced from No change /
• Environmental • Electromechanical equipment water balance) Increase
• Multi-purpose • Reservoir
• Environmental • Downstream water users Downstream flow discharges (m3/s) No change
• Multi-purpose • Ecosystems
• Safety • Dam Amplitude of temperature (°C) Decrease
• Powerhouse
• Generation • Electromechanical equipment Maximum temperature (°C) Increase
• Safety • TLs
• Environmental • Bottom outlet
• Multi-purpose • Complementary infrastructure (camps)
• Downstream water users
• Ecosystem
• Generation • Energy generation/Reservoir/ Sediment yield (m3/year or m3/km2/year) Increase
• Safety Bottom outlet/ Reservoir live storage volume (hm3) Decrease
• Environmental Electromechanical Reservoir live storage volume (hm3)
equipment/Downstream water
uses/ecosystems
• Safety • Dam Spillway operation (outflow flow discharge Increase
• Spillway m3/s, number of gates, type of gate
manoeuvres, etc.)

Table 7.77 – Project Characteristics Potentially Affected and Criteria

Main Functions Potentially Affected Project Characteristic Performance Metric Trend (1)
• Dam Riverbed erosion (scour) of plunge pool at Increase
• Plunge pool dam toe
Spillway flow discharge records
Notes:
(1)
Preliminary Assessment Trend under Climate Change -to be assessed in subsequent phases
(2)
There is uncertainty in this trend since some models predict increase of annual rainfall/runoff, and may be impacted by
operation/availability of powerhouse
(3)
Related to the previous trends
Evaluation of the Need for Climate Risk Assessment
The evaluation of the need for a climate risk assessment was the final step in the screening phase. A
qualitative assessment of whether climate change may have a significant influence on the project was
undertaken by considering the questions mentioned in the Hydropower Section Climate Resilience Guide
(see Table 7.78). Because the answers to all the questions are “yes”, it was concluded that a climate risk
assessment was required, and which is presented in the following subsections.
Table 7.78 – Need for Climate Risk Assessment

Question* Yes No
Could a change of the hydrological regime significantly affect the Project’s economic viability? ◼ 
Could a change in the hydrological regime affect service continuity/access to electricity in the ◼ 
region it serves?
Could any of the performance metrics defined in section 7.9.1.6 be unachievable by potential ◼ 
climate change effects?
Would a breach of the project’s main dam or other associated infrastructure have significant ◼ 
adverse consequences on downstream populations, strategic infrastructure or protected
ecosystems?
Notes:
* Source: (IHA, 2019)
Phase 2 - Initial Analysis
In the initial analysis an assessment of the climatological boundary conditions and the relevant project
characteristics was conducted to inform whether the climate during the lifetime of the project is likely to be
substantially different from the climate on which the project design is being based.
Data Collection and Analysis
Historical climate datasets were collected from Global gridded datasets (Table 7.79).
Table 7.79 – Source of Data
Climate dataset Parameter Availability Retrieved in December 2020 from:
CHIRPS (1) Precipitation 1981-2020 https://climateserv.servirglobal.net/
CHIRTS (2) Maximum Temperature 1983 - 2016 https://www.chc.ucsb.edu/data/chirtsdaily
Minimum Temperature
Notes
(1)
Climate Hazards Group InfraRed Precipitation with Station data (CHIRPS), high resolution (0.05° x 0.05°) quasi-global
gridded dataset
(2)
Climate Hazards Center (CHC) high-resolution (0.05° x 0.05°) quasi-global gridded dataset of maximum and minimum
temperatures
Historical climate datasets for the common periods of available data for precipitation and temperature
(1983-2016 (34 years) were analysed to establish the baseline. The historical data is presented in Table
7.80 and variation shown in Figure 7-19.

The analysis comprised checking for “persistence” using an Auto-Correction Function graph (Figure 7-20)
which found that the datasets did not show signs of “persistence”, and consequently the Mann Kendall test
could be used to assess trends. The seasonality Index values were determined using the approach
developed by Walsh and Lawler (Walsh, 1981), and a value of 0.45 computed, which indicates seasonal
rainfall regime with a short drier season.
The Mann-Kendall trend test results are shown in Figure 7-21, Figure 7-22 and Figure 7-23. The Mann-
Kendall τ (Tau) coefficient and P-values were determined and P-values found to be 0.05 for precipitation
and temperatures, indicating no trends.
Table 7.80 – Historical Climate Data (1983-2016)

Mean Min Max SD Cv
Monthly Precipitation (mm)
January 93.2 40.8 152.8 24.0 25.8
February 96.2 41.5 198.4 31.2 32.4
March 140.6 97.0 196.7 23.1 16.4
April 164.3 102.3 241.7 35.5 21.6
May 92.4 30.7 160.8 34.0 36.8
June 12.2 0.6 38.9 9.8 80.4
July 5.7 1.4 18.0 4.5 80.0
August 27.3 2.1 75.5 16.3 59.6
September 69.2 26.4 114.7 22.8 33.0
October 117.4 66.2 164.5 24.1 20.5
November 140.9 87.4 190.2 26.5 18.8
December 112.0 59.6 196.6 31.4 28.1
Total 89.3 0.6 241.7 36.6 58.0
Annual (mm/year) 1071.4 907.2 1237.0 93.0 8.7
Monthly Maximum Temperature (°C)
January 26.2 24.3 27.3 0.7 2.8
February 26.9 24.3 29.2 1.0 3.6
March 26.4 25.2 27.6 0.6 2.4
April 25.7 24.2 26.7 0.6 2.2
May 25.6 24.4 26.6 0.5 2.0
June 26.2 25.2 27.3 0.5 1.9
July 26.9 25.8 27.9 0.6 2.2
August 27.6 26.2 29.1 0.7 2.5
September 27.5 26.2 29.1 0.6 2.4
October 26.8 25.4 28.1 0.6 2.3
November 26.3 25.3 27.7 0.6 2.2
December 25.8 24.4 27.8 0.9 3.3
Annual 26.5 24.2 29.2 0.3 1.3
Monthly Minimum Temperature (°C)
January 16.6 13.6 18.8 0.8 4.9
February 17.0 12.9 20.2 1.0 5.7
March 16.9 14.1 20.1 0.8 5.0
April 17.0 14.7 19.6 0.7 4.1
May 16.8 13.3 19.3 0.7 4.1
June 16.4 12.8 19.2 0.9 5.4
July 16.3 12.6 19.0 1.0 5.9
August 17.3 13.7 20.0 0.9 5.2
September 17.3 14.6 19.5 0.8 4.4
October 17.3 14.7 19.9 0.8 4.4
November 17.5 15.3 19.7 0.7 3.9
December 16.6 14.3 19.0 0.8 4.6
Annual 16.9 12.6 20.2 0.1 0.6

Monthly Precipitation variation

(1983 - 2016)
300.0
Precipitation (mm/month) 250.0

200.0
150.0
100.0
50.0
0.0
Months (-)
Sum
Mean Min Max
Monthly Maximum Temperature variation

(1983 - 2016)
30
Temperature (°C)
29
28
27
26
25
24
Months (-)
mean min Max
Monthly Minimum Temperature variation

(1983 - 2016)
22
Temperature (°C)
20
18
16
14
12
10
Months (-)
Mean Min Max
Figure 7-19 – Historical Monthly Precipitation and Temperature Variations (1983-2016)

Figure 7-20 – Autocorrection Function Graph for Historical Data 1983-2016
The graph shows variable values for the autocorrelation function (ACF) for each time-lag. Typically for this
type of graph, lag = 1 to n/3 or n/4, with n being the number of samples of the time series, which in this
case is 34 (the total number of years of the analysed period).
The graphs shows that there is no correlation of the time series with its own past and future values, i.e., it
does not show “persistence”. This shows that statistical testing using the Mann Kendall test to determine
trends is applicable.

Yearly Average Precipitation (Tau = 0.06, P-value = 0.6142)
Monthly Average Precipitation (Tau = 0.02, P-value = 0.6406)

Figure 7-21 – Historical Precipitation Data – 1983-2016 – Mann Kendall Test

Annual Average Precipitation from January to June (Tau = -0.04, P-value = 0.74)
Annual Average Precipitation from July to December (Tau = 0.06, P-value = 0.64)
Annual Average Precipitation from July to September (Tau = 0.06, P-value = 0.64)
Figure 7-22 – Historical Precipitation Data – 1983-2016 – Mann Kendall Test – Selected Months

Maximum temperature – yearly analysis (Tau = 0.22, P-value = 0.066)
Maximum temperature – monthly analysis (Tau = 0.22, P-value = 0.066)
Minimum temperature – yearly analysis (Tau = -0.18, P-value = 0.146)
Minimum temperature – monthly analysis (Tau = -0.18, P-value = 0.146)
Figure 7-23 – Historical Temperature Data - 1983-2016 – Mann Kendall Test

Climate Change Projections
A General Circulation Models
Climate change projections for the project area were made using an ensemble of 5 General Circulation
Models (GCMs), which are global climate models that can simulate climate change scenarios. GCMs depict
the climate using a 3-D grid covering the globe, typically with a horizontal resolution of 250-600 km, 10-
20 vertical layers in the atmosphere and sometimes as many as 30 layers in oceans. A GCM ensemble was
used as multi-model average often out-performs individual models – see table below.
Table 7.81 – GCM Ensemble used for Climate Change Projections

GCM Model GCM Full Name Developer
GFDL-ESM2G Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory Generalized Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL) of the
Ocean Layer Dynamics model National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA)
HadGEM2-ES Hadley Global Environment Model 2 - Earth System Met Office Hadley Centre (MOHC)
model
IPSL-CM5A-LR Institut Pierre-Simon Laplace Earth System Model Institut Pierre-Simon Laplace (IPSL)
for the 5th IPCC report
MPI-ESM-MR Max Planck Institute for Meteorology Earth System Max Planck Institute for Meteorology (MPI-M)
Model
NorESM1-M Norwegian Earth System Model Norwegian Climate Centre (NCC)
B Climate Change Scenarios
The climate change scenarios used in the assessment are presented in Table 7.82. Three Representative
Concentration Pathways (RCPs), RCP4.5, RCP6.0 and RCP8.5 for 2 future 34-year time periods (mid-term
and long-term) were assessed. An RCP is a greenhouse gas concentration (not emissions) trajectory
adopted by the IPCC. Four RCPs were used for climate modelling and research for the IPCC fifth Assessment
Report in 2014. The pathways describe different climate futures, all of which are considered possible
depending on the volume of GHG emitted in the years to come.
Table 7.82 – Climate Change Scenarios used for Climate Change Projections
RCP Description
RCP4.5 Intermediate scenario GHG emissions peak around 2040 then decline. Stabilization without overshoot
pathway to (~650 ppm CO2eq) at stabilization after 2100
RCP6.0 Intermediate scenario GHG emissions peak around 2080 then decline. Stabilization without overshoot
pathway to ~850 ppm CO2eq) at stabilization after 2100
RCP8.5 Worst-case scenario Rising radiative forcing pathway leading to ~1,370 ppm CO2eq by 2100.
The GCM models used and availability of data for the climate change scenarios are presented in Table 7.83
Table 7.83 – Models and Availability of Data for Climate Change Prediction
Availability of GCM models for Climate Change scenarios
Resolution
GCM model ◼ = Available*,  = Not Available
(lat. x long.)
RCP4.5 RCP6.0 RCP8.5
GFDL-ESM2G 2.0225 ° x 2.5 ° ◼ ◼ ◼
HadGEM2-ES 1.25 ° x 1.875 ° ◼** ◼*** ◼*
IPSL-CM5A-LR 1.8947 ° x 3.75 ° ◼ ◼ ◼
MPI-ESM-MR 1.8653 ° x 1.875 ° ◼  ◼
NorESM1-M 1.8947 ° x 2.5 ° ◼ ◼ ◼
Notes
* Retrieved from Copernicus Climate Data store (https://cds.climate.copernicus.eu/#!/home) on 20/12/2020
** Ensemble member r1i1p1 not available for RCP4.5 Tmax and RCP8.5, r2i1p1 ensemble member was used
*** No data available for December 1999 for the Precipitation

C GCMs for Historical Time Period (1983-2016)
The GCM ensemble was for the historic time-period of 1983-2016 to assess how accurately the models
predicted temperature and precipitation. The results are presented in Figure 7-24 and show that the 5 GCMs
accurately reproduce the intra-annual rainfall variability although in some cases some overestimation
occurs especially in the wettest months.
D GCMs for Future Time Periods (2034-2067 and 2067-2099)
The GCMs were for 2 future time periods (2034-2067 and 2067-2099).
Because the GCMs for the historical time period, it was necessary to use a bias correction for the predictions
of future time periods. The Delta statistical downscaling bias-correction method was selected and applied
to the future time periods to correct the bias (deviation) between the historical dataset and the GCM model
predictions.
Predicted precipitation results are shown in Table 7.84, Table 7.85, Table 7.88, Table 7.89, Figure 7-25, and
Figure 7-26.
Predicted temperature results are shown in Table 7.86, Table 7.87, Table 7.92, Table 7.94, Figure 7-27,
Figure 7-28, Figure 7-29 and Figure 7-30.

Precipitation
Maximum Temperature
Minimum Temperature
Figure 7-24 – Climate Model Hindcasts vs Historical Data (1983-2016)

Table 7.84 – GCM Ensemble Predicted Precipitation (mm/season) for Future Time Periods
Scenario RCP4.5 RCP6.0 RCP8.5
Period Mean Min. Max. Mean Min. Max. Mean Min. Max.
Time Period 2034-2067
Jan-Jun 608.7 443.1 773.2 644.5 471.6 811.5 620.0 451.5 787.3
Jul – Dec 500.9 361.7 681.4 518.7 377.5 702.6 513.9 369.5 698.0
Jul - Sep 113.7 53.0 197.6 112.5 50.9 198.5 113.3 53.1 195.4
Jan-Jun 626.2 458.0 794.1 652.5 474.3 823.0 653.1 473.6 835.1
Jul – Dec 508.8 368.0 689.6 541.4 394.8 732.7 563.4 402.9 767.2
Jul - Sep 113.4 51.7 196.0 117.2 53.2 206.8 134.7 62.9 230.3
Table 7.85 – GCM Ensemble Predicted Precipitation (mm/month) for Future Time Periods
January 103.3 45.3 169.3 108.0 47.3 177.1 105.4 46.2 172.8
February 100.8 43.5 208.0 93.8 40.5 193.6 98.2 42.4 202.7
March 143.6 99.0 200.9 162.4 112.0 227.1 151.1 104.2 211.4
April 161.5 100.6 237.5 175.8 109.5 258.7 163.9 102.0 241.0
May 86.1 28.6 149.8 92.0 30.5 160.1 84.8 28.2 147.6
June 13.5 0.6 42.9 12.4 0.6 39.7 16.6 0.8 52.9
July 10.6 2.6 33.5 6.8 1.7 21.4 11.3 2.8 35.7
August 30.6 2.4 84.4 33.5 2.6 92.3 29.2 2.3 80.6
September 72.6 27.7 120.3 72.3 27.6 119.9 72.9 27.8 120.8
October 116.9 66.0 163.8 129.1 72.9 181.0 121.1 68.3 169.7
November 149.1 92.4 201.1 152.1 94.3 205.3 153.6 95.2 207.2
December 121.2 64.5 212.8 125.0 66.5 219.5 125.9 67.0 221.1
Total 92.5 0.6 237.5 96.9 0.6 258.7 94.5 0.8 241.0
Annual
1,109.6 943.2 1,280.2 1,163.3 990.3 1,349.7 1,134.0 967.2 1,312.9
(mm/year)
January 105.7 46.3 173.3 115.5 50.6 189.3 122.2 53.5 200.4
February 104.0 44.9 214.5 104.7 45.2 216.1 101.8 43.9 210.1
March 151.7 104.6 212.2 148.2 102.2 207.3 153.1 105.5 214.1
April 165.3 102.9 243.1 190.0 118.3 279.4 172.2 107.2 253.3
May 89.0 29.5 154.8 82.0 27.2 142.7 81.7 27.1 142.1
June 10.6 0.5 33.7 12.1 0.5 38.5 22.1 1.0 70.5
July 7.8 1.9 24.6 7.3 1.8 23.1 12.8 3.1 40.5
August 30.6 2.4 84.5 34.7 2.7 95.9 33.5 2.6 92.5
September 75.0 28.6 124.4 75.2 28.7 124.7 88.4 33.7 146.6
October 118.2 66.7 165.6 130.6 73.7 183.0 126.3 71.3 177.0
November 150.1 93.1 202.5 160.5 99.5 216.6 158.7 98.4 214.1
December 127.2 67.7 223.3 133.1 70.8 233.7 143.6 76.4 252.2
Total 94.6 0.5 243.1 99.5 0.5 279.4 101.4 1.0 253.3
Annual
1,135.0 966.5 1,308.6 1,193.9 1,016.7 1,387.8 1,216.5 1,031.6 1,409.8
(mm/year)

250.0
Precipitation (mm/month) 200.0
150.0
100.0
50.0
0.0
GFDL-ESM2G - RCP4.5 GFDL-ESM2G - RCP6.0 GFDL-ESM2G - RCP8.5
HadGEM2-ES - RCP4.5 HadGEM2-ES - RCP6.0 HadGEM2-ES - RCP8.5
IPSL-CM5A-LR - RCP4.5 IPSL-CM5A-LR-RCP6.0 IPSL-CM5A-LR - RCP8.5
MPI-ESM-MR - RCP4.5 MPI-ESM-MR - RCP8.5
NorESM1-M - RCP4.5 NorESM1-M - RCP6.0 NorESM1-M - RCP8.5
Individual GSMs
300.0
250.0
Precipitation (mm/month)
200.0
150.0
100.0
50.0
0.0
GCM ensemble min - RCP4.5 GCM ensemble mean - RCP4.5 GCM ensemble max - RCP4.5
GCM Ensemble
Figure 7-25 – Climate Change Projections - Precipitation – 2034-2067

350
300
250
200
150
100
50 The GCMs data in this graph

are already bias-corrected
0
Individual GSMs
300.0
250.0
200.0
150.0
100.0
50.0
0.0
GCM Ensemble
Figure 7-26 – Climate Change Projections - Precipitation – 2066-2099

Table 7.86 – GCM Ensemble Predicted Maximum Temperature (°C) for Future Time Periods
January 27.5 25.6 28.6 27.2 25.3 28.3 28.1 26.2 29.2
February 28.3 25.6 30.6 28.2 25.5 30.4 29.0 26.3 31.2
March 27.8 26.5 29.0 27.6 26.3 28.8 28.4 27.2 29.6
April 27.2 25.7 28.2 27.0 25.5 27.9 27.9 26.4 28.9
May 27.2 26.0 28.2 27.0 25.8 28.0 28.0 26.8 28.9
June 27.9 26.9 29.1 27.5 26.5 28.7 28.5 27.5 29.7
July 28.7 27.6 29.7 28.3 27.2 29.3 29.2 28.1 30.2
August 29.1 27.7 30.6 28.8 27.4 30.3 29.7 28.3 31.2
September 29.2 27.8 30.7 28.8 27.5 30.3 29.7 28.3 31.2
October 28.5 27.1 29.8 28.0 26.6 29.3 29.0 27.6 30.3
November 27.7 26.7 29.1 27.4 26.4 28.8 28.1 27.1 29.5
December 27.0 25.6 29.0 26.9 25.5 28.8 27.6 26.2 29.6
Annual 28.0 25.6 30.7 27.7 25.3 30.4 28.6 26.2 31.2
January 27.9 26.0 29.0 28.1 26.2 29.2 29.7 27.8 30.8
February 28.7 26.0 30.9 28.9 26.2 31.2 30.6 28.0 32.9
March 28.2 26.9 29.3 28.6 27.3 29.7 30.2 28.9 31.4
April 27.7 26.2 28.7 27.8 26.3 28.8 29.9 28.4 30.8
May 27.7 26.5 28.7 28.3 27.1 29.2 30.2 29.0 31.1
June 28.5 27.5 29.7 28.8 27.9 30.0 30.9 29.9 32.1
July 29.3 28.2 30.3 29.5 28.4 30.5 31.3 30.2 32.3
August 29.7 28.3 31.2 30.0 28.6 31.5 31.7 30.3 33.2
September 29.7 28.4 31.2 29.9 28.6 31.5 31.6 30.3 33.2
October 28.9 27.5 30.2 29.1 27.7 30.4 30.9 29.5 32.2
November 28.1 27.1 29.4 28.3 27.3 29.7 29.8 28.8 31.2
December 27.4 26.1 29.4 27.8 26.4 29.7 29.2 27.8 31.1
Annual 28.5 26.0 31.2 28.8 26.2 31.5 30.5 27.8 33.2

Table 7.87 – GCM Ensemble Predicted Minimum Temperature (°C) for Future Time Periods
January 16.8 15.1 18.3 16.6 14.9 18.0 17.3 15.7 18.8
February 17.2 14.5 18.9 16.9 14.2 18.7 17.8 15.1 19.5
March 17.4 15.8 18.6 17.1 15.5 18.3 17.8 16.2 19.0
April 17.5 16.4 18.7 17.3 16.1 18.5 18.0 16.8 19.2
May 17.2 15.0 18.2 16.9 14.7 17.9 17.7 15.5 18.7
June 16.8 14.7 18.0 16.5 14.5 17.8 17.2 15.2 18.5
July 16.4 14.5 18.1 16.0 14.2 17.7 16.7 14.8 18.4
August 17.7 15.6 19.1 17.2 15.2 18.6 18.0 16.0 19.4
September 17.8 16.3 19.7 17.5 16.0 19.3 18.4 16.9 20.2
October 17.7 16.3 19.5 17.5 16.0 19.2 18.2 16.8 19.9
November 17.8 16.7 18.6 17.6 16.5 18.4 18.3 17.2 19.2
December 17.0 15.7 18.7 16.7 15.5 18.5 17.5 16.3 19.3
Annual 17.3 14.5 19.7 17.0 14.2 19.3 17.7 14.8 20.2
January 17.3 15.7 18.8 17.6 16.0 19.1 19.3 17.6 20.7
February 17.8 15.1 19.5 18.0 15.3 19.7 19.8 17.1 21.5
March 17.9 16.3 19.1 17.9 16.3 19.1 19.8 18.2 21.0
April 18.1 16.9 19.3 18.2 17.1 19.5 20.0 18.8 21.2
May 17.8 15.6 18.8 18.1 15.8 19.1 19.8 17.6 20.8
June 17.3 15.3 18.6 17.7 15.7 19.0 19.4 17.4 20.7
July 16.9 15.1 18.6 17.1 15.3 18.9 18.9 17.1 20.6
August 18.2 16.2 19.7 18.4 16.4 19.8 20.2 18.1 21.6
September 18.3 16.9 20.2 18.6 17.2 20.5 20.3 18.9 22.2
October 18.3 16.9 20.0 18.5 17.1 20.3 20.2 18.7 21.9
November 18.2 17.1 19.1 18.5 17.5 19.4 20.1 19.0 20.9
December 17.4 16.2 19.2 17.7 16.5 19.5 19.3 18.1 21.1
Annual 17.8 15.1 20.2 18.0 15.3 20.5 19.8 17.1 22.2

32
31
Maximum Temperature (°C)
30
29
28
27
26
25
Individual GSMs
32.0
31.0
30.0
29.0
28.0
27.0
26.0
25.0
GCM Ensemble
Figure 7-27 – Climate Change Projections – Maximum Temperature – 2034-2067

35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
Individual Models
GCM Ensemble
Figure 7-28 – Climate Change Projections – Maximum Temperatures – 2066-2099

20.0
19.5
Minimum Temperature (°C)
19.0
18.5
18.0
17.5
17.0
16.5
16.0
15.5
15.0
Individual Models
22.0
20.0
18.0
16.0
14.0
12.0
10.0
GCM Ensemble
Figure 7-29 – Climate Change Projections – Minimum Temperature – 2034-2067

Future time period 2088-2099
23.0
22.0
21.0
20.0
19.0
18.0
17.0
16.0
15.0
GCM Ensemble – Future time period 2068-2099

Figure 7-30 – Climate Change Projections – Minimum Temperature – 2068-2099

Comparison of Historical Trends with Projected Future Climate
The comparison of historic trends with projected future climate was performed by assessing the changes
in the values and patterns of precipitation and temperature by determining the difference to the historical
climate. The changes in annual averages, seasonal variability, and monthly mean, maximum and minimum
values of precipitation and temperature were computed as shown in the tables and figures on the following
pages.
Table 7.88 – Predicted Change in Monthly Precipitation (mm/month) for Future Time Periods
January 10.1 4.5 16.5 14.8 6.5 24.3 12.2 5.4 20.0
February 4.6 2.0 9.6 -2.3 -1.0 -4.8 2.1 0.9 4.3
March 3.0 2.0 4.2 21.8 15.0 30.4 10.5 7.2 14.7
April -2.8 -1.7 -4.2 11.5 7.2 17.0 -0.5 -0.3 -0.7
May -6.3 -2.1 -11.0 -0.4 -0.2 -0.7 -7.6 -2.5 -13.2
June 1.3 0.0 4.0 0.2 0.0 0.8 4.4 0.2 14.0
July 4.9 1.2 15.5 1.1 0.3 3.4 5.6 1.4 17.7
August 3.2 0.3 8.9 6.1 0.5 16.8 1.9 0.2 5.1
September 3.4 1.3 5.6 3.1 1.2 5.2 3.7 1.4 6.1
October -0.5 -0.2 -0.7 11.7 6.7 16.5 3.7 2.1 5.2
November 8.1 5.0 10.9 11.2 6.9 15.1 12.6 7.8 17.0
December 9.2 4.9 16.2 13.1 6.9 22.9 13.9 7.4 24.5
Total 3.2 0.0 -4.2 7.7 0.0 17.0 5.2 0.2 -0.7
Annual
38.2 36.0 43.2 91.9 83.1 112.7 62.6 60.0 75.9
(mm/year)
January 12.5 5.5 20.5 22.3 9.8 36.5 29.0 12.7 47.6
February 7.8 3.4 16.1 8.6 3.7 17.7 5.7 2.4 11.7
March 11.1 7.6 15.5 7.6 5.2 10.6 12.5 8.5 17.4
April 0.9 0.6 1.4 25.7 16.0 37.7 7.9 4.9 11.6
May -3.4 -1.2 -6.0 -10.4 -3.5 -18.1 -10.7 -3.6 -18.7
June -1.6 -0.1 -5.2 -0.1 -0.1 -0.4 9.9 0.4 31.6
July 2.1 0.5 6.6 1.6 0.4 5.1 7.1 1.7 22.5
August 3.3 0.3 9.0 7.4 0.6 20.4 6.2 0.5 17.0
September 5.8 2.2 9.7 6.0 2.3 10.0 19.2 7.3 31.9
October 0.8 0.5 1.1 13.2 7.5 18.5 8.9 5.1 12.5
November 9.2 5.7 12.3 19.6 12.1 26.4 17.7 11.0 23.9
December 15.2 8.1 26.7 21.1 11.2 37.1 31.7 16.8 55.6
Total 5.3 -0.1 1.4 10.2 -0.1 37.7 12.1 0.4 11.6
Annual
63.6 59.3 71.6 122.5 109.5 150.8 145.1 124.4 172.8
(mm/year)
Table 7.89 – Predicted Change in Seasonal Precipitation (mm/season) for Future Time Periods
Jan-Jun 9.8 8.5 18.6 45.6 37 56.9 21.1 16.9 32.7
Jul – Dec 28.4 21.1 41.1 46.2 36.9 62.3 41.4 28.9 57.7
Jul - Sep 11.5 6.9 21.9 10.3 4.8 22.8 11.1 7 19.7
Jan-Jun 27.3 23.4 39.5 53.6 39.7 68.4 54.2 39.0 80.5
Jul – Dec 36.3 27.4 49.3 68.9 54.2 92.4 90.9 62.3 126.9
Jul - Sep 11.2 5.6 20.3 15.0 7.1 31.1 32.5 16.8 54.6

Table 7.90 – Predicted Change in Monthly Precipitation (%) for Future Time Periods
January 10.8 10.9 10.8 15.9 16.0 15.9 13.1 13.2 13.1
February 4.8 4.8 4.8 -2.4 -2.4 -2.4 2.2 2.2 2.2
March 2.1 2.1 2.1 15.5 15.4 15.5 7.5 7.4 7.5
April -1.7 -1.7 -1.7 7.0 7.0 7.0 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3
May -6.8 -6.9 -6.8 -0.4 -0.5 -0.4 -8.2 -8.3 -8.2
June 10.4 1.8 10.4 2.0 -6.0 2.0 36.1 25.4 36.1
July 86.8 84.9 86.3 19.2 18.0 18.9 98.7 96.7 98.2
August 11.9 14.1 11.8 22.3 24.8 22.3 6.8 9.0 6.8
September 4.9 4.8 4.9 4.5 4.4 4.5 5.3 5.2 5.3
October -0.4 -0.4 -0.4 10.0 10.1 10.0 3.2 3.2 3.2
November 5.8 5.8 5.7 7.9 7.9 7.9 8.9 9.0 8.9
December 8.2 8.2 8.2 11.7 11.6 11.7 12.5 12.4 12.5
Total 3.6 1.8 -1.7 8.6 -6.0 7.0 5.8 25.4 -0.3
Annual
3.6 4.0 3.5 8.6 9.2 9.1 5.8 6.6 6.1
(mm/year)
January 13.4 13.5 13.4 23.9 24.0 23.9 31.1 31.2 31.1
February 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.9 8.9 8.9 5.9 5.9 5.9
March 7.9 7.8 7.9 5.4 5.4 5.4 8.9 8.8 8.9
April 0.6 0.6 0.6 15.6 15.6 15.6 4.8 4.8 4.8
May -3.7 -3.8 -3.7 -11.3 -11.3 -11.3 -11.6 -11.7 -11.6
June -13.3 -20.1 -13.3 -0.9 -8.7 -0.9 81.4 67.1 81.3
July 37.1 35.7 36.8 28.6 27.3 28.3 125.6 123.3 125.0
August 11.9 14.2 11.9 27.1 29.6 27.0 22.6 25.1 22.6
September 8.4 8.3 8.4 8.7 8.6 8.7 27.8 27.7 27.8
October 0.7 0.7 0.7 11.2 11.3 11.2 7.6 7.7 7.6
November 6.5 6.5 6.5 13.9 13.9 13.9 12.6 12.6 12.6
December 13.6 13.6 13.6 18.9 18.8 18.9 28.3 28.3 28.3
Total 5.9 -20.1 0.6 11.4 -8.7 15.6 13.5 67.1 4.8
Annual
5.9 6.5 5.8 11.4 12.1 12.2 13.5 13.7 14.0
(mm/year)
Table 7.91 – Predicted Change in Seasonal Precipitation (%) for Future Time Periods
Jan-Jun 1.6 2.0 2.5 7.6 8.5 7.5 3.5 3.9 4.3
Jul – Dec 6.0 6.2 6.4 9.8 10.8 9.7 8.8 8.5 9.0
Jul - Sep 5.4 5.5 5.8 10.4 10.1 10.0 7.5 7.5 7.6
Jan-Jun 4.6 5.4 5.2 8.9 9.1 9.1 9.0 9.0 10.7
Jul – Dec 7.7 8.0 7.7 14.6 15.9 14.4 19.2 18.3 19.8
Jul - Sep 9.5 9.6 9.8 11.7 11.9 12.6 14.3 14.5 15.2

35.0
30.0
Precipitation change (mm/month)
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
-5.0
-10.0
-15.0
-20.0
60.0
Precipitation change (mm/month)
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
-10.0
-20.0
-30.0

Figure 7-31 – Climate Change Projections – Change in Precipitation (mm) – 2034-2099

Future time period 2034 - 2067

100.0
80.0
Precipitation change (%)
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
-20.0
Futuretime
Future time period
period 2034-2067
2066 - 2099
140.0
Precipitation change (%)
120.0
100.0
80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
-20.0
-40.0

Figure 7-32 – Climate Change Projections – Change in Precipitation (%) – 2034-2099

Table 7.92 – Predicted Change in Maximum Temperature (°C) for Future Time Periods
January 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.9 1.9 1.9
February 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 2.1 2.0 2.0
March 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.2 2.0 2.0 2.0
April 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.3 1.2 2.2 2.2 2.2
May 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.4 2.4 2.4 2.4
June 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.3 1.3 1.4 2.3 2.3 2.4
July 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.4 1.4 1.4 2.3 2.3 2.3
August 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.2 1.2 1.2 2.1 2.1 2.1
September 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.3 1.3 1.3 2.2 2.1 2.1
October 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.2 1.2 1.2 2.2 2.2 2.2
November 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.8 1.8 1.8
December 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.8 1.8 1.8
Annual 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.2 1.1 1.2 2.1 2.0 2.0
January 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.9 1.9 1.9 3.5 3.5 3.5
February 1.8 1.7 1.7 2.0 1.9 2.0 3.7 3.7 3.7
March 1.8 1.7 1.7 2.2 2.1 2.1 3.8 3.7 3.8
April 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.1 4.2 4.2 4.1
May 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.7 2.7 2.7 4.6 4.6 4.6
June 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.6 2.7 2.7 4.7 4.7 4.7
July 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.6 2.6 2.6 4.4 4.4 4.4
August 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.4 2.4 2.4 4.1 4.1 4.1
September 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.4 2.4 2.4 4.1 4.1 4.1
October 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.4 4.1 4.1 4.1
November 1.8 1.8 1.7 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.5 3.5 3.5
December 1.6 1.7 1.6 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.4 3.4 3.3
Annual 2.0 1.8 2.0 2.3 2.0 2.3 4.0 3.6 4.0

Table 7.93 – Predicted Change in Maximum Temperature (%) for Future Time Periods
January 4.9 5.3 4.7 3.9 4.3 3.8 7.1 7.8 6.9
February 5.1 5.4 4.6 4.7 4.9 4.2 7.6 8.2 6.9
March 5.4 5.3 5.0 4.6 4.4 4.2 7.7 7.8 7.2
April 6.0 6.3 5.6 4.9 5.2 4.6 8.7 9.2 8.2
May 6.4 6.7 6.2 5.6 5.8 5.4 9.3 9.7 9.0
June 6.4 6.7 6.3 5.0 5.3 5.0 8.9 9.3 8.7
July 6.5 6.9 6.4 5.2 5.5 5.1 8.5 8.9 8.3
August 5.5 5.8 5.3 4.2 4.5 4.1 7.6 8.1 7.3
September 6.0 6.3 5.6 4.7 4.9 4.4 7.9 8.2 7.4
October 6.2 6.6 6.1 4.5 4.8 4.4 8.2 8.7 8.0
November 5.3 5.6 4.9 4.1 4.4 3.8 6.9 7.2 6.4
December 4.8 5.1 4.4 4.2 4.5 3.9 7.1 7.5 6.5
Annual 5.7 5.8 5.1 4.6 4.7 4.2 7.9 8.2 6.9
January 6.6 7.2 6.4 7.3 7.9 7.1 13.4 14.5 12.9
February 6.5 7.0 5.9 7.5 8.0 6.7 13.9 15.1 12.6
March 6.7 6.6 6.2 8.2 8.2 7.7 14.4 14.7 13.6
April 7.9 8.3 7.4 8.2 8.7 7.7 16.2 17.2 15.4
May 8.4 8.8 8.1 10.4 10.9 10.0 17.9 18.7 17.2
June 8.8 9.2 8.6 10.1 10.6 9.9 17.8 18.6 17.3
July 8.9 9.4 8.7 9.6 10.1 9.3 16.4 17.1 15.9
August 7.6 8.1 7.3 8.6 9.1 8.2 14.8 15.6 14.1
September 8.0 8.3 7.4 8.8 9.2 8.2 15.0 15.7 14.1
October 7.9 8.4 7.7 8.7 9.2 8.4 15.2 16.1 14.7
November 6.7 7.1 6.3 7.7 8.1 7.2 13.3 13.9 12.5
December 6.4 6.8 5.9 7.7 8.2 7.1 13.0 13.8 12.0
Annual 7.5 7.4 6.9 8.5 8.4 7.8 15.1 14.7 13.6

Table 7.94 – Predicted Change in Minimum Temperature (°C) for Future Time Periods
January 0.2 1.5 -0.5 0.0 1.3 -0.8 0.7 2.1 0.0
February 0.2 1.6 -1.3 -0.1 1.3 -1.5 0.8 2.1 -0.7
March 0.5 1.7 -1.5 0.2 1.4 -1.8 0.9 2.1 -1.1
April 0.5 1.7 -0.9 0.3 1.5 -1.1 1.0 2.2 -0.4
May 0.4 1.7 -1.1 0.1 1.4 -1.4 0.9 2.2 -0.6
June 0.4 1.9 -1.2 0.1 1.7 -1.4 0.8 2.4 -0.7
July 0.1 1.9 -0.9 -0.3 1.6 -1.3 0.4 2.3 -0.6
August 0.4 2.0 -0.9 -0.1 1.5 -1.4 0.7 2.3 -0.6
September 0.5 1.7 0.2 0.2 1.4 -0.2 1.1 2.3 0.7
October 0.4 1.7 -0.4 0.2 1.4 -0.7 0.9 2.1 0.0
November 0.3 1.4 -1.1 0.1 1.2 -1.3 0.8 2.0 -0.5
December 0.4 1.5 -0.3 0.1 1.3 -0.5 0.9 2.0 0.3
Annual 0.4 1.9 -0.5 0.1 1.6 -0.9 0.8 2.2 0.0
January 0.7 2.1 0.0 1.0 2.4 0.3 2.7 4.0 1.9
February 0.8 2.2 -0.7 1.0 2.3 -0.5 2.8 4.1 1.3
March 1.0 2.2 -1.0 1.0 2.2 -1.0 2.9 4.1 0.9
April 1.1 2.3 -0.3 1.2 2.4 -0.1 3.0 4.1 1.6
May 1.0 2.3 -0.5 1.3 2.6 -0.2 3.0 4.3 1.5
June 0.9 2.5 -0.6 1.3 2.9 -0.2 3.0 4.6 1.5
July 0.6 2.5 -0.4 0.8 2.7 -0.1 2.6 4.5 1.6
August 0.9 2.5 -0.3 1.1 2.7 -0.2 2.9 4.5 1.6
September 1.0 2.3 0.7 1.3 2.5 1.0 3.0 4.2 2.7
October 1.0 2.2 0.1 1.2 2.4 0.4 2.9 4.1 2.0
November 0.7 1.9 -0.6 1.0 2.2 -0.3 2.6 3.7 1.2
December 0.8 2.0 0.2 1.1 2.2 0.5 2.7 3.9 2.1
Annual 0.9 2.5 0.0 1.1 2.7 0.3 2.9 4.5 2.0

Table 7.95 – Predicted Change in Minimum Temperature (%) for Future Time Periods
January 1.2 11.4 -2.9 -0.1 9.8 -4.1 4.5 15.4 0.0
February 1.3 12.1 -6.3 -0.4 10.0 -7.7 4.6 16.6 -3.4
March 2.7 12.0 -7.7 1.0 10.0 -9.1 5.1 15.0 -5.6
April 3.0 11.5 -4.4 1.7 10.1 -5.5 5.8 14.8 -2.0
May 2.3 12.9 -5.6 0.6 10.7 -7.1 5.4 16.7 -2.9
June 2.3 15.1 -6.0 0.6 13.0 -7.5 5.1 18.8 -3.6
July 0.3 15.5 -4.9 -1.9 12.6 -6.8 2.4 18.1 -3.1
August 2.1 14.2 -4.6 -0.7 10.7 -7.0 4.2 16.9 -2.8
September 2.8 11.6 0.9 0.9 9.3 -0.8 6.1 15.5 3.8
October 2.6 11.3 -2.1 0.9 9.3 -3.6 5.3 14.5 0.2
November 1.6 9.4 -5.5 0.3 8.0 -6.6 4.7 13.0 -2.8
December 2.2 10.5 -1.5 0.8 8.8 -2.7 5.4 14.2 1.3
Annual 2.1 15.1 -2.6 0.4 12.3 -4.2 5.0 17.9 0.2
January 4.3 15.2 -0.1 6.3 17.6 1.6 16.0 29.5 10.2
February 4.7 16.7 -3.4 5.8 18.2 -2.4 16.4 32.1 6.5
March 5.7 15.6 -5.2 6.0 16.0 -4.9 17.1 29.3 4.4
April 6.4 15.5 -1.4 7.3 16.6 -0.6 17.4 28.3 8.1
May 5.8 17.2 -2.6 7.4 19.3 -1.2 17.9 32.5 7.9
June 5.7 19.5 -3.1 8.2 22.7 -0.9 18.6 36.0 7.9
July 3.7 19.8 -2.0 5.1 21.7 -0.8 16.0 35.8 8.6
August 5.5 18.6 -1.6 6.3 19.6 -0.9 16.5 32.5 7.9
September 6.0 15.4 3.8 7.7 17.4 5.3 17.4 28.9 13.9
October 5.6 14.9 0.5 7.1 16.6 1.8 16.5 27.7 10.0
November 4.2 12.4 -3.2 6.0 14.4 -1.6 14.8 24.5 6.2
December 5.1 13.8 1.1 6.7 15.7 2.5 16.5 27.1 11.0
Annual 5.3 19.5 0.2 6.8 21.3 1.6 16.9 35.5 9.9

2.5
Maximum Temperature change (°C)
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
5.0
4.5
Maximum Temperature change (°C)
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0

Figure 7-33 – Climate Change Projections – Change in Maximum Temperature (°C) – 2034-2099

Maximum Temperature change (%)
10.0
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
GCM ensemble min - RCP4.5 GCM ensemble mean - RCP4.5 GCM ensemble max - RCP4.5 GCM ensemble min - RCP6.0 GCM ensemble mean - RCP6.0
GCM ensemble max - RCP6.0 GCM ensemble min - RCP8.5 GCM ensemble mean - RCP8.5 GCM ensemble max - RCP8.5
20.0
Maximum Temperature change (%)
18.0
16.0
14.0
12.0
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0

Figure 7-34 – Climate Change Projections – Change in Maximum Temperature (%) – 2034-2099

3.0
Minimum Temperature change (°C)

2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
-2.0
-2.5

Minimum Temperature change (°C)
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
-1.0
-2.0

Figure 7-35 – Climate Change Projections – Change in Minimum Temperature (°C) – 2034-2099

20.0
Minimum Temperature change (%)
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
-5.0
-10.0
-15.0

Minimum Temperature change (%)
40.0
35.0
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
-5.0
-10.0

Figure 7-36 – Climate Change Projections – Change in Minimum Temperature (%) – 2034-2099

Climatic Baseline
The climatic baseline represents climate conditions which the project should be designed for and which
should integrate the trend analysis where historical climate data is compared with predicted future climate
conditions (see Section 7.9.2.3) and shown in the following Figure.
Baseline period Future time period Future time period

1983 - 2016 2034 - 2067 2066 - 2099
2000
1800
Precipitation (mm/year)
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
1995
2043
1983
2010
2052
2055
2058
2061
2064
2067
2082
2085
2088
2094
2097
1986
1989
1992
2013
2016
2019
1998
2034
2040
2046
2049
2091
2022
2025
2028
2001
2004
2007
2031
2037
2070
2073
2076
2079
Historical RCP4.5 RCP6.0 RCP8.5
Projected Change in Precipitation Relative to 1983-2016
Projected Change in Maximum Temperature Relative to 1983-2016
Projected Change in Minimum Temperature Relative to 1983-2016

Figure 7-37 – Projected Climate Change Projections Relative to 1983-2016

Phase 3 - Climate Stress Test
The objective of the Climate Stress Test is to assess the Project performance under different possible future
climate scenarios in order to support decision making on resilient design and operation, and to quantify
climate risks.
Approach
A Types of Approach
The choice of approach for the climate stress test is dependent on Project risks and the availability of
datasets and their limitations, as shown in the Figure below and described in Table 7.96.
Source: (IHA, 2019)
Figure 7-38 – Alternative Approaches for Climate Stress Test
Table 7.96 – Approaches for Climate Stress Test

Approach Method – hydrological Method – modelling Future climate scenarios Stress-test
model extreme flood events choice
Comprehensive Hydrological model with Flood frequency Ensemble of GCM or Multi-variate sensitivity
daily time steps; direct analyses supported by RCM-based climate analyses of (at least)
approach. numerical modelling Projections. precipitation and
PMF simulation based temperature in mean
on statistical or and extreme.
meteorological PMP
approach.
Semi- Hydrological model with Flood frequency Observed trends and at Uni- or bivariate
comprehensive at least monthly time Analyses PMF least three locally- sensitivity analyses of
steps; delta change or simulation, as in credible GCM or RCM- precipitation and
direct approach. comprehensive based climate temperature; for PMF
approach, or Clausius- projections (optimistic, with PMP variations.
Clapeyron equation central, pessimistic); the
approximation. 10th, 50th and 90th
percentile change
values are
recommended.
Limited Regression Models Empirical methods Observed trends and Uni- or bivariate
Budyko-type Models Flood frequency centroid of the current sensitivity analyses of
Historical climate analyses. GCM ensemble. precipitation and
analogies model. temperature.
Source: (IHA, 2019)
B Project Risks
The preliminary risk and opportunity register for the Project established at the end of the initial analysis
identified the several medium risks and one high risk as shown in Table 7.97.

Table 7.97 – Medium and High Project Risks Identified during Phase 2 – Initial Analysis
Climate Stressor Threat Preliminary Risk Ranking
Rising Increased frequency, distribution and severity of wildfires that damage MEDIUM
temperatures and TLs.
longer dry spells Increased maintenance frequency of TLs since vegetation grows faster MEDIUM
with warmer air temperatures.
Increase in Spillway of insufficient size/dam safety issues (stability). HIGH
frequency and
intensity of heavy Erosion at toe of the dam due to increased spillway discharge/dam safety MEDIUM
rainfall issues.
Increase in sediment load impacting operating regime of the reservoir and MEDIUM
HPP, potentially causing clogging damage with additional flushing
frequency.
Flooding of Powerhouse due to increased fluvial flow or direct MEDIUM
precipitation.
Variable sediment loads which can cause turbine corrosion/damage, MEDIUM
increased maintenance requirements and reduced efficiency.
Source: MHYD, 2021
C Datasets
The availability of hydrological datasets for the Kagera River that could be coupled with the GCM models
and climate change scenarios are presented in Table 7.98.
Table 7.98 – Data Availability for Hydrological Models

Type of data Global Hydrology Model (GHM)
PCR-GLOBWB WaterGAP2 Global Hydrology Model (WGHM)
Climate Change Scenarios (1)
GCM Model RCP4.5 RCP6.0 RCP8.5 RCP4.5 RCP6.0 RCP8.5
HadGEM2-ES  ◼  ◼ ◼ ◼
IPSL-CM5A-LR  ◼  ◼ ◼ ◼
GFDL-ESM2M  ◼  ◼ ◼ ◼
MIROC5  ◼  ◼ ◼ ◼
Time Spans
Historical data 1861 – 2005
Future RCPs 2005 – 2099
Inflow Data for Kakono Dam Site
Daily data 1967 – 2017 (2]
1950 – 1966
Monthly data
2009 - 2013
Daily data overlap (3] 1967 – 2003 (25 years)
Monthly data overlap (3] 1950 – 2003 (42 years)
Notes
(1)
◼ = data available  = data not available
(3)
Several gaps, 30 complete years
(3)
Overlap between historical time series and GHM data

D Rationale for Selection of Adopted Approach
Because of the identification of medium and high risks for the Project, it is preferable to undertake a climate
stress test using a comprehensive approach, that is using a hydrological model with daily time steps and a
direct approach (i.e., without the need for bias correction of discharge computed by the hydrological model).
However, if daily data is not available and/or model biases exist, then a semi-comprehensive delta change
approach may be used.
D.1 Adequacy of Daily Data for a Comprehensive Approach
The adequacy of data to undertake a comprehensive approach was evaluated. A comparison of historical
daily discharge (1967-2003) with daily discharge computed by the WaterGAP2 hydrological model using
data from 3 GCMs over the same period was undertaken. It was found that the HadGEM2-ES GCM data gave
the best results. The plotting of a double mass curve of historical data against the WaterGAP2 data
produced a linear trend indicating that homogenous and consistent prediction although with a significant
overestimation of daily flows. However, attempts to perform a bias correction 9 where unsuccessful and it
was concluded that it was not possible to do so correctly. The same evaluation was applied to the PCR-
GLOBWB daily data and it was found that the model significantly underestimated the discharge and that it
was also not possible to perform a bias correction. Consequently, without bias corrected daily flow data it
was concluded that adopting a comprehensive approach was not feasible.
D.2 Suitability of Monthly Data for a Semi-Comprehensive Approach
The adequacy of data for a “semi-comprehensive” approach was evaluated. The steps for the evaluation of
the comprehensive approach described above were repeated using monthly flow data and it was found that
the HadGEM2-ES GCM data gave the best results. Bias correction was undertaken, and it was found that
double mass curve regression correction produced the results with acceptable performance indicators
(PBIA=-4.1 and NSE=0.8). The graph of historical values, raw computed values and bias corrected values
are presented in Figure 7-39. Consequently, it was possible to assess trends in discharge variation for future
periods using a delta change approach as illustrated in Figure 7-40 .
1600
Average monthly discharge (m3/s)
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
1967/1
1976/1
1978/1
1979/1
1987/1
1997/1
1951/1
1957/1
1975/1
1955/1
1960/1
1963/1
1980/1
1983/1
1990/1
1952/1
1950/1
1953/1
1964/1
1966/1
1968/1
1969/1
1972/1
1970/1
1986/1
1988/1
1989/1
1993/1
1996/1
1998/1
1999/1
2000/1
2004/1
1973/1
1974/1
1984/1
2003/1
1991/1
1994/1
2001/1
1954/1
1956/1
1958/1
1959/1
1961/1
1962/1
1965/1
1971/1
1977/1
1981/1
1982/1
1985/1
1992/1
1995/1
2002/1
2005/1
WaterGAP2 HadGEM2-ES raw WaterGAP2 HadGEM2-ES bias corrected Historical time series@Kakono dam site

Figure 7-39 – Monthly Discharge – Historical Data, Raw Model Output Data and Bias Corrected Data
9
Delta Method, Quantile Mapping, Modified Quantile Mapping, Scaled Distribution Mapping (Gamma and Normal corrections).


Figure 7-40 – Climate Stress -Test Delta Change Approach
Climate Stress Test
The climate stress-test was undertaken using a semi-comprehensive delta change approach for the
reasons described in Section 7.9.3.1.
The hydrological model is used to simulate the difference (delta) in the inflow series for the historical
reference condition. Table 7.99 shows the relative differences between historical time series and the
hydrological model output for key parameters over the reference period (1967-2003). The relative
difference (delta) is in the range of -14% to -18%.
The delta is then used to “calibrate” the hydrological model by adding the delta to the observed inflow series
for the historical reference period and the hydrological model is run using the modified observed inflow
series for 3 climate change scenarios (RCP4.5, 6 and 8.5). The model’s predictions for delta change for key
parameters for each of the climate change scenarios are presented in Table 7.100.
The stress-test concludes that:
• For the time-period 2034–2067 the mean monthly river flow at the Kakono dam site will be
altered compared to the baseline by -13% (RCP8.5), +5% (RCP4.5) and +25% (RCP6). In terms of
annual energy production this corresponds to -10% (RCP8.5), +10% (RCP6) and +1% (RCP4.5).
• For the time-period 2068–2099 the mean monthly river flow at the Kakono dam site will be
altered compared to the baseline by -18% (RCP8.5), +3% (RCP4.5 and 6). In terms of annual energy
production this corresponds to -15% (RCP8.5) and -3% (RCP4.5 and 6).
Table 7.99 – Climate Stress-Test – Bias Determination from Historical Reference Period
Historical time series WaterGAP2 HadGEM2
Relative difference
Parameter Units at Kakono dam site – ES Historical
(%)
1967 - 2003 1967 - 2003
Mean monthly inflow m3/s 221 191 -14%
Turbined flow m3/s 216 176 -18%
Maximum power output MW 89 89 0%
Mean annual energy production GWh 457 737 -18%
Source: MHYD, 2021
Table 7.100 – Climate Stress-Test – Delta Change for Climate Change Scenarios
Future Period 2034 - 2067 2068 - 2099
Climate Change scenario RCP4.5 RCP6.0 RCP8.5 RCP4.5 RCP6.0 RCP8.5
Mean monthly inflow (m3/s) +5% +25% -13% +3% +3% -18%
Turbined flow (m3/s) +1% +12% -11% -2% -3% -16%
Maximum power output (MW) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Mean annual energy production (GWh) +1% +10% -10% -3% -3% -15%
Source: MHYD, 2021

Climate Change Risk and Opportunity Register
A climate change risk and opportunity register was prepared as part of the Climate Resilience Study. The
preliminary register was prepared during phase 1 – screening and was updated with the completion of each
subsequent phase. The final update undertaken at the end of phase 3 – Climate Stress Test is provided in
Table 7.101 below.
Table 7.101 – Climate Change Risk and Opportunity Register
Risk /
Potential
Threat/opportunity Performance criteria Time scale Likelihood opportunity
loss/gain
level
Climate Stressor: Rising temperatures and longer dry spells
Decrease in water availability for Annual/seasonal average Gradual, Low Possible Low
energy production. run off/annual/seasonal Long-term
average water availability
to the reservoir.
Increase in evaporation losses due Annual/seasonal average Gradual, Low Possible Low
to new upstream hydropower run off/annual/seasonal Long-term
reservoirs. average water availability
to the reservoir.
Increased evaporation losses which Downstream flow Gradual, Low Possible Low
might reduce downstream water Discharges (m3/s). Long-term
releases impairing existing and
future downstream water uses.
Potential eutrophication issues with Increase in surface water Gradual, Medium Likely Moderate
floating vegetation/algae increase temperature. Long-term
that can cause intake clogging (1]. Increase in trashrack
cleaning volume.
Concrete/Material Concrete temperature. Gradual, Low Unlikely Low
expansion/contraction which may Concrete surface cracking Long-term
cause cracking, leading to leakage, pattern.
instability or aesthetic issues and
durability issues.
Increased water temperatures Maximum temperature. Gradual, Low Unlikely Low
causing problems for alternators, Deformation of turbine Long-term
corrosion/damage to turbines. shafts (or size of air gap).
Reduced efficiency of
electromechanical equipment, as
well as reduced durability.
Conductor efficiency drop and TLs Maximum temperature. Gradual, Low Unlikely Low
durability decreases. Long-term
Increased frequency, distribution Monitor characteristics of Gradual, Medium Likely Moderate
and severity of wildfires that wildfires (date, duration, Long-term
damage TLs (2). surface, etc.) Maximum
temperature.
Increased maintenance frequency Monitor maintenance Gradual, Medium Likely Moderate
of TLs since vegetation grows faster activities and quantify Long-term
with warmer air temperatures (2). volume of material
evacuated.
Increased temperature within Maximum temperature. Gradual, Low Unlikely Low (3)
powerhouse potentially leading to Long-term
equipment failures due to heat.
Increased temperature within the Maximum temperature. Gradual, Low Unlikely Low
camps potentially leading to bad Long-term
working conditions.
Decrease of water quality with Water quality analysis. Gradual, Low Possible Low
impacts on other water uses. Long-term
Increase in waterborne and vector- Healthcare monitoring. Gradual, Low Possible Low
borne diseases. Long-term
Climate Stressor: Variation of annual rainfall
Variation in water availability for Annual/seasonal average Gradual, Low Likely Moderate
energy production. run off/annual/seasonal Long-term
energy production.

Table 7.101 – Climate Change Risk and Opportunity Register

Risk /
Potential
Threat/opportunity Performance criteria Time scale Likelihood opportunity
loss/gain
level
Climate Stressor: Increase in intensity of heavy rainfall
Spillway of insufficient size/dam Spillway operation (total Extreme, Medium Possible Moderate
safety issues (stability). discharge, frequency of Sudden
operation, etc.).
Erosion at toe of the dam due to Time-dependent erosion Gradual, Medium Possible Moderate
increased spillway discharge/dam of plunge pool at dam toe. Long-term
safety issues.
Reservoir slope instabilities causing Evolution of storage Extreme, Medium Possible Moderate
landslides into reservoir. through bathymetric Sudden
surveys.
Increase in sediment load impacting Evolution of storage Gradual, Medium Likely (4) Moderate
operating regime of the reservoir through bathymetric Long-term
and HPP, potentially causing surveys.
clogging damage with additional
flushing frequency.
Increased trash and vegetation in Increase in trashrack Gradual, Low Possible Low
reservoir. cleaning volume. Long-term
Flooding of Powerhouse due to Monitor tailwater levels. Extreme, Medium Possible Moderate
increased fluvial flow or direct Sudden
precipitation.
Variable sediment loads which can Turbine wear rates. Gradual, Medium Likely Moderate
cause turbine corrosion/damage, Long-term
increased maintenance
requirements and reduced
efficiency.
Increased surface water and debris Road blockage frequency. Extreme, Low Possible Low
on roads and risk of slope instability Sudden
causing road damage.
Increased slope instability which Monitor open-cut slopes Extreme, Low Possible Low
may damage the switchyard and surrounding areas of Sudden
equipment, the TLs and the camps. the switchyard.
Notes:
(1)
The rate of water hyacinth flowing into Lake Victoria was dependent on the seasonal river flow conditions and number
ranged from being equivalent to continuous floating mats covering between 0.2 ha/day to more than 1.5 ha/day. (Albright,
2004) cited in (Aurecon, 2012). Water hyacinth can double itself within 5-15 days. The most favourable conditions for its
growth are nutrient-rich water, and temperature ranges from 28°C to 30°C (Dersseh, 2019).
(2)
TL (38.7 km length) will include a 28.7 km section located in an area dominated by woodland vegetation without human
settlement (Studio Pietrangeli, 2019) which contributes to the likelihood.
(3)
Ventilation system was designed for a maximum outside air temperature of 40°C (Studio Pietrangeli, 2019).
(4)
The deforestation, land use with poor farming practices and severe land degradation, livestock grazing and human
settlements due to population growth may lead to higher soil erosion which increases the risk of higher sediment loads
Climate Risk Management Measures
The proposed climate risk management measures are presented in the following table.
Table 7.102 – Climate Change Risk Management Measures
# Type (1) Concept Benefit Adaptability Cost Implications Priority (2)

1 S Catchment It will be instrumental in The number and CAPEX: approx. HIGH
monitoring - long- providing calibration and location of monitoring 300 kEUR for 3
term regular validation data for a stations can vary. river gauging
surveillance of key dedicated customized However, focus should stations (from
hydrological rainfall-runoff model, be obtaining long design to
features in the river allowing more reliable records. Reading range commissioning)
catchment. analysis of flood routing should be selected to including satellite
(i.e. gate operation rules) accommodate future antennas,
and energy production drifts. centralized
(i.e. adjust reservoir structured
operation at seasonal database with
and sub-seasonal time user interface.
scales). OPEX: approx. 25
kEUR/year.


2 O Long-term Safety wise, it will Model can be adapted. CAPEX: approx. HIGH
hydrological model improve the robustness 100 kEUR to set-
for future riverflow of extreme flood up, calibrate and
prediction - assessment (today validate a
establishment of a based on extrapolation complete model,
rainfall/runoff of historical records or by stages,
modelling tool to analysis of large-scale including
assess future daily global water balance adequate data
flows based on model with coarse filing, back-up
future climate analysis for the Kagera and handling.
scenarios catchment). OPEX: approx. 30
(temperature, kEUR/year.
precipitation) and Production wise, it will
with fine-graded allow conducting energy
mesh size adapted studies at sub-monthly
to the Kagera scales and therefore
catchment conduct more detailed
(precision). analysis over the interest
of increasing the
powerhouse discharge
(2x 158 m3/s today, for
each of the 2 Kaplan
units)
3 O Short-term Safetywise, it allows for Although the relative CAPEX: approx. LOW
Riverflow optimization of spillway role of some of the 100 kEUR to set-
forecasting - short- and powerhouse joint hydrological processes up, calibrate and
tem flow forecasting operation for safe flood may evolve (i.e. validate a
based on expected management. more/less water complete model,
climate conditions storage in swamps) the by stages,
from radar Productionwise, it will interplay between including
forecasting at 5, 7 or allow the Owner to those processes will adequate data
12 days ahead and assess the need to carry remain. filing, back-up
on recent/present out preventive reservoir and handling.
flow and rainfall drawdowns (can be OPEX: approx. 50
data measured in through the kEUR/year.
the upstream powerhouse) to have
catchment additional storage for
short-duration floods
(not the annual flood).
4 S Adapting the It will allow the Owner to It will also reduce the CAPEX: variation MEDIUM
flexibility and improve its flow routing risk of energy within +10% of
resilience of modularity whilst production loss in case powerhouse
powerhouse keeping the reservoir of unavailability of one costs (civil works
operation - by levels high (to maximize of the units (if 3 units, and equipment
changing the head and energy each unit counts for supply)
number of production) adapting to i) 33% of the HPP OPEX: variation
powerhouse units potentially lower capacity, instead of the within +10% of
from 2 to 3, each discharges during long 50% in Basic Design powerhouse O&M
with a lower rated dry spells, ii) more layout) costs
discharge dynamic variations of
inflows.
5 S Redundant It would reduce the risk The likelihood that CAPEX: +80% of LOW
connexion to power of curtailment in case of both TLs fails present provision
grid - by connecting TL failure during storms simultaneously shall for TL (if doubling
the hydropower or forest fires, and be lower than if one in same corridor)
plant to a second improve power supply line only. or approx. 0.5 mill
regional TL, conditions during flood EUR/km if few
preferably in a emergency management The evolution of the line
different corridor kearunic levels (i.e. OPEX: variation
than Kyaka's but if lighting strikes per km2 within +50% of TL
not feasible then per year) and wind is O&M costs
doubling the line in yet uncertain and the
same corridor. design should be made
robust.


6 O Prevent water Safety and production This measure shall be CAPEX: - HIGH
quality deterioration wise, it would reduce risk adaptable OPEX: water
and water hyacinth of gate or trashrack sampling and
proliferation - by clogging and need for analysis +
means of "hard" cleaning eventual
monitoring water measures production loss
quality and with decreased
eventually inducing head during
reservoir operation reservoir
manoeuvres (i.e. drawdown and
partial drawdown) refilling
7 O Forest clearance in It would reduce the risk Frequency of CAPEX: - HIGH
TL corridor - of curtailment in case of vegetation clearance OPEX: included in
regularly cutting TL failure during wildfires can be adapted. TL O&M costs
vegetation to limits
height and risk of
wildfires
8 S Prevent It would reduce the risk Plunge pool design can CAPEX: the HIGH
uncontrolled scour of undermining the dam be steered to be more equivalent of 104-
downstream of foundation, in the vicinity of less resilient to 105 of surface
spillway - as may of the spillway future changes. But rock excavation
occur in case of execution of this under the
more frequent measure is not flexible protection of
spillway operation - it is better adopted cofferdams.
(more hours) leading during dam OPEX: regular
to scour progress construction profiting bathymetries
which may be from the protection of during
anticipated with cofferdams. Securing operational
advanced or reshaping a plunge lifetime, after
engineering studies pool later on is spillage events
to set the adequate possible but much
level of pre- more complex and
excavation of a costly.
plunge pool which
allow for i) improved
knowledge of pool
geology, ii) improved
quality of scour
prediction models,
iii) inducing scour
progress
9 O Prevent tailwater It would reduce the risk This measure can be CAPEX: the HIGH
bar formation and of increased tailwater adjusted during the equivalent of 104-
net head reduction - levels and decreased net operational lifetime 105 of rock block
as may occur in case head for power and will be reduced in mound removal,
of significant generation case of full likely in parallel
riverbed scour at implementation of with powerhouse
spillway jet impact Measure#8 (resilient operation
and subsequent pre-excavated pool) (complex
deposition of rubble operation).
in a mound on the OPEX: regular
riverbed bathymetries
downstream, during
leading to increase operational
of tailwater levels lifetime, after
and reduction of net spillage events.
head for power
generation. Bar
formation should be
monitored and if
significant the bar
should be removed
mechanically (rock
block mound
dredging/transfer).
It can be combined
with #Measure8
(resilient pre-
excavated plunge
pool)


10 O Prevent turbine May reduce turbine mass This measure can be CAPEX: +10% of MEDIUM
abrasion due to loss and extend lifetime implemented during turbine runner
increased sediment of most exposed parts the lifetime of the cost from start
routing - by means (enhanced serviceability project at each major (within
of installing abrasion & guarantee of overhaul if an increase uncertainty of
protection linings on production) in abrasion rate is tendering
steel structures in identified. It can be procedure) or at
contact with flow combined with any major
(e.g. turbine runner Measure#4 (flexible overhaul.
blades, hub, casing) powerhouse) OPEX: N/A
11 S Prevent powerhouse May avoid or reduce This measure can be CAPEX: <10% of MEDIUM
flooding due to powerhouse downtime implemented during powerhouse civil
excess rainfall - by and any damage to the lifetime of the work costs (within
means of improving equipment. project by adding uncertainty of
drainage capacity additional drainage tendering
capacity, if an increase procedure).
in rainfall intensity and OPEX: N/A
duration is confirmed.
12 S Improving flood Safetywise, it will Execution of this CAPEX: +20% of HIGH

management improve the robustness measure is not flexible spillway costs;
robustness - by of extreme flood - it is better adopted OPEX: N/A
providing management (the during dam
additional(+33%) considerable difference construction profiting
spilling capacity in between future climate from the protection of
unpowered spillway scenario, justifies this cofferdams. Later on it
length or fusegates measure). is possible to
implement but much
more complex and
costly, since it would
imply major operation
restrictions and/or
cofferdams.
Notes:
(1)
S = Structural, O = Operational
(2)
HIGH priority: ease and without excessive cost, or to mitigate High Impact.
MODERATE priority: easy to implement but high cost
LOW priority: complex implementation or costly.
The climate change risk management measures described in the above table are referred to later in this
report as:
• [M 151] Use a long-term hydrological model to predict future river flow prediction - establishment
of a rainfall/runoff modelling tool to assess future daily flows based on future climate scenarios
(temperature, precipitation) and with fine-graded mesh size adapted to the Kagera catchment. Use
the findings of the model to as part of a decision-making to process for including the proposed
structural and operational climate resilience measures in the detailed project design and planning
(EPC Contractor).

7.10 Cumulative Impact Assessment
Introduction
Objective
The objective of the Cumulative Impact Assessment (CIA) is to assess the incremental increase of Project
impacts that result from temporal and spatial overlap with impacts of past, present and probable future
anthropogenic activities and evolving natural processes. The spatial area considered is the geographical
zone that encompasses the Kagera hydrographic network starting from the confluence of Ruvubu and
Nyabarongo Rivers and extending to the river’s outflow into Lake Victoria.
The overall goal is to identify E&S impacts and risks that, in the context of existing, planned, and reasonable
predictable developments, may generate cumulative impacts that could jeopardize the overall long-term
environmental, social and economic sustainability of the Project and the Kagera watershed. The
assessment has the following objectives:
• Assess the potential impacts and risks of the Project over time, in the context of potential effects
from other developments and external environmental and social factors.
• Verify that the Project’s cumulative impacts and risks will not compromise the sustainability or
viability of the social and natural environment.
• Mitigate potential cumulative impacts when applicable.
• Confirm that the Project’s value and feasibility are not limited by cumulative effects.
• Ensure that the concerns of affected communities about the cumulative impacts are identified,
documented and addressed.
• Manage potential reputation risks.
The assessment outcomes are as follows:

• Identification of selected aspects of the social and natural environment that are likely to result in
cumulative impacts.
• Identification of other existing and reasonably anticipated and/or planned hydropower projects in
the Kagera watershed.
• Identification of external environmental and social stressors that could contribute to cumulative
impacts.
• Assessment of the future condition of the selected social and environmental components, as the
result of the Project’s cumulative impacts combined with those of other developments and
external stressors.
• Identification of cumulative impact avoidance and minimization measures.
• Definition of monitoring and management of cumulative environmental and social risks.
Methodology
The methodology used is broadly aligned with the Good Practice Handbook on Cumulative Impact
Assessment and Management for the Private Sector in Emerging Markets (IFC, 2013). The assessment
focuses on the environmental and social aspects of the receiving environment that are considered
important for assessing risk and which are referred to collectively as “Valued Environmental and Social
Components” (VECs). A 6-step approach has been used for the assessment as illustrated in Figure 7-41
following (IFC, 2013).

STEP 1
Determine spatial and temporal boundaries
STEP 2
Analysis of the existing legal, institutional and

Identify VECs in consultation with affected Identify all developments and external natural and
communities and stakeholders social stressors affecting the VECs
governance framework
STEP 3
Determine present conditions of VECs

STEP 5 STEP 4
Assess cumulative impacts and evaluate their significance over VECs’ predicted future conditions
STEP 6
Design and implement (a) adequate strategies, plans, and procedures to manage cumulative impacts, (b)
appropriate monitoring indictaors, and (c) effective supervision mechanisms
Source: (IFC, 2013)

Figure 7-41 – Six-Step Approach for CIA
Steps 1 and 2 – Scoping: The scoping steps 1 and 2 comprise the identification of the VECs to be studied and
determination of the spatial and temporal boundaries of each VEC. The VECs were identified by the CIA team
based on their experience with hydropower project ESIAs. External activities and natural and social stressors
were identified through review of secondary data and from environmental and social baseline survey work
conducted in the frame of the present 2022 ESIA.
Step 3 - Determination of the present condition of VECs: Baseline conditions of VECs were characterised as
part of the 2022 ESIA and are documented in Section 5 – Environmental and Social Baseline Data.
Steps 4 and 5 – Assess cumulative impacts and evaluate significance: The assessment uses a VEC-centres
approach as illustrated in Figure 7-42. Cumulative impacts are quantified where possible in terms of a given
VEC’s response and predicted future changes to its condition. For each VEC, pressure-receptor indicators
are selected which are used as a metric to “measure” the changes in the state of the VEC. The selected
indicators are simple quantifiable or qualitative measures of the condition or dynamics of broader, more
complex attributes of the ecosystem or watershed state. These indicators act as surrogates for the
underlying ecological processes.
Step 6 - Preparation of a framework for the management of cumulative impacts: There is not step 6 in this
assessment as the significant impacts identified in Step 5 are managed through the control and mitigation
measures for Project impacts assessed elsewhere in this assessment and no additional specific control and
mitigation measures have been identified for cumulative impacts.
Key sources of information for the CIA included:

• The Kagera River Basin Monograph – Basin Development Report (BRL, 2008);
• IWRM-Based Basin Development Plan (Aurecon, 2012);
• Rusumo Falls HPP (SNC LAVALIN International, 2011);
• Kikagati Feasibility Study (Fichtner, 2016);
• Kitengule Sugarcane Plantation EIA (Assess Consulting, 2018)

Project 1
Other human
activities not Indirect Impact
subject to ESIA
VEC
Natural
environmental Project 2
drivers
(stresses)
Project 3
Proposed Other
Other past
past present
present Cumulative
Cumulative impacts
impacts
Proposed action’s
action’s
impact and
and future
future impacts
impacts on
on the
the VEC
VEC
impact on
on the
the VEC
VEC
on
on the
the VEC
VEC
Source: (IFC, 2013)

Figure 7-42 – Schematic Illustrating VEC-Centred Approach

Cumulative Impact Scoping
Existing and Future Hydropower Developments within the Watershed
There are 4 large hydropower projects under development on the Kagera River, key information on these
projects is summarised in Table 7.10310.
Table 7.103 – Hydropower Projects on the Kagera River

Linear distance
Hydropower Design Flow Rate
Capacity (MW) Concept upstream from Project Progress
Project (m3/s)
Kakono HPP (km)
Rusumo Falls 80 360 Run of River 330 Construction
Kikagati 16 210 Run of River 68 Construction
Nsongezi 39 Unavailable Run of River 56 Feasibility
Kakono 87.8 216 Run of River 0 Basic Design
A Regional Rusumo Falls Hydroelectric Project
The Regional Rusumo Falls 80MW Hydroelectric Project is developed jointly by the Governments of Republic
of Burundi, Republic of Rwanda and United Republic of Tanzania through a commonly owned Rusumo
Power Company Limited (RPCL). The project is located at Rusumo Falls, at the common border of Rwanda
and Tanzania on the River Kagera. The power production facilities are located entirely on the south side of
the bank of the river in Tanzania, while the substation is located on the northern side of the bank of the river
in Rwanda. The overall objective of the project is to increase the supply of electricity to the national grids of
Rwanda, Tanzania and Burundi, with the generated electricity equally shared among the three countries.
The Rusumo Project is a key Nile Basin Initiative (NBI) project and prepared through the Nile Equatorial Lakes
Subsidiary Action Program (NELSAP) Coordination Unit. The owner of the plant is RPCL based in Kigali
Rwanda. The three countries hold equal shares in RPCL.
The project’s construction activities started in 2017 and the scheme is expected to be in operation in 2022.
The project’s key technical features are summarised in Table 7.104 below.
Table 7.104 – Regional Rusumo Falls Hydroelectric Project – Key Technical Features
Feature Value Unit
Dam
Type Gated weir -
Height 15 m
Crest length 115 m
Powerhouse
Type Surface
Turbines 3 (Kaplan) Number (Type)
Installed power 80 MW
Headrace tunnel length 700 m
Tailrace tunnel length 250 m
Power
Design flow 360 m3/s
Other noteworthy features are as follows:

• There is no upstream water storage reservoir and it is not planned that the project regulate river
flows.
• The project results in the bypassing of a 500 m long reach of the Kagera River directly downstream
from the dam.
10
Note: this CIA only considers hydropower projects on the Kagera River itself and not those planned in the entire Kagera Catchment

• The project does not include a fish pass as the Rusumo Falls represent a natural barrier for the
river’s ecological continuity.
B Kikagati Hydropower Project
The 16 MW Kikagati hydropower project is a mini-hydropower plant. The project owner is Kikagati Power
Company Limited (KPCL), a special purpose vehicle established to develop, construct and operate the
project. KPCL is wholly owned (through holding companies) by the Africa Energy Renewable Fund LP - a
200 million US dollar fund - managed by Berkley Energy Africa Limited. The project is developed under the
KfW led GET Fit program.
The project is situated on a reach of the Kagera River that forms the natural border between Uganda and
Tanzania. The majority of the project equipment is situated in Uganda. A 33 kV TL will evacuate the power
produced by the project to the Uganda national electricity grid has already been constructed. Some of the
power will be sold to Tanzania, under arrangements made through the East African Community.
The project was awarded a production license by Uganda’s Electricity Regulatory Authority, in October 2014.
Construction started in February 2018, and commissioning has already been undertaken.
The project’s key technical features are summarised in Table 7.105.
Table 7.105 – Kikagati Hydropower Project – Key Technical Features

Feature Value Unit
Dam
Type Concrete dam (including spillway) and
earth/lateral dam
Height 6 m
Powerhouse
Type Surface
Turbines 3 (Kaplan) Number (Type)
Installed power 16 MW
Headrace channel length 170 m
Tailrace channel length 40 m
Power
Design flow 210 m3/s
Other noteworthy features are as follows:

• The project will create a 0.4 ha head pond upstream from the dam structure; however, it is not
planned that the project regulates river flows.
• The project requires the construction of a channel adjacent to the left bank and which
accommodates the headrace and tail race channels. This results in the bypassing of a 230 m long
reach of the river directly downstream from the dam.
• The project includes a fish pass.
C Nsongezi Hydropower Project
The 39 MW Nsongezi hydropower project (also known as the Nshyugyezi Hydroelectric Power project) is a
run-of-river project located on the Kagera river along the border of Tanzania and Uganda. Feasibility studies
for the project were undertaken in 2015 and the call for tender issued by KPCL for the construction of the
neighbouring Kikagati hydropower project included an invitation to also bid for the construction of the
Nsongezi project. However, it is understood that the development of the Nsongezi project has not
progressed and is still at the feasibility stage, and technical details are not available.
Transmission Lines
The existing TLs in the Project area comprise the 132 kV Bukoba-Masaka (Uganda) overhead line which
includes the substation at Kyaka. The TL passes through Kyaka with a north-south orientation and does not
overlap on the Kakono dam-reservoir area. There are two 33 kV TLs connecting Kyaka – Kayanga and Kyaka
– Kagera Sugar, both of which are connected to the 132 kV Masaka – Bukoba TL at Kyaka substation.
Planned future TLs comprise the following:

• Proposed Kakono Project 220 kV overhead TL extending from the Kakono dam site to the existing
switchyard in Kyaka which is used by the existing 132 kV Bukoba-Masaka TL.
• Proposed 400 kV Nyakanazi-Masaka overhead TL. The update of project’s Feasibility Study (FS)
was launched in late 2020. The TL’s corridor will be defined in the FS, but conceptual route
mapping show that the TL will pass through or close to Kyaka parallel with the existing 132 kV
Bukoba-Masaka TL.
• Proposed 220 kV Kyaka-Benaco TL, which is expected to transport power generated by the Kakono
Project to the National Grid. The routing of the TL is still to be defined, but Benaco is located to the
southwest of Kyaka and so the TL route is not expected to overlap on the Kakono dam-reservoir.
Power generated by the Kikagati and Nsongezi HPPs will be evacuated by a new 132 kV TL in Uganda. Power
generated by the Rusumo Falls HPP will be evacuated by a new 220 kV Rusumo-Benaco-Geita TL. These
lines will not be in the Kakono Project area.
Mining Activities
A Burundi
The area of the Kagera Basin that is situated in Burundi covers 13,790 km2 (22.8% of the total basin area).
However, this area is situated in the Upper Kagera catchment area, and the border with Burundi is located
some 350 km linear distance from the Kakono project dam site.
Burundi is a producer of columbium (niobium) and tantalum ore, gold, tin ore and tungsten ore, most of
which, in 2005 was designed for export. The country produces also limestone, peat, and sand and gravel
for domestic consumption. Additionally, Burundi has resources of cobalt, copper, feldspar, nickel,
phosphates rock, platinum group metals (PGM), quartzite, rare earth elements, uranium, and vanadium
(BRL, 2008).
Gold accounted for 90% of recorded production of minerals in 2005. Gold mines are concentrated in
Muyinga province within the Kagera Basin. Artisan miners exploit tin and tungsten however, tin and tungsten
accounted for only 3% of the reported mineral production (BRL, 2008).
B Mining in Rwanda
The area of the Kagera Basin that is situated in Rwanda covers 21,630 km2 (35.8% of the total basin area).
Rwanda produces and exports gold ores, columbite concentrates, tantalite concentrates, tin, and tungsten.
C Mining in Tanzania
The area of the Kagera Basin that is situated in Tanzania covers 20,680 km2 (34.2% of the total basin area).
The Tanzania Mining Cadastre Portal (Trimble landfolio, Retrieved 14/09/2020) indicates that the area of
Tanzania within the Kagera Basin encompasses two mining areas:
• Northern area in the district of Kyerwa
- Several large prospecting licences for tantalite, tin, wolframite, nickel, tungsten
- Numerous small primary tin mining licences and reported natural occurrences of tin
• Southern area in the district of Ngara

- Several large prospecting licences for gold and tin
- Numerous small tungsten mines and reported natural occurrences of tin.
D Mining in Uganda
The area of the Kagera Basin that is situated in Uganda covers 4,400 km2 (7.3% of the total basin area).
Uganda has made a great effort to survey and discover minerals and the Uganda government is looking for
investors to develop the mining sector. However, current mineral production is still too low to satisfy the
local demand. Limestone is quarried for the production of cement and lime and is largely consumed locally.
Small quantities of gold, tin and tungsten concentrates are currently produced largely for export (BRL,
2008).

The Uganda Mining Cadastre Portal (Trimble Landfolio, Retrieved 14/09/2020) that in the area of Uganda
situated in the Kagera Basin there are the following leases, licences and mineral occurrences:
• Several reported occurrences of Cassiterite (tin oxide ore).
• Sun and Sand Mines and Minerals Limited Mining lease (2,000ha) for exploitation of tin
• African panther Resources Limited Mining lease (200ha) for exploitation of base metals, cassiterite,
gold and silver.
• Three exploration licences for base metals and precious metals including one for gold.
Cattle Ranching
The dominant land use within the direct impact zone is free-range livestock grazing. The Kitengule and
Missenyi ranches, which are administered by the National Ranching Company (NARCO), have been sub-
divided into blocks and leased to private enterprises for beef cattle production.
Sugarcane Agroindustry
The Kagera Sugar Estate Limited farm is situated on the left bank of the Kagera River adjacent to the Kakono
reservoir and on both left and right banks downstream extending from the Kakono dam to Kyaka. The farm
commenced operations in 1982 under ownership of the Government of Tanzania, but it was privatised in
December 2001 becoming Kagera Sugar Estates Limited. In 2020 the farm was developing an expansion
project that will be implemented over the coming years.
The farm has a central complex with administrative and accommodation buildings, industrial facilities
including a 5MW powerplant (being upgraded to 20 MW), sugar processing facilities, and storage buildings
for farm equipment. The complex is situated 20 km from Kyaka on the road Kyaka-Karagwe road that
follows the right bank of the Kagera River. The central complex is supplied with 3MW of electrical power
from Kyaka via a 20 km 33 kV overhead TL. In the frame of the expansion project a second 20MW
powerplant will be constructed and surplus electricity provided to TANESCO via the existing TL.
The farm has rights to a total area of 46,054 ha comprising 17,366 ha (on the left bank) that is currently
cultivated and a further 18,688 ha (mostly on the right bank) that will be developed as part of the expansion
project, 10,000 ha (on the right bank) is used for cattle ranching. Most of the area concerned by the
expansion project and the cattle ranching area is located on the right bank, on land previously owned by the
National Ranching Company (NARCO). In 2020, the Government of Tanzania was constructing a bridge over
the Kagera River 15 km downstream from the Kakono dam, which will allow sugarcane from the right bank
areas can be transported easily to the farm’s processing facilities on the left bank at the central complex.
In 2020 the farm employed 2,000 full-time staff and during cutting and planting seasons requires an
additional 5,000 seasonal workers. Many of the full-time staff are accommodated in the central complex
area and there are 8 temporary worker camps situated at strategic points along the left bank of the river
between the Kakono dam site and Kyaka. The expansion of the farm will require an additional 4,200
workers, including 500 full-time staff, the remaining being seasonal workers. The additional workers will
be accommodated in seven additional accommodation camps situated at strategic points along the right
bank of the Kagera River.
In 2020 the farm had seven water pumping stations in operation along the banks of the Kagera River and
abstracted river water at a rate of 199,716 m3/day mainly for irrigation, but also for domestic and industrial
used. In the frame of the expansion project, an additional seven pumping stations will be installed, and the
water abstraction increased by 868,470 m3/day, thus totalling just over 1 million cubic metres per day.
The sugarcane expansion project will require increased use of fertilizers, herbicides and insecticides. These
will be stored at the central complex and applied to the sugarcane.
Road and Bridge Projects
Road projects in the project area comprise the widening of the main Kyaka-Uganda road through Bunazi.
Houses along the road that will be affected have been identified, but it is not known when the project will
be implemented. In 2020, works to build a bridge over the Kagera River at a point 15 km downstream from
the Kakono dam site was ongoing, and as part of the same project, the 17 km unpaved road to the bridge
from the turn-off on the B182 (Kyaka-Kayanga road) was being upgraded to a paved road.

VECs and their Spatial and Temporal Boundaries
VECs, their spatial and temporal boundaries and rationale for selection for the CA are described in Table
7.106.
Table 7.106 – VECs Selected for CIA and their Spatial and Temporal Boundaries
Boundaries
VEC Rationale for selection (non-selection)
Spatial Temporal
VECs Selected for CIA
River Potentially impacted by the Project other Kagera River downstream Reservoir impoundment
hydrology hydropower developments in the catchment, from Kakono Operating life of the Project
water abstraction projects and climate
change.
River water Potentially impacted by the Project, run-off Kagera River downstream Reservoir impoundment
quality from KSC, land-use changes and population from Kakono extending to Operating life of the Project
increase in the catchment and climate Lake Victoria
change.
River geo- Potentially impacted by cumulative impacts Kagera River downstream Reservoir impoundment
morphology on river hydrology and sediment supply. from Kakono extending to Operating life of the Project
Lake Victoria
Fish and fish Potentially impacted by cumulative impacts Kagera River downstream Reservoir impoundment
habitats on river hydrology, water quality, sediment from Kakono extending to Operating life of the Project
retention and nutrient supply. Lake Victoria
Forest Potentially impacted by both the Project Kagera River downstream Reservoir impoundment
resources Transmission Line component and expansion from Kakono Operating life of the Project
of the KSC estate.
Wildlife Potentially impacted by loss of habitat and Vicinity of Kakono reservoir Reservoir impoundment
disturbance both from the Project and and movement corridors (e.g. Operating life of the Project
expansion of the KSC estate on right bank of elephants)
Kagera River.
Wetland / Potentially impacted by cumulative impacts Kagera River downstream Reservoir impoundment
Floodplain on river hydrology and bank erosion from from Kakono Operating life of the Project
habitats cumulative sediment trapping in HPPs.
Lake Victoria Potentially impacted by cumulative impacts Kagera River delta area of the Reservoir impoundment
on geomorphology, sediment and nutrient lake Operating life of the Project
supply, and water quality.
Public Water abstraction at Kyaka for drinking Villages of Kyaka and Bonazi Reservoir impoundment
infrastructure water and irrigation is potentially impacted Operating life of the Project
by cumulative impacts on river hydrology,
bank erosion, and water quality (including
the possible spread of impounded aquatic
weeds).
Communities Potentially impacted by both the Project, the Villages of Kyaka and Bunazi Construction period
expansion of the KSC estate and construction and other villages in the
of other nearby projects from increased immediate vicinity of the
spread of aquatic weeds, bilharzia and influx Kakono Dam
of workforce.
VECs Not Selected for CIA
Hydrogeology Project impact on hydrogeology is not N/A N/A
significant.
Reservoir The Project is not expected to cause RTS. N/A N/A
Triggered The height of the dams and the volume of
Seismicity stored water is below the ICOLD threshold
(RTS) limit for considering the risk of RTS.
Microclimate Potentially impact by both the project and N/A N/A
climate change
Environmental Stressors and External Factors
Environmental stressors and external factors considered in the CIA are described in the following
paragraphs:
A Demographics

In 2007 the mean annual demographic growth rate in the Kagera River basin was 2.7% and the fertility rate
per woman was 6 (BRL, 2008). In 2012, the basin population was estimated to be 16.4 million people, with
large urban areas and a large proportion of the basin population in Burundi and Rwanda. The population
density in Rwanda and Burundi is the highest in Africa and four times higher than the basin areas in Tanzania;
projections forecast a basin population of 28.7 million people in 2032, with the highest growth in Burundi
and Rwanda (Aurecon, 2012).
B Land Cover / Land Use Changes
The land cover in the basin in 2008 was as follows; cropland (46.6%), forest (26.7%), grassland/shrubland
(15%), bare areas (5.9%), and the remaining areas occupied by wetlands, waterbodies and settlements
(BRL, 2008). In 2008 the agricultural land cover was increasing and the forest land cover decreasing as a
result of the population growth, this trend has no doubt continued since 2008 and will continue in the future.
For the Kagera River, the consequences of the change in land use are increased sediment loading resulting
from increased erosion caused by land cover changes, and increased nutrient content caused by increased
use of fertilizers.
C Climate Change
The climate resilience assessment (Section 7.9) presents the climate change predictions for the basin. For
the time-period 2034-2067 the predictions are as follows:
• Mean, maximum and minimum annual precipitation is expected to rise in the range of +3.5 to
+9.2% with a general increase in precipitation throughout most of the year.
• The dry season will start earlier (in May rather than June).
• The intermediate climate change scenario (RCP6) predicts a slight increase of precipitation during
the dry season (+4.2%), whereas the more optimistic scenario (RCP4.5) predicts a slight decrease (-
3%).
• Mean annual maximum temperatures are predicted to increase in the range of +1.2 to +2.1°C and
mean annual minimum temperature is predicted to increase in the range 0.1°C and 0.8°C.
For the time-period 2066–2099, the trend set during the previous period will continue; with further increase
of mean, maximum and minimum annual precipitation (+5.8 to +14%) and mean annual maximum
temperatures are predicted to continue to increase reaching a range of +2.0 to +4.0°C. The mean annual
minimum temperatures are also predicted to increase to a range of +0.9°C to +2.9°C.
With regard to the flow of the Kagera River, the assessment predicts that for the time-period 2034–2067
the mean annual inflow at the Kakono dam site will increase in the range of 5-25% higher than the baseline
(depending on the climate change scenario) and that this will be followed for the time-period 2066–2099
by a decrease, with flow being in the range of +3% higher to -18% lower than the baseline.
D Water Hyacinth
Water Hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) is an invasive species that is widespread in the Kagera River Basin,
particularly in open water habitat, but also in floodplain wetlands and floodplain woodland/thicket (where
it has even invaded terrestrial habitat). Floating masses of water hyacinth are carried downstream from the
upstream Kagera catchment, and hyacinth has become established in the slackwaters along the river and
in Lake Victoria. Water hyacinth forms dense mats of enlarged plants which impede light penetration to the
water below and thus affects growth of other aquatic plants. The decaying water hyacinth plants tend to
reduce oxygen for other aquatic flora and fauna, hence contribute to loss of biodiversity. The mats lead to
increased evapotranspiration – causing loss of water from the river or lake. The mats negatively affect
navigation, fishing, hydropower generation, water supply and tourism/recreational activities. Water
hyacinth contributes to the increase in the prevalence of water-related diseases because it harbours vectors
of these diseases. Water hyacinth has infested the shores of Lake Victoria shores and up to the headwaters
of the Kagera River in the highlands of the northern Rwanda. However, most of the water hyacinth carried
downstream from the headwater of the Kagera becomes trapped in the large swamp/lake complex along
the Rwanda-Tanzania border. Nevertheless, the conditions are favourable for water hyacinth development
in the reaches between the lakes and the outflow into Lake Victoria. (BRL, 2008).
E Eutrophication

Eutrophication, a result of the high nutrient loading in the river water caused by the widespread discharge
of untreated sewage in one of the threats to the Kagera River basin and Lake Victoria and has caused
proliferation of aquatic weeds, including the water hyacinth, elephant grass and algal blooms.
F Nile Perch
The Nile perch (Lates niloticus) is an alien species that was introduced into Lake Victoria in the 1950s. The
introduction caused adverse changes in the composition and functioning of the lake’s ecosystem, in
particular the extinction of more than 200 native species of fish and leading to changes in the food web
(LVEMP, 2005). Fish surveys performed for this 2022 ESIA did not capture any Nile perch in the project area,
although individuals are occasionally caught (KSC staff, pers. comm.). There is consequently a concern that
the Nile perch may progressively populate the lower reaches of the Kagera River.
Assessment of Cumulative Impacts
The assessment considers projects, anthropogenic activities, external factors and environmental stressors
in the catchment that could contribute to the alteration of the baseline conditions of each VEC selected
during the scoping (see Table 7.106). For each VEC, a parameter is identified that is used as a metric to
estimate the relative contribution of each contributor (project, activity, factor, stressor) to the overall
alteration of the VEC. Cumulative impacts are considered significant when there is more than one main
contributor to the overall impact, of which one is the Kakono Project. The cumulative impact on each VEC is
discussed in the following paragraphs and the findings summarised in Table 7.108.
River Hydrology
Cumulative impacts from other river basin developments on the Kagera River hydrology downstream from
the Kakono dam are expected to be of negligible significance. This is because the Project will function as a
run-of-river scheme, and the flow discharged from the dam will be the same as the reservoir inflow.
Therefore, although other factors are expected to affect hydrology and the flow regime of the Kagera River
over the life of the Project, this is not a result of Project.
The Rusumo Falls HPP, Kikagati HPP and Nsongezi HPP, upstream from the Kakono Project are not
expected to alter the flow regime of the Kagera River, because these projects, like Kakono, function as run-
of-river schemes. Mining activities in the upstream catchment are also not expected to modify the flow rate
of the river as no projects involving impoundment of river water have been identified. However, activities
and factors that are expected to cause a measurable alteration to the flow regime of the river are water
abstraction and climate change as discussed below.
There are several water abstractions on the river. Upstream from the Project there is a project to supply
drinking water and irrigation water to the cities of Masaka, Isingiro and Mbarara in Uganda, KSC (downstream
from the Project), plans to increase its present water abstraction capacity from 199,716 to 1,068,186 m3
per day and there is a water supply project planned at Kyaka. The abstraction rates and % of river flow rates
are presented in Table 7.107. Climate change predictions are also predicted to modify the flows of the
Kagera River. Depending on the climate change scenario and time frames, the Kagera flow at the Project
site could be reduced by 13-15% (for the worst case) or could increase by 25% for intermediate case (see
section 7.9).
To conclude, during the life of the Project, the Kagera flow rate downstream from the Kakono dam is
expected to change because of the combined effects of water abstraction and climate change. However,
the Project when operating in a run-of-river mode should not contribute to these changes.
Table 7.107 – Water Abstraction Projects

Abstraction Project Abstraction Rate % of average annual % of minimum river
(m3/day) river flow flow
Drinking water and irrigation for Masaka, Isingiro and 680,000 3.7% 7.9%
Mbarara in Uganda
Irrigation water for KSC estate and expansion 1,068,186 5.8% 12.4%
Drinking water for Kyaka village 7,235 0.04% 0.08%
Total 1,755,421 9.5% 20.3%
* low seasonal flows during a dry year (~100 m3/s)

During reservoir filling, the discharge from the Kakono Dam-reservoir will be reduced as inflowing water will
be retained in the reservoir. However, this is not considered a significant cumulative impact because it will
occur over several weeks, and the Kakono Project will release the ecological flow defined in the 2022 ESIA
during filling to ensure water users and ecological functions downstream are not adversely impacted (see
Section 7.3.1.2).
River Water Quality
It is assessed that there is the potential for significant cumulative impacts on the Kagera River water quality
downstream from the Kakono Dam. The cumulative impacts are expected to result primarily from the
Kakono Project impacts combined with the effects on water quality of the expansion of the KSC sugarcane
farm.
The Rusumo Falls HPP, Kikagati HPP and Nsongezi HPP, upstream from Kakono are not expected to have a
significant contribution to water quality impacts. [N], [P] and [DO] in the river downstream from these
schemes may change, but this is expected to be negligible compared to that caused by Kakono as the
quantities of flooded biomass are significantly smaller than for Kakono. The Rusumo HPP does not result
in additional flooding of vegetation (it changes the seasonal flooding regime of a wetland area); Kikagati
HPP creates a 0.4 ha headpond - which is significantly small than the Kakono reservoir (1,700 ha). However,
the size of the Nsongezi HPP reservoir in not yet available but is expected to be small relative to Kakono.
The population in the upstream catchment is predicted to increase progressively during the life of the
project, and this will probably result in increased [N] and [P] in the river water because of the discharge of
untreated sanitary wastewaters and because of increase in agriculture. The relative contribution of water
quality changes caused by the Kakono will become proportionally smaller relative to the expected future
N&P inputs over time. It is also expected that there will be uptake of part of the N and P by the extensive
swamp/lake area in the Akagera National Park area upstream from the Project.
The principal cause of alteration to [N] and [P] downstream from the Kakono dam is expected to be the
expansion of the KSC sugarcane farm and increasing settlement in Kyaka. The area occupied by the
sugarcane is expected to be approximately doubled as will the number of workers. Consequently, N and P
entering the river from leaching of fertilizers and from sanitation facilities will increase proportionally,
potentially doubling.
When considered alone, the Kakono Project is expected to cause 8.6% increase in [N] in the waters
downstream from the dam, but a very small change in the [P], because the baseline [P] are particularly high.
Phosphorus is the limiting element for eutrophication, and therefore, although there is an increase in [N]
this alone is not expected to cause an increased risk of eutrophication. However, when considering both the
Kakono Project combined with the KCS expansion (which increases [P]), there is an increased risk of
eutrophication and associated spread of water hyacinth in the slackwaters of the river. This could result in
further lowering of [DO] caused by Kakono. Climate change is also expected to contribute; the increased air
temperatures predicted by climate change modelling will probably result in a similar increase in river water
temperature and water hyacinth growth increase with temperature.
River Geomorphology
It is assessed that that there are several activities and factors potentially affecting downstream
geomorphology:
• The Kakono dam will trap bedload sediment causing sediment starved waters to be released from
the dam resulting in riverbed and riverbank erosion downstream. However, much of the fine
sediment that is suspended in the water column will not be trapped and will continue to be
transported downstream.
• Climate change combined with deforestation and increased agriculture resulting from population
growth in the upstream catchment will continue during the life of the Project and the current trend
of increasing sediment load in the Kagera River will continue. In 2012, Aurecon reported that in the
previous 10 years the sediment loading in the upper reaches of the river had doubled, but that the
Kagera wetland/lake area situated upstream from Rusumo Falls and between Rusumo Falls and
Kakono was trapping part of the sediment (Aurecon, 2012). Sediment input into Lake Victoria has
increased causing increased rates of sedimentation in the inflowing river deltas (LVEMP, 2005).
• The Rusumo Falls HPP, Kikagati HPP and Nsongezi HPP, upstream from Kakono are expected to
trap bedload sediment.

Although climate change and land use changes are expected to increase sediment loading in the river, much
of the increased bedload sediment will be trapped by the lakes, swamps and hydropower schemes
upstream of Kakono. The Project is the last scheme in the cascade of HPPs and will trap the bedload
sediment that enters the river downstream from the Kagera lakes and which has not been trapped by the
Kikagati and Nsongezi HPPs, which have only small reservoirs and sediment trapping capacity.
Nevertheless, most of bedload sediment input will be from a reach of river ~70 km in length, which is only
a small fraction of the total length of the river.
The trapping of bedload sediment by the hydropower schemes will counter, and to a certain extent, reverse
the negative effects of past and future increased sediment loading in the river. The Kakono Project will
contribute to this effect.
Fish and Fish Habitats
Cumulative impacts of hydropower development on fish and fish habitats of the Kagera River will occur
through:
• Barrier Effect: Multiple HPPs incrementally reduce the efficiency of upstream and downstream fish
migration. Although the Kakono dam and the Kikagati HPP are both planned to include fishways,
fishways have an estimated 10% efficiency for upstream fish migration. Each HPP in a cascade
further reduces the overall fish passage efficiency. Fish passage through turbines will also result in
cumulative fish mortality across the three HPP schemes (Kakono, Nsongezi and Kikagati). Although
fish may not necessarily migrate the full length of the Kagera river between the outflow into Lake
Victoria and the Kagera lake region, the reduced ecological continuity caused by a cascade of dams
is expected to result in gene flow fragmentation. Recolonisation of some parts of the river system
or even the lake may also be prevented by HPPs in situations where fish populations are reduced
resulting from one or more events that affect fish either upstream or downstream from Kakono.
Likewise, the Kagera River is considered a refuge for fish species that may need to seek more
favourable conditions if the conditions in Lake Victoria continue to degrade. The Kakono HPP
represents the largest barrier to upstream and downstream fish migration and will have the
largest role in the cumulative impact of HPP development on fish migration.
• Nile perch invasion: The presence of several reservoirs may augment the invasion of the Kagera
River by Nile perch. The Nile perch is an open water species, and HPP reservoirs will represent a
favourable habitat in which the species may colonise – either naturally or through introduction by
fishers. By creating several reservoirs in a cascade, the Nile perch may be able to advance further
upstream than if there was only one reservoir. Development of a Nile perch population in the
Kagera River, would result in the reduction of numbers of individual of other species and possibly
the extinction of some species. This is of particular concern as the Kagera lake region upstream
from Kikagati HPP has numerous endemic fish species. The Kakono HPP by virtue of being the
largest proposed reservoir and closest to the lake would present the greatest risk to the
cumulative impact of Nile perch on indigenous fish.
• Flooding of fish habitat: Direct alteration of fish habitat for HPP through flooding for reservoir
creation will impact the indigenous fish community including threatened and restricted-range
species. Kakono HPP will flood 17 km2 or 35 km of river compared to 0.4 ha for Kikagati while
Rusumo Falls will have no impoundment. Therefore, the Kakono HPP will have the most significant
effect on fish habitat, while the other three HPPs will have a negligible cumulative effect.
• Reduced water flow in dewatered stretches: Reduction in flow downstream of the HPPs will reduce
the suitability of the dewatered reaches to maintain the natural diversity and abundance of fish.
Rusumo Falls and Kikagati HPPs will result in a 500 m and 350 m dewatered reach, respectively,
while Kakono HPP has no dewatered reach. Therefore, the cumulative effect of the three HPPS is
negligible with Kakono HPP having no effect.
• Change in water quality: Significant cumulative impacts on water quality are expected over time
from upstream HPPs, sugarcane expansion, and increasing population, and land clearance for
cultivation, deforestation and mining in the catchment. This may result in increased turbidity,
elevated nutrients and reduced oxygen which will affect sensitive fish species. The extensive
Akagera swamp system upstream of Kikagati HPP is expected to continue to ameliorate upstream
turbidity and pollution inputs by trapping some sediment and nutrients. The extent to which these
swamps will fulfil this role under increased pollution loading will depend partly on whether existing
land use pressures (clearance and burning) on the wetland systems are adequately controlled.
However, any release of deoxygenated waters from upstream HPPs is expected to have become

reoxygenated before entering the Kakono Reservoir. The contribution of Kakono HPP to these
cumulative impacts on water quality in the lower Kagera River is considered negligible.
• Increase in water hyacinth: water hyacinth from upstream sources is expected to collect and
proliferate in the Kakono Reservoir where it may reduce dissolved oxygen concentrations in the
reservoir and in the water released downstream. Both the presence of hyacinth in the reservoir and
low oxygen levels is predicted to have potential impacts on fish sensitive to low oxygen levels and
will have a cumulative impact with other HPPs upstream.
• Loss of floodplain habitats from riverbank and bed erosion: the Kakono HPP is expected to result in
riverbank and bed erosion due to sediment trapping in the reservoir with effects on fish habitat and
which is predicted to propagate downstream over time. Given the small impoundments of the
upstream HPPs this effect is not considered to have a cumulative impact.
Terrestrial Habitats and Wildlife
The combined loss of terrestrial habitat caused by the impoundment of Kakono reservoir (17,000 ha) and
the expansion of the KSC farm (24,000ha) on the right bank will have a significant cumulative impact on
habitat loss and wildlife in the Project area than each of the projects considered individually, even though
there is no overlap of the areas affected by the two projects. A key issue is related to the seasonal presence
and movement of elephant that come to the right bank of the Kagera River from conservation areas to the
south (e.g. Burigi-Chato National Park) seeking food and water. Expansion of sugarcane fields on the right
bank is expected to further attract elephants where they are likely to cause human-wildlife conflicts.
Displacement of elephants from the wide swathe of open woodland that is earmarked to be converted to
sugarcane will restrict elephants to a narrower corridor along the proposed access road to the dam and
along the footslopes of the Rubira Hills where they may come into increased conflict with communities.
In addition, elephants are currently not able to cross the Kagera River to the left bank because the river
current is too strong. However, it is likely that with the presence of the Kakono reservoir, the elephants may
be able to swim across the reservoir to the left bank where they will be attracted by the sugarcane
plantation. The left bank sugarcane plantation, unlike the right bank, is not planned to be protected by an
electric fence. The Kakono HPP and Kagera Sugar Estate will therefore have a significant cumulative impact
on elephant movement patterns and potential human-elephant conflict.
Lake Victoria
Kakono Reservoir is expected to trap all bedload sediment and half of the suspended sediment load with
bound nutrients, resulting in riverbank and bed erosion and reduced sediment and nutrient supply to the
downstream river and floodplain ecosystems with likely impacts on fish productivity. The effect of a
reduction in suspended sediment and nutrients with impacts on fish productivity may extend to the Kagera
Estuary on Lake Victoria, approximately 195 km downstream. However, the effect may be ameliorated to
some degree by sediment flushing, sediment and nutrient inputs from cleared areas in the lower catchment
(e.g. KSC), and downstream bank erosion. The upstream HPPs, although much smaller than Kakono HPP,
will also trap bedload sediment and some suspended sediments resulting in a cumulative reduction in
sediment and nutrients reaching the lower Kagera River and potential cumulative impact on fisheries
production.
In terms of water quality, significant cumulative impacts on water quality downstream from the Kakono
dam are not expected to extend to Lake Victoria. Water quality impacts in the lake are expected to be
negligible compared to nitrates and phosphates entering the Kagera River from the KSC expansion project.
The higher levels of nitrogen in the Kagera River originating from the Kakono reservoir represent +8.6% in
the year of reservoir filling and decrease progressively over the following years. When this is combined with
the higher levels of phosphorus originating from the KSC expansion project (concentration probably
doubled for the duration of the Kakono Project) there will be a short-term increase in the potential for
eutrophication in the river. However, it is expected that a large proportion of nitrogen from the Project will
have been taken up by the river vegetation before it is discharged into the lake. However, the phosphorus
from the KSC expansion project will probably still be significantly higher than baseline levels in the Kagera’s
discharge into Lake Victoria. The increased phosphorus input into the lake will contribute to the lake’s
eutrophication, which is already an existing environmental problem.

Water Abstraction
Water abstraction downstream from Kakono, mainly for the KSC Project which is forecast to use up to 5%
of the Annual Average Flow once the expansion project is fully developed, will further reduce river volumes
and water quality in the lower Kagera Rive and may contribute to impacts on river hydrology (e.g. extent of
seasonal flooding). However, as explained above, the Kakono Project does not involve water abstraction
and when operating as a run-of-river scheme is not expected to have a measurable impact on river
hydrology. During the reservoir filling, it will be ensured that the reservoir filling rate allow sufficient release
downstream to prevent adverse impacts on ecology and water users. Therefore, the Kakono HPP is not
predicted to have a cumulative effect on water abstraction and river flow.
Communities
The potential for cumulative impacts on communities are assessed as follows:

• Communities affected by the Kakono Project land acquisition are not impacted by other projects.
The land required by the KSC expansion project has been acquired from the ranching company
NARCO and other hydropower projects on the Kagera river are too far upstream to have an area of
influence that overlaps with Kakono. The footprint of TL projects that pass through Kyaka do not
overlap on the Kakono Project footprint. Consequently, no cumulative impacts from loss of land
and livelihood are expected.
• The KSC farm currently has worker accommodation at the central complex and eight camps for
seasonal workers situated at strategic points along the left bank of the Kagera river. The farm
employs 2,000 full-time staff and 5,000 seasonal workers. The expansion project will require the
creation of seven additional worker camps along the Kagera River on the right bank to
accommodate an additional 4,200 seasonal workers and 500 full-time staff. The Kakono Project
will require a worker camp adjacent close to the dam site on the left bank to accommodate a
maximum of 1,000 workers during the peak construction period. Construction duration is 4 years.
The KSC workers are mostly unskilled and come from all over Tanzania and not specifically from
the region. The Kakono Project workers will require most semi-skilled workers and few unskilled
workers. Consequently, it is not anticipated that there will be significant competition between the
projects for the employment of workers.
• It is possible that the projects will attract opportunity seekers to the area and that the combination
of both the Kakono Project and the KSC farm expansion may have a greater attractiveness than the
sum of both projects considered individually. Informal settlements of opportunity seekers may
develop around Bunazi or around the settlements on the dam access road. There may be knock on
effects of the influx of opportunity seekers, both positive and negative. There could be creation of
health and safety issues related to the development of informal settlements, and there could be
stimulus for micro-economic development. However, the contribution to the cumulative impact
from the Kakono project will be smaller than that of the KSC farm expansion because Kakono
mobilised significantly fewer workers and for only a relatively short period.
• If construction activities of the different projects around Kyaka are performed concurrently, there
may be road traffic issues, with high density of vehicles on the roads causing incremental increase
in the risk of road accidents and causing traffic hold-ups.
Table 7.108 – Summary of Significance of Cumulative Impacts

Alteration to VEC Cumulative
VEC Contributor to Cumulative Impact Potential Main Impact
Parameter Significance
alteration contributor
Kakono Project River flow - 
Other HPPs rate - 
River KSC expansion Decrease ◼
Negligible
hydrology Kyaka water abstraction Decrease 
Uganda water abstraction Decrease ◼
Climate change Changes ◼
Kakono Project [DO] Decrease ◼
River water [N] Increase ◼
Significant
quality Other HPPs [DO] Decrease 
[N] Increase 

Alteration to VEC Cumulative

VEC Contributor to Cumulative Impact Potential Main Impact
Parameter Significance
alteration contributor
KSC expansion [N], [P] Increase ◼
Upstream demographics [N], [P] Increase ◼
Kakono Project Bank / Increase 
Other HPPs riverbed Increase ◼
River geo- erosion
Increase demographics Decrease Negligible
morphology
Deforestation ◼
Climate change
Kakono Project Ecological Decrease ◼
Fish and fish Other HPPs continuity Decrease ◼
Significant
habitats Cumulative impacts on hydrology, water Favourable Decrease

quality and river morphology conditions
Terrestrial Kakono Project Footprint / Decrease ◼
habitat and KSC Expansion integrity Decrease Significant
wildlife ◼
Kakono Project Habitat area Decrease ◼
Wetland
Cumulative impacts on water quality and river Decrease Negligible
habitats 
morphology
Kakono Project Water - Negligible

Water availability
Abstraction Cumulative impacts on hydrology and water Water -

quality availability
Kakono Project Qualitative ◼
KSC Expansion ◼
Potentially
Communities Other HPPs ◼
Significant
TL projects ◼
Bunazi road widening ◼
Conclusion
The Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts is managed through the control and mitigation measures
for Project impacts assessed elsewhere in this assessment and no additional specific control and mitigation
measures have been identified.

7.11 Transboundary Impacts
Transboundary impacts may arise from i) reduction in upstream fish migration between fish populations in
the lower Kagera River and populations in Rwanda (upstream of Kikagati); ii) reduction in downstream fish
movements to the Kagera Estuary and Lake Victoria (in Uganda) in the event of natural events such as a
possible changes in condition of the Lake Victoria or high fish mortality due to pollution; and iii) reduction in
sediment and nutrient delivery to floodplains in the lower Kagera River and Lake Victoria, potentially
affecting fish productivity.
Reduction in Upstream Fish Migration to Akagera Swamps
The Kakono Dam will create an additional barrier to upstream fish migration between the lower Kagera
River up to the Akagera Swamps and river in Rwanda. Most of the migratory fish are believed to be short to
medium distance migrators (20-100 km) and are not reliant on long migrations for their lifecycle as long as
they can reach suitable floodplain or riffle spawning habitats. The fragmentation of the river’s ecological
continuity by the Kakono Dam and reservoir will result in fish populations becoming more resident in
subpopulations within specific river reaches with reduction in genetic interchange. It is possible that some
fish species trapped in the reach between the dam wall and Nsongezi may no longer be able to access
spawning grounds if insufficient floodplain or riffle habitats are present. The proposed fish pass on the
Kakono Dam will help to facilitate gene flow between these populations in an upstream direction which is
predicted to be sufficient to maintain the genetic integrity of the fish species along the Lower to Middle
Kagera River (downstream of Rusumo Falls).
Reduction in Downstream Fish Migration to Lake Victoria
The Kakono River is considered a refuge for fish such as the Critically Endangered Labeo victorianus and has
been considered and referred to as an important source for replenishment of fish in Lake Victoria in times
of drying up 15,000 years ago. The Kakono Dam is located 195 km upstream of the Lake Victoria and will
restrict downstream migration of fish from upstream reaches to the lower reaches. This is because the fish
pass is designed for upstream migration only while the power intake is located 30 m below the dam surface
which will restrict the number and species of fish that may try to pass through, and those that do may be
killed in the turbines. Therefore, only fish in the lower 195 km of the river will be able to serve as source
areas for replenishment of lake fish should a future major adverse change arise in the Lake Vitoria. The
extensive floodplains in the lower reaches downstream of the Ngono River confluence and in Uganda may
provide sufficient refugia for Kagera fish depending on the level of fishing effort by downstream
communities.
Erosion and Sediment/Nutrient Reduction to Downstream Floodplains

and Lake Victoria
The Kagera River delivers significant volume of sediment to the Kagera River Estuary that extends as a
plume for a kilometre into the lake and which is considered important for maintaining a productive fishery
in the lower reaches of the Kagera and at its outflow into Lake Victoria in Uganda. The Kakono Project is
expected to trap all bed sediment and between 40 and 60% of the suspended sediment entering the
reservoir with a portion passing through the turbines and carried in suspension or passing over the spillway
during flood periods. Bank and bed erosion downstream of the dam along with some sediment inputs from
tributaries such as the Mwisa River will contribute some additional sediment to the lower river system which
will partially compensate for the sediment trapped in the dam. However, given the silt trapping function of
papyrus, and the flat gradient and extensive wetlands along the Mwisa and Ngono Rivers it is expected that
limited silt inputs are contributed from these sources relative to the large volume carried via the Kagera
River. In addition, some sediment trapping in the other HPPs under construction or planned upstream of
Kakono will further reduce the amount of sediment entering and passing through the Kakono HPP. The
Project, together with the Rusumo HPP and the Kikagati HPP, is therefore expected to lead to a reduction
in sediment and nutrient supply to the Kagera Estuary at Sango Bay in Lake Victoria (195 km downstream
of Kakono HPP) where it is predicted to cause a decline in shrimp and fish productivity. This area has been

identified by the Ugandan Department of Fisheries as an important fish breeding ground and aggregation
site for spawning, which is linked to the volume of silt contributed by the Kagera River (Sayer et al., 2018).
Sango Bay is also an identified Key Biodiversity Area for migratory fish while the Sango Bay Area is a
confirmed Important Bird Area (IBA)(Sayer et al. 2018) for wetland birds, including piscivorous birds
attracted to the fish congregations. This impact is potentially significant as described and assessed in
Section 7.4.1).
In summary, given the above transboundary issues associated with the Kakono HPP, the ESIA and related
supplementary reports should be disclosed and discussed with the Ugandan authorities, as well as the Lake
Victoria River Basin Commission from the East Africa Commission. A joint integrated monitoring programme
for water quality, sediments and geomorphology, macroinvertebrates, and fish should also be initiated with
the relevant Ugandan authorities.
These measures are referred to elsewhere in the report as:
• [M 152] Information sharing and agreement with Uganda and Lake Victoria Basin Commission of
EAC on downstream impacts and commitments on Kakono HPP operation (TANESCO).

7.12 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures - Run-

Of-River Mode
Summary of Impacts by Environmental or Social Value
The summary of impacts and mitigation measures is provided in the table on the following pages.

Table 7.109 - Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Main construction
Reservoir filling
Duration
Operation
Hydrology
Kagera River Reduction of ◼ ◼  Hi Likelihood: Possible [-] • [M 1] The Kagera River flow continuity will be maintained at any time during the construction period, Lo
Flow downstream river flow Extent: Down to Lake Victoria including for the reservoir filling period. The river flow immediately downstream of the dam site should
for Reservoir filling Duration: Short-term never be lower than the minimum flow regime specified in the 2022 ESIA or than the reservoir inflow.
Magnitude: high • [M 2] Should the Project needs to reduce the time needed for the reservoir filling, an agreement with
operators of irrigated sugar cane plantations will be required s to minimise impairment of irrigation for
sugar cane fields. Whatever is the agreement with operators of irrigated sugar cane plantations at that
time, the minimum flow downstream of the dam should not be lower than either the flows indicated in
the 2022 ESIA below or than the reservoir inflow.
• [M 3] During the Detailed Design stage, a Reservoir Filling Plan will be prepared as part of the
implementation of the ESMMP, which details - amongst other things - the reservoir filling timing and
procedure required to comply with the present EFlow requirements.
• [M 5] The river diversion works and procedures will be designed/prepared so that there is no
interruption of river flow - or reduction greater than that allowed in the 2022 ESIA - at any time during
the construction period, including the placement and decommissioning of the cofferdams.
• [M 6] The Owners Engineer will review the design of the river diversion works - and then supervise the
works accordingly - taking into account the minimum flow requirements specified in the 2022 ESIA.
• [M 7] A staged-approach will be used to close the bottom outlet so that there is no risk of fish
stranding downstream of the dam.
• [M 8] The Kagera River flow rate will be monitored twice per day during the whole construction period
by TANESCO downstream of the dam.
• [M 9] The EPC Contractor will install a time-lapse video camera downstream of the dam which will film
the river during the construction period. Records will be filed with TANESCO.
Sediment venting,   ◼ M Likelihood: Possible [-] • [M 10] Preparation of a sediment venting/sluicing/flushing ESIA and implementation of recommended Lo
sluicing or pressure Extent: Down to Kyaka mitigation measures prior to the first opening of the bottom outlet for sediment management
flushing Duration: Short-term purposes.
Magnitude: high • [M 11] The sediment venting/sluicing/flushing flow rates will be designed and implemented such as
that no unnatural activation of the floodplain occurs and that community safety issues are planned
and managed according to good international practices.
venting/sluicing/flushing operation of the nature, timing and risks relating to such an operation.


Main construction
Reservoir filling
Duration
Operation
Groundwater Accidental spills and ◼   M Likelihood: Possible [-] • [M 13] Construction site pollution prevention and protection plans, and measures will be developed Lo
leaks of hazardous Extent: Localised - aquifer and implemented for the dam and TL worksites (EPC Contractor).
substances underlying construction • [M 20] The quality of wastewater discharges from construction worksites will be monitored to check
worksites conformity with Tanzania’s and IFC General EHS Guideline discharge limit values (EPC Contractor).
Duration: Long-term • [M 21] Groundwater at construction worksite will be monitored monthly during construction (EPC
Magnitude: high Contractor).
  ◼ M Likelihood: Possible [-] • [M 24] Groundwater, Kagera River water quality upstream and downstream of the dam will be Lo
Extent: Localised - aquifer monitored for the duration of the Project operation (TANESCO).
underlying construction
worksites
Duration: Long-term
Magnitude: high
Kagera River Potentially ◼   M Likelihood: High probability [-] • [M 13] Construction site pollution prevention and protection plans, and measures will be developed Lo
contaminated runoff Extent: ~50-100 km and implemented for the dam and TL worksites (EPC Contractor).
from worksites, downstream • [M 20] The quality of wastewater discharges from construction worksites will be monitored to check
vehicle parking areas, Duration: short-term (duration conformity with Tanzania’s and IFC General EHS Guideline discharge limit values (EPC Contractor).
laydown areas of construction works) • [M 21] Groundwater at construction worksite will be monitored monthly during construction (EPC
Magnitude: moderate Contractor).
• [M 23] Environmental performance of the EPC Contractor will be monitored to check conformity with
Project standards and non-conformities will be managed through a non-conformity management
process (TANESCO).
Discharges of sanitary ◼   M Likelihood: High probability [-] • [M 14] Construction accommodation camps will be equipped with wastewater treatment facilities to Lo
and domestic Extent: detected changes to ensure sanitary and domestic wastewater discharges are compliant with Tanzania’s and IFC EHS
wastewater water quality for ~50-100 km guideline emission limit values (EPC Contractor).
downstream
Duration: short-term (duration
of construction works)
Magnitude: moderate
Kakono Reservoir filling  ◼ ◼ M Likelihood: Certain [-] • [M 15] Vegetation from the reservoir footprint (excluding floodplain papyrus) will be removed prior to M
reservoir water alteration of water Extent: reservoir waters reservoir filling to reduce lowering of dissolved oxygen levels and reduce reservoir GHG emissions (EPC
quality (increased Duration: ~30 years Contractor).
nutrient levels and Magnitude: moderate (for DO) • [M 16] A Reservoir Biomass Removal Plan will be developed and implemented (EPC Contractor).


Main construction
Reservoir filling
Duration
Operation
reduced dissolved • [M 18] The Reservoir Biomass Removal Plan will include provisions for the removal and management
oxygen levels) of floating woody debris from the reservoir during reservoir filling (EPC Contractor).
Kagera River Reservoir filling  ◼ ◼ M Likelihood: Certain [-] • Measures for the reservoir above, plus M
downstream alteration of water Extent: ~50-60 km • [M 19] The detailed Project design will include optional design features for re-oxygenation of turbined
from dam quality downstream from dam waters (EPC Contractor).
Duration: ~30 years • [M 24] Groundwater, Kagera River water quality upstream and downstream of the dam will be
Magnitude: moderate (for DO) monitored for the duration of the Project operation (TANESCO).
Geomorphology
Increased Banks and bed of the ◼   Lo Likelihood: Certain [-] • [M 26] During construction, erosion mitigation measures will be employed to prevent soil erosion and Lo
sediment river exposed to Extent: ~10-30 km fluvial erosion when undertaking works on bare soil and banks and when working in the river (EPC
supply to increased fluvial downstream from dam Contractor).
immediate erosion during Duration: duration of cofferdam • [M 29] During construction, worksite surface erosion and effectiveness of control measures will be
downstream construction of the construction monitored by taking weekly fixed-point photos of cleared areas (EPC Contractor).
reach cofferdam and river Magnitude: low
diversion
Reduced Bed sediment trapping ◼   Lo Likelihood: Certain [-] • [M 27] Cofferdams used for construction works in the river will be designed to enable bedload delivery Lo
sediment due to ponding Extent: ~0-5 km downstream to downstream reaches while construction is taking place (EPC Contractor).
supply to upstream of the from dam • [M 30] During dam construction continuous monitoring of suspended sediment concentration in the
immediate cofferdam Duration: duration of cofferdam Kagera River upstream of the cofferdam ponded area and immediately downstream of the
downstream construction construction zone will be undertaken (EPC Contractor).
reach Magnitude: low
Erosion of the Sediment trapping by  ◼  Lo Likelihood: Certain [-] • [M 28] During the reservoir filling phase, bottom sluicing will be undertaken to maintain sediment Lo
bed, banks and the impoundment Extent: ~0-5 km downstream throughflow as best possible and flows will be sufficient to transport the released sediment
floodplain during filling from dam downstream to avoid siltation of instream habitats immediately downstream of the dam (TANESCO).
Duration: duration of reservoir
filling (1-2 months)
Sediment Sediment flushing   ◼ M Likelihood: Certain [-] • [M 36] During Project operation, Fixed point photos and simple staff gauges will be used to monitor Lo
smothering (empty or hard Extent: 20 to 90 km sediment deposition associated with sediment venting or sluicing across the floodplain and along the
flushing) downstream of dam banks downstream of the dam. Fixed point photos will be taken immediately before and after
Duration: Following venting/sluicing events to document sedimentation around the pumping stations and on agricultural
flushing/sluicing event, effect fields within the floodplain down to Kyaka (TANESCO).
can be visible for up to a year or
more
Magnitude: low to moderate
depending on the flushing


Main construction
Reservoir filling
Duration
Operation
regime and sediment
concentration
Aquatic Habitats & Macroinvertebrates
Aquatic habitats Loss and degradation ◼   Hi Likelihood: Certain [-] • Mitigation for water quality and geomorphology M
and of aquatic habitats & Extent: 95 ha (local) (for dam • [M 53] The Project will plan for routing of access roads for the TL to avoid seasonally wet areas; and
macroinvertebr macroinvertebrates wall & related construction) and carefully manage vehicles to limit impacts on natural terrestrial and aquatic habitats (EPC Contractor).
ates from dam construction water quality degradation for
(from earthworks, 10-20 km
water quality Duration: Permanent loss of
alteration and aquatic habitats during
sediment transport) construction; short term water
quality impacts.
Magnitude: Moderate due to
irreversible habitat loss but
water quality impacts are
reversible
Aquatic habitats Alteration of aquatic  ◼  Hi Likelihood: Certain [-] • Mitigation for water quality and geomorphology: M
and habitats & Extent: 600 ha aquatic habitat • Note: Compensation for loss of aquatic habitat will be required to achieve net gain, as discussed in
macroinvertebr macroinvertebrates flooded; 1,718 ha open water Section 7.5. However, this is not taken into consideration in scoring the residual impact.
ates –reservoir from reservoir filling created extending 35 km along
filling (from inundation; river for reservoir: local to
sediment, water regional scale.
quality and hydrology Duration: Permanent loss
changes) during filling.
Magnitude): High intensity due
to irreversible habitat loss
Fish Habitat – Loss of fish habitat for ◼   Hi Likelihood: Certain [-] • Mitigation for water quality and geomorphology M
Loss and dam wall construction Extent: 95 ha (local) (for dam
Degradation and associated water infrastructure)
(Construction) quality degradation Duration: Permanent loss of
and sedimentation. fish habitat
Magnitude: High due to
irreversible impact although
localised habitat loss.
Fish Habitat and Loss and degradation  ◼  Hi Likelihood: Certain [-] • [M 49] A riparian buffer zone of 50 m around riparian habitats will be maintained to prevent erosion Hi
Community – of floodplain habitats Extent: 600ha of fish habitat and sedimentation, rehabilitation and alien plant control will be applied after construction to re-
Loss and with threatened and (local) (for reservoir) establish natural vegetation (EPC Contractor).
Degradation • Mitigation for water quality and geomorphology


Main construction
Reservoir filling
Duration
Operation
(Reservoir restricted range fish Duration: Permanent loss of • Note: Compensation for loss of aquatic habitat will be required to achieve net gain, as discussed in
Filling) species fish habitat and change in fish Section 7.5. However, this is not taken into consideration in scoring the residual impact.
community
Magnitude: High intensity due
to irreversible impact and
presence of critical habitat-
qualifying fish species
Fish Migration Dam wall as barrier to   ◼ Hi Likelihood: Certain [-] • [M 56] To facilitate fish migration and gene flow in order to avoid severe reduction of Critical Habitat, M
fish migration to Extent: Dam wall and 35 km of the dam will be equipped with a fish pass via the Kakono Stream with an attraction flow of 5-7 m3/s
access spawning sites reservoir will interfere with fish
and loss of gene flow migration between
(connectivity) downstream and upstream
reaches
Duration: Permanent fish
barrier
qualifying migratory fish
species
Fish Mortality Fish mortality in   ◼ M Likelihood: Likely [-] • [M 57] Viability of fish-friendly turbines such as Kaplan turbines with advanced Minimum Gap Runner M
turbines Extent: fish migrating technology will be investigated, and if feasible installed (EPC Contractor).
downstream to spawning sites
on floodplains or for
recruitment
Duration: Permanent
species
Fish Community Long term change in   ◼ Hi Likelihood: Highly likely [-] • Little mitigation is possible to prevent change in fish community in lotic environment. See alien fish Hi
in Reservoir fish community Extent: Reservoir 35 km or 17 control.
including impacts on km2 (local)
critical habitat Duration: Permanent
qualifying species Magnitude: High due to
(especially restricted presence of critical habitat-
range species) qualifying migratory and
restricted range fish species


Main construction
Reservoir filling
Duration
Operation
Alien Fish (Nile Invasion of reservoir   ◼ Hi Likelihood: Highly likely [-] • [M 58] An Alien Fish Policy and Management Plan will be developed and implemented in coordination Hi
perch) by Nile perch and Extent: fish migrating with the Tanzanian Fisheries Research Institute (TAFIRI), species to be addressed to include Nile Perch
predation/ competition downstream to spawning sites (TANESCO).
with indigenous fish on floodplains or for • Effective alien fish control is likely to be difficult.
recruitment
Duration: Permanent
species
Sediment Loss of downstream   ◼ Hi Likelihood: Highly likely [-] • [M 31] During Project operation, suspended sediment longitudinal transit through the reservoir will be M
trapping and fish habitat caused by Extent: Reservoir 35 km or enhanced by using a combination of sediment venting, sluicing and pressure flushing undertaken
bank erosion bank erosion 17 km2 every year during the high-flow period (TANESCO).
Duration: Long-term • [M 32] During Project operation, the flow rate and water temperature of the Kagera River waters
Magnitude: Moderate as fish upstream and downstream of the Kakono reservoir will be monitored continuously (TANESCO).
expected to shift prey items • [M 33] During Project operation, deposited sediment volumes and particle size, and suspended
and adapt to rate of bank sediment particle size in the Kakono reservoir will be monitored on an annual basis (TANESCO).
erosion / habitat loss • [M 34] During Project operation, the physical dimensions and sediment characteristics of the river
channel and floodplain will be monitored downstream of the dam, including a site near the Kagera
River Estuary, every two years (TANESCO).
• [M 35] During Project operation, the suspended sediment concentration and dissolved oxygen will be
monitored downstream of the dam during a week before, and a month after each venting or sluicing
event. The suspended sediment concentration will be monitored at the Kagera River Mouth using
satellite imagery. (TANESCO).
Downstream Decline in sediment   ◼ Hi Likelihood: Highly likely [-] • [M 31] During Project operation, suspended sediment longitudinal transit through the reservoir will be M
fish productivity and nutrient to Extent: 175 km to Kagera enhanced by using a combination of sediment venting, sluicing and pressure flushing undertaken
in Lower Kagera maintain fish Estuary (KBA and IBA) every year during the high-flow period (TANESCO).
River productivity including Duration: Long-term • [M 50] An Aquatic Biomonitoring Programme will be developed and implemented for the Kagera River
Kagera Estuary (KBA & Magnitude: High as 50% upstream and downstream of the Kakono HPP on an annual basis, starting at least one year prior to
Sango Bay IBA) reduction in suspended start of construction (TANESCO).
sediment including nutrients • [M 55] A fish monitoring programme will be undertaken in partnership with the Ugandan and
predicted Tanzanian Fisheries Departments in the Kagera River upstream and downstream of the proposed dam,
including Kagera Estuary, on a biannual basis. Monitoring will start at least one year prior to
Fisheries and Potential for increased   ◼ NK Likelihood: Highly likely [-] • [M 83] TAFIRI and the Missenyi District Fisheries Office will be engaged to conduct a Fisheries NK
Aquaculture fisheries in the Feasibility Study and if viable develop a Fisheries Management Plan, including L. victorianus breeding


Main construction
Reservoir filling
Duration
Operation
reservoir (requires Extent: Reservoir 35 km or 17 programme, management of Project-induced fishermen in-migration and Nile Perch control
further assessment) km2 (TANESCO).
Duration: Short-Medium
(depending on fishing intensity
and sustainable use)
Magnitude: Medium but
uncertain as depends on fish
productivity after filling of
reservoir

Vegetation and Loss, fragmentation ◼ ◼  Hi Likelihood: Certain [-] Limited effective mitigation for habitat loss. Minimisation measures include: M
Flora - dam and degradation of Extent: 2,124 ha natural • [M 37] Construction work site planning shall seek to minimise impacts on vegetation and an
construction & natural habitats and vegetated habitats (local to Environmental Compliance Officer with ecological experience will oversee site clearance and ensure
inundation flora for dam regional) (for dam construction control measures are implemented (EPC Contractor).
construction facilities and reservoir footprint) • [M 38] Construction site clearance activities will be implemented in a manner to minimise loss of
and quarries and Duration: Permanent loss of vegetation by restricting footprints of vegetation removal, stockpiling and vehicle access (EPC
inundation vegetation and flora during Contractor).
construction and filling phase. • [M 39] During construction, topsoil management will be implemented in accordance with a Topsoil
No threatened or range Management Plan that defines the location, storage, size/shape and protection measures for topsoil
restricted species. stockpiles (EPC Contractor).
irreversible habitat loss
Vegetation and Loss and degradation ◼ ◼  Hi Likelihood: Certain [-] • [M 40] A Terrestrial Alien Invasive Plant Management, Monitoring and Control Plan for the HPP and TL M
Flora - dam of natural habitat Extent: 2,124ha (local to construction activities will be developed and implemented (EPC Contractor).
construction & through establishment regional) • Biodiversity offset to compensate for loss of natural habitat (e.g. by investing in nearby protected
inundation and spread of invasive Duration: Permanent loss of areas) as discussed in Section 7.5. However, this is not taken into consideration in scoring the residual
alien plants vegetation and flora during impact.
construction and filling phase.
No threatened or range
restricted species.
Magnitude: High intensity due
to irreversible habitat loss
Vegetation and Loss of harvestable ◼ ◼  Lo Likelihood: Certain [-] • Limited effective mitigation available Lo
Flora - dam plant resources Extent: 2,124 ha (local to
construction & regional)
inundation


Main construction
Reservoir filling
Duration
Operation
Duration: Permanent loss of
vegetation and flora during
construction and filling phase.
Magnitude: Moderate as limited
community use currently,
although impact will cause
irreversible resource loss
Vegetation and Loss, fragmentation ◼  ◼ M Likelihood: Certain [-] • [M 54] A Terrestrial Alien Invasive Monitoring and Control Plan for the TL wayleave operation will be Lo
Flora – and degradation of Extent: 132 ha (localised within developed and implemented during at least the first two years of operation after which the
construction terrestrial habitats and 35 m wayleave for 38.5 km) (61 requirement will be re-evaluated.
and operation flora for TL ha natural and 71 ha modified) • [M 41] Terrestrial alien invasive plant management, monitoring and control measures will be
of TL construction Duration: Permanent and conducted along the TL wayleave and access routes during construction (EPC Contractor).
temporary loss of vegetation
and flora.
Magnitude: Moderate as some
clearance is partly reversible
Vegetation and Loss and degradation   ◼ M Likelihood: Certain [-] • [M 31] During Project operation, suspended sediment longitudinal transit through the reservoir will be Lo
Flora – run of of floodplain natural Extent: mostly impacting 20 km enhanced by using a combination of sediment venting, sluicing and pressure flushing undertaken
river operation habitats due to river reach downstream of dam every year during the high-flow period (TANESCO).
floodplain and Duration: Long-term
riverbank erosion incremental impact.
Magnitude: Moderate intensity
closer to dam, attenuating with
distance downstream.
Irreversible but occurs at slow
rate and may reach stable
state.
Terrestrial Fauna
Terrestrial Loss, fragmentation ◼ ◼  M Likelihood: Certain [-] • Limited effective mitigation for habitat loss M
Fauna – and degradation of Extent: 2,124 ha regional)
construction faunal habitats in dam Duration: Permanent loss of
and reservoir and reservoir area faunal habitat
filling Magnitude: High, irreversible
impact.
Terrestrial Loss of or disturbance ◼ ◼  M Likelihood: Likely [-] • [M 42] The Construction Traffic Management Plan will set speed limits (30 km/h on the dam and TL Lo
Fauna – to fauna due to Extent: Local, focussed in access roads and 20 km/h on other internal roads), and define speed control measures, tracking of
construction construction-related construction footprint near dam construction vehicles and penalties for non-compliance by staff (EPC Contractor).
activities


Main construction
Reservoir filling
Duration
Operation
and reservoir wall, quarries, camps and along • [M 43] Faunal protection measures will be implemented that will include snake rescue and
filling access road translocation, faunal escape measures, checks in open trenches, and wildlife awareness training of
Duration: Temporary, limited staff (EPC Contractor).
mostly to construction period. • [M 44] TAWIRI will be engaged to conduct surveys of large wildlife around the reservoir during filling to
Magnitude: Moderate, largely verify if large potentially dangerous animals (crocodile, hippo, elephant) are displaced and pose a risk
reversible impact. to communities, ranchers and KSC (TANESCO).
Terrestrial Barrier to Movement   ◼ M Likelihood: Likely [-] • [M 45] If found to be required, elephant control measures will be identified and implemented with Lo
Fauna – run-of- and Increase in Human Extent: Local-Regional input of TAWIRI on the right bank of reservoir to minimise elephant damage on community and
river operation - Wildlife conflict Duration: Long-term to irrigated agriculture. This could include consideration of the need for electric fencing (TANESCO).
permanent effect on fauna.
Magnitude: Moderate
Terrestrial Change in bird   ◼ Lo Likelihood: Likely [-] • No mitigation possible Lo

Fauna – run-of- community in reservoir Extent: 1718 ha (35 km length)
river operation Duration: Permanent.
Magnitude: Low intensity,
irreversible change in bird
community.
Terrestrial Loss of or disturbance   ◼ M Likelihood: Possible [-] • [M 46] Access to the dam site along the new access road will be restricted possibly by installing a Lo
Fauna – run-of- to fauna through in- Extent: Local (along access manned gate at the entrance from the tarred road between Kyaka and Karagwe (TANESCO).
river operation migration of people road and near dam site)
due to improved Duration: Long-term
access Magnitude: Low intensity,
potentially reversible
Terrestrial Loss and ◼  ◼ M Likelihood: Possible [-] Lo

Fauna – fragmentation of Extent: Local (along TL corridor)
construction faunal habitat in TL Duration: Long-term
and operation wayleave Magnitude: Low intensity,
of TL potentially reversible
Terrestrial Mortality of birds as a  ◼ ◼ Hi Likelihood: Likely [-] • [M 47] The TL design will include bird protection features on the entire TL to reduce risk of bird collision M
Fauna – result of collision with Extent: Regional-International and electrocution (EPC Contractor) - Spacing between diverters should be adjusted according to the
construction TLs or electrocution (may affect global threatened sensitivity of the area crossed by the TL
and operation migratory species) • [M 48] Twice yearly bird monitoring will be conducted along the transmission Line coinciding with
of TL Duration: Long-term - seasonal migration periods in November and March. Monitoring should be continued for the first two
Permanent years and if bird mortality is evident, then additional monitoring may need to be considered based on
the recommendations of the ornithologist (TANESCO).


Main construction
Reservoir filling
Duration
Operation
Magnitude: Moderate-High
intensity (if globally threatened
species impacted), irreversible
Critical habitat Physical presence of  ◼ ◼ Hi Likelihood: Certain [-] • [M 56] To facilitate fish migration and gene flow in order to avoid severe reduction of Critical Habitat, M
14 threatened, the dam representing Extent: Dam wall and 35 km of the dam will be equipped with a fish pass via the Kakono Stream with an attraction flow of 5-7 m3/s.
restricted range a barrier to fish reservoir will interfere with fish Bank stabilisation and erosion protection measures will be required (TANESCO).
and migratory migration and access migration between • [M 15] Vegetation from the reservoir footprint (excluding floodplain papyrus) will be removed prior to
fish species to spawning sites and downstream and upstream reservoir filling to reduce lowering of dissolved oxygen levels and reduce reservoir GHG emissions (EPC
loss of gene flow reaches Contractor).
(connectivity). Duration: Permanent fish • [M 51] An Aquatic Alien Invasive Plant Management and Monitoring Plan will be developed and
Fish species can also barrier implemented to minimise the potential emergence of bilharzia, maintain access to fish pass inlet
be impacted by Magnitude: High due to improve water quality and limit impact on fish diversity and abundance (TANESCO).
alteration to water presence of critical habitat- • [M 58] An Alien Fish Policy and Management Plan will be developed and implemented in coordination
quality and lowering of qualifying migratory and with the Tanzanian Fisheries Research Institute (TAFIRI), species to be addressed to include Nile Perch
DO levels and trapping restricted range fish species (TANESCO).
of sediment in the
reservoir • [M 31] During Project operation, suspended sediment longitudinal transit through the reservoir will be
enhanced by using a combination of sediment venting, sluicing and pressure flushing undertaken
every year during the high-flow period (TANESCO).
• [M 61] the Project will be discussed and agreed at a transboundary level prior to decision-making so
that the relevant stakeholders in Uganda and Tanzania are aware of the downstream impact on
sediment and nutrient contributions to the lower Kagera River and Kagera Estuary on Lake Victoria and
the barrier to upstream fish migration, and the key importance of effectively implementing the
proposed mitigation and monitoring measures to avoid significant adverse effects on the lower Kagera
river and estuary and are in agreement that these risks are acceptable.
• Monitor sediment, water quality, macroinvertebrate and fish starting prior to construction and
continuing through operation at sites between the Kakono Reservoir and the Kagera Estuary under an
integrated monitoring programme and implement adaptive management as required.
Social
Land acquisition Land is required for the ◼   Hi Likelihood: Certain [-] • [M 62] A topography survey of the reservoir will be undertaken and the FSL reservoir footprint M
& Restriction on construction of Extent: 1,862 ha physically demarcated (EPC Contractor).
Land Use permanent and Duration: prior to the start of • [M 63] The 2018 Valuation Report will be updated. The census of affected persons will be updated
temporary facilities. construction including an update of the inventory and valuation of affected assets and land plots and taking into
Magnitude: medium consideration the Lenders requirements as defined in the 2022 RAP (TANESCO).


Main construction
Reservoir filling
Duration
Operation
• [M 65] Compensation will be paid before the start of construction, and resettlement assistance and
livelihood restoration will be provided to affected persons (TANESCO).
• [M 66] Develop and implement a GRM to resolve all grievances related to land acquisition and
restriction of land use (TANESCO).
• [M 68] External monitoring of RAP implementation carried out for 3 years following payment of
compensations (Independent RAP Consultant).
Risks to The erosion of   ◼ Lo Likelihood: Certain [-] • [M 69] Agricultural enhancement initiatives (knowledge and awareness) through existing NGOs or Lo
Agricultural riverbanks Extent: Downstream of the institutions aiming at reducing farmers dependencies on flood recession farming and rainfed
Land due to downstream from the dam agriculture will be supported by the Project (TANESCO).
Bank Erosion dam is caused by a Duration: throughout the • [M 70] Effectiveness of agricultural enhancement initiatives proposed to flood recession farmers will
reduced sediment project life be monitored twice yearly (TANESCO).
loading in the river Magnitude: minor
resulting from the
trapping of sediment in
the reservoir, leading
to, riverbed and
riverbank erosion.
Project-Induced During construction, ◼   M Likelihood: Certain [-] • [M 71] An Influx Management Strategy will be developed for construction (local recruitment, Lo
Migration the project-induced in- Extent: in the villages located accommodation, transportation, community health) and operation (community health, planning the
migration involves the near the construction site construction of public amenities, community consultation mechanism, reservoir fisheries
movement of people Duration: during the management). (TANESCO).
into an area in construction period • [M 73] Human Resource and Labour Management Principles for the construction workforce will be
response to economic Magnitude: medium (2,000- developed in alignment with national and Lenders’ Policies. The documentation will be available in
opportunities. 3,000 persons) English and Ki-Swahili (EPC Contractor).
• [M 74] The Human Resource Policy and Labour Management Principles for the construction workforce
will clearly state that there will be no forced labour and child labour (EPC Contractor).
• [M 75] The Local Recruitment Policy for the construction workforce will be widely communicated (EPC
Contractor).
• [M 76] Recruitment of local people for the construction will be maximised, with a target of 100% of
unskilled workers to be local people (EPC Contractor).
• [M 78] The Project will coordinate with district authorities with regard to the development and
implementation of urban/spatial plans for existing and new settlements affected by the Project-
induced influx (TANESCO).


Main construction
Reservoir filling
Duration
Operation
• [M 81] Monitoring of the implementation of the Influx Management Strategy actions by the EPC
• [M 72] Community investment initiatives in education, economic and social needs in the lower Kagera
valley between Businde and Kyaka (e.g. rehabilitation or construction of schools, rural electrification
roads) (TANESCO).
• [M 77] Support to vocational training centres during construction to increase local employment
potential for the operation phase (TANESCO).
• [M 82] Audit of EPC Contractors labour management, human resources, working conditions and
supply chain will be conducted by an independent organisation (TANESCO).
• [M 127] Construction workers will be briefed on culturally appropriate behaviour for interacting with
local populations to minimize disturbing communities or giving offence to local population when
workers are off camp in urban centres (EPC Contractor).
• [M 128] The Project will coordinate with the local police on matters related to safety risks related to
Project-induced in-migration (EPC Contractor).
During operation,   ◼ M Likelihood: Possible [-] • [M 83] TAFIRI and the Missenyi District Fisheries Office will be engaged to conduct a Fisheries Lo
fishers may be Extent: in the villages located Feasibility Study and if viable develop a Fisheries Management Plan, including L. victorianus breeding
attracted to the near the reservoir programme, management of Project-induced fishermen in-migration and Nile Perch control
reservoir to develop Duration: during the operation (TANESCO).
fisheries Magnitude: moderate • [M 84] Missenyi District Fisheries Office will be engaged to monitor the implementation of the Fishery
Management Plan (TANESCO).
Community Noise dust and ◼   M Likelihood: Possible [-] • [M 85] Construction Traffic Management Plan(s) for dam and TL construction works will be developed Lo
Health vibration from Project Extent: in the villages located and implemented, the plan(s) will provide information on public roads used by the Project, will be
traffic during near the construction site publicly disclosed and provided to local community leaders (EPC Contractor).
construction Duration: during the • [M 42] The Construction Traffic Management Plan will set speed limits (30 km/h on the dam and TL
construction period access roads and 20 km/h on other internal roads), and define speed control measures, tracking of
Magnitude: low construction vehicles and penalties for non-compliance by staff (EPC Contractor).
• [M 86] Project construction activities and road use will comply with Tanzanian legislation, WHO and IFC
guidelines for noise and air quality (EPC Contractor).
Community Adverse impacts on ◼   M Likelihood: Possible [-] • [M 87] Construction facilities, worksites and new access tracks (other than TL towers) shall be <200m Lo
Health (cont.) community health due Extent: in the villages located from residential areas, wherever feasible (EPC Contractor).
noise, dust and near the construction site • [M 88] Construction activities shall comply with the General Tolerance Limits for Environmental Noise
vibration at Duration: during the in Tanzania (EPC Contractor).
construction sites construction period • [M 89] Noise-intensive works such as piling, demolition, metalworking, and blasting (in quarries) will
Magnitude: low not be undertaken at night (EPC Contractor).


Main construction
Reservoir filling
Duration
Operation
construction and where required will establish the need to alter the construction methods and
determine if additional protection measures are needed (TANESCO).
• [M 97] Implementation of the Community Health Management measures by the EPC Contractor during
construction will be monitored (TANESCO).
Community exposure ◼   M Likelihood: Possible [-] • [M 91] Development and implementation of a Community Health and Safety Plan for the construction Lo
to communicable Extent: in the villages located phase (EPC Contractor).
diseases during near the construction site • [M 92] Assistance to local authorities to prepare an action plan to protect and fight against HIV/AIDS,
construction related to Duration: during the Covid-19 and other STDs at a District and ward scale will be provided (TANESCO).
Project-induced influx construction period • [M 93] The Project will coordinate with local authorities to conduct preventive health campaigns
Magnitude: low regarding communicable diseases (TANESCO).
• [M 94] Support to existing health centres will be provided through support to health governmental
agencies as implementing body: infrastructure, staffing, essential medicine, waterborne and
communicable disease prevention actions for construction and operation phases. In the event of
disease outbreak, assistance to impacted health centres to obtain access to appropriate medication
will be provided (TANESCO).
Community Project impact on ◼   M Likelihood: Possible [-] • [M 13] Construction site pollution prevention and protection plans, and measures will be developed Lo
Health (cont.) water availability and Extent: 10-20 km downstream and implemented for the dam and TL worksites (EPC Contractor).
quality of water from proposed dam • [M 95] If wells or springs used by a household are affected by the Project, an alternative source of
resources Duration: construction period household potable water will be provided (EPC Contractor).
Magnitude: medium
Risk of increased   ◼ M Likelihood: Possible [-] • [M 98] Public health awareness campaigns for communities near the reservoir will be conducted in Lo
prevalence of Extent: near the reservoir and collaboration with the local health centres, and will address issues of behavioural change, transmission
waterborne diseases close to the TL modes and prevention measures for malaria and schistosomiasis (TANESCO).
because of the Duration: throughout the • [M 52] Bilharzia awareness sessions will be organised for workers and local communities and bilharzia
physical presence of project life management measures implemented (TANESCO).
the reservoir Magnitude: medium • [M 99] Bilharzia information signs will be installed at key locations near the reservoir to inform people
of danger, with message(s) that should be customized to be most effective and understood by the
population (TANESCO).
• [M 100] Malaria home packs containing mosquito nets will be distributed to each community living
close to the reservoir in collaboration with the local health centres (TANESCO).
• [M 101] Support to health centres to access appropriate medication in case of increased prevalence of
malaria and schistosomiasis (bilharzia ) will be provided (TANESCO).
• [M 104] The evolution of the prevalence of malaria and schistosomiasis will be monitored on a
monthly basis by consulting the records at local health centres located in the communities near the
reservoir (TANESCO).


Main construction
Reservoir filling
Duration
Operation
• [M 105] Monthly monitoring of the presence and number of snails (genera Bulinus and Biomphalaria)
carrying schistosomiasis in slackwaters in the Kakono reservoir and slackwaters of the Kagera River 10
km downstream from the proposed dam will be conducted. The frequency of monitoring can be
reduced to twice yearly after 1 year in the absence of snails carrying schistosomiasis (TANESCO).
Risk of EMF and corona   ◼ M Likelihood: Possible [-] • [M 102] The TL will be designed to comply with WHO and Tanzanian General Tolerance Limits for Lo
noise from TL Extent: communities close to Environmental Noise during operation (EPC Contractor).
operation the TL • [M 103] The Project will seek to resolve grievance related to corona noise from operation of the TL and
Duration: during construction where required will established appropriate measures (TANESCO).
period • [M 106] Regular monitoring/patrolling of the TL wayleave to check on the absence of structures, and
Magnitude: moderate awareness raising in communities with regards to TL land use restrictions and risks of infringing
restrictions (TANESCO).
• [M 107] Local authorities will be engaged regularly to check that no building permits are issued nor
spontaneous informal settlements are developing in the TL wayleave (TANESCO).
• [M 108] The TL will be designed to comply with ICNIRP guidelines with regard to EMF exposure (EPC
Contractor).
Impairment of The reservoir filling  ◼  Hi Likelihood: Certain [-] • [M 1] The Kagera River flow continuity will be maintained at any time during the construction period, Lo
Sugar Cane could prevent irrigation Extent: all the KSC pumping including for the reservoir filling period. The river flow immediately downstream of the dam site should
Production and of sugar cane fields station location upstream and never be lower than the minimum flow regime specified in the 2022 ESIA or than the reservoir inflow.
Irrigation and impact KSC’s downstream of the dam • [M 2] Should the Project needs to reduce the time needed for the reservoir filling, an agreement with
production. Duration: during construction operators of irrigated sugar cane plantations will be required s to minimise impairment of irrigation for
period sugar cane fields. Whatever is the agreement with operators of irrigated sugar cane plantations at that
Magnitude: major time, the minimum flow downstream of the dam should not be lower than either the flows indicated in
the 2022 ESIA below or than the reservoir inflow.
The KSC pumping   ◼ Hi Likelihood: Possible [-] • See mitigations measures presented in section 7.3.3.2C. Lo
stations’ foundations Extent: all the KSC pumping • [M 109] Coordination with operators of irrigated sugar cane plantations for (i) reservoir filling (and
could be destabilised station location downstream of impact on upstream pumping station and downstream minimum flow), (ii) long-term riverbank erosion
by erosion as they are the dam downstream from the proposed dam and protection of pumping stations, (iii) elephant management
adjacent to the Kagera Duration: throughout the (TANESCO)
river. project life
Magnitude: major
Community Safety risks related to ◼ ◼  Hi Likelihood: Possible [-] • [M 120] A Hazardous Substances Management Plan for the construction phase will be developed and M
Safety Project construction Extent: near the dam and TL implemented (EPC Contractor)
worksites, and Duration: during construction • [M 121] Construction site layout will adopt appropriate safety distances between onsite areas for
period storage and handling of hazardous substances and offsite residential areas (EPC Contractor).


Main construction
Reservoir filling
Duration
Operation
hazardous materials Magnitude: major • [M 122] Construction worksites will be fenced, access controlled, and entry permitted only to
stored and handled authorised personnel who have received health and safety training/induction (EPC Contractor).
• [M 123] Communities will be informed of the start of any construction activities at least one week in
advance (EPC Contractor).
• [M 124] Warning signs and (barbed wire) barriers will be installed to prevent people climbing onto TL
towers (EPC Contractor).
people approaching potentially dangerous equipment and to inform local people of access restrictions
(EPC Contractor).
• [M 126] Regular community meetings on safety and construction hazards will be organised during the
construction works (EPC Contractor).
Community Risks of traffic accident ◼ ◼  Hi Likelihood: Possible [-] • [M 85] Construction Traffic Management Plan(s) for dam and TL construction works will be developed M
Safety related to Project- Extent: communities near roads and implemented, the plan(s) will provide information on public roads used by the Project, will be
traffic during used by the Project publicly disclosed and provided to local community leaders (EPC Contractor).
construction Duration: during construction • [M 42] The Construction Traffic Management Plan will set speed limits (30 km/h on the dam and TL
period access roads and 20 km/h on other internal roads), and define speed control measures, tracking of
Magnitude: major construction vehicles and penalties for non-compliance by staff (EPC Contractor).
• [M 111] The Project will involve local authorities and neighbouring communities when planning timing
exceptional convoys (EPC Contractor).
• [M 112] Local authorities and communities will be informed in advance of the arrival of exceptional
convoys (EPC Contractor).
• [M 113] Construction vehicle drivers and equipment operators will be provided with training on safe
driving (EPC Contractor).
• [M 114] Awareness campaigns will be organised with local communities, including school children, to
ensure they are aware of construction traffic related risks (EPC Contractor).
• [M 115] The Project will maximise the use of existing roads and tracks, vehicles used for construction
activities will use already existing roads and corridors as far as possible (EPC Contractor).
• [M 116] No project-related traffic will be authorised in residential areas between 20:00- 08:00, except
for rare occasions such as exceptional convoys that may travel at night to avoid local traffic, and only
after TANESCO approval (EPC Contractor).
• [M 117] The Project will put in place specific road safety measures in sensitive areas, such as schools
or cattle grazing grounds, including additional signs, speed-humps or speed bumps and flagmen if
necessary (EPC Contractor).
• [M 118] Communities affected by Project-traffic will be engaged with regard to Project-related traffic
schedules and activities (EPC Contractor).
• [M 119] Grievances from communities regarding Project construction traffic will be managed through
the GRM (Supervised by TANESCO for EPC contractor to comply with).


Main construction
Reservoir filling
Duration
Operation
Community Electrical hazards   ◼ Hi Likelihood: Possible [-] • [M 124] Warning signs and (barbed wire) barriers will be installed to prevent people climbing onto TL Lo
Safety represented by the TL Extent: close to the TL towers (EPC Contractor).
during operation Duration: throughout the • [M 125] Education/public outreach will be organised in the neighbouring communities to prevent
project life people approaching potentially dangerous equipment and to inform local people of access restrictions
Magnitude: major (EPC Contractor).
Dam break,   ◼ Hi Likelihood: Possible [-] • [M 131] An Independent Panel of Experts for dam safety will be appointed. The panel will be required Lo
uncontrolled release Extent: downstream from the to review the design and all aspects of the work, including flood hydrology, hydraulics, seismology,
and emergency dam geology, concrete technology and turbines designed to operate in sediment laden water (TANESCO).
release of reservoir Duration: throughout the • [M 132] A dam break risk assessment will be undertaken in alignment with the approach
water project life recommended by the International Commission on Large Dams (ICOLD). Risk reduction measures will
Magnitude: major be integrated into the design to ensure that the overall risk of dam break is tolerable as per ICOLD risk
acceptability criteria. (EPC Contractor).
• [M 133] An Emergency Response Plan including a dam failure or gate failure/malfunction will be
prepared and include flood modelling of the worst-case scenario. (EPC Contractor).
• [M 134] A comprehensive Dam Safety and Operation Manual will be developed and maintained. The
manual will meet the World Bank’s Dam Safety Policy concerning the design, construction, operation
and maintenance of the Project and downstream users (EPC contractor).
• [M 136] Dam inspection and maintenance procedures will be developed and implemented to ensure
the integrity of the Project structures and equipment as per ICOLD guidelines. (EPC Contractor for
procedure development, TANESCO for implementation during operation).
Risk of drowning  ◼  Hi Likelihood: Possible [-] • [M 110] Access to the Kagera river within the reservoir footprint will be forbidden during the reservoir M
Extent: communities near the impoundment. Warning signs will be placed in all KSC camps and villages located close to the reservoir
reservoir and river downstream (EPC Contractor).
from the proposed dam • [M 62] A topography survey of the reservoir will be undertaken and the FSL reservoir footprint
Duration: throughout the physically demarcated (EPC Contractor).
project life
Magnitude: major
During operation of   ◼ Hi Likelihood: Possible [-] • [M 129] Prior to undertaking planned activities that result in rapid change in downstream water levels, M
there may be short Extent: near the dam, the the local population will be informed at least one week in advance and advised to keep away from the
periods when flows are reservoir river (TANESCO).
modified, with rapid Duration: throughout the • [M 130] Strict operating rules will be developed for the operation and testing of the proposed dam’s
increase in flow rate, project life bottom outlet (EPC for procedure development, TANESCO for implementation during operation).
and potentially people Magnitude: major • [M 135] A 5-year reservoir shore erosion line will be estimated in areas adjacent to the identified
conducting activities structures located in the proposed reservoir, and the resulting incremental increase in land take for
near the riverbank may Mugaba and Bugara villages will be managed through the GRM (TANESCO).
be taken by surprise
and there is a risk that
drowning could


Main construction
Reservoir filling
Duration
Operation
happen. There is a risk
that slopes around the
proposed reservoir
become unstable over
time and could be
potentially dangerous
for the local residents.
Fisheries Dam construction and ◼ ◼  Lo Likelihood: Possible [-] • [M 110] Access to the Kagera river within the reservoir footprint will be forbidden during the reservoir Lo
operation will cause a Extent: Upstream and impoundment. Warning signs will be placed in all KSC camps and villages located close to the reservoir
permanent loss of fish downstream of the dam (EPC Contractor).
habitats that may Duration: During construction • [M 137] The project will monitor the fisheries activities downstream of the dam, to confirm the
reduce fish abundance, period predictions of the 2022 ESIA or undertake corrective measures if a change against the baseline is
hence fisheries. The Magnitude: minor detected and is caused by the project operation.
construction of the
dam will also prevent
fishers from accessing
fishing grounds
upstream of the dam
for safety reasons,
especially during the
reservoir
impoundment.
Reduced fish stock   ◼ Lo Likelihood: Possible [-] • See measures for fish impact management Lo
caused by dam impact Extent: Upstream and
on fish migration - loss downstream of the dam
of income for local Duration: throughout the
fishers. project life
Magnitude: minor
Cultural The Project will directly ◼ ◼  M Likelihood: Certain/possible [-] • [M 138] When preparing the new Valuation Report, interviews will be performed with affected persons Lo
Heritage impact the 7 graves Extent: Under the TL and at the and local residents to reassess the costs for grave reinstatement, including transportation and
located in the TL reservoir footprint reinterment, as well as all rites or ceremonies costs (TANESCO).
wayleave. The project Duration: during construction • [M 139] The management of Project affected graves will take into account peoples’ beliefs and
area has a possible period traditions, any re-interment is to be in a place approved by the deceased person’s family (TANESCO).
archaeological Magnitude: moderate • [M 140] Prior to the start of construction works, each community affected by the Project will be
potential and engaged to confirm cultural heritage elements of local value and establish where if and where any
underground heritage modifications to Project design are required (TANESCO).
resources could be
drown during the • [M 141] Awareness sessions will be organised for construction works to inform them of the sensitivity
reservoir filling. of archaeological artifacts (EPC Contractor).


Main construction
Reservoir filling
Duration
Operation
Additionally, one • [M 142] A Chance find procedure compliant with the Antiquities Act of 1964 will be developed and
sacrifice site will be implemented (EPC Contractor).
impacted by the • [M 143] If an artefact of national or international significance is discovered, the EPC Contractor report
reservoir it immediately to TANESCO who in turn will notify the Division of Antiquities and the responsible local
impoundment. authorities (EPC Contractor and TANESCO).
• [M 144] A Workers’ Code of Conduct will be developed for the construction workforce and will include
measures regarding respect for the beliefs and customs of the populations and community relations in
general, and specific responsibilities related to any cultural heritage encountered during construction
(EPC Contractor).
• [M 145] The Workers’ Code of Conduct for the construction workforce will include strict “no alcohol or
drugs” and no gambling policy at all times (EPC Contractor).
• [M 146] Appropriate rites or ceremonies to relocate sacrifice sites will be discussed with the affected
communities (TANSECO).
Visual Amenity During construction, ◼ ◼  M Likelihood: Certain [-] • - M
the main impacts that Extent: the area inside Kyaka
could occur will be village and the
caused by change of Kitengule/Missenyi land.
landscape due to the Duration: during construction
construction of new period
elements. Magnitude: moderate
It will change key
characteristics of the
area and the nature of
the views experienced
by people who live
within in it, visit it or
travel through it.
Physical presence of   ◼ M Likelihood: Certain [-] • [M 149] Areas disturbed during the construction phase will be restored to their pre-project state (EPC M
dam, TL and the new Extent: the area inside Kyaka Contractor).
access road will cause village and the • [M 150] Landscape planning will be conducted for new permanent structures (EPC Contractor).
visual amenity and Kitengule/Missenyi land.
change the character Duration: throughout the
of the zone of visual project life
influence. Magnitude: moderate
Climate Change Risks
Project Climate change and   ◼ M Likelihood: Probable [-] • [M 151] Use a long-term hydrological model to predict future river flow prediction - establishment of a Lo
infrastructure alteration to Kagera Extent: project facilities rainfall/runoff modelling tool to assess future daily flows based on future climate scenarios
river flow regime and (temperature, precipitation) and with fine-graded mesh size adapted to the Kagera catchment. Use the


Main construction
Reservoir filling
Duration
Operation
intensity and Duration: throughout the findings of the model to as part of a decision-making to process for including the proposed structural
frequency of flood project life and operational climate resilience measures in the detailed project design and planning (EPC
events Magnitude: moderate Contractor).
Cumulative Impact
Water quality Incremental increase in ◼  ◼ M Likelihood: Probable [-] • The Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts are managed through the control and mitigation Lo
Fish and fish impacts because of Extent: variable depending on measures for Project impacts assessed elsewhere in this assessment and no additional specific control
habitats spatial and temporal receptor and mitigation measures have been identified.
Terrestrial overlap with impacts Duration: throughout the
habitat and from KSC estate, project life
wildlife increased Magnitude: moderate
Communities demographics in the
upstream watershed,
deforestation in the
upstream watershed,
climate change,
upstream HPPs and
other TL projects
Transboundary Impacts
Fish population Physical presence of   ◼ M Likelihood: Probable [-] The Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts are managed through the control and mitigation Lo
in the Akagera the dam acting as a Extent: Kagera river upstream measures for Project impacts assessed elsewhere in this assessment. However, additional specific
swamps barrier for ecological from the proposed dam to the control and mitigation measures are:
(Rwanda) continuity and trapping Akagera swamps and
Fish population sediment reducing downstream to Lake Victoria
and sediment transport Duration: throughout the
sediment/nutrie downstream project life
nts in Lake Magnitude: moderate
Victoria
(Uganda)

Summary of Impacts by Community
Community Component Potential Impacts during construction Potential Impacts during reservoir filling and operation
Businde Reservoir • Land take process: • Hydrology:

> Loss of 137.6 ha of communal land > Change in upstream hydrology: conversion of free-flowing river into a reservoir.
> No loss of individual land plots > Alteration of water quality (increased nutrient levels and reduced dissolved oxygen levels) due to reservoir filling. Will last for ~30
years.
• Fisheries:
> Invasion of reservoir by Nile perch and predation/ competition with indigenous fish
> Potential for increased fisheries in the reservoir
• Wildlife conflicts:
> Increase in Human - Elephant conflict due to combined effect of reduced habitat, crossable reservoir, easier access to banks, and
attraction by sugar cane plantations
> Hippos and crocodiles in the future reservoir
• Risk of Project-Induced in-migration from fishers due to proximity to the reservoir
Bugara Reservoir • Land take process: • Hydrology:
> 3 households affected by loss of > Alteration of water quality (increased nutrient levels and reduced dissolved oxygen levels) due to reservoir filling. Will last for ~30
individual land plots years.
• Risk of Project-Induced in-migration due to • Fisheries:
proximity to reservoir and dam site > Invasion of reservoir by Nile perch and predation/ competition with indigenous fish
• Community Health & Safety:
> Risk of Project-Induced in-migration from fishers due to proximity to the reservoir
> Risk of increased prevalence of waterborne diseases because of the reservoir
Mugaba Reservoir • Land take process: • Hydrology:
> 3 households affected by loss of > Alteration of water quality (increased nutrient levels and reduced dissolved oxygen levels) due to reservoir filling. Will last for ~30
individual land plots years.
• Risk of Project-Induced in-migration due to • Fisheries:
proximity to reservoir and dam site > Invasion of reservoir by Nile perch and predation/ competition with indigenous fish

Community Component Potential Impacts during construction Potential Impacts during reservoir filling and operation
Mushabaiguru Reservoir • Land take process: • Hydrology:

> No loss of communal land > Change in upstream hydrology: conversion of free-flowing river into a reservoir.
> No loss of individual land plots > Alteration of water quality (increased nutrient levels and reduced dissolved oxygen levels) due to reservoir filling. Will last for ~30
• Risk of Project-Induced in-migration due to years.
proximity to reservoir and dam site • Fisheries:
> Invasion of reservoir by Nile perch and predation/ competition with indigenous fish
Kyaka Transmission • Land take process: • Hydrology
Line and > Loss of 0.74 ha of communal land > Reduction of downstream river flow for reservoir filling - One event of several weeks’ duration.
Downstream > 79 households affected by loss of > Variation of downstream river flow downstream of the dam during sediment management ~ several days. Frequency yet to be
River reach individual land plots determined (once every 1, 2, 5 or 10 years).
• Risk of Project-Induced in-migration due to > Alteration of downstream river water quality due to reservoir water quality alteration. Will last several years.
proximity with Transmission Line corridor • River Geomorphology
and access road to Dam site > Long-term and progressive erosion of the bed, banks and floodplain due to sediment trapping by the reservoir.
• Fisheries:
> Decline of downstream fish productivity in first years of operation due to river water quality degradation and barrier to fish migration
• Community Health& Safety:
> Moderated risk of EMF and corona noise from TL operation
Omundongo Downstream • Land take process: • Hydrology
River reach > No loss of communal land > Reduction of downstream river flow for reservoir filling - One event of several weeks’ duration.
> No loss of individual land plots > Variation of downstream river flow downstream of the dam during sediment management ~ several days. Frequency yet to be
determined (once every 1, 2, 5 or 10 years).
> Alteration of downstream river water quality due to reservoir water quality alteration. Will last several years.
• River Geomorphology
> Long-term and progressive erosion of the bed, banks and floodplain due to sediment trapping by the reservoir.
• Fisheries:
> Decline of downstream fish productivity in first years of operation due to river water quality degradation and barrier to fish migration.

ANNEXES


Abdelsalam, A., & Ismail, U. (2008). Sediment in the Nile River system. UNESCO.
Albright, T. P. (2004). The rise and fall of water hyacinth in Lake Victoria and Kagera River Basin, 1989-2001. J. Aquat. Plant
manage.(42), 73-78.
Allen, R. P. (2000). Crop evopotranspiration: guidelines for comuting crop water requirements. (FAO, Ed.) Irrigation and
Drainage Paper(56).
Assen, M. &. (2010). Characteristics and Classification of the Soils of Gonde Micro-Catchment, Arsi Highland, Ethiopia.
Ethiapia Journal of of Science.
Assess Consulting. (2018). Environmentl Impct Assesment for the Porposed Kitengule SugarCane Plantation.
Aurecon. (2012). Development of a Basin-wide IWRM-based Development Plan for the Kagera Basin. Diagnostic Report.
Final.
Beck, J., & Basson, G. (2002). Downstream Geomorphological River Impacts and Design of Managed Environmental Flood
Releases. Pretoria: Water Research Commission.
Bernacsek. (1997a). Reservoir: a boon or a curse to fishery ? . Meking Fish Catch and Culture, 1-3.
Brandt, S. (2000). Classification of geomorphological effects downstream of dams. Catena, 375–401.
BRL. (2008). Kagera River Basin Monograph - Basin Development Report.
Brune, G. (1953). Trap Efficiency of Reservoirs. Transactions of American Geophysical Union, 407 - 418.
Chapman, D. (1996). Water Quality Assessments - A Guide to Use of Biota, Sediments and Water in Environmental Monitoring
- Socond Edition. UNESCO, WHO, UNEP.
Chien, N. (1985). Changes in River Regime after the Construction of Upstream Reservoirs. Earth Surface Processes and
Landforms, 143-159.
Church, M. (2006). Bed Material Transport and the Morphology of Alluvial River Channels. Annual Review of Earth and
Planetary Science, 325–354.
Dersseh, M. G. (2019). Chapter 19 - Water hyacinth: review of its impacts on hydrology and ecosystem services - lessons
for manament of Lake Tana. In W. A. Edited by Assefa M. Melessse, Extreme Hydrology and Climate Variability,
monitoring, modelling, adaption and mitigation, (pp. 237-251). Elsevier.
EirGrid. (2016). EirGrid Evidence Based Environmental Studies Study 8: Noise.
Eizel-Din, M., Bui, M., Rutschmann, P., Failer, E., Grass, C., Kramer, K., . . . Saghayroon-Elzein, A. (2010). Trap efficiency of
reservoirs on the Nile River. River Flow, 1111-1118.
FAO. (2021, 03 24). AQUASTAT Climate Information Tool. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/aquastat/en/climate-info-
tool/
FAO. (n.d.). Land Use and its Effects on Biodiversity in the Kagera River Basin.
Fearnside, P. (1995). Hydroelectric Dams in the Brazilian Amazon as Sources of Greenhouse Gases. Environmental
Conservation v.22(1), pp. 7-19.
Fichtner. (2016). Kikagati Hydropower Plant - Report on Technical Review and Update of Project - Feasibility Study - For
Berkely Energy - Uganda.
Fruchart, F., & Camenen, B. (2012). Reservoir Sedimentation and Different Types of Flushing - Friendly Flushing and the
Example of Genissiat Dam Flushing. International Symposium for Dams for a Changing World. Kyoto: CIGB-ICOLD.
Global Water Partnership. (2021, 03 23). Global Water Partnership. Retrieved from Global Water Partnership:
www.gwp.org
Gorham, E. &. (1989). Influence of lake surface area and depth upon thermal stratification and the depth of the summer
thermocline. Journal of Great Lakes Research 15, 233-245.
Hagai, M. (2019). An Investigation of Kagera River Basin Land Cover Dynamics for Sustainability of Lake Victoria Water
Regime. Journal of Sustainable Development, 12(4), 166-176. doi:https://doi.org/10.5539/jsd.v12n4p166

IAHS. (1999). The Hydrology of the Nile. J.V. Sutcliffe, Y.P. Parks. The International Association of Hydrological Sciences 1999.
IAHS Special Publication n°5.
ICNIRP. (1998). GUIDELINES FOR LIMITING EXPOSURE TO TIME-VARYING ELECTRIC, MAGNETIC, AND ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS
(UP TO 300 GHz).
IFC. (2009). Projects and People: A Handbook for Addressing Project-Induced In-Migration.
IFC. (2013). Good practice handbook on cumultive impact assesement and management for the private sector in emerging
markets.
IFC. (2018a). Good Practice Note - Environmental, Health and Safety Approaches for Hydropower Projects. March.
Emerging Markets.
IHA, I. H. (2019). Hydropower sector Climate Resilience Guide. London: IHA Limited.
IPCC. (2021, 02 23). IPCC/Reports. Retrieved from IPCC: https://www.ipcc.ch/reports/
IPPC. (2006). Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories - Chapter 4: Forest Land.
Jha R., O. C. (2001). Refinement of predictive rearatation equations for a typical river in India. Hydrological Processess
(15(6), 1047-1060.
Kohli, A. F. (2015). Evaporation from artificial lakes and reservoirs, AQUASTAT Programme. FAO.
Kondolf, G. M., Gao, Y., Annandale, G. W., Morris, G. L., Jiang, E., Zhang, J., . . . Wei. (2014). Sustainable sediment
management in reservoirs and regulated rivers: Experiences from five continents. Earth's Future, 256-280.
Lane, E. (1955). The importance of fluvial morphology in river hydraulic engineering. Am. Soc. Civil Eng. Proc., 1-17.
Lassailly-Jacob. (1983). Grands barrages africains et prise en compte des populations locales. Espace géographique.
LVEMP. (2005). Lake Victoria Environment Management Project (LVEMP) Water Quality and Ecosystem Status - Lake Victoria
Regional Water Quality Synthesis Report.
Mazigo, & all. (2012). Parasites & Vectors.
Mekonnen, K. (2021, 02 01). Tree species screened on the highland Nitisol areas of Holetta Ethiopia Biomass production
nutrient contents and effect on soil nitrogen. Retrieved from ResearchGate:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/37756740_VI_Tree_species_screened_on_the_highland_Nitisol_ar
eas_of_Holetta_Ethiopia_Biomass_production_nutrient_contents_and_effect_on_soil_nitrogen_Weitere_Onli
ne_EditionenEVALUATION_OF_SELECTED_INDIGENOUS_AN
Melching, C. a. (1999). Reaeration equations derived from US geological survey database. Journal of Environmental
Engineering. 125(5) , 407-414.
Meyer-Peter, E., & Müller, R. (1948). Formula for bed-load transport. Proc. 2nd IAHR Congress (pp. 39-64). Stockholm:
IAHR.
MHYD. (2021). Climate Resilience Stduy for the Kakono Hydropower Project ESIA.
Mironga, J. M. (2012, April). Effects of water hyacinth infestation on the physicochemical characteristics of Lake Naivasha.
International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 2(7).
Missenyi District. (2018, March). Valuation Report for Compensation of Properties on Proposed Kakono Hydro Power
Project in Kagera Region.
Mnyanga, V. P., Osio, J., Mwebembezi, L., Myanza, O., Opango, P., Majaliwa, J., . . . Hecky, R. (2005). Nutrient Loading. In F.
Mwanuzi, J. Abuodha, F. Muyodi, & R. Hecky, Lake Victoria Environment Management Project (LVEMP) Water Quality
and Ecosystem Status (p. 189). LVEMP.
Morris, G. L. (2020). Classification of management alternatives to combat reservoir sedimentation. . Water, 1-24.
Norplan. (2014c). Feasibility Study of Kakono Hydropower Project and Transmission Line - Final Feasibility Report - Vol.ume
I Main Report.
November.

Rowntree, K. &. (1999). A hierarchical geomorphological model for the classification of selected South African rivers. Water
Research Commission. Pretoria, South Africa: Water Research Commission.
RTE. (2007). Guide de l'Etude d'Impact - Tome 3.
Sangea H, U. K.-H. (2018). Africa Groundwater Atlas: Hydrogeology of Tanzania. Retrieved from Earthwise - British
Geological Survey: http://earthwise.bgs.ac.uk/index.php/Hydrogeology_of_Tanzania
SCENIHR. (2007). Possible effects of Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) on Human.
Shahis, M. (1993). An overview of reservoir sedimentation in some African river basins. Proceedings of the Yokohama
symposium, (pp. 93-100). Yokohama.
SNC LAVALIN International. (2011). Regional Rusumo Falls Hydroelectric and Multipurpose Project – Power Generation
Plant: Final Feasibility Study Phase: Hydrotechnical Studies Report. NELSAP.
Sokolow, & all. (2016). Nearly 400 million people are at higher risk of schistosomiasis because dams block the migration
of snail-eating river prawns.
Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2012). Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change
Mitigation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Streeter, H. W. (1925). A study of the pollution and natural purification of the Ohio River. III. Factors concerned in the
phenomena of oxidation and reaeration. U.S. Public Health Service, Bulletin No. 146.
(Final).
(Final). October.
TANESCO. (2008). Safety Policy Engineering Instruction.
Tanzania, U. R. (2021, 02 23). NDC Staging. Retrieved from UNFCCC:
https://www4.unfccc.int/sites/ndcstaging/PublishedDocuments/The%20United%20Republic%20of%20Tanzan
ia%20First%20NDC/The%20United%20Republic%20of%20Tanzania%20First%20NDC.pdf
Tchobanoglous, G. a. (1984). Water quality: Characteristics, modeling modification. Massachussets: Addison-Wesley.
Togola, S. (2009). Les pêcheurs du lac de Sélingué. Hommes et migration.
UNEP. (n.d.). Lakes and Reservoirs Volume 3. 2001.
United Republic of Tanzania. (2014). Tanzania's Second National Communication to the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change.
United Republic of Tanzania. (2020). Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs).
US Energy Information Administration (EIA). (2021, 02 23). International Energy Statistics. Retrieved from EIA:
https://www.eia.gov/international/overview/country/TZA
Wadman. (2019). Windborne mosquitoes may carry malaria hundreds of kilometers. Retrieved from Science.
Walsh, R. P. (1981, July). Rainfall seasonality: description, spatial patterns and change through time. Weather(36), 201-
208.
WHO. (1999). Guidelines for Community Noise.
World Bank. (2016). Managing the Risks of Adverse Impacts on Communities from Temporary Project Induced Labor Influx.
World Bank Group. (2021, March 03). World Bank. Retrieved from World Bank Climate Knowledge Portal:
https://climateknowledgeportal.worldbank.org/
World Health Organisation. (1999). Guidelines for Community Noise.
World Resources Institute. (2013). Weaving Ecosystem Services into Impact Assessment. Washington DC.

End of this Section
8 Analyses of Alternatives
Contents
8.1 Purpose ................................................................................... 8-1
8.2 Project Objectives ................................................................... 8-2
8.3 Identification of Alternatives ................................................. 8-2

Alternative Technologies ............................................................................................................................................. 8-2
Alternative Dam or Power Line Location, Dam Type and Dam Height .................................................................. 8-6
Alternative Fishways .................................................................................................................................................... 8-9
Alternative Operation Mode: Run-of-River versus Hydropeaking ........................................................................ 8-10
No Project Alternative ................................................................................................................................................ 8-12
8.4 Comparative Assessment of Alternatives ......................... 8-13
8.5 Selection of Preferred Alternative ..................................... 8-15

Annex 8-2 – Hydropower, Other Renewables and Thermal Projects Candidate Considered in the PSMP 2020
Annex 8-3 – Fishway Conceptual Study
DISCLOSURE AUTHORIZED - Kakono HPP_ESIA_Section 8_ALTERNATIVES_June 2022 Page a

List of Tables
Table 8.1 - Power Production Facilities Connected to the Grid in Tanzania in 2020 ............................................................ 8-2
Table 8.2 - Comparative Assessment of Alternatives ............................................................................................................ 8-14
Table 8.3 – Specifications of the Project Used to Inform the Impact Assessment ............................................................. 8-16
Table 8.4 - Hydropower Projects Candidates ................................................................................................................................ 3
Table 8.5 -Solar and Wind Candidate Projects from 2025 to 2045 ............................................................................................ 4
Table 8.6 -Geothermal Candidate Projects from 2025 to 2045 ................................................................................................. 4
Table 8.7 - Gas and Coal Power Project Candidates Geothermal Candidate Projects from 2025 to 2045 ........................... 5
Table 8.8 - 2020-2045 Generation Plan ........................................................................................................................................ 6
List of Figures
Figure 8-1 - Generation and Transmission Plan - Year 2034 .................................................................................................. 8-3
Figure 8-2 - Map of Wind sites (left) and Annual Solar Radiation (Right)............................................................................... 8-4
Figure 8-3 - East African Rift System in Tanzania (left) and Geothermal occurrence zones (right)................................... 8-5
Figure 8-4 - Topography of the Lower Kagera River ................................................................................................................ 8-7
Figure 8-5 - Rough Indication of Dam axes for Kakono West (left) and Kakono East (right). Source: NORPLAN ............. 8-7
Figure 8-6 - Hypothetical Corridor for a Transmission Line Route on the Left Bank of the Kagera River ......................... 8-8
Figure 8-7 - Marginal and Average Cost Curves of Expanding Generation from Kakono by Varying Dam Heights ......... 8-9
DISCLOSURE AUTHORIZED - Kakono HPP_ESIA_Section 8_ALTERNATIVES_June 2022 Page b

8.1 Purpose
Analysis of alternatives in environmental and social assessment is designed1 to bring E&S considerations
into the upstream stages of development planning as well as the later stages of site selection, design and
implementation. The Alternatives’ analysis (World Bank, 2018) are to:
• Compare feasible alternatives to the proposed project site, technology, design, and operation -
including the “without project” situation- in terms of their potential environmental and social
impacts.
• Assess the alternatives’ feasibility of mitigating the environmental and social impacts; the capital
and recurrent costs of alternative mitigation measures, and their suitability under local conditions;
and the institutional, training, and monitoring requirements for the alternative mitigation measures.
For each of the alternatives, quantifies the environmental and social impacts to the extent possible.
The AfDB Operation Safeguards (AfDB, 2015a) further indicate that:

• The unbiased consideration of alternatives to achieve design optimization requires a balance
between economic, technical, environmental and social factors, trading off the relative merits and
disadvantages of each factor to arrive at the optimum outcome. For this reason the consideration of
alternatives should be conducted in collaboration with the project design/engineering team so that
all reasonably feasible alternatives are identified and analysed.
The pre-feasibility of the Kakono HPP was first studied in the 1975. In 2013-14, new technical and
environmental studies of the Kakono HPP were undertaken by Norplan for TANESCO. The 2014 design was
revised in 2019 by Studio Pietrangeli and the present 2022 ESIA examines the impacts of the proposed
2019 Basic Design. The contribution to each of these studies to the alternatives analyses process is as
follows:
• The project location was examined in the 1975 pre-feasibility study. Two alternative dam locations
were examined at that time;
• The 2014 Feasibility Study undertook an alternative analysis for the dam height and the dam
location, and these formed the project basis examined in the 2016 ESIA (permitted by NEMC); and
• The 2019 Basic Design further optimized the 2014 design, without significant changes in terms of
dam location, dam height and transmission line route.
The alternatives analysis was documented into two documents:

• Feasibility Study, prepared in 2014 by Norplan, using the findings of the Pre-Feasibility Study
undertaken in 1975.
• 2016 ESIA prepared by Norplan for both the hydropower component and the transmission line
component, based on the technical alternatives examined in the 2014 Feasibility Study.
Project identification had largely been completed, and elements of the Project fixed, including the location,
prior to Studio Pietrangeli involvement in 2019. The present 2022 ESIA was commissioned by TANESCO in
2019 when the proposed Project site (Kakono), technology (hydropower with reservoir storage), and basic
design (RCC dam, 61 m high dam) which greatly influence the E&S impacts, had been already selected.
The objective of the present chapter is not to justify, a posteriori, why the proposed Kakono HPP is the least-
impact alternative to achieve the power production objectives required by the Government. There are other
considerations such as politics preference (e.g. reducing dependence on import of electricity and fossil fuels
necessary for operation of thermal power plants) which have - and will - prevail-(ed). The objectives of the
present alternative analysis are to:
• Describe the basis for selection of the preferred alternatives (technology, location, design,
operation);
1
World Bank, 1996, Environment Department. Environmental Assessment Sourcebook Update, Chapter 17, Analysis of Alternatives
in Environmental Assessment; ADB Safeguard Policy Statement, and EBRD Performance Requirement 1
DISCLOSURE AUTHORIZED - Kakono HPP_ESIA_Section 8_ALTERNATIVES_June 2022 Page 8-1

• Where alternatives have been selected that are sub-optimal from an environmental perspective,
document justification for their selection; and
• Provides the information that reviewers of the analysis will need if they wish to check its conclusions
or apply their own methods to compare alternatives.
The selection of alternatives at strategic level by the Government of Tanzania was built on a formal sectoral
and a regional environmental assessment which distinguished alternative strategies and investment
programs within the power sector: The ‘Strategic/Sectoral, Social and Environmental Assessment of Power
Development Options in the Nile Equatorial Lakes Region’ driven by the NBI-NELSAP in 2007 (SNC Lavallin,
2007). In 2007, this process ranked the Kakono HPP as the second hydropower projects which should be
developed in Tanzania after the Rusumo Falls HPP, the construction of which was almost completed in
2022.
8.2 Project Objectives

Comparing alternatives requires to compare solutions which have the same power production objectives.
The Kakono HPP Project objectives are:
• The generation of 335 GWh per year as firm energy defined in the 2020 Power System Master Plan
(PSMP), and an expected average of 524 GWh per year using the 87 MW installed capacity.
• To stabilise power supply in the northwest grid to respond to the demand of the mining load centres
in the Lake zone, i.e. Mwanza and Kagera regions.
The identification of alternatives analysis below screens solutions which could provide the same service.
8.3 Identification of Alternatives

Alternative Technologies
The Ministry of Energy updated in 2020 the Power System Master Plan for Tanzania (URT, 2020). This
document explains what the energy production alternatives are for Tanzania and further provides the
justification on selected technologies. The paragraphs below use the information provided in this strategic
document.
End of 2019, the Tanzania power system (National Grid) comprised hydro and thermal generation units
owned by TANESCO and IPP’s2 with a total installed capacity of 1,566 MW (see Table 8.1) out of which:
• 893 MW from natural gas (57%);
• 574 MW from hydro (37%);
• 89 MW from liquid fuel (6%); and
• 10.5 MW from biomass (<1%).
Table 8.1 - Power Production Facilities Connected to the Grid in Tanzania in 2020
Category Power Plant Capacity (MW)
Hydropower Kidatu 204
Kihansi 180
Mtera 80
New Pangani Falls 68
Hale 21
Nyumba ya Mungu 8
Uwemba 0.84
Darakuta (SPP) 0.32
Mwenga (SPP) 4
2
IPPs capacity constitutes 189 MW, equivalent to 12% percent of the total installed capacity

Category Power Plant Capacity (MW)

Yovi (SPP) 0.95
Matembwe (SPP) 0.59
Andoya (SPP) 1
Tulila (SPP) 5
Gas Songas 1-2-3 (IPP) 189
Ubungo 1 102
Tegeta GT 45
Ubungo 2 129
Kinyerezi 1 150
Kinyerezi 2 248.22
Mtwara 22
Somanga 7.5
Fuel Zuzu (Diesel) 7.4
Nyakato (HFO) 63
Other (7 plants) 18.4
Biomass Tanwat (SPP) 1.5
TPC (SPP) 9
Total 1,565.72
Source: PSMP 2020
Annex 8-2 provides the list of Hydropower, Solar, Wind, Geothermal, Gas and Coal power projects identified
by the Ministry of Energy as candidate power generation for the next 20 years (2025 to 2045). Figure 8-1
below maps the existing and planned grid network, together with the future power generation facilities
discussed in this section 8.
Source: 2020 Power System Master Plan: (URT, 2020).
Figure 8-1 - Generation and Transmission Plan - Year 2034

Other Renewables: Wind, Solar, Biomass or Geothermal
The renewable resource available in Tanzania includes solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass. Even though
these resources have not yet been fully tapped for power generation, recently, the Government has been
promoting investment in renewable energy projects in order to increase renewable energy share in power
generation mix.
Figure 8-2 - Map of Wind sites (left) and Annual Solar Radiation (Right)
A Wind Power
Tanzania has a potential for wind power generation estimated at 1,000 MW (URT, 2020).
The wind power candidate projects are listed in Annex 8-2 and located on Figure 8-2. They are all located
in the central and the southern part of Tanzania, i.e. far from the northwest area where the grid need to
stabilized by the Kakono HPP or an alternative project.
In the Generation plan established for the 2020-2045 (see Annex 8-2), the first wind Project planned to be
connected - in 2025 - to the grid is the Singida I wind farm (100 MW capacity - average production of
644 GWh/year) located south-east of Singida, in central Tanzania. The next wind project would be the
100 MW Singida II project, planned to be connected in 2036 to the grid.
The Singida wind farm projects are located 700 km from the Kakono HPP, they would not provide the
required power supply stability in the northwest grid. In addition, although the predicted annual average
energy of Singida I wind farm project would be similar to that of Kakono, as wind speed varies the associated
energy supply from the wind farm would be intermittent. The windfarm projects planned by the Ministry of
Energy in the foreseeable future do not represent an alternative to achieve the objectives set up for the
Kakono HPP project.
B Solar Power
The solar potential in Tanzania is estimated to be more than 670 MWp. The potential regions which are
suitable for solar power generation have solar insolation ranging from 4.5 to 6.0 kWh per m 2 per day (about
10 hours). Some of these regions are Dodoma, Singida, Shinyanga, Iringa, Katavi, Rukwa, Tabora and Mara..
The Project area has annual solar radiation of 1,540 kWh/m2, which is considered as low (URT, 2020) Figure
8-2 shows the spatial distribution of annual solar radiation in the country. South of the Lake Victoria, the
Mwanza, the Kagera and the Shinyanga regions have high solar radiations. The solar power candidate
projects are listed in Annex 8-2.
In the Generation plan established for the 2020-2045 (see Annex 8-2), the first solar projects planned to
be connected to the grid are the Singida Project (150 MW capacity - average production of 274 GWh/year,
connection in 2023), the Dodoma I Project (55 MW, 101 GWh/year, 2024) and the Shinyanga I Project
(150 MW, 309 GWh/year, 2027).
Only the Shinyanga I Project would be close enough the northwest grid to represent an alternative to the
Kakono HPP. However, the annual energy produced through the Shinyanga I Project would represent 54%

of the annual production predicted by the Kakono HPP. In addition, the Shinyanga I Project does not plan for
energy storage facility associated to the solar panels, no battery or fly wheel is planned to be included in
the design (Artelia, 2019).
As for wind power, this project would supply intermittent energy and should be perceived as
complementary to Kagera rather than alternative. Kakono would provide consistent and foreseeable
energy across the year, hence contributing to improve security of supply by generating electricity at times
of high demand, balancing renewables’ intermittency. In this framework, the solar farm projects planned by
the Ministry of Energy in the foreseeable future do not represent an alternative to achieve the objectives
set up for the Kakono HPP project.
C Biomass
Biomass is the main source of primary energy consumption in Tanzania - mainly charcoal and firewood for
cooking and heating - but not for electricity. The existing 10 biomass power plants have a total installed
capacity of 105 MW, and most of these plants are not connected to the grid and operated by independent
power producers for their own use. The generation plan established for the 2020-2045 (see Annex 8-2)
does not include power production projects using biomass anywhere in the country. As a result, biomass
power projects do not represent an alternative to achieve the objectives set up for the Kakono HPP project.
D Geothermal
Tanzania has significant geothermal potential that has not yet been fully utilized. Estimates using
theoretical approach indicate a potential exceeding 5,000 MW but not yet exploited neither for power
generation nor for commercial direct use applications. Most of geothermal prospects have been identified
by their on-surface manifestations, mainly hot springs (Shakiru I. Kajulus, 2018).
Most of the identified hot spring sites are located in areas crossed by the East African Rift System (See Figure
8-3). Such areas include the northern volcanic province of Kilimanjaro, Meru and Ngorongoro and the
Rungwe Volcanic province in southwest Tanzania (Mnjokava, 2013). In addition, some coastal areas show
geothermal surface manifestations.
The Government plan is to generate 995 MW during the next 25 years from 2020 from geothermal energy.
The four projects which are planned to be developed and connected to the grid before 2030 are: Songwe
(5 MW, 39 GWh/year), Ngozi I (30 MW, 237 GWh/year), Kiejo-Mbaka (60MW, 473 GWh/year) and Ngozi II
(40 MW, 315 GWh/year). They are all located in the southwest Tanzania at around 800 km from Kakono. As
a result, geothermal power projects do not represent an alternative to achieve the objectives set up for the
Kakono HPP project.
Figure 8-3 - East African Rift System in Tanzania (left) and Geothermal occurrence zones (right)
The main alternative technology that could provide the same service and constitute an alternative to
Kakono HPP would be a thermal power plant of equivalent capacity (e.g. combined-cycle thermal power
plant) i.e. using a non-renewable source of energy.

Combined Cycle Thermal Power Plant
Tanzania does not produce crude oil and has not experienced a recent commercial oil discovery. Tanzania
typically consumes around 35,000 barrels per day of refined oil products, all of which are imported.
However, Tanzania is a major producer of natural gas and has been exporting the product for more than
50 years (USA International Trade Administration, 2021). The first natural gas discovery in Tanzania was
Songo Songo Island (Lindi Region) followed by Mnazi Bay (Mtwara Region). Tanzania has 842 km of gas
transmission pipelines, of which 58 km is utilized for industrial customers in Dar es Salaam. The discovered
natural gas reserves amount to 57.54 trillion standard cubic feet (TCF) according to the Ministry of Energy
data (December 2017). According to the Natural Gas Utilization Master Plan (NGUMP) 8.3 TCF out of
57.54 TCF is allocated for electricity generation. The allocated natural gas would have a cumulated capacity
of approximately 7,000 MW using Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) technology.
In the Generation plan established for the 2020-2045 (see Annex 8-2), there are 4 CCGT projects which are
planned to be developed and connected to the grid before 2030: Mtwara I, Kinyerezi III, Somanga Fungu and
Tegeta New. They are located far from the Kagera Region, but their installed capacity and their predicted
annual energy production is higher than that predicted for the Kakono HPP and they would have the reserve
capacity to supply the country's energy grid for 25 to 30 minutes in the case of a power failure. The services
provided by the planned combined cycle gas power plant could be compared to those planned with the
Kakono HPP as gas can be piped to any location, unlike the source of renewable energies.
A Combined Cycle Thermal Power Plant could be an alternative to the Kakono HPP. See Section 8-13 for
comparative assessment.
Section 7 provides an estimate of the greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) produced by the Kakono HPP, i.e.
16,775 tCO2-eq/year over 100 years, including dam construction (32 gCO2-eq/kWh). GHG emissions for
alternative technology (combined cycle gas power plant) producing the same energy (524 GWh/year) would
be around 260,000 tCO2-eq/year using an electrical efficiency of 40% and a GHG emission rate (IDB, 2012)
of 496 gCO2-eq/kWh.
Alternative Dam or Power Line Location, Dam Type and Dam Height
Alternative Location
A Within the Norwest part of Tanzania
In the Generation plan established for the 2020-2045 (see Annex 8-2), there are no hydropower projects in
the Kagera, Mwanza, or Shinyanga region planned to be developed before 2033 other than those along the
Kagera River: The proposed Julius Nyerere HPP (Rufiji River), the Malagarasi HPP (Malagarasi River), the
Ruhudji HPP (Ruhudji River), the Rumakali HPP (Rumakali River), the Upper Kihansi HPP (Rufiji River), the
Kikonge HPP (Ruhuhu River), the Songwe Manolos HPP (Songwe River), the Masigira HPP (Masigira River)
and the Mnyera Mnyera HPP (Rufiji River) are all located outside of these 3 northwest regions. In addition,
all these HPPs are located on rivers which have high variations of flow within the year, unlike the Kagera
River which shows minor flow variations between high flow and low flow seasons.
The Kagera River is therefore the main hydropower resources in the northwest part of Tanzania where large
hydropower sites are available. As presented in Section 7, there are 3 other hydropower projects which are
proposed on the Kagera River, other than the Kakono HPP: the Rusumo Falls HPP, the Kikagati HPP and the
Nsongezi HPP. The Nsongezi HPP is not included in the 2020-2045 generation plan. The Rusumo Falls HPP
and the Kikagati HPP are both located at the border with other countries. The energy produced by these
two facilities will be shared with Burundi and Rwanda (Rusumo) and Uganda (Kikagati). The construction of
the Rusumo Falls HPP was almost completed in 2022. The predicted cumulative annual energy production
allocated to Tanzania from Rusumo (254 GWh/year) and Kikagati (44 GWh/year) would represent 55% of
the predicted annual energy to be produced by the Kakono HPP (524 GWh/year). Neither of these
hydropower facilities developed along the Kagera River would represent an alternative to the services
provided by the Kakono HPP.
In this framework, the hydropower projects planned by the Ministry of Energy in the foreseeable future in
Tanzania do not represent an alternative to achieve the objectives set up for the Kakono HPP project.
In the lower Kagera River, between the proposed Nsongezi HPP and the Lake Victoria, the Kakono area is
the only site along the Kagera River which could be dammed without excessive cost. Figure 8-4 below

shows that the lower Kagera river does not cross a narrow valley against which dam abutments could be
built, except in the Kakono area.
Kakono
Dam site
Figure 8-4 - Topography of the Lower Kagera River
B Alternative location in the Kakono area: East or West Alternatives
The information of this section is extracted from the 2016 EIA (Norplan, 2016a).
The prefeasibility study (Norconsult A.S. and Electrowatt, 1976) identified two main alternatives for the
location of the dam: Kakono West (solution developed by Tanesco through the 2019 Basic Design) and
Kakono East.
Figure 8-5 - Rough Indication of Dam axes for Kakono West (left) and Kakono East (right). Source: NORPLAN
The Kakono East alterative was proposed in order to lift the upstream water level from elevation
1,182 m asl (Kakono West) to elevation 1,225 m asl, giving a net head of 69 m. However, this alternative
was not compatible with the development of the proposed Nsongezi Hydropower Project which is located
about 56 km upstream of Kakono. The Nsongezi was developed to feasibility level in 2012 by the Ugandan
company Tronderpower Ltd. The supply water level and tailwater level at Nsongezi are at elevation 1,234.5
and 1,213 m asl respectively. Thus, the construction of Kakono East would reduce the head and energy pro-
duction at Nsongezi with about 50%. For a cascade development of the Kakono East alternative, i.e. with
reservoir level in line with tailwater level at Nsongezi, the following issues would have had to be considered:

(i) Inundation of a considerably greater area including part of public road (B181), settlements and other
structures; and (ii) International border river aspects because of reservoir touching Uganda. The unit cost
(USD/kWh) for Kakono East is nearly double compared to Kakono West. For a reduced Kakono East, the unit
cost would be further increased because the costs related to mobilisation, foundation preparation, river and
flood diversion, transmission line etc. would be approximately the same.
The East Dam Location could be an alternative to the selected Kakono HPP solution. See Section 8-13 for
comparative assessment.
C Transmission Line from Kakono to Kyaka: Left or Right Bank Alternative Line Routes
The Kakono HPP transmission line route runs along the right bank of the Kagera River. An alternative to that
solution would be a corridor on the left bank. Figure 8-6 below illustrates a theoretical alignment for a
transmission line route on the left bank of the Kagera River. See Section 8-13 for comparative assessment.
Figure 8-6 - Hypothetical Corridor for a Transmission Line Route on the Left Bank of the Kagera River
Source: SLR
Alternative Dam Height
Five dam heights have been examined as part of the 2014 Feasibility Study prepared by NORPLAN:
• Height H=24 m, Full Supply Level FSL=1,182 m asl;
• H=29 m, FSL=1,187 m asl;
• H=32 m, FSL=1,190 m asl;
• H=34 m, FSL=1,192 m asl;
• H=39 m, FSL=1,197 m asl.
Figure 8-7 below provides the Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE) estimated for the Kakono HPP Project for
various dam heights (Norplan, 2016a). The LCOE represents the average revenue per unit of electricity
generated that would be required to recover the costs of building and operating a generating plant during
an assumed financial life. With an alternative cost of generation in the region estimated at some USc
13/kWh in 2014, it would make economic sense to increase the dam height to 34 m (FSL=1,192 m asl), as
the marginal cost of this increase is still below the alternative cost for the region (Norplan, 2016a).
However, the additional dam height introduces a number of critical environmental and economic risks and
these are compared in Section 8-13.

Figure 8-7 - Marginal and Average Cost Curves of Expanding Generation from Kakono by Varying Dam Heights
Source: NORPLAN
Alternative Fishways
The 2022 ESIA has examined the requirements of migratory fish species within the lower Kagera River and
explored how the barrier posed by the Kakono Dam would affect the movements between breeding and
feeding areas. Several migratory fish species were confirmed in the Kagera River, of which five were
assessed as critical habitat qualifying species. To minimize the adverse effects of the Project on migratory
fish species, it was established that the project would need to build and operate an effective fish pass to
allow upstream movement and maintain gene flow between fish populations.
A Fishway Conceptual Study was undertaken by SLR as part of the 2022 ESIA process. The report is attached
in Annex 8-3. Various alternatives were examined. The paragraphs below summarize the main findings:
• The dam is too high for a formal fish ladder option, while trapping and trucking is not feasible for
threatened fish such as the Critically Endangered L. victorianus.
• The proposed fish pass would take the form of a channel at the base of the dam wall to guide
migrating fish into a weir at the bottom of the Kakono Stream from where they would swim up the
channelized stream into the reservoir. Resting pools will need to be designed into the Kakono
Stream.
• Preliminary hydraulic modelling indicates that the stream profile requires a flow volume of
approximately 5 to 7 m3/s to provide: (i) suitable hydraulic depth to facilitate fish movement and to
facilitate sediment flushing through the stream, and (ii) sufficient attraction flow. To maintain a
smaller discharge in the fish pass while still providing an attraction flow of 5 to 7 m3/s at the entrance
of the fish pass outlet, an alternative would be to pipe the extra auxiliary flow directly into the most
downstream chamber of the fish pass.
• The fish pass would be designed for use by a wide variety of migratory fish species, with specific
relevance to migratory species such as Labeo victorianus (a Critically Endangered species confirmed
from the river reaches upstream and downstream of Kakono HPP), and various other migratory fish
species. It is predicted that at least 10% of all migrating fish should be able to pass into the Kakono
Dam and through the reservoir to the spawning areas upstream, which is considered sufficient to

maintain gene flow. It will be important to fence the fish pass area to prevent access by local
fishermen and to conduct routine checks to prevent harvesting of fish from the channel or pools.
• The energy losses due to the fish pass of 5 to 7 m3/s are estimated to be around 10 – 15 GWh per
year, representing between 2% and 3% of the annual energy generation targeted for the Kakono
HPP.
• The construction of the Kakono Dam requires a diversion canal, which has been proposed on the left
bank to divert the river for 2 years. The layout of both the fish pass facility and the diversion canal
will be taken into account to avoid irreversible conflicts between the two components on the left
bank of the Kagera River, immediately downstream of the dam.
• As the fish pass strategy remains within a conceptual stage of development, there are certain
aspects that will require refinement through ground-truth assessments and detailed design of the
inflow structures, accompanying channels and outfall areas. This will be undertaken by the EPC
Contract as part of the Detailed Design phase.
• Facilitating downstream migrations was also an important consideration. Fish suffering mortalities
as they pass through turbines has been well documented, which has enhanced the development of
fish-friendly turbine designs. Due to various technical reasons, the preferred turbine model for the
Kakono HPP is the vertical Kaplan. Recent developments that have proven to greatly increase fish
survivability as they pass through the turbines is the Minimum Gap Runner (MGR) advancement. This
decreases the gaps between the runner blades and the housing, which then reduces the physical
trauma through grinding as well as reducing the shear stress, and hydrostatic pressure of the water
as it passes through the turbines. Reduction of the runner blades from 5 to 4 has also been shown
to significantly increases survivability. It is therefore recommended that the Kaplan turbines include
the MGR advancement as well as limiting the runners to a 4-blade design. Further to this, fish will
also periodically flush over the spillway during flood conditions and also move downstream through
the fishpass channel.
Alternative Operation Mode: Run-of-River versus Hydropeaking

The Environmental Flow Assessment (EFA) undertaken as part of the 2022 ESIA process shows that the
planned unrestricted peaking impacts on fish and communities are considered significant. They would
constitute a fatal flaw for the Project in terms of compliance with lender requirements to avoid measurable
adverse impacts on critical habitat-qualifying features, as well the AFD policy on projects in Critical Habitats.
The EFA assessed seven scenarios:
• Scenario 0: Unrestricted peaking with six hours of peaking per day, twice a day for three hours, when
the reservoir inflow is lower than 316 m 3/s or greater than 158 m3/s, resulting in some periods of
the year in downstream variations of 201 m3/s.
• Scenario A: Run-of-river. It is the no-peaking operating regime. At any time, the reservoir outflow
matches the reservoir inflow and a natural hydrograph is maintained.
• Scenario B: Restricted Water Level Variations. The difference between the reservoir outflow in peak
hours and the reservoir outflow at off-peak hours is less than 100 m3/s throughout the year. The
objective is to reduce the shear stress and the magnitude of water level and flow rate variations
downstream of the dam, all key drivers for riverbed, bank and floodplain erosion. In this scenario,
the off-peak outflow would be maintained greater than 150 m 3/s to avoid impairment to
downstream pumping stations.
• Scenario C: Constrained Peaking Seasonality. Peaking would be permitted in December, January, and
February only. The objective is to avoid flow alteration during: (i) the migration of priority fish species
which spawn bi-annually (May to April, and August to November, with migration starting a month
before) and (ii) the wetland-dependent bird nesting seasons in May to June. In this scenario, the off-
peak outflow would be maintained greater than 150 m 3/s, above the minimum operating level of
downstream pumps.
• Scenario D: Low flow limit. There would be no peak power generation when the reservoir inflow is
less than the average inflow 213 m3/s. The objective would be to avoid impairment to farming in the
floodplain.

• Scenario E: Ramping-down rate restrictions. The objective would be to avoid fish stranding due to
sudden decrease of river water level in slackwater, backwater and inundated floodplain habitats, and
thereby reduce fish mortality due to peaking. The ramping down rate would be restricted to less than
15 cm/hr.
• Scenario F: Day-time peaking only. The objective would be to avoid flow alteration in the night-time
as fish predation risk is lower in darkness, and fish tend to move to shallower areas. Such a scenario
would prevent the operator from peaking in the evening hours, and therefore a three-hour peaking
event has been considered. The off-peak outflow would be maintained greater than 150 m3/s, above
the minimum operating level of downstream pumps.
For each scenario, the relations between the flow alteration and the indicators relevant to river morphology,
riparian vegetation and associated avifauna, invertebrate and fish species, and social values were mapped.
At each EFA representative site, the severity of the predicted changes on each indicator was studied and
qualified using a rating system based on four levels (no change, minor, severe, or critical change). The
combined effects on final receptors resulting from the modification of indicators were then assessed.
Throughout this assessment, it has been considered that the proposed fish pass would be embedded into
the final design and that sediment management would be implemented by venting and/or sluicing.
The study concluded that the downstream ecosystems and community receptors would respond differently
to the various predicted changes in flow alteration. The unrestricted peaking scenario would result in critical
changes for riverbed and riverbank erosion, invertebrate abundance, integrity of critical aquatic qualifying
fish and fish habitats, as well as for the capacity of the existing irrigation pumps to work above their
minimum operating levels.
The effectiveness of alternative operating scenarios to the unrestricted regime were examined in the EFA.
These scenarios cover the range of possible intermediary operating modes, which include constrained
peaking timing (frequency, duration, seasonality), reduction of peak flow magnitude, and ramping rate
restrictions.
Only the run-of-river scenario (i.e. no peaking) brings significant gain in terms of mitigation. The alternative
peaking scenarios all fail to prevent critical effects on the critical habitat qualifying fish species. This is mainly
because peaking power releases - whatever scenario - would trigger the unnatural activation of the
floodplain which is used by high conservation value species for foraging, breeding, spawning, or nesting. All
peaking scenarios will cause disrupted or delayed fish migration and impair fish pass effectiveness, given
the high degree of uncertainty about timing of fish migration and variability depending on species. Operation
of the fish pass is reliant on the absence of hydropeaking as peaking releases would prevent most fish being
able to swim against the strong current and find the entrance to the diversion channel to then swim up the
Kakono stream. The fish pass is therefore only considered viable under a run-of-river dam operation.
To preserve the integrity of the downstream Critical Aquatic Habitat, only two strategies would be effective:
• Either the Project is operated as a run-of-river scheme only, where at any time the reservoir outflow
matches the reservoir inflow, except for short-term periods such as reservoir filling or sediment
venting which may require a temporary - but controlled - increase in reservoir outflow. This is the no
peaking scenario; or
• A re-regulation dam is built and operated downstream of the proposed Kakono Dam to directly
reduce the hydrological impacts. To take up the peaks and release the water more smoothly
afterward, a capacity of about 3.5 million m3 would be required. This could be achieved, for instance,
through a 15 m-high 300 m-long dam - which could also be equipped with a powerhouse - that
would create a reservoir of 5 km. This would constitute a material change to the 2019 Basic Design,
the technical, environmental, and economic feasibility of this alternative being yet to be
demonstrated.
In light of the above, TANESCO took the following decision:

• The Kakono HPP was originally conceptualised as a run-of-river project and this was the basis for the
environmental assessment by NORPLAN in 2014 and the basis for NEMC’s environmental approval in
2016.
• In 2019, the Basis of Design report introduced the concept that the Kakono project could be
operated as run-of-river, with some form of daily regulation and hydropeaking. The 2022 ESIA
demonstrates that hydropeaking impacts on fish and downstream aquatic habitats would be

significant and constitute a fatal flaw for the Project in terms of compliance with the AFD and AfDB
requirements to avoid measurable adverse impacts on Critical Habitat-qualifying features.
• As a result, TANESCO unequivocally commits to not operate the Kakono HPP as a peaking power
plant.
No Project Alternative
The Project is justified by the need for additional power production capacity to meet the expected growth
of power demand in Tanzania and to stabilize the North-West Grid.
The major hydropower facilities are located in the southern and north-eastern areas of Tanzania, a situation
that results in power generation sources located far away from some of the major load centres, such as the
emerging mining areas in the Lake Zone (serviced by the North-West Grid), i.e. Mwanza, Shinyanga and Mara
regions. Energy demand in these regions reduces the stability of power supply in the North-West Grid. The
best way to ensure stable supply of power in the Lake Zone is to develop power supply projects closer to
the major load centres. The Kakono Hydropower Project offers an opportunity to stabilise the power supply
in the North-West Grid and to augment the power needs of the country if developed and connected to the
national grid.
The alternative analysis assumes that the need for domestic power generation is not questionable. In this
context, if the proposed Project were not to be undertaken the Government would need to seek an
alternative investment that provides the same energy quantity. It is assumed that establishing additional
power connections with neighbouring countries through the construction of new transmission lines is not
an alternative to the Project for energy independency reasons.
Consequently, since there is no other hydropower project or solar/wind project that can provide the same
service to the northwest grid, there is only one type of investment that can provide the same service, it
would be a thermal power plant of similar capacity as the Project (e.g. Combined-cycle Gas power plant) of
the same capacity.
As described in Section 8.3.1.2, the greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) produced by a Combined-cycle Gas
power plant over 100 years would be 15 times higher in average than the emissions produced by the
Kakono HPP.

8.4 Comparative Assessment of Alternatives

The alternatives selected for comparative assessment are the seven alternatives identified in the previous
section and the alternative eventually selected by TANESCO:
• Alternative 1 is a Combined Cycle Gas Turbine Power Plant of similar power production capacity;
• Alternative 2 is the ‘East Alternative’, i.e. the Kakono Dam located downstream of the location
selected in the 2019 Basic Design;
• Alternative 3 is the Kakono Dam with a higher height at dam crest level, with a full supply level at
1,192m asl, i.e. 3m above the full supply level selected in the 2019 Basic Design.
• Alternative 4 is the Kakono Dam designed without a fish pass and operated with some sort of
peaking power releases when the demand requires. It is the 2019 Basic Design.
• Alternative 5 is the transmission line route which runs on the left bank instead of the right bank
• Alternative 6 is the Kakono Dam designed without a fishpass and operated as a pure run-of-river
scheme, which was the solution proposed by the 2019 Basic Design
• Alternative 7 is the Kakono Dam designed with a fishpass and operated as a pure run-of-river
scheme, which is the solution recommended in this 2022 ESIA.
Table 8.2 compares the seven alternatives using the social, environmental and strategic criteria.

Table 8.2 - Comparative Assessment of Alternatives

Assessment Criteria Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Alternative 6 Preferred Alternative
High Hi CCGT Power plant Dam Site location East Alternative Full Supply Level at 1,192 m asl No Fish pass and Operating Mode Transmission Line on the Left Bank 2019 Basic Design: 2019 Basic Design
Topic
Moderate M Hydropeaking no Fish pass and without with Fish pass and without
Low Lo hydropeaking hydropeaking
Resettlement • Land requirements <5 ha Lo • Inundation of a considerably Hi • The additional three meters will increase Hi • Same land requirements as M • Assumption is same land Hi • 8 households affected by M • 8 households affected by M
• Higher flexibility than hydropower greater area including part of the flooded area by more than 5km², recommended alternative. requirements as involuntary resettlement involuntary resettlement
alternatives. public road (B181), settlements inundating low-lands which will create recommended alternative. because of the transmission because of the transmission
and other structures swamp-like conditions. But risk of physical line wayleave line wayleave
• No resettlement achievable.
• Physical displacement. displacement higher due to
denser population when
getting closer to the
substation from the north
Economic • Higher flexibility than hydropower Lo • Reservoir footprint greater, with Hi • Reservoir footprint greater, with village M • Same land requirements as Lo • Assumption is same land M • 85 households affected by M • 85 households affected by M
Displacement alternatives. village land and pasture flooded land and pasture flooded on right bank. recommended alternative. requirements as economic displacement economic displacement
• Likely use of required land by third on right bank. • Sugarcane plantation flooded on left recommended alternative.
party but easier to identify and • Sugarcane plantation flooded on bank. But risk of economical
compensate. left bank displacement higher due to
denser farming activities
Social
• International border river aspects

because of reservoir touching when getting closer to the
Uganda. substation from the north.
• Crossing of sugar cane
plantations similar to right
bank option
Community Health & • Health: Air emissions from gas M • Larger reservoir with higher dam M • Larger reservoir with higher dam means M • All aspects similar to M • All aspects similar to M • Waterborne diseases due to M • Waterborne diseases due to M
Safety combustion means greater consequences in greater consequences in case of dam preferred option. preferred option. new reservoir new reservoir
• Safety: Risks are traffic accidents case of dam failure or emergency failure or emergency release. • Project-induced in-migration, • Project-induced in-migration,
during construction and jet fire from release. • All other aspects similar to preferred including fishers including fishers
or Unconfined Vapour Cloud • All other aspects similar to option. • EMF from transmission line • EMF from transmission line
Explosion from gas leak during the preferred option. • Risk with emergency releases • Risk with emergency releases
operation. downstream of the dam downstream of the dam
• Mitigated through safety distance
and design standards.
Loss of sensitive • Site specific but construction within Lo • Larger floodplain affected by Hi • Larger floodplain affected by reservoir M • Same floodplain affected M • Kagera River would be Hi • Direct and permanent removing M • Direct and permanent removing M
habitats forested areas, or wetland of reservoir footprint. footprint. by reservoir footprint as for crossed twice, hence rice of or flooding up to 2,124ha of or flooding up to 2,124ha of
conservation importance, is unlikely. • Larger pasture land also used by • Larger pasture land also used by recommended option. bird collision and/or natural habitats with high natural habitats with high
Usually close to urban areas to elephants would be inundated on elephants would be inundated on the electrocution higher botanical and bird biodiversity botanical and bird biodiversity
reduce connection distance to the left bank left bank and which still retains large and which still retains large
consumer canters. fauna such African savanna fauna such African savanna
elephant and hippos and elephant and hippos and
crocodiles (Vulnerable). crocodiles (Vulnerable).
• A further 58ha of Natural • A further 58ha of Natural
Habitat will be cleared for the Habitat will be cleared for the
35m-wide and 38.5km-long TL 35m-wide and 38.5km-long TL
corridor and 18 ha for the 28km corridor and 18 ha for the 28km
Biodiversity
access road. access road.

Pressure on • Project-induced access to isolated Lo • Project-induced access to isolated M • Project-induced access to isolated areas M • Project-induced access to M • Higher risk of collision with Hi • Pressure on Critical Habitat M • Pressure on Critical Habitat M
threatened species areas resulting in additional areas resulting in additional resulting in additional pressure on isolated areas resulting in Vultures close to Kyaka with Qualifying Fish species Qualifying Fish species
pressure on sensitive habitats is pressure on sensitive habitats is sensitive habitats is likely. additional pressure on are threatened species • Pressure on wetland birds
unlikely. likely. sensitive habitats is likely. because of TL crossing the
river twice
River fish • Unlikely effect on fish population or Lo • Greater effect on fish population Hi • Greater effect on fish population or Hi • Same river reach Hi • No difference with preferred M • Absence of fish pass will affect Hi • Fish pass would limit the M
distribution. or distribution because the distribution because the river reach not permanently transformed option Critically Endangered fish adverse effects on migratory
reservoir extends up to Nsongezi flooded between Kakono reservoir and in lentic environment as species and other migratory fish species
• Obstacle to fish migration Nsongezi dam would be shorter preferred option species • No peaking will limit the
• Reduction in fish abundance due • Obstacle to fish migration • Obstacle to fish migration adverse effects on downstream
to hydropeaking • Reduction in fish abundance due to • Reduction in fish river habitat
hydropeaking abundance due to
hydropeaking
Dependency on • Tanzania is an O&G producer. Low Lo • Only during construction. Lo • Only during construction. Lo • Only during construction. Lo • Only during construction. Lo • Only during construction. Lo • Only during construction. Lo
fossil fuel import dependency on gas or other fossil
fuel import.
Greenhouse Gas • 260KtCO2-eq/year - 15 times HPP Hi • Higher emissions than the M • Higher emissions than the preferred M • Same emissions than the Lo • Same emissions than the Lo • 16KtCO2-eq/year over 100 Lo • 16KtCO2-eq/year over 100 Lo
Emissions alternatives preferred option as more option as more vegetation would be preferred option preferred option years years
Goes against COP 21 commitments vegetation would be flooded flooded
National
Risk on profitability • Investment costs 50% of HPP M • The unit cost (USD/kWh) for Hi • Marginal cost of the additional 35 GWh Hi • More profitable as M • Same risk as preferred option M • Best technical option with low Lo • Best technical option with low M
alternatives Kakono East is nearly double allowed by the additional 3 m is preferred option as no loss implementation risks implementation risks
• Operation costs exposed to O&G compared to Kakono West economically viable from regional due to flow going through
price variations (preferred option) perspective, but not from national the fishpass
perspective. All new generation sources
foreseen in the PSMP have an estimated
LCOE of USc 4-6/KWh (2014)

8.5 Selection of Preferred Alternative

Hydropower technology has been preferred to thermal power technology for strategic reasons, namely
lower Greenhouse Gas Emission and using existing renewable source of energy. This choice was made by
the Government of Tanzania based on the Power to the start of the 2022 ESIA process. In terms of
environmental aspects, the main benefit of that decision is a greater contribution to the country’s reduction
in greenhouse gas emissions.
The absence of fish pass or peaking power releases would constitute a fatal flaw for the Project in terms of
compliance with lender requirements to avoid measurable adverse impacts on critical habitat-qualifying
features, as well the AFD policy on projects in Critical Habitats.
A transmission line aligned on the left bank would cross twice the Kagera River, hence causing more impacts
for the birds and would cross areas more densely inhabited when getting closer to the Kyaka sub-station.
Table 8.3 below summarizes the main technical characteristics of the Kakono HPP that will be developed
by TANESCO as a combined result of the 2019 Basic Design and the 2022 ESIA.

Table 8.3 – Specifications of the Project Used to Inform the Impact Assessment
Design Feature Specifications
Dam Design & Reservoir
Dam Wall Type Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC)
Height of CRFD 61 m (from base of river)
Length of CRFD 284 m
Dam Abutment Wall Concrete Face Rockfill Dam (CFRD)
Height of Embankment wall 42 m (Max)
Length of Embankment 1,380 m
River diversion for construction Diversion canal on left bank with upstream and downstream coffer dams
Turbines 2 x Kaplan
Depth of turbines 21-31 m below full supply level
Power output 87.8 MW
QD 316 m3/s
Fish Pass Discharge 5-7 m3/s
Construction duration 52 months (including simultaneous 21 months transmission line)
Construction staff 1,000 staff
Quarries 2 quarries identified: right bank below Ruwekubo Hills (3Mm3) and on isolated hill
on left bank (500,000m3). Schist area identified in the reservoir area.
Excavation volume for construction of Excavation: 1,331,300 m3
facilities and Spoil Disposal volume Spoil disposal 1,750,000m3 (assuming no reuse)
Reservoir
Volume of Reservoir 150 MCM (at Full Supply Level)
Length of Reservoir 35 km
Area of Reservoir (at FSL) 17 km2
Duration of filling Estimated 1-2 months
(10 days at AAF without downstream releases)
Reservoir clearing of vegetation 12 months (Assume 70% woody and 50% groundcover for water quality
calculations) Possible harvesting by local communities.
FSL contour (Max operating level) 1,189 m
Minimum operating water level 1,180 m
Operating mode Run-of-river. No hydropeaking because of critical aquatic habitats
Water residence time 12 days
Sediment accumulation 1 Mtonnes per year (pre-Rusumo)
Dead storage capacity for sediment 50 MCM
accumulation
Sediment flushing Frequency and rates to be determined.
5-20% flushing efficiency, mainly suspended sediment
Access Road to Dam
Type of Road Paved
Length 28 km
Width 6m
Average slope 1.4-1.8
Transmission Line
Capacity 220 kV
Type of Tower Lattice
Length 38.5 km
Tower Spacing 335 m
Tower works area 15x15 m at each tower
Number of Towers 117
Wayleave width 35 m (17.5 m either side of centre line)
Access road Unpaved, 4.5 m wide
Construction period 21 months (overlapping dam construction)
Construction staff ~100-150 estimated

ANNEXES


AfDB. (2015a). Integrated Safeguards System - Guidance Material - Volume 1: General Guidance in Implementation of OS1.
Artelia. (2019). Tanesco - 150MWp solar PV power project at Shinyanga Tanzania - Feasibility Study - Final Report .
IDB. (2012). Inter-American Development Bank, Liquid and Gaseous Fossil Fuel Power Plant Guidelines. An Approach to
Reconciling the Financing of Fossil Fuel Power Plants with Climate Change Objectives.
Mnjokava, T. T. (2013). Geothermal exploration in Tanzania - Status Report.
November.
Shakiru I. Kajulus, K. T. (2018). Geothermal Development in Tanzania - a Country Update - Proceedings, 7th African Rift
Geothermal Conference - Kigali, Rwanda.
SNC Lavallin. (2007). Strategic/Sectoral, Social and Environmental Assessment of Power Development Options in The Nile
Equatorial Lakes Region - Final Report - Volume 1.
URT. (2020). Ministry of Energy - Power System Master PLan 2020 Update - Final Report.
USA International Trade Administration. (2021). https://www.trade.gov/energy-resource-guide-tanzania-oil-and-gas’.
Retrieved from www.trade.gov.
DISCLOSURE AUTHORIZED - Kakono HPP_ESIA_Section 8_ALTERNATIVES_June 2022

Annex 8-2 – Hydropower, Other Renewables

and Thermal Projects Candidate Considered in
the PSMP 2020

Table 8.4 - Hydropower Projects Candidates

# Project Name Capacity (MW) Average energy Firm energy River
(GWh) (GWh)
1 Julius Nyerere 2,115 9,264 6,307 Rufiji
2 Ruhudji 358 2,000 1,333 Ruhudji
3 Ikondo Mnyera 340 1,832 1,316 Mnyera
4 Kikonge 300 1,268 884 Ruhuhu
5 Rumakali 222 1,322 1,076 Rumakali
6 Mpanga 160 1,061 718 Mpanga
7 Songwe Sofre (163.2 MW)* 82 383 237 Songwe
8 Iringa Kilolo 150 995 673 Lukosi
9 Songwe Manolo (180.2 MW)* 90 472 295 Songwe
10 Mnyera Taveta 145 850 622 Mnyera
11 Mnyera Kwanini 144 694 617 Rufiji
12 Mnyera Mnyera 137 662 589 Rufiji
13 Mnyera Pumbwe 123 592 527 Rufiji
14 Upper Kihansi 120 69 99 Rufiji
15 Mnyera Kisingo 120 577 514 Rufiji
16 Masigira 118 664 492 Ruhuhu
17 Kakono 87 524 335 Kagera
18 Mnyera Ruaha 60 291 259 Rufiji
19 Iringa (Nginayo) 52 263 223 Rufiji
20 Malagarasi 50 181 21 Malagarasi
21 Mbarali 39 199 108 Kimani Falls
22 Iringa (Ibosa) 36 186 107 Little Ruaha
23 Songwe Bupigu (34 MW)* 17 77 51 Songwe
24 Njombe 32 165 124 Ruhuhu -1
25 Rusumo (80 MW)* 27 254 129 Rusumo
26 Mhanga 27 253 75 Lukosi
27 Songea 15 142 82 Ruhudji
28 Nakatuta (Liparamba) 15 141 30 Ruvuma
29 Kikuletwa 11 103 31 Kikuletwa
30 Kikagati (14 MW)* 7 44 33 Kagera
Total 5,197.4 25,576 17,906
Source: PSMP 2020
*: Shared projects with neighbouring countries. Capacity and energy production in this table are the Tanzanian proportion.

Table 8.5 -Solar and Wind Candidate Projects from 2025 to 2045
# Plant Name Location Fuel Type Capacity (MW/MWp)
SOLAR PROJECTS
1 Shinyanga I (Kishapu) Kishapu Solar 150
2 Dodoma I UDOM Solar 55
3 Dodoma II Michese Solar 60
4 Manyoni Monyoni Solar 100
5 Same Kilimanjaro Same Solar 50
6 Kigoma Kigoma Solar 5
7 Singida Singida Solar 150
8 Shinyanga II Sinyanga Solar 150
Total Solar Projects 720
WIND PROJECTS
1 Singida I Singida Wind 100
2 Makambako Makambako Wind 300
3 Njombe I Njombe Wind 100
4 Singida II Singida Wind 100
5 Singida III Singida Wind 200
6 Njombe II Njombe Wind 200
Total Wind Projects 1,000
HYBRID PROJECTS
1 Loliondo Power Plant - TANESCO Loliondo Diesel-Solar 1
2 Mafia Mafia Diesel-Solar-wind 7
Total Hybrid Projects 8
Total Renewable Projects 1,728
Table 8.6 -Geothermal Candidate Projects from 2025 to 2045

# Geothermal Projects Capacity (MW) Capacity (MW) Capacity Capacity Capacity (MW)
by 2025 by 2030 (MW) by 2035 (MW) by 2040 by 2045
1 (i) Ngozi phase I 30

(ii)Ngozi phase II 40
(iii) Ngozi phase III 30
(iv)Ngozi phase IV 30
(v) Ngozi phase V 30
(vi) Ngozi phase VI 30
2 Songwe 5 5 15 20
3 Kiejo- Mbaka 60 40 30 25
4 Luhoi 5 10 20 10
5 Natron 60 50 40 30 30
6 Kisaki 60 25 30 30
7 Meru 50 40 20 35
8 Ibadakuli 5 10 10 35
Total 200 195 200 185 215

Table 8.7 - Gas and Coal Power Project Candidates Geothermal Candidate Projects from 2025 to 2045
Plant Fuel Technology Installed Capacity Net Available Available Energy
(MW) Capacity (MW) (GWh)
Gas fired plants
Kinyerezi I ext Natural Gas OCGT 185 182 1,212
Mtwara I Natural Gas CCGT 300 294 1,957
Kinyerezi III Natural Gas CCGT 600 588 3,915
Somanga Fungu Natural Gas CCGT 600 588 3,915
Tegeta New Natural Gas CCGT 320 314 2,088
Kinyerezi IV Natural Gas CCGT 330 323 2,153
Ubungo I New Natural Gas CCGT 320 314 2,088
Ubungo II New Natural Gas CCGT 470 461 3,066
Somanga Fungu PPP Natural Gas CCGT 320 314 2,088
Dodoma Natural Gas CCGT 600 588 3,915
Somanga Mtama Natural Gas CCGT 345 338 2,251
Mtwara II Natural Gas CCGT 300 294 1,957
Kinyerezi I New Natural Gas CCGT 320 314 2,088
Ubungo New Natural Gas CCGT 320 314 2,088
Mtwara III Natural Gas CCGT 600 588 3,915
Kinyerezi II New Natural Gas CCGT 470 461 3,066
Bagamoyo Natural Gas CCGT 300 294 1,957
Subtotal 6,700 43,719
Coal fired plants
Kiwira I Coal STG 200 184 1,186
Kiwira II Coal STG 200 184 1,186
Mchuchuma I Coal STG 300 276 1,779
Mchuchuma II Coal STG 400 368 2,373
Mchuchuma III Coal STG 300 276 1,779
Ngaka I Coal STG 200 184 1,186
Ngaka II Coal STG 400 368 2,373
Rukwa I Coal STG 300 276 1,779
Mbeya I Coal STG 300 276 1,779
Rungwe Coal STG 600 552 3,559
Mbeya II Coal STG 600 552 3,559
Mbeya III Coal STG 600 552 3,559
Kiwira III Coal STG 300 276 1,779
Rukwa II Coal STG 600 552 3,559
Subtotal 5,300 31,437
Total 12,000 75,156

Table 8.8 - 2020-2045 Generation Plan

YEAR PLANT FUEL ADDITION TOTAL SUPPLY
CAPACITY (MW) AVERAGE CAPACITY (MW) AVERAGE
ENERGY (GWH) ENERGY (GWH)
2020 All existing plants 1,566 9,173
Kinyerezi I ext Gas 185 1232 1,751 10,405
Rusumo (80 MW)* Hydro 27 254 1,778 10,658
Murongo/Kikagati - (14 MW)* Hydro 7 44 1,785 10,702
Biharamulo (Retire)** Diesel -4 -25 1,781 10,678
Namtumbo (Retire)** Diesel 0 -2 1,780 10,676
Madaba (Retire)** Diesel 0 -3 1,780 10,673
2021
Songea (Retire)** Diesel -8 -45 1,772 10,627
Ludewa (Retire)** Diesel -1 -8 1,771 10,620
Zuzu (Retire)** Diesel -7 -44 1,763 10,576
Mbinga (Retire)** Diesel -2 -12 1,761 10,564
Nyakato (Standby)** Diesel -63 -373 1,698 10,191
Ngara (Retire)** Diesel -3 -15 1,696 10,176
2022 Julius Nyerere Hydro 2115 9264 3,811 19,440
2023 Singida Solar 150 275 3,961 19,715
Songwe Geothermal 5 39 3,966 19,754
Ngozi (wellhead) & Ngozi I Geothermal 30 237 3,996 19,991
Export Export -1000 -4380 2,996 15,611
2024 Malagarasi Hydro 50 181 3,045 15,792
Dodoma I Solar 55 101 3,100 15,892
Kiejo – Mbaka Geothermal 60 473 3,160 16,365
Songas (Retire) Gas -189 -1233 2,971 15,132
Ruhudji Hydro 358 2000 3,329 17,132
Singida I Wind 100 644 3,429 17,776
Mtwara I Gas 300 1957 3,729 19,733
2025
Export Export -500 -2190 3,229 17,543
Andoya (Retire) Hydro -1 -6 3,228 17,537
Matembwe (Retire) Hydro -1 -1 3,228 17,537
2026 Kakono Hydro 87 524 3,315 18,110
Rumakali Hydro 222 1322 3,537 19,432
Upper Kihansi Hydro 120 69 3,657 19,501
Ngozi II Geothermal 40 315 3,697 19,816
Darakuta (Retire) Hydro 0 0 3,696 19,816
2027 Mtwara (Retire) Gas -18 -117 3,678 19,699
Shinyanga I (Kishapu) Solar 150 327 3,828 20,026
Natron Geothermal 60 473 3,888 20,499
Luhoi Geothermal 5 39 3,893 20,538
Mwenga (Retire) Hydro -4 -24 3,889 20,514
2028 Kikonge Hydro 300 1268 4,189 21,782
Songwe Manolo (180.2 MW)* Hydro 90 472 4,279 22,254
Masigira Hydro 118 664 4,397 22,918
Kinyerezi III Gas 600 3914 4,997 26,832
Ubungo I (Retire) Gas -102 -685 4,895 26,147
2029 Somanga Fungu TANESCO Gas 600 4228 5,495 30,375
Mbeya I Coal 300 2103 5,795 32,478
Mnyera Mnyera Hydro 137 662 5,933 33,140
Tegeta (Retire) Gas -45 -290 5,888 32,850
Tegeta New Gas 320 2088 6,208 34,938
2030 Geothermal Phase I (Mbeya, Manyara, 195 1537 6,403 36,475
Geothermal
Morogoro, Arusha, Shinyanga)
Mtwara Additional (Retire) Gas -4 -26 6,399 36,449
TANWAT (Retire) Biomass -2 -10 6,397 36,439
Somanga (Retire) Gas -8 -49 6,390 36,390
2031 Dodoma II Solar 60 210 6,450 36,600
Mchuchuma I Coal 300 2103 6,750 38,703


Kinyerezi IV Gas 330 2153 7,080 40,856
Yovi (Retire) Hydro -1 -8 7,079 40,848
TPC (Retire) Biomass -9 -70 7,070 40,778
2032 Kiwira I Coal 200 1186 7,270 41,964
Ubungo I New Gas 320 2088 7,590 44,051
Ngaka I Coal 200 1314 7,790 45,365
Ubungo II (Retire) Gas -129 -842 7,661 44,523
Ubungo II New Gas 470 3066 8,131 47,589
Mpanga Hydro 160 1061 8,291 48,651
2033 Dodoma Gas 600 3914 8,891 52,565
Mbeya II Coal 600 3559 9,491 56,123
2034 Somanga Fungu PPP Gas 320 2088 9,811 58,211
Kiwira II Coal 200 1289 10,011 59,500
Rungwe Coal 600 3559 10,611 63,059
Mnyera Taveta Hydro 145 850 10,756 63,909
Songwe Sofre (163.3 MW)* Hydro 82 383 10,837 64,292
Geothermal Phase II (Mbeya, Manyara, Geothermal 200 1575 11,037 65,867
2035
Iringa (Nginayo) Hydro 52 263 11,089 66,129
Iringa (Ibosa) Hydro 36 186 11,125 66,316
Tulila (Retire) Hydro -5 -6 11,120 66,309
2036 Mnyera Kwanini Hydro 144 694 11,264 67,003
Rukwa I Coal 300 276 11,564 67,279
Singida II Wind 100 644 11,664 67,923
Ngaka II Coal 400 2804 12,064 70,727
2037 Makambako Wind 300 1932 12,364 72,659
Somanga Mtama Gas 345 2251 12,709 74,910
Mchuchuma II Coal 400 2804 13,109 77,714
2038 Ikondo Mnyera Hydro 340 1832 13,449 79,546
Kiwira III Coal 300 1780 13,749 81,326
Mtwara II Gas 300 1957 14,049 83,283
Singida III Wind 200 1288 14,249 84,571
Mnyera Kisingo Hydro 120 577 14,369 85,148
2039 Mnyera Ruaha Hydro 60 291 14,429 85,439
Mnyera Pumbwe Hydro 123 592 14,552 86,031
Mbeya III Coal 600 3559 15,152 89,590
Iringa Kilolo Hydro 150 995 15,302 90,585
Manyoni Solar 100 175 15,402 90,760
Geothermal Phase III (Mbeya, Songwe, Geothermal 185 1457 15,587 92,216
Manyara, Morogoro, Arusha,
Shinyanga)
2040 Songwe Bupigu (34 MW)* Hydro 17 77 15,604 92,293
Mbarali Hydro 39 199 15,643 92,492
Njombe Hydro 32 165 15,675 92,657
Bagamoyo Gas 300 1957 15,975 94,614
Kinyerezi I (Retire) Gas -150 -1034 15,825 93,580
2041 Njombe I Wind 100 644 15,925 94,224
Shinyanga II Solar 150 275 16,075 94,499
Kinyerezi I New Gas 320 2088 16,395 96,587
Uwemba (Retire) Hydro -1 -2 16,394 96,585
Ubungo New Gas 320 2088 16,714 98,673
2042 Same Kilimanjaro Solar 50 175 16,764 98,848
Export (Retire) Export 1500 6570 18,264 105,418
Mtwara III Gas 600 3915 18,864 109,332
2043 Mchuchuma III Coal 300 2103 19,164 111,435
Kinyerezi II (Retire) Gas -248 -1620 18,916 109,816
2044 Rukwa II Coal 600 2103 19,516 111,919


Geothermal Phase IV (Mbeya, Manyara, Geothermal 215 1693 19,731 113,612
Kinyerezi II New Gas 470 3066 20,201 116,678

Annex 8-3 – Fishway Conceptual Study

Tanzania
Kakono Hydropower Project
AFD-financed component
Complementary Environmental & Social

Studies
Fishway Conceptual Study
Prepared for
AFD and TANESCO
Revision B
23 March 2021
Kakono HPP – Complementary E&S Studies – Fishway Conceptual Study
ISSUE AND REVISION RECORD
Revision Date Prepared by: Checked by: Description:
A 25 February 2021 Dr Mathew Ross Jessica Hughes First issue for AFD and TANESCO Review.
(Main Author) Dominique Buffin Investment cost and power production
Dr Anton Bok Implications not addressed.
(Peer Reviewer)
B 23 March 2021 Input from Stucky SA Second issue for AFD and TANESCO
for costing elements Review - All sections completed.
in Section 7
Disclaimer:
This report has been prepared by SLR Consulting and its fishway sub-consultants (Enviross) with all reasonable skill, care and
diligence, and taking account of the manpower and resources devoted to it by agreement with the party which commissioned it.
Information reported herein is based on the interpretation of data collected and has been accepted in good faith as being
accurate and valid.
This report is for the exclusive use of the party which commissioned it; no warranties or guarantees are expressed or should be
inferred by any third parties. This report may not be relied upon by other parties without written consent from SLR. SLR disclaims
any responsibility to the party which commissioned it and others in respect of any matters outside the agreed scope of the work.
This document contains confidential information and proprietary intellectual property. It should not be shown to other parties
without consent from SLR and from the party which commissioned it.
SLR Consulting France SAS

13 Rue Martin Luther King – Saint Martin d’Hères, 38400 Grenoble, France
T: +33 6 23 37 14 14
www.slrconsulting.com
Confidential - 901.1.38_ESIA Kakono HPP_Fish Pass_Rev B_23March2021

Content
Summary ........................................................................................... i
1 Introduction............................................................................ 1
1.1 Background ...................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Purpose of the Fishway Conceptual Study................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Study Team ...................................................................................................................................................... 2
2 Target Fish Species ............................................................... 4

2.1 Importance of the Kagera River to Fish Passage & Habitat ....................................................................... 4
2.2 Migratory Requirements of Fish Species Identified from the Catchment Area ....................................... 5
2.3 Hydraulic Guidelines and Considerations for Migratory Functional Groups ............................................. 6
2.4 Analysis of Fish Species Diversity and Migratory Functional Groups ........................................................ 8
3 Fishpass Alternatives Applicable to the Site .................... 12

3.1 Formal Fishway Design ................................................................................................................................ 12
3.2 Aquatic Bypass Channel............................................................................................................................... 13
3.3 Preferred Fish Pass Alternative .................................................................................................................. 39
3.4 Next Steps and Issues Yet to be Solved .................................................................................................... 41
4 Downstream Migration Considerations and Solutions ... 43

4.1 Racks and Screens........................................................................................................................................ 43
4.2 Behaviour Modifying Devices ...................................................................................................................... 44
4.3 Enhancing Downstream Migrations Through the Fishpass Channel ..................................................... 45
4.4 Dam Design Considerations ........................................................................................................................ 46
4.5 Turbine Model Considerations .................................................................................................................... 47
4.6 Conclusion on Recommended Solutions to Improve Downstream Migrations .................................... 52
5 Risk that Nile Perch Establishes within the Kakono

Reservoir ............................................................................. 54
6 Management and Monitoring Measures .......................... 57
7 Investment Cost and Impact on Power Generation ........ 60

7.1 Investment Cost............................................................................................................................................ 60
7.2 Impact on Power Production....................................................................................................................... 61

8 Conclusions & Recommendations .................................... 63
9 References .......................................................................... 65

List of Tables
Table 1: Study Team ........................................................................................................................................................ 2
Table 2: Details on Migratory Groupings. ..................................................................................................................... 7
Table 3: Baseline Expected Fish Diversity for the Kagera River ................................................................................ 8
Table 4: Species recorded from the 2020 specialist fish survey within the reach associated with the Kakono
HPP, together with their designated migratory functional groupings. ..................................................................... 9
Table 5: Outline of the design features of a formal vertical-slot type of fishway structure applicable to the
Kakono HPP dam............................................................................................................................................................ 12
Table 6: Overview of Advantages and Disadvantages of the Implementation of a Formal Fishway Structure
Applicable to the Kakono HPP Dam Site. .................................................................................................................... 13
Table 7: Comparative data from an existing hydropower station and a simulation analysis if the existing
turbines were to be replaced by Alden turbines under similar circumstances. ..................................................... 48
Table 8: Comparisons of various configurations and styles of Kaplan turbines (from Mavel, a.s.). ................... 49
Table 9: Summary of the Results of a Comparison Study of Fish Survivability on a 13.6 MW unit .................... 51
Table 10: A generalised monitoring plan and strategy that is aimed at determining the effectiveness of the fish
migration strategies presented within this report. .................................................................................................... 59
Table 11: Breakdown of Fish Pass Design and Construction Costs ........................................................................ 60

List of Figures
Figure 0-1: An overview Conceptualisation of the Fishpass Strategy. ....................................................................... ii
Figure 1-1: Project Location............................................................................................................................................ 3
Figure 2-1: Relationship between changes in one water level to the next and the associated induced water flow
velocity .............................................................................................................................................................................. 7
Figure 2-2: Graphical Representation of the Proportions of the Fish Species Designated to the Various
migratory Groups that were sampled during the fish survey................................................................................... 11
Figure 3-1: Channel profile that would be best suited for catering for a variety of fish species and age classes.
.......................................................................................................................................................................................... 14
Figure 3-2: Construction of a two-stage trapezoidal fishway channel .................................................................. 15
Figure 3-3: A 3D terrain model rendering, showing the proximity of the Kakono River mouth to the proposed
dam infrastructure. ........................................................................................................................................................ 16
Figure 3-4: The localities of the transect profiles and the various channel alignment alternatives. ................. 18
Figure 3-5: Channel Competency Showing FSL flow (Pr2) and Supplementary Flow (Pr4) at Transect 4 - the
Proposed Stream Link Site. ........................................................................................................................................... 19
Figure 3-6: Channel competency showing FSL flow (Pr2) and supplementary flow (Pr4) at the Kagera River
confluence site, showing how the banks will spill over. Increased flow volumes will scour settled sediments
and alter the channel competency. ............................................................................................................................. 20
Figure 3-7: Transect localities from upstream to downstream, showing the channel competencies for FSL
baseflow (Pr2) and the supplementary flow (Pr4). ................................................................................................... 23
Figure 3-8: Various views of the Kakono River.......................................................................................................... 25
Figure 3-9: Linkage Channel Alignment Alternatives. ............................................................................................... 27
Figure 3-10: Conceptual design of the inflow control structure. Front view looking downstream into it from
the reservoir.................................................................................................................................................................... 28
Figure 3-11: The proposed position and alignment of the preferred fishpass alternative (US_Alt1), showing the
locality of the inflow control structure as well as the linkage site at the Kakono River........................................ 31
Figure 3-12: Conceptual Design of the Inflow Control Structure. Top View of the Control Structure Showing the
Transition into the Profiled Channel. ........................................................................................................................... 32
Figure 3-13: Conceptual Design of the Inflow control Structure. Top View of the Control Structure. .............. 33
Figure 3-14: Conceptual Design of the Inflow Control Structure. Side View of the Control Structure. ............. 34
Figure 3-15: 3D terrain model rendering of the locations of the various fishpass channel alignment alternatives
looking from the downstream side.............................................................................................................................. 35
looking from the upstream side. .................................................................................................................................. 35
Figure 3-17: A conceptual layout of the preferred means to greatly increase the opportunity for fish to find the
entrance of the fishpass. ............................................................................................................................................... 37
Figure 3-18: A 3D rendering of the further proposed alternative that is aimed at increasing the attraction flows
and forces that would guide fish into locating the entrance of the fishway, as outlined above. ........................ 38
Figure 3-19: A vertical profile of the bed of the Kakono River at the proposed impoundment site. ................. 38
Figure 3-20: An overall perspective of the proposed layout associated with the fishpass strategy. ................ 40

Figure 4-1: A conceptual view of the electrical screen as describes to inhibit larger fish from entering into the
offtake canal and being drawn through the turbines (http://www.fishprotection.eu) Neptune System, Procom
System SA, Poland. ........................................................................................................................................................ 45
Figure 5-1: The known distribution of Lates niloticus (from http://www.fao.org, 2020). ................................... 55
Figure 7-1 - Conceptual layout of the fish pass (US_Alt1 alternative).................................................................... 60
Figure 7-2 - Rated discharge curve showing the discharge for the fish pass (7 m3/s) ......................................... 61

Acronyms
Acronym Full text
AFD Agence Française de Développement
AfDB African Development Bank
AOI Area of Influence
BI Biodiversity Importance
BMP Biodiversity Management Plan
CH Critical Habitat
CHA Critical Habitat Assessment
CH-q Critical Habitat-qualifying biodiversity features
CI Conservation Importance
DD Data Deficient
DRC Democratic Republic of Congo
E&S Environmental & Social
EAA Ecological Area of Analysis
EIA National Environmental Impact Assessment
EN Endangered
EOO Extent of Occurrence
ESIA International Environmental & Social Impact Assessment
ESS World Bank’s Environmental & Social Standards
FI Functional Importance
FSL Full Supply Level
GBIF Global Biodiversity Information Facility
GIP Good Industry Practices
HPP Hydropower Project
IBA Important Bird Area
IFC International Finance Corporation
IUCN International Union for the Conservation of Nature
IWRM Integrated Water Resource Management
KBA Key Biodiversity Area
km kilometre
LC Least Concern
LVB Lake Victoria Basin
masl Elevation in meters above sea level
Mm3 Million cubic metres
NA Not Assessed
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
NT Near Threatened
NTS Non-Technical Summary
PES Present Ecological State
PMF Probable Maximum Flood
SCC Species of Conservation Concern
SoW Scope of Work
TANESCO Tanzania Electric Supply Company Limited
TARISS Tanzanian River Scoring System
TAWIRI Tanzania Wildlife Research Institute
TMS Timed-Meander Search
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
VECEA Vegetation and Climate change in East Africa
VU Vulnerable

Summary
TANESCO plans to develop the 87 MW Kakono Hydropower Project (HPP) on the Kagera River and to
construct a 40-km long 220kV Transmission Line (TL) from the planned Kakono hydropower plant to
the 132kV/33kV Kyaka substation in Missenyi District. The overall project objective is to provide
stability of power supply in the Lake Victoria Zone and to supply electric power to the national grid.
The proposed Kakono HPP is located in Kagera Region in the north-western corner of Tanzania near
the border with Uganda, approximately 90 km west of Bukoba Municipality. The dam is planned to be
a 51 m-high concrete gravity dam, with a 1.5 km long embankment section on the right abutment. The
proposed powerhouse is at the foot of the dam. The dam will create a reservoir with a volume of 200
Mm3 and a footprint of 16 km² at full supply level. It will extend about 28 km upstream from the dam.
The infrastructure will create an absolute barrier to fish migrations within the river reach. SLR was
requested to undertake a study to determine the viability of providing a solution for fish passage
enhancement across the infrastructure associated with the Kakono HPP. A desktop evaluation
indicated that the Kakono River, which has a confluence with the Kagera River approximately 300 m
downstream of the Kakono HPP dam, would possibly provide for a suitable fish passage to circumvent
the HPP infrastructure. A field survey was undertaken during October 2020 to evaluate the site
conditions and to profile the Kakono River for preliminary hydraulic modelling.
Twelve profile transects were surveyed along the Kakono River. The characteristics of the watercourse
and preliminary hydraulic modelling, which took into account the channel dimension and slope of the
watercourse, indicated that the Kakono River is indeed suitable to be utilised as a fish bypass channel.
As the Kakono River does not intersect with the upstream reservoir of the Kakono HPP, a link channel
would have to be established. Various alternatives were investigated, and a preferred alignment has
been presented. The preferred alignment also outfalls at the preferred link site on the Kakono River.
There is an inflow control structure located on the upstream side of the dam wall that enables flow
control into the fishpass channel. This controls the flow volumes and provides a protection factor to
the Kakono River that may be impacted by elevated flows and the resulting erosion factors.
The Kakono River has a confluence with the Kagera River approximately 300 m downstream of the
Kakono HPP infrastructure. To enhance the success rate of fish locating the fishpass entrance, the
entrance has to be located nearer to the base of the migratory barrier (i.e. the dam structure). This is
achieved by diverting the Kakono River from its present confluence with the Kagera River, via a
constructed channel, to the base of the dam. As the functionality of the fishpass is driven by gravity
flow, this channel has to be provided with a downward slope. This will require that a small
impoundment be developed within the Kakono River, which will raise the water level for the stream
and allow for an approximate 1:100 slope. An overall conceptualisation of the fishpass strategy is
presented in Figure 0-1.
Transect profiles of the Kakono River were undertaken and preliminary hydraulic modelling indicates
that the stream profile requires a flow volume of approximately 5 - 7 m3/s to provide (i) suitable
hydraulic depth to facilitate fish movement and to facilitate sediment flushing through the stream, and
(ii) sufficient attraction flow.
Overall, at least 10% of all migrating fish are predicted to pass the Kakono Dam and through the
reservoir to the spawning areas upstream. This success rate is considered sufficient by the fishpass
expert team to ensure adequate gene-flow between sub-populations of the target fish species and
maintain ecological integrity of the migratory fish species.
The construction of the Kakono dam requires a diversion canal, which is proposed on the left bank to
divert the river for 2 years. There will be a need to take into account the layout of both the fish pass
facility and the diversion canal to avoid irreversible conflicts between the two components on the left
Confidential - 901.1.38_ESIA Kakono HPP_Fish Pass_Rev B_23March2021 Page i

Figure 0-1: An overview Conceptualisation of the Fishpass Strategy.
Facilitating downstream migrations was also an important consideration. Fish suffering mortalities as
they pass through turbines has been well documented, which has enhanced the development of fish-
friendly turbine designs. Due to various technical reasons, the preferred turbine model for the Kakono
HPP is the vertical Kaplan. Recent developments that have proven to greatly increase fish survivability
as they pass through the turbines is the Minimum Gap Runner (MGR) advancement. This decreases the
gaps between the runner blades and the housing, which then reduces the physical trauma through
grinding as well as reducing the shear stress, and hydrostatic pressure of the water as it passes
through the turbines. Reduction of the runner blades from 5 to 4 has also been shown to significantly
increases survivability. It is therefore recommended that the Kaplan turbines include the MGR
advancement as well as limiting the runners to a 4-blade design. Further to this, fish will also
periodically flush over the spillway during flood conditions and also move downstream through the
fishpass channel.
The potential for Nile Perch (Lates niloticus) to establish within the Kakono HPP reservoir was also to
be investigated. This is a highly-predaceous species that is well-documented as an alien introduction
to Lake Victoria that has had a profound impact on the conservation status of many species within the
lake due to. The fish survey studies showed a low presence of this species within the river reach
associated with the project and literature references indicate this species to prefer lake-type habitat
over riverine habitat. The Kakono HPP reservoir will alter the riverine habitat into an impoundment,
which could allow for establishment of this species and this is acknowledged as a potential occurrence.
This would also be enhanced by the potential for deliberate introductions of this species within the
reservoir to offer increased fisheries potential within the area. The establishment of the fishpass
cannot select against this species, but is also not perceived to enhance the recruitment of this species
from downstream sources into the reservoir.
Following the feasibility survey to determine the suitability of using the Kakono River as part of a
fishpass strategy for fish to circumvent the Kakono HPP infrastructure, it is felt that the presented
strategy will offer an ecologically functional fishpass facility. The fishpass would be utilised by a wide
variety of fish species, with specific relevance to obligatory migratory species such as Labeo victorianus
(a CE species known from the river reach), various other Labeo spp, various Labeobarbus spp and other
important migratory species.
Confidential - 901.1.38_ESIA Kakono HPP_Fish Pass_Rev B_23March2021 Page ii

As the fishpass strategy remains within a conceptual stage of development, there are certain aspects
that will require refinement through ground-truth assessments and detailed design of the inflow
structures, accompanying channels and outfall areas. This is to include site suitability for the
construction of the various structures that have been proposed throughout the report as well as the
actual structural suitability of the designs proposed.
Confidential - 901.1.38_ESIA Kakono HPP_Fish Pass_Rev B_23March2021 Page iii

1 Introduction
1.1 Background
TANESCO plans to develop the 87 MW Kakono Hydropower Project (HPP) on the Kagera River and to
construct a 40-km long 220kV Transmission Line (TL) from the planned Kakono hydropower plant to
the 132kV/33kV Kyaka substation in Missenyi District (See Figure 1-1).
The overall project objective is to provide stability of power supply in the Lake Victoria Zone and to
supply electric power to the national grid.
The proposed Kakono HPP is located in Kagera Region in the north-western corner of Tanzania near
the border with Uganda, approximately 90 km west of Bukoba Municipality (See Figure 1-1). The dam
is planned to be a 51 m-high concrete gravity dam, with a 1.5 km long embankment section on the
right abutment. The proposed powerhouse is at the foot of the dam. The dam will create a reservoir
with a volume of 200 Mm3 and a footprint of 16 km² at full supply level. It will extend about 28 km
upstream from the dam.
An Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) study for the Kakono Hydropower Plant
(Norplan, 2014a) and for the Kakono HPP Transmission Line (Norplan, 2014b) have been prepared for
TANESCO. The final version for the two reports was issued in 2016 (Norplan, 2016a). The ESIAs were
submitted to the National Environment Management Council (NEMC) and the environmental permit
issued in December 2016 with a validity of three years. TANESCO updated the ESIA in 2017 (TANESCO,
2017a) (which included a study on elephant migration) and prepared a Resettlement Action Plan
(TANESCO, 2017b). These 2017 documents were not submitted to NEMC.
The French Agency for Development (AFD), the African Development Bank (AfDB) have expressed
interest to finance the construction of the proposed hydropower plant and transmission line
components of the Project. Both institutions currently financially and technically support the
Government of Tanzania through TANESCO. To ensure compliance with their Environmental and Social
(E&S) policies, the potential Lenders have recommended that complementary environmental and
social studies be undertaken to supplement the existing 2014/2017 ESIA/RAP studies.
The complementary E&S studies will also be used by the Project to obtain a new Environmental Permit
from NEMC through the submission of a new Environmental and Social Impact Assessment referred
as the 2020 ESIA in this report. In 2019, the AFD commissioned SLR Consulting to perform the
environmental and social investigations required to prepare the 2020 ESIA.
1.2 Purpose of the Fishway Conceptual Study

Since the environmental permit has been awarded in 2016 by NEMC, the Project was further developed
at the Basic Design Stage in 2019 by Studio Pietrangeli (Studio Pietrangeli, 2019). The 2019 Basic
Design does not include a fish pass. In February and March 2020, SLR undertook a fish and invertebrate
survey, the outcome of which is detailed in the Aquatic Baseline Survey Report dated 11 May 2020.
The findings were as follows:
• All the project-affected aquatic ecosystem is natural habitat – requiring no net loss of
biodiversity to align with lenders' standards.
• The Ecological Area of Analysis selected for the Critical Habitat Assessment caters for potential
migration related effects and fish barriers, and focussed on the Lower Kagera River, from Lake
Victoria to Rusumo.
• The Lower Kagera River is a Critical Habitat for various fish criteria (including critically
endangered species, range restricted species and migratory species).
• In terms of the AFD and the AfDB environmental and social safeguards, projects that may affect
critical habitat must align with strict conditions to mitigate impacts on critical habitat. The
Project must be able to demonstrate that all possible mitigation measures following the
Confidential - 901.1.38_ESIA Kakono HPP_Fish Pass_Rev B_23March2021 Page 1

mitigation hierarchy (avoid, minimise, mitigate) have been investigated and applied before
considering an offset. It must also confirm that the proposed design and operation regime will
not result in severe reduction in critically endangered species or lead to measurable adverse
impacts on biodiversity values or ecological process that contribute to its designation as critical
habitat.
• The dam, as an obstacle to upstream migration, could adversely affect some of the qualifying
fish species. It will disrupt migratory activities of the fish within the system that require the
freedom of movement for breeding and habitat exploitation purposes, as well as genetic
dispersal. Therefore, as a first priority, and to demonstrate the application of the mitigation
hierarchy, the viability of a fish pass on the Kakono HPP had to be investigated, and possible
design options presented and costed. If a fish pass is found to be viable and economically
feasible then it should be included in the project design and costing.
• The viability of a fish pass should be investigated in parallel with the ESIA process. This is
because the ESIA must be able to conclude that the residual impacts would not lead to severe
reduction in the species that trigger the critical habitat: If a fish pass is found to be a viable
solution, the ESIA will commit to build and operate it, and in that case the Project needs to
understand the cost and energy implications for the construction and operation phases. If a fish
pass is found not to be a viable solution, the ESIA will demonstrate that all other elements of
the mitigation hierarchy have been implemented to the extent feasible before an offset
program is developed.
In September 2020, the AFD contracted SLR to undertake the Fishway Conceptual Study for the
Kakono HPP Project. This report is the outcome of the Fishway Conceptual Study conducted in the last
quarter of 2020 by SLR Consulting.
1.3 Study Team

The study team is summarised in Table 1.
Table 1: Study Team

Name Role/Specialisation Qualification
Dr Mathew Ross Fishway Specialist and main author of this report PhD (Zoology - Aquatic Health)
15 years experience
Dr Anton Bok Fishway Specialist and Peer reviewer for this report PhD (Ichthyology)
40 years experience

Figure 1-1: Project Location

2 Target Fish Species

2.1 Importance of the Kagera River to Fish Passage &
Habitat
The Kakono HPP is located approximately 320 km upstream of Lake Victoria along the watercourse.
The Kagera River has its source within Burundi, rising out of Lake Rweru and is regarded as the main
tributary that flows into Lake Victoria. It has an association with many of the satellite lakes en route
between these two major waterbodies and can therefore be regarded as an important conduit for
genetic material for fish between these regions (Balirwa, et al., 2003). Apart from some cascades and
small waterfalls, as far as could be ascertained there are no major migratory barriers along the
watercourse locally, although there are some natural features that would be difficult for fish to
negotiate under low flow conditions. At the regional scale, there is a major hydropower development
being constructed at Rusumo Falls, but this is located several hundred kilometres from the survey site
and would therefore affect only a small portion of fish undertaking long-distance migrations.
The Kagera River can be regarded as a meandering floodplain river, which carries a high silt load that
is deposited within Lake Victoria. The silt load is augmented by agricultural cultivation from both the
formal and informal/subsistence sectors, together with the grazing of livestock, that are the two major
drivers that induce soil erosion within the catchment area. Further downstream, the river tends to be
deep and generally slower-flowing, with a lower gradient. Sediment deposition is favoured under
lower water velocity conditions. Substrates with the low velocity zones therefore tend to be dominated
by sand and mud, whereas zones of higher water velocity (shallower areas with a relatively higher
channel gradient) tend to have substrates dominated by rocks of various size classes. Papyrus
reedbeds form islands and overhanging banks, which is an important refuge habitat for many species
of fish. Upstream of the proposed HPP, the river tends to have a steeper gradient and a resulting
increased flow velocity, which would provide for greater habitat diversity and increased oxygen
content within the water. Obligatory migratory fish (those that migrate annually for spawning
purposes) would require access passed the proposed Kakono HPP area in order to find suitable
spawning habitat located upstream of the site. The genetic interaction of the various lakes within the
region is also important to maintain. The fisheries resource within the lakes is known to be over-
exploited, which is compounded by the introduction of the Nile perch (Lates niloticus), which is a
predatory fish that has been quoted as being a major driver of complete decline of all fish within the
system. The recent over-exploitation of Nile perch by the fisheries sector has consequently seen the
steady recovery of many species within the system (Witte et al., 2007), but conservation of the overall
ecological health of the riverine system, which is where much of the spawning activity of fish takes
place, will be instrumental in providing the numbers of juvenile fish to replenish fish numbers within
the lake. This is not only important to sustaining ecological health and conservation of the fish species,
but also plays an important role in sustaining the fisheries socio-economic sector provided by the fish
resources within the lake. Conserving the ecological health of the rivers associated with Lake Victoria
will play a pivotal role in sustaining this fisheries resource as well as to conserve fish species diversity
within the basin area. It is therefore clear that provision for fish passage should be regarded as a
priority to the project.
As with all of the lakes of the East African Rift, a large and diverse population of haplochromid cichlids
of the sub-family Pseudocrenilabrinae occur within the regional lakes. Haplochromis is a wide and
diverse genus with upwards of 230 species, and includes the popular aquarium fish groups of
“Happies, Haps or Haplos”. It is regarded as the largest genus of freshwater fish. It is also regarded as
a problematic group in terms of taxonomy due to its diversity, yet similarities, amongst the species
(Nagl, et al., 2001). The smaller species within this group tend to be isolated within the respective
lakes with very little genetic interaction taking place. This group of species is therefore largely
disregarded in terms of migratory behaviour for this project. Larger-bodied haplochromids do tend to
enter rivers to exploit suitable habitat and these will be included for the purpose of the survey.

The Kagera River supports a high diversity of fish species, but there is one conservationally significant
fish species, namely Labeo victorianus, which is regarded as critically endangered. This species requires
access to floodplains during high flow seasons for spawning purposes. Although a large proportion of
the known population of Labeo victorianus is known to remain within the lake regions, a significant
number do migrate upstream into the feeder rivers (the Kagera River being the largest feeder river of
Lake Victoria) in search of suitable breeding habitat and nursery areas. They also utilise the rivers as
dispersal corridors and for general habitat exploitation to reduce the pressure on natural resources
within an area, and for genetic dispersal of populations. Populations of Labeo victorianus within Lake
Victoria are under pressure due to an over-exploited fisheries sector as well as competition for
resources and predatory pressure from the introduced Nile Perch (Lates niloticus). This means that the
survivability of this species depends on sexually mature adults having open access to rivers that flow
into the lake in order to reproduce and allow for replenishment of fish stocks within the lake. Migratory
freedom for this fish species is therefore essential for both short and long-term survival and
population viability of this species. Implementation of a fishpass facility to allow migratory freedom
of fish across the Kakono HPP dam is therefore regarded as imperative to the ecological health of the
fish populations within the Kagera River.
Habitat fragmentation due to dam construction is noted as the most important factor contributing to
the decline in fish species diversity and numbers at the international level. As the development of
hydropower and irrigation schemes within Eastern, Western and Central Africa shows an increasing
trend, there is a cumulative impact associated with each development unless provision is made for
assuring migratory freedom across the associated man-made barriers. The Kikagati HPP development
is located approximately 100 km upstream of the Kakono HPP site. The developers of the Kikagati HPP
identified the need to maintain habitat connectivity for migratory fish species, and therefore have
developed a fishpass that allows fish to cross the impoundment structure for both upstream and
downstream movements. This is also a constructed bypass channel design. By ensuring that an
ecologically sound fishpass be developed at all artificial migratory barriers, the cumulative negative
impacts to the long-term survivability of the fish can be abated.
2.2 Migratory Requirements of Fish Species Identified

from the Catchment Area
Fish migrate for a variety of reasons, being genetic dispersal, habitat exploitation, exploitation of food
resources, predation evasion or escaping unfavourable local environmental conditions. Perhaps the
most noteworthy migrational movement is as a response to environmental cues for spawning
purposes by what is termed as obligatory migratory fish (i.e. fish species that have to undertake
migrations to successfully complete a portion of their life cycle).
These migrations are often undertaken by a large proportion of the population of the sexually mature
individuals of a particular species over a relatively short period of time. These migrations are also often
over a relatively long distance (long-distance migrations to seek suitable spawning habitat such as
floodplains, or riffles and rapids that provide water with high oxygen content and turbulence that will
flush debris from eggs).
Localised movements are undertaken repeatedly/cyclically (i.e. daily) over a short distance by fish for
food resources and seeking refuge (predator evasion, etc). Longer distance migrations are undertaken
by sexually mature individuals seeking to spawn, which takes place typically only on an annual basis.
Individuals will migrate until suitable spawning habitat is found, and migrations taking place over
hundreds of kilometres are not uncommon for the stronger migratory species.
Migrations to floodplain habitat, which could be localised into flooded reed-/grass-beds of local
channels as the watercourse swells, or many kilometres away, are also undertaken by many fish
species within the system, with larger species tending to migrate further to the more established
floodplains. Of particular relevance to the Kakono HPP is to maintain longitudinal connectivity of the
habitat during the critical migratory periods in order to allow those individuals access to spawning
areas. The inability of fish to locate suitable spawning grounds will result in spawning within
unfavourable areas, which has detrimental impacts on the breeding success of that population. As
spawning of the obligatory migratory species (in particular) typically takes place en masse annually,

anything that reduces breeding success will have detrimental impacts on the numbers of the species
that will impact the ecological balance of the system and the quality of the fisheries resource.
Reducing the lateral connectivity of the aquatic system will also have long term impacts on the
ecological health of the system (although this aspect is of limited relevance to the Project). Limiting
lateral connectivity will reduce the available habitat for exploitation by a variety of species and
ultimately reduce the population strength and species diversity within the area. Inhibiting migrational
movements of any species will also ultimately reduce the genetic diversity of the various species,
which could lead to species isolation, and loss of population vigour. This will all lead to a fish population
that is vulnerable to ecological changes, and, as population vigour will be reduced, could succumb to
extrinsic pressures such as over exploitation (fishing pressure) or alien species introduction within the
area.
2.3 Hydraulic Guidelines and Considerations for Migratory

Functional Groups
There are certain concepts that have to be taken into account when considering a target group of fish
species applicable to designing a fishpass facility.
The induced hydraulic conditions within that facility (be it a formal design or an informal bypass
channel) must take into consideration the biological and physical abilities of that target group of
species, and the design characteristics of the fishpass facility have to ensure that these limits are not
surpassed by creating hydraulic conditions that are beyond the abilities of the fish.
Another factor to consider is that the facility has to cater for a variety of fish species that will represent
a wide range of swimming abilities.
A further point to consider is that fish have different swimming modes that they are able to sustain for
different periods. Sustained swimming speeds refers to an aerobic-type of swimming muscle activity
that a fish can sustain for long periods of time. This swimming mode is typically utilised by a fish to
maintain its body position within the current and water column and to carry out basic everyday life
cycle processes. It is a swimming mode that does not require a higher oxygen demand nor require a
greater need to metabolise beyond what they fish (as an individual) can supply or process. Burst
swimming speeds refer to a type of swimming that cannot be sustained indefinitely by a fish without
moving beyond the oxygen supply limit as well as the metabolic limit of processing by-products of the
muscles and the degree of swimming effort utilised for this type of swimming type. Burst swimming
speed is therefore regarded as an anaerobic swimming activity, and the associated build-up of lactic
acid within the muscle fibres is the limiting factor to how long this swimming effort can be sustained
for. The fish requires a resting period following the efforts required to swim at burst-speed efforts in
order to metabolise the lactic acid and to regain equilibrium of the oxygen demand state of their
muscles once again. Burst speed swimming efforts are typically utilised for predator evasion, hunting,
and to navigate through areas of increased water velocity and turbulences. These types of swimming
abilities are important when designing a fishpass facility. Areas of high-water velocity that are at the
limits of the fish’s swimming ability must be only present in isolated zones, with interspersed resting
zones being imperative to allowing the fish to successfully negotiate any fishway.
Formal fishways that have consecutive pools connected by a zone of high velocity, necessary to allow
for the gain in height of each successive pool, must not induce higher water velocities that is beyond
the ability of the fish. It should also not require that the fish sustain burst speed efforts for any
sustained periods without allowing for sufficient resting areas for the fish to fully recover. Formal
fishway structures move from a uniform repetition of high velocity to low velocity in a set amplitude
and frequency, whereas a natural bypass facility (such as a rock ramp or bypass channel-type of
fishway) tends to mix the velocities and turbulences to provide a diversity of hydraulic conditions that
the fish is able to adapt to more readily as it simulates natural river hydraulic conditions.

Figure 2-1: Relationship between changes in one water level to the next and the associated induced water flow
velocity
(DH = Change in water level, which dictates the induced water velocity within an open channel system)
Table 2 presents the general parameters applicable to the various migratory groups. It is those
parameters that are utilised in guiding the design process of any fishways that will be required, and is
used as supporting data to define the hydraulic parameters of any formal fishways to be implemented.
These parameters are also important when considering the feasibility of any bypass channel to ensure
that any natural physical characteristics of the bypass channel does not pose as a migratory inhibitor
in itself. Rock intrusions within a watercourse often create cascading water flows, which could pose
as migratory barriers in themselves and may be required to be altered to make the channel more
readily negotiated by a greater diversity of fish species and size classes. The values provided within
the table indicate the maximum parameters that a fish can sustain under burst speed conditions. They
are not an indication of the limits that a fish can sustain for any sustained periods. As the flow through
an open-channel watercourse is gravity driven, the change in water levels at any given point dictates
the flow velocity. The change in water level between points (or successive pools) therefore becomes a
surrogate for water velocity and tends to be the overall defining characteristics that drives the design
(Figure 2-1). It is accepted that fish would encounter higher water velocities and higher turbulence
levels within the natural system, but, as a fishway cannot usually provide the diversity and variation in
hydraulic conditions of a natural system, guidelines are set that tend to be conservative bias. This
ensures ecological functionality for a greater diversity of fish species and size class ranges.
Table 2: Details on Migratory Groupings.

Max
Migratory groups water DH** (m)
velocity*
1 Obligatory migratory species; long-distance upstream migrations; strong swimmers 2.2 0.245
2 Obligatory migratory species; long-distance upstream migrations; weaker swimmers 1.8-2.2 0.165-0.245
3 Obligatory migratory species; short-distance/lateral migrations; weaker swimmers 1.8-2.0 0.165-0.200
4 Migrations for general habitat exploitation - stronger swimmers 2.2 0.245
5 Migrations for general habitat exploitation - weaker swimmers 1.6-1.8 0.130-0.165
6 Non migratory species (disregarded for the project) - -
7 Introduced species (disregarded, unless otherwise indicated) - -
* Max water velocity = burst speed of fish (i.e. short swimming efforts) and not applicable to sustained (longer swimming efforts)
swimming ability
** DH = Change in water level, which dictates the induced water velocity within an open channel system.

2.4 Analysis of Fish Species Diversity and Migratory

Functional Groups
The aquatic specialist survey (SLR, 2020) indicated an expected fish species diversity list as presented
in Table 3.
Table 3: Baseline Expected Fish Diversity for the Kagera River

within the Reach Associated with the Kakono HPP (SLR, 2020).
Family Number Migratory requirements Relevance to the Kakono HPP
of spp
Alestidae 5 Genetic dispersal; High (although not sampled during the
Access to suitable habitat for breeding Nov 2020 survey)
Anguillidae 4 Genetic dispersal; Not relevant
Migratory freedom required to fulfil a stage of their
lifecycle.
Bagridae 1 Genetic dispersal; High
Access to suitable habitat for breeding
Cichlidae 7 Genetic dispersal; High
Access to suitable habitat for breeding
Clariidae 3 Genetic dispersal; High
Access to floodplain habitat for breeding
Cyprinidae 10 Genetic dispersal; High
Access to floodplain habitat for breeding;
Access to upper river reaches with relatively fast-
flowing habitat and floodplains for breeding.
Latidae 1 Nile Perch - exotic High (although an alien species,
implications of inhabitation are high)
Mastacembelidae 1 Genetic dispersal; High
Mochokidae 3 Genetic dispersal; High
Mormyridae 9 Genetic dispersal; High
Access to suitable breeding habitat;
Generally short-distances and lateral movement
into floodplains important
Poeciliidae 2 Not regarded as a migratory group of species Low
Protopteridae 1 Genetic dispersal; Medium-high
Schilbeidae 1 Genetic dispersal; High
Total 48
Table 4 presents the results of the fish species collected during the November 2020 survey. Although
not a comprehensive list of fish species applicable to the Kagera River Basin, it represents a good
diversity of species, with a diversity considered to adequately represent the species community
structures of the system. The diversity of fish species sampled is considered sufficient to develop a
conceptual design for a fishpass that would be regarded as ecologically functional for the target
species inhabiting the system.

Table 4: Species recorded from the 2020 specialist fish survey within the reach associated with the Kakono HPP, together with their designated migratory functional groupings.
Order Family Species Common name Status Habitat Max length (cm) Migratory group
CHARACIFORMES Alestidae Brycinus affinis Redfin robber LC pelagic 14.7 TL 2
Brycinus imberi Spot-tail robber LC demersal 19.8 TL 2
Brycinus jacksonii Victoria robber LC pelagic 27.0 TL 1
Brycinus nurse Nurse tetra LC pelagic 21.0 TL 2
Brycinus sadleri Sadler's robber LC pelagic 13.8 TL 1
Brycinus sp. Robber LC - - 2
CYPRINIFORMES Cyprinidae Cyprinus carpio Common carp Exotic - - 7
Enteromius apleurogramma East African redfinned barb LC benthopelagic 6.6 TL 2
Enteromius cercops Neumayer's barb LC benthopelagic 7.0 TL 1
Enteromius eutaenia Orangefin barb LC benthopelagic 14.0 TL 1
Enteromius kerstenii Redspot barb LC benthopelagic 11.0 TL 2
Enteromius nyanzae Nyanza barb LC benthopelagic 8.5 TL 2
Enteromius paludinosus Straightfin barb LC benthopelagic 18.3 TL 2
Enteromius perince Threespot barb LC benthopelagic 8.9 TL 2
Enteromius sp. - - - - 2
Enteromius sp. (cf. E. atkinsoni) Dash-dot barb - benthopelagic 3.2 SL 2
Enteromius sp. (cf. jacksoni) Jackson's barb - benthopelagic 14.1 TL 2
Enteromius sp. (cf. magdelanae) Bunjako barb LC benthopelagic 6.8 TL 1
Labeo coubie African carp LC benthopelagic 75.0 TL 1
Labeo niloticus Nile carp LC benthopelagic 47.0 TL 1
Labeo senegalensis - LC benthopelagic 65.0 TL 1
Labeo victorianus Ningu CR benthopelagic 50.0 TL 1
Labeobarbus acuticeps Matthes barb NT benthopelagic 40.3 TL 1
Labeobarbus altianalis Ripon barbel LC benthopelagic 90.0 TL 1
Labeobarbus somereni - LC benthopelagic 40.0 TL 1
Rastrineobola argentea Lake Victoria sardine LC pelagic 9.0 TL 6
CYPRINODONTIFORMES Poeciliidae Lacustricola pumilus Tanganyika lampeye - benthopelagic 5.5 TL 6
Micropanchax hutereaui Meshcale topminnow LC benthopelagic 3.5 TL 6
Poecilia reticulata Guppy Exotic benthopelagic 7.3 TL 7
LEPIDOSIRENIFORMES Protopteridae Protopterus aethiopicus Marbled lungfish LC demersal 200.0 TL 2
OSTEOGLOSSIFORMES Mormyridae Gnathonemus longibarbis Longnose stonebasher LC demersal 36.0 TL 4
Hippopotamyrus grahami Graham's stonebasher LC benthopelagic 30.5 TL 4
Marcusenius cyprinoides Elephantfish LC demersal 33.0 TL 4
Marcusenius victoriae Victoria stonebasher LC demersal 42.7 TL 4
Mormyrus caschive Kasuruban LC demersal 100.0 TL 4
Mormyrus hasselquistii Elephantsnout LC demersal 50.0 TL 4
Mormyrus kannume Bottlenose LC demersal 122.0 TL 3
Petrocephalus catostoma Churchill LC demersal 15.0 TL 3
Pollimyrus nigricans Dark stonebasher LC demersal 10.0 SL 3
PERCIFORMES Cichlidae Astatoreochromis alluaudi Alluaud's haplo LC benthopelagic 19.0 TL 4
Astatotilapia nubilus Blue Victoria mouthbrooder LC benthopelagic 9.3 TL 4

Order Family Species Common name Status Habitat Max length (cm) Migratory group
Coptodon rendalli Redbreast tilapia LC benthopelagic 45.0 TL 4
Haplochromis sp. (various) - LC benthopelagic 15.6 TL 4
Oreochromis esculentus Singida tilapia CR benthopelagic 50.0 TL 4
Oreochromis leucostictus Bluespotted tilapia LC benthopelagic 36.3 TL 4
Oreochromis macrochir Longfin tilapia - benthopelagic 43.0 TL 4
Oreochromis niloticus Nile tilapia LC benthopelagic 60.0 TL 4
Oreochromis variabilis Victoria tilapia CR benthopelagic 30.0 TL 4
Thoracochromis wingatii - DD benthopelagic 5.3 TL 4
Latidae Lates niloticus Nile perch LC demersal 200.0 TL 7
SILURIFORMES Amphiliidae Zaireichthys sp. nov. Sand catlet - demersal 19.5 TL 2
Bagridae Bagrus docmak Semutundu LC benthopelagic 127.0 4
Clariidae Clarias alluaudi Alluaud's catfish LC demersal 23.0 TL 2
Clarias anguillaris Mudfish LC demersal 100.0 TL 2
Clarias gariepinus Sharptooth catfish LC benthopelagic 170.0 TL 1
Clarias liocephalus Smoothhead catfish LC demersal 32.0 TL 2
Mochokidae Synodontis afrofischeri Fischer's Victoria squeaker LC benthopelagic 21.6 TL 3
Synodontis ruandae Rwanda squeaker VU benthopelagic 16.2 TL 4
Synodontis victoriae Lake Victoria squeaker LC benthopelagic 42.7 TL 3
Schilbeidae Schilbe intermedius Silver butter catfish LC pelagic 200.0 TL 1
Schilbe mystus African butter catfish LC demersal 35.0 TL 4
SYNBRANCHIFORMES Mastacembelidae Mastacembelus frenatus East African spiny eel LC demersal 48.4 TL 3

For the purpose of this survey, the fish species are grouped into migratory functional groups according
to swimming abilities as well as migratory reasons and requirements. These data are then used to
guide the design criteria and to set the hydraulic parameters of any fishway or fish pass structures to
be developed. A fishway has to provide hydraulic conditions that fall within the limits of the swimming
abilities of the target fish species.
Figure 2-2: Graphical Representation of the Proportions of the Fish Species Designated to the Various migratory
Groups that were sampled during the fish survey.
Figure 3 indicates that fish falling within Group 4 dominate the system (31%), followed by Group 2
(27%) and Group 1 (22%). Groups 1, 2 and 3 represent obligatory migratory species, meaning that
freedom of migration both laterally and longitudinally within the riverine habitat is important to sustain
populations. This group is makes up 59% of the species communities. Group 4 reflects the species
regarded as strong swimmers, but undertake more local migrations, mostly for reasons of habitat
exploitation and dispersal.

3 Fishpass Alternatives Applicable to the

Site
The Kakono River has a confluence with the Kagera River approximately 375 m from the base of the
proposed dam structure. The Kakono River is a seasonal stream that has a source from hillslope and
valley-head wetland seep zones within close proximity to the survey area. It also passes nearby to the
proposed Kakono reservoir that would allow for a link to be established between the reservoir and the
stream.
A preliminary desktop analysis revealed that the Kakono River could be a suitable option to provide for
migratory freedom across the Kakono HPP dam structure. Aerial imagery and associated LiDAR data
proved to be relatively inaccurate for profiling the stream due to high density riparian vegetation,
steep-sided banks and the relatively small spatial scale of the watercourse itself. A field survey was
therefore undertaken to provide first-hand observations and analyses of the watercourse to
determine the level of feasibility for utilising this stream as a natural bypass channel for fish to
circumvent the dam structure. It should be noted that is it extremely rare to have site conditions that
allow for a bypass channel that would promote migratory freedom for a dam structure of this
magnitude.
As there are a variety of fishway designs and possible alternatives to mitigating for inhibition of fish
migratory freedom, the possibility of implementing a formal fishway structure was also explored for
comparative purposes.
The following sections will provide further details for possible alternatives for a fishpass facility
applicable to the Kakono HPP dam.
3.1 Formal Fishway Design

Normally, a dam of the height that is proposed by the Kakono HPP could not be mitigated for with a
formal flow-type of fishway (open channel structure with gravity-induced flow through).
These types of structures have been mitigated for internationally by making use of fish lifts, which is a
mechanised structure that uses a series of hydraulic mechanisms to capture fish that have
congregated at the base of the migratory inhibiting structure within a cage and to lift this cage to the
top of the structure. It then releases the fish upstream of the structure (i.e. into the reservoir). It is an
automatic process that makes use of flowing water to continually operate. This system tends to only
favour larger-bodied fish, but the mesh size of the cage can be scaled to accommodate smaller-bodied
species and individuals. A system such as this has never been implemented within Africa due to
inhibitory construction costs. They also tend to not be used for hydropower developments.
Therefore, in terms of a formal structure, the only viable approach would be to make use of a vertical
slot-type of fishway. Considering that the height difference between upstream and downstream water
levels1 is approximately 30.5 m, and taking the discharge through the fishway to provide for
submerged (sub critical flow conditions), the parameters to a vertical slot-type of fishway provided in
Table 5 would be applicable.
Table 5: Outline of the design features of a formal vertical-slot type of fishway structure applicable to the Kakono
HPP dam.
Parameters Values
Total height difference: 30.5 m
Height difference between pools to cater for the target spp: 0.180 m
Pool length (hydraulic interval length) 2.600 m
Channel width 2.000 m
1
The reservoir normal operating level is 1,189 m asl; The tailrace normal operating level is 1,158.5 m asl.

Parameters Values
Slot width between pools: 0.40 m
Maximum water velocity between pools: 1.879 m/s
Upstream head height to induce submerged flow conditions 0.550 m
Turbulence levels in pools: 120.536 watts/m3
Discharge (Q) when the fishway channel reaches critical flow: 0.3184 m3/s
Catering for expected flow variation due to peaking (0.5 m), 0.3184 m3/s (peaking level 1188.50);
the following discharges would occur through the fishway: 0.6664 m3/s (FSL 1189.0)
Number of pools: Approximately 180, taking into consideration bend points and
resting pools
Slope: 1:14.4 (6.92%) (3.96°)
Total fishway length: Approx 470 m (linearly), but bend points will alter the footprint
design that can be altered to accommodate the site (although
the space considered for a fishway structure of this stature is
not thought to be available at the site.
Scrutiny of the design requirements and implementation at this site revealed the following features
that are regarded as problematic:
Table 6: Overview of Advantages and Disadvantages of the Implementation of a Formal Fishway Structure
Applicable to the Kakono HPP Dam Site.
Advantages Disadvantages
• Fishway entrance can be placed at an optimal locality to • Cumbersome and complicated design increases the risk of
ensure that migratory fish would find it; failure;
3
• Can function at discharge rates as low as 0.3184 m /s, but • Overall length of fishway would fatigue fish and would
would require a discharge of 0.6664 m3/s at FSL in order to ultimately lead to lowered overall ecological functionality;
accommodate peaking flows; • Fatigued fish are vulnerable to predation, especially if
• Can accommodate a great variation in discharge volumes to confined within fishway pools, and fish that are fatigued also
accommodate fluctuations in water levels (although a have a lower reproductive output.
variation in water level of only 0.5 m is expected to occur;
• Greater level of hydraulic control is achieved with this use of
this design.
From an initial review of determining the feasibility of providing for a formal fishway structure, and the
requirements of such a structure, it could generally be concluded that this would not be an ecologically
sound approach and that such a structure would provide for very limited ecological value. It is therefore
not recommended.
3.2 Aquatic Bypass Channel

Background & General Theoretical Requirements
A natural bypass/rock-ramp type of fish passes is usually the preferred design over formal fishway
structures but are very often limited in application due to unsuitable site conditions. Factors such as
channel profiling, slope and substrate type (foundation material availability/suitability), accessibility to
the site for construction equipment and availability of materials are all aspects to be considered during
the design process.
Rock-ramp type of fishways aim to have a gradient of between 1:15 and 1:25 (Thorncraft & Harris,
2000). The steeper slope of 1:15 is more challenging and so requires hydraulically sheltered resting
areas and strategic rock placement that promotes diversity of hydraulic conditions, including less
turbulent sections. The steeper the fishway gradient, the more technical and cumbersome the design
becomes, which usually induces a greater level of maintenance as well). A slope of 1:15-1:25 (or
higher) is therefore recommended, where the channel will be more likely to have lower water velocities
and therefore, lower turbulence levels. The water will also tend to pool more readily, which will reduce
the incidences of supercritical flow conditions (an unstable flow type of high turbulence due to lack of
sufficient water depth in relation to the upstream head difference (H1). Supercritical flow changes to
subcritical stable flow when the depth of the “plunge pool” equals to 66.7% of the H1).

Further to gradient, and considering that this river system supports such a diversity of fish species and
size classes, it is also important that the channel provides for (i) sufficient refuge for smaller fish
vulnerable to predation, (ii) a diversity of channel substrates, and (iii) a diversity of flow-depth profiles.
In order to promote maximum ecological functionality of the channel as an extension of the fishpass,
a basic 3-stage trapezoidal channel shape is recommended as presented in Figure 3-1. The basic
channel shape is regarded as being important, but the dimensions should be regarded as being
dynamic and adaptive to site and hydraulic conditions. A type of an adaptive construction methodology
should be applied when structuring the channel.
Figure 3-1: Channel profile that would be best suited for catering for a variety of fish species and age classes.
The shallower area induces greater flow resistance and therefore provides areas of lower water velocities for
weaker-swimming specie. A substrate of rocks and cobbles will induce resistance to flow, slow the overall water
velocity and also provide for velocity variation.
The shallower section induces a greater resistance to flow, which slows the velocity of the water
relative to the deeper section. This allows for greater variation of the velocities experienced within the
channel and thus better facilitates a greater diversity of fish species and size classes (i.e. variation of
swimming abilities). It is recommended that the deeper portion of the channel be located to the outside
of any required bend points. This will allow for further hydraulic sheltering of the shallow sections,
which will induce slower velocities within these areas. A photo of a two-stage trapezoidal fish pass
channel is presented in Figure 3-2 for visualisation and as a basic guide.

Figure 3-2: Construction of a two-stage trapezoidal fishway channel

showing how rocks are embedded within a solid substrate (Watson Lake, Colorado, USA) (REF).

Feasibility of Making Use of the Kakono River as a Bypass Channel

The Kakono River could potentially provide an ideal bypass channel to promote migratory freedom of
fish across the Kakono HPP dam structure. Analysis of the stream gradient indicated an average
gradient of 1:40 (2.5% slope), which is thought ideal. The contour data and the analysis thereof of
areas that could possibly link the reservoir to the steam also allowed for assessing the most feasible
channel alignments.
Figure 3-3: A 3D terrain model rendering, showing the proximity of the Kakono River mouth to the proposed dam
infrastructure.
A field survey was conducted in October 2020 to profile the characteristics of the watercourse and to
determine, from first-hand observations, whether making use of the Kakono River as a fish bypass
channel would be feasible. A walk-through of the watercourse was conducted to assess the
characteristics of the channel itself, with focus being on the following:
• Channel vertical profiling was undertaken at various points along the watercourse that were
aimed at best representing the general size and capacity of the stream. This would allow for a
conceptual hydraulic analysis of the channel to determine the approximate required discharge
rates to induce sufficient water column depth so that fish representing a variety of species and
size classes could utilise the stream;
• A suitable linkage point along the Kakono River was sought that could potentially provide for
the most suitable link between the Kakono reservoir, through an excavated channel, to
discharge into the Kakono River;
• The walk-through of the main active channel of the Kakono River allowed for an analysis of
habitat types represented by the watercourse under natural conditions, analysis of bottom
substrates, and sections within the watercourse that would perhaps require artificial
manipulation to enhance passability of fish (such as rocky cascades, shallow-flowing zones
over smooth bedrock, interflow through rock fissures, etc).
Twelve cross section profiles of the watercourse (the localities of which are presented in Figure 3-4
taken along the watercourse in order to profile the stream using the HEC-RAS (Hydrologic Engineering
Centre – River Analysis System) software model (developed by the US Army Corp of Engineers). This
model allows for conceptual analysis of the expected hydraulic changes within a river section by
analysing given vertical profiles under various discharge rates. Although not regarded as being a
detailed account of the river profile at this stage, it provided for sufficient data to determine the

feasibility of making use of the Kakono River as a bypass channel, and what approximate discharge
rates would be required to achieve this.

Figure 3-4: The localities of the transect profiles and the various channel alignment alternatives.

KakonoHPP Plan: Steady Flow_PL2 15/12/2020

Legend
WS PF 2
WS PF 4
Ground
Bank Sta
009
Figure 3-5: Channel Competency Showing FSL flow (Pr2) and Supplementary Flow (Pr4) at Transect 4 - the Proposed Stream Link Site.

KakonoHPP Plan: Steady Flow_PL2 15/12/2020

Legend
WS PF 2
WS PF 4
Ground
Bank Sta
004
003
002
001
Figure 3-6: Channel competency showing FSL flow (Pr2) and supplementary flow (Pr4) at the Kagera River confluence site, showing how the banks will spill over. Increased
flow volumes will scour settled sediments and alter the channel competency.

KakonoHPP Plan: Steady Flow_PL2 15/12/2020 KakonoHPP Plan: Steady Flow_PL2 15/12/2020
TS001_US TS002
1194.0 Legend Legend
WS PF 4 WS PF 4
1193.9
WS PF 2 1191.0 WS PF 2
1193.8 Ground Ground

Bank Sta Bank Sta
1190.8
1193.7
Elevation (m)
Elevation (m)
1193.6 1190.6
1193.5
1190.4
1193.4
1190.2
1193.3
1193.2 1190.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 2 4 6 8
Station (m) Station (m)
TS003 TS004
Legend Legend
WS PF 4 WS PF 4
1185.0 1179.8
WS PF 2 WS PF 2

Bank Sta 1179.6 Bank Sta
1184.6
Elevation (m)
Elevation (m)
1179.4
1184.4
1179.2
1184.2
1179.0
1184.0
1178.8
1183.8
1183.6 1178.6
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

TS005 TS006
1181.0 Legend Legend
WS PF 4 WS PF 4
1180.5 1177.8
WS PF 2 WS PF 2
1180.0 Ground 1177.6 Ground

Bank Sta Bank Sta
1179.5 1177.4
Elevation (m)
Elevation (m)
1179.0 1177.2
1178.5 1177.0
1178.0 1176.8
1177.5 1176.6
1177.0 1176.4
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8
TS007 TS008
1172.0 Legend 1169.0 Legend
WS PF 4 WS PF 4
1171.5 1168.5
WS PF 2 WS PF 2
Ground 1168.0 Ground
1171.0 Bank Sta Bank Sta
1167.5
Elevation (m)
Elevation (m)
1170.5
1167.0
1170.0
1166.5
1169.5
1166.0
1169.0
1165.5
1168.5 1165.0
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 10

TS009 TS010
Legend Legend
WS PF 4 1160.0 WS PF 4
1165.4
WS PF 2 WS PF 2
1159.8
Bank Sta 1159.6 Bank Sta
1165.0
1159.4
Elevation (m)
Elevation (m)
1164.8 1159.2
1159.0
1164.6
1158.8
1164.4
1158.6
1164.2
1158.4
1164.0 1158.2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10
TS011 TS012_DS
1160.0 Legend 1160 Legend
WS PF 2 WS PF 2
1159.5
WS PF 4 WS PF 4
1159
Ground Ground
1159.0 Bank Sta Bank Sta
1158
Elevation (m)
Elevation (m)
1158.5
1158.0
1157
1157.5
1156
1157.0
1156.5 1155
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Figure 3-7: Transect localities from upstream to downstream, showing the channel competencies for FSL baseflow (Pr2) and the supplementary flow (Pr4).


Figure 3-8: Various views of the Kakono River

showing the general characteristics and habitat types associated with the watercourse. The stream offers a wide
level of habitat diversity.
Linkage Zones and Proposed Alignments of Channels Between the

Kakono HPP Reservoir and the Kakono River
At present, the Kakono River does not intersect with the expected inundation area associated with the
Kakono HPP dam (the reservoir).
In order to make use of the Kakono River as a bypass channel to facilitate fish migrations, a link
between the Kagera River (downstream of the Kakono HPP dam structure) and the upstream reservoir
would have to be established. This would be achieved through the excavation of a suitably-profiled
and shaped channel originating from the reservoir and that would discharge within a suitable locality
within the Kakono River.
The field survey ground-truthing allowed for the localities of the most suitable linkage zones along
the Kakono River that would allow for the best transitions between the excavated channel and the
linking to the Kakono River. Four linkage zones to the Kakono River were identified, with one being
favoured. Further to this, two groups of channel alignments were surveyed, namely those that align
upstream of the dam structure (two alignments – US_Alt1 and US_Alt2) and three that align
downstream of the dam structure (DS_Alt1, DS_Alt2 and DS_Alt3). The alignment alternatives of both
the upstream group and the downstream group, as well as the proposed discharge points into the
Kakono River are presented in Figure 3-9.
The construction process of the dam structure will substantially alter the profile of the local
topography and therefore these profile alignments are indicative of the natural topographical state
and not necessarily representative of the site conditions during or post construction. The slopes and

profiles associated with the transition to the Kakono River and other areas further away from the dam
construction footprint area are therefore thought to be more applicable. These profiles indicate where
site manipulation will be required to satisfy the hydraulic requirements of the fishpass channel.
Transect 4 in Figure 3-7 provided the locality of what was considered the most suitable outflow area
for the excavated channel to link to the Kakono River. The watercourse split into two active channels
at this site and the macro channel was wider at this locality than what it had been along the entirety of
the course of the Kakono stream, which would allow for the greatest level of energy dissipation within
the linkage zone. The substrate was dominated by smaller rock that would provide for a more stable
section of the river. These two points indicate that the site would be less susceptible to erosion. With
this in mind, the channel alignments coinciding with this discharge point are DS_Alt 2 and US_Alt 1.
The hydraulic profile of this transect point is presented in Figure 3-5.

Figure 3-9: Linkage Channel Alignment Alternatives.

Inflow Control Structure

One of the concerns regarding making use of the Kakono River as a fish bypass channel is that erosion
of the banks of the watercourse would be induced through the artificial increase in flow volumes that
could lead to scouring of the banks. As part of addressing this concern, as well as to enable accurate
gauging of the discharge that is fed through the Kakono River, an inlet control structure will have to be
designed and implemented.
The alternative localities of this inflow control structure will need to be discussed with the design
engineers to determine feasibility, safety concerns, operational interference that the control structure
might potentially impose on the HPP as well as any further criteria that they may have pertaining to
such a structure.
Figure 3-10: Conceptual design of the inflow control structure. Front view looking downstream into it from the
reservoir.
As the inflow control mechanism has to accurately control the discharge that flows through the
Kakono River, there are some important levels to consider:
• The full supply level (FSL) under normal operating procedures and at which the HPP is predicted
to operate for the vast majority of the time is 1189.0 m asl. The fishpass facility must therefore
function optimally at this level;
• Although the reservoir level is expected to be maintained for the majority of time at FSL (1189
m asl), it is expected to drop to accommodate peaking. Provision for a drop in reservoir water
level of 0.5 m (to 1,188.5 m asl) has to be catered for within the fishway inflow control structure;
• The spillway gates have been designed to maintain the full supply level in the reservoir and to
discharge a maximum flow of 810m3/s (Q10,000y). The inflow control structure will have to take
these water levels into consideration as a safety factor in order to not allow for unabated flow
through the Kakono River under exceptional flood events;
• The Maximum Exceptional Reservoir/Peak Maximum Flow water level (ie when the spillways are
discharging QPMF) = 1190.4 m asl. This value has been provided as a theoretical absolute
maximum level for the reservoir that caters for a 1:10,000-year flood and is thought to never
occur. The dam structure, however, is designed to withstand this, however small the
probability, but it is unnecessary for the fishway to be designed to operate under these extreme
conditions. The inflow control structure has, however, been designed to cater for a rise in
reservoir level, albeit at a significantly smaller magnitude;
• It is important that the fishway inflow structure be able to control the flow into the Kakono River
under high flow conditions in the Kagera River to (1) ensure dam safety, (2) limit the loss of
energy production, and (3) reduce the impacts of erosion on the Kakono River structure and
subsequent damage of the riverbanks. The fishway inflow structure therefore has to be able to

inhibit undue flooding of the Kakono River. If this does occur, it is expected to be a short-lived
event, but even short-lived flood events of high magnitude will lead to damage of the structure
of the Kakono River as a watercourse, necessitating costly rehabilitation measures to be
undertaken;
• The width of the flow control structure at a given level dictates the discharge through the
channel. The width of the channel has to be wide enough to pass the biggest expected fish, but
scaled down enough to exhibit a level of flow control as the reservoir level rises;
• From the above points, the fishway inflow control structure will have to be designed to
accommodate a variation in reservoir levels of 0.5 m (levels 1,188.50 to 1,189) under normal
expected operational flow levels. Through preliminary hydraulic modelling, it has been found
that the Kakono River requires approximately 2.0 m3/s to offer suitable hydraulic conditions to
facilitate fish passage. From a series of calculations, it has been shown that an inflow structure
with a width of 1.0 m will offer sufficient control whilst accommodating this variation in reservoir
levels;
• At reservoir FSL of 1,189 m asl, a control structure measuring 1.0 m wide with an upstream
head (H1) of 1.100 m (and controlled change of downstream water level of 0.180 m), allows a
discharge rate of 2.1 m3/s. This is the constant flow rate that would be expected to flow through
the fish pass channel (and Kakono River) for the vast majority of the time;
• A small drop in reservoir level (of 0.5 m) has also been catered for. If this drop does occur, then
the channel will experience a discharge rate of 0.85 m3/s (H1 of 0.60 m). This would be sufficient
to maintain sediment movement (and clearing of debris) through the Kakono River. This is also
of low significance as these levels will only occur during operational changeovers and infrequent
maintenance operations. The given discharge is thought sufficient to still allow a level of fish
mobility through the channel, and sufficient to maintain the water column depth for habitat
maintenance within the stream so that fish that are inhabiting the stream at the time of lower
discharges will remain supported;
• At the same time, the inflow structure has to allow for sufficient control of discharge rate in case
of an unexpected increase in reservoir level without allowing discharge rates to increase to the
point that the Kakono Dam is jeopardized or the Kakono River channel is damaged beyond a
“self-regulatory/sustainable” level. A rise in H1 of 1.0 m above the FSL of 1,189.0 m (level
1190.0 m) has been catered for, which will induce a discharge rate of approx. 5.6 m3/s to flow
through the channel.
• Taking all of this into consideration, the fish pass inflow control structure will have to be set at
a level of 1187.9 m asl. The inflow control is achieved by placing a baffle within the slot opening
– the height of which is dictated by the slope of the proceeding channel. A series of horizontal
baffles is used to regulate the flow before discharging into a channel that transports the water
towards the Kakono River. Although the construction of the dam allows for manipulation of the
ground level, and also is relatively flexible in incorporating structures and setting levels of these
structures, the abovementioned requirements should be taken into consideration when
selecting a suitable locality for the inflow control structure. It is important to note that the
downstream ground level in relation to the placement of the inflow control structure and the
need to provide a transition of suitable gradient into the channel. Therefore, the fishway control
structure, which requires to be constructed at a level of 1,187.90 m asl should not be located
within a section of the dam structure where the downstream ground level will require largescale
backfilling or excavation to achieve the desired slope. This would unnecessarily impact on the
overall cost of the construction of the fishpass. The ideal locality of this inflow control structure
is indicated in the provided map layout (indicated in Figure 3-9;
• Another important consideration is the choice of a suitable linkage zone to the Kakono River.
The length of the channel between the reservoir and the Kakono River needs to be known. At a
gradient of 1:40-1:45, the height difference between the inflow control structure and the link
point to the Kakono River can be calculated. This height difference needs to be accommodated
in considering the Kakono River channel elevation at that point (example: a channel measuring
250 m at an average gradient of 1:40 will require a head difference of 6.25 m);
• Flow variation within a natural river system is controlled by seasonal fluctuations. It is largely
these seasonal flow variations that act as a trigger to induce biological responses and spawning

mechanisms, which are coupled to migratory movements, of fish. If the reservoir is to operate
at FSL for the vast majority of the time, meaning that the fishpass channel would not be
subjected to seasonality and timed flow variation, then fish would receive little stimulation to
actually migrate. Provision within the inflow control structure must therefore be made to allow
for inducing sustained higher flow rates. Ideally, this should be independently achieved without
disruption nor interference of the dam and hydropower operations. This can be achieved by a
simple, manual, stoplog mechanism, where a secondary inflow structure measuring 0.5 m is
placed adjacent to the primary structure, separated and stabilised by a concrete pillar. A
complete set of stoplogs would see all flow being directed through the primary structure,
whereas removal of upper stoplog sections would allow the flow rate to be supplemented
incrementally until the desired flow rate is achieved. At the FSL (1,189.0 m), the removal of all
of the stoplogs would supplement flow through the fishpass channel by 1.06 m3/s and at the
peaking flow (level 1,188.5 m), the flow would be supplemented by 0.43 m3/s. The timing and
magnitude of this would have to coincide with important migratory periods of the target fish
species within the system, which would generally coincide with the rising hydrograph and during
high-flow periods. This increase water volume is seemingly insignificant when compared to the
overall flow rate through the hydropower scheme, so additional mitigation measures have been
proposed within subsequent sections of the report to enhance functionality.
• The locality of the inflow control structure and how it associates with the dam structure is
another factor that has to be taken into consideration. Although possible, an inflow structure
that was to cross through the dam structure itself (either concrete or rock-fill sections) has been
assumed to be not preferred and that the alternative locality of the inflow control structure that
is located within the reservoir (upstream of the dam) and which allows for a channel to
circumvent the dam structure in entirety, would be favourable. This specification further guided
the choice of the preferred alignment for the excavated channel to link the reservoir to the
Kakono River. This ultimately indicates that US_Alt1 is the preferred channel alignment (as
presented in Figure 3-9), coinciding with all of the presented selection criteria.

Figure 3-11: The proposed position and alignment of the preferred fishpass alternative (US_Alt1), showing the locality of the inflow control structure as well as the linkage
site at the Kakono River.

Figure 3-12: Conceptual Design of the Inflow Control Structure. Top View of the Control Structure Showing the Transition into the Profiled Channel.

Figure 3-13: Conceptual Design of the Inflow control Structure. Top View of the Control Structure.

Figure 3-14: Conceptual Design of the Inflow Control Structure. Side View of the Control Structure.

looking from the downstream side.
looking from the upstream side.

Attraction Water
Fish tend to migrate upstream as a response to increased flow volumes within the river (which implies
rainfall within the catchment area and the onset of the high-flow/summer cycle), as well as stimuli
received by the fish from a range of other biological, biophysical and climatic changes. Fish that are
negotiating upstream passage tend to follow the current, swimming against the current within a
hydraulic zone that does not exceed its swimming ability, and within an area that allows sufficient
resting zones to stave off muscle fatigue. Increased flows due to rainfall events often lead to flood
peaks. These peaks trigger hormonal cues within the fish and they are stimulated to migrate upstream.
If the flow velocities and turbulences of the river are beyond the abilities of the fish to successfully
negotiate, then they seek shelter and negotiate passage under more amicable hydraulic conditions. It
is found then that the vast majority of upstream-migrating fish swim seek passage within the flow
zones along the periphery of the main channel (or high velocity zones). The fish do, however, tend to
follow zones of the strongest currents, but stay within the peripheral zones.
A problem faced with hydropower developments, in particular, where the vast majority of water flow
is directed through the turbines for power generation and a relatively minor portion of water is
allocated to servicing a fishpass or designated to ecological flows, is that the fish find it difficult to
locate the entrance of a fishpass facility. When designing a formal fishway, the placement of the water
outflow (entrance) can be achieved through the design process, making the entrance relatively easy
for the fish to locate. To increase the chances of fish finding the entrance of the fishway, flow volume
is very often supplemented to increase water current within the entrance area. This increased water
(and the placement thereof) is termed “attraction flow” and is utilised to literally attract the fish toward
the entrance of the fishway.
The locality and characteristics of the Kakono River make for an ideal fishpass facility to navigate
upstream passage across the Kakono HPP dam structure. It does, however, pose the limitation in that
the confluence within the Kagera River (and therefore the “entrance” to the fishpass) is located
approximately 300 m downstream of the dam infrastructure. This is compounded by the fact that the
water flowing through the Kakono River would represent less about 1% of the total annual average
flow, which would make it difficult for the fish to locate the Kakono River without some level of
manipulation/supplementation of flows, or provision of some sort of guiding structure.
Various alternatives have been explored to improve the attractiveness of the fish pass outlet. A
solution made of two components has been identified as follows:
• Increase the flow rate through the Kakono River to represent a greater portion of the overall
flow rate of the Kagera River. Given the physical nature of the Kakono River that could suffer
erosion as the result of the increased flow rate, bank stabilisation structures would be required.
A discharge rate of 5 to 7 m3/ is therefore recommended to achieve improved attraction flow.
• Divert the Kakono River from its present Kagera-Kakono confluence site to a point close to the
HPP tailrace. This would require that a channel be constructed from the present confluence site
to the tailrace outfall area as presented in Figure 3-17.

Figure 3-17: A conceptual layout of the preferred means to greatly increase the opportunity for fish to find the
entrance of the fishpass.
This alternative seeks to impound the Kakono River in order to facilitate a diversion of the watercourse of the
Kakono River back towards the base of the Kakono HPP dam wall.
Fish seeking upstream migrations will naturally swim until they find a barrier that they cannot
negotiate further. They then undergo lateral movements within the area of the base of the barrier to
actively seek alternative passage. That is why it is favourable to place a fishway entrance as close to
the base of a barrier as practically feasible, but remain outside of the high turbulence zones of the (in
this case) the tailrace discharge zone. The fish would still remain within the shallower peripheral zones
of the Kagera River as they swim upstream during migrations. The outflow of the diversion channel of
the Kakono River would therefore offer a readily-available alternative to upstream passage for the
fish. A channel slope of 1:100 would be suitable for this purpose. Again, a channel resembling a two-
stage trapezoidal shape would be desirable, with emphasis being on simulating natural conditions,
where some deeper areas, hydraulic sheltering and other design features should be implemented.
The construction of the Kakono dam requires a diversion canal, which is proposed on the left bank to
divert the river for 2 years. There will be a need to take into account the layout of both the fish pass
facility and the diversion canal to avoid irreversible conflicts between the two components on the left

Figure 3-18: A 3D rendering of the further proposed alternative that is aimed at increasing the attraction flows
and forces that would guide fish into locating the entrance of the fishway, as outlined above.
Figure 3-19 provides an indication of the profile of the riverbed at the proposed impoundment
structure on the Kakono River. As shown, the impoundment will enable a rise in the water level of the
Kakono River to 1165m, which is the height that will allow for a 1:100 average slope to outfall near
the base of the Kakono HPP dam structure. It should be noted that the placement of this impoundment
structure is merely a proposal, and that it is subject to an assessment of site conditions. Moving the
impoundment further upstream within the Kakono River will require a lesser structure, but would
require a longer channel to be constructed.
1,166.2
1,166
1,165.8
1,165.6
1,165.4
1,165.2
1,165
1,164.8
1,164.6
1,164.4
1,164.2
1,164
1,163.8
1,163.6
1,163.4
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44
Figure 3-19: A vertical profile of the bed of the Kakono River at the proposed impoundment site.

3.3 Preferred Fish Pass Alternative

Main Features
The development of a formal fishway structure was reviewed and this was found to be unsuitable for
the site and application. The structure would be too large/long and is not considered to be an
ecologically suitable alternative.
The preferred alternative to provide for fish passage across the Kakono HPP dam structure is a bypass
channel that links the reservoir to the Kakono River along the alignment alternative regarded as
Alternative 1. There is an inflow control structure located on the upstream side of the dam wall that,
although coupled to the dam wall infrastructure for structural security, it will not interfere with the
dam and hydropower operations. The inflow control structure will be designed to limit the flow
discharge rate through the fishpass channel within the water level range expected to be experienced
by the reservoir. Water through the fishpass can be supplemented by the manual removal of stoplogs
that will then provide a secondary inlet to the inflow control structure. The control structure should
also be able to make provision for complete shutoff of the channel for maintenance and management
purposes. Again, a manual stoplog system can be employed as a sluice-type of system is not
recommended as free-flow conditions are required. The inflow will be fitted with a series of concrete
baffles in order to unify the flow type as well as to allow for erosion control. It also allows for the
necessary manipulation of the water level when final design calls for calibration of the structure.
There will be an excavated channel required to connect the inflow control structure located at the
reservoir and the Kakono River. There is a preferred connection point at the Kakono River that offers
suitable bank and bed stability. The channel is approximately 330 m long and a stepped trapezoid
open channel at an average slope of 1:40 has been proposed. Embedded rocks and other features
within the channelled that will provide for hydraulic sheltering and flow resistance has also been
proposed to enhance ecological functionality.
The Kakono River is regarded as a suitable channel to provide for fish passage to all of the fish species
that have been identified from the river reach. It has a channel profile that, if provided with a flow
discharge rate in the order of 2 to 4 m3/s, is suitable hydraulic depth for fish usage will be provided
throughout. It is a relatively small channel with banks that are susceptible to erosion, so some zones
of the river may require stabilisation to protect the banks from undue erosion. Further manipulation
and management of tree root intrusion into the channel, rocks that may snag debris and fallen tree
branched, etc will require management to retain suitable flow conditions within the stream.
Seasonal simulation of supplementary flows, which will be aimed at stimulating active migrations
through the Kakono River, will be provided by the manual removal of the stoplogs located at the inflow
control structure.
Although a range of 2 to 4 m3/s is needed to provide hydraulic depth in the Kakono stream, an
estimated 5 to 7 m3/s is required down the channel to provide sufficient attraction flow and conditions
at the Kakono River to counteract the vastly dominant flow from the Kakono River (annual average
flow of 213 m3/s). The preferred alternative to achieve this is to divert the Kakono River from the
Kagera-Kakono confluence zone back toward the base of the Kakono HPP dam infrastructure, to
outfall within the vicinity of the tailrace outflow, but outside of the main turbulence areas.

Figure 3-20: An overall perspective of the proposed layout associated with the fishpass strategy.
Opinion on Effectiveness of Proposed Fish Pass

The preferred alternatives to channel alignments, the proposed inflow control structure locality,
locality of the connection point to the Kakono River and the Kakono River profile and physical
characteristics will make for a suitable and functional fishpass facility. Albeit highly suitable to cater
for the migratory requirements of Labeo victorianus (a key fish species of conservational significance),
the fishpass, as proposed, will successfully cater for all of the fish species expected within the river
reach. The design strategy of the fishpass is aimed at providing suitable hydraulic conditions to
facilitate upstream migrations for all of the fish species within the river reach, it is acknowledged that
no engineered facility can achieve absolute biological functionality all of the time. This is due to a
multitude of factors, which include its positioning on only one side of the river, and the relatively small
magnitude of the Kakono River in relation to the Kagera River. Functionality of the fishpass is also
influenced by the fact that an amicable solution to mitigate ecological impacts has to be sought that
serves the interests of both the project and the environment. Based on international experience on
fishways, and in the absence of hydropeaking, it is predicted that 20% of upstream migrating fish
should find the fishway entrance and attempt to swim up. And of these, at least 50% of fish are
expected to successfully negotiate the fishway. Overall, at least 10% of all migrating fish are predicted
to pass the Kakono Dam and through the reservoir to the spawning areas upstream. This success rate
is considered sufficient by the fishpass expert team to ensure adequate gene-flow between sub-
populations of the target fish species and maintain ecological integrity of the migratory fish species.
As the Kakono River also provides for increased habitat of greater habitat diversity and shelter/refuge
for various fish species, it would inevitably be utilised as general habitat by some populations of some
fish species, whereas other species or individuals would utilise it for migratory purposes. Either way, it
will provide access for migrating fish and ensure gene flow between populations above the dam
structure and those populations located below the dam structure. The development of the Kakono
River as a fishpass will have the positive impact in that it will diversify the habitat type available within
the river reach.

A factor to take into consideration that will influence the overall numbers of fish to successfully utilise
the fish pass is that the Kakono HPP is proposed as a hydropeaking facility, which will result in reported
daily variation on flow discharge from the HPP to the magnitude of approximately 1:3. This will result
in a small variation in the upstream reservoir level (approximately 0.5 m) but will result in a
downstream fluctuation in river levels of approximately 1.5 m. Hydropeaking flows result in a state of
“ecological confusion” as many ecological processes are triggered and are controlled by seasonal flow
variations, which is a generally-smooth and transitional process. Hydropeaking results in sudden
subdaily changes of flows of a high magnitude, which is outside of the natural processes of the Kagera
system, resulting in these ecological cues being disrupted. Studies have shown that the flow variations
induced by hydropeaking has a disruptive effect in the ecological triggers that stimulate seasonal
migrational activities within the fish, with species of Labeobarbus, Labeo and various others being
particularly influenced by it (Burnett, et al., 2018; O’Brien, et al., 2013; O’Brien, et al., 2018 and Costa,
et al., 2019). It is not envisioned that hydropeaking will completely inhibit any migrational movements
of the seasonal migratory fish, but it is likely disruptive enough to have severe effects on reducing the
efficacy of the fish pass.
Metrics
The construction of the main linkage channel between the inflow control structure and the linkage
zone at the Kakono River will require the excavation of approximately 2,500 – 3,000 m3 of soil to
achieve the necessary slopes between the inflow control structure and the outfall site at the Kakono
River. The actual channel measures approximately 350 m in length. The excavations required for
achieving the necessary slope as well as the excavations required to form the actual channel were
included in this rudimentary calculation.
The initial transition from the inflow control structure to the shaped channel profile would have to be
reinforced with concrete, but it is assumed that the vast majority of the channel will remain as earth
(although there may be areas that could require reinforcement).
The inflow control structure, as proposed, requires approximately 75 m3 of reinforced concrete.
The proposed impoundment structure on the Kakono River, where it has been conceptualised within
the report, will be approximately 40 m long and 5-6 m high. This is subject to site conditions and
evaluations for suitability. Moving the structure further upstream within the Kakono River will affect
the scale of the structure, so an estimation of the metrics associated with this structure cannot be
provided at this time. The associated diversion canal, as conceptualised, is approximately 330 m long
and will require a formal inflow structure coupled to the impoundment to facilitate flow efficiency. The
placement of the impoundment will influence the length of this channel, so, again, it is not feasible to
provide a metric estimation at this time.
These values are based on approximations with the purpose of providing a rough estimation of the
quantities associated with the development of a structure such as the fishpass. These values do not take
into consideration foundation materials, nor the extent of excavations required to source suitable
foundation substrates and/or materials.
3.4 Next Steps and Issues Yet to be Solved

The steps to follow pertaining to the development of the proposed fishpass will be the detailed design
phase once the reviews of the conceptual proposals have been approved. Detailed designs will require
a high-detail profile of the section of the Kakono River applicable to the project to be undertaken.
Profile detailing of the connection point of the channel and the Kakono River also has to be detailed.
This will all allow for a more detailed hydraulic model of the Kakono River to be established to refine
the required discharge rates through the Kakono River.
Detailed designs of the inflow structure must also be undertaken once the refined discharge values
for the Kakono River have been modelled. The Kakono River diversion channel that allows for the
entrance of the fishpass to be located near the base of the dam infrastructure will also have to be
profiled and suitability of the site conditions to accommodate the required infrastructure will have to
be assessed.

Sedimentation may pose a problem at the proposed fishpass inlet and it may be found that only a
small stream will remain open allowing just enough water through the fishpass to satisfy its rated
discharge. The level of impact posed by sedimentation will have to be assessed, following which a
mechanism to facilitate sediment flushing at the fishway inflow may have to be provided for.

4 Downstream Migration Considerations

and Solutions
It is widely accepted that inhibiting upstream movement of fish and other aquatic biota has an overall
detrimental impact on the ecological integrity of any aquatic system and therefore most research
efforts have been focused on facilitating upstream movement of fish to access suitable spawning
grounds and nursery areas (Bilotta, et al., 2016). More recently, however, the need to also facilitate
downstream movement of fish has been identified as an approach to holistic conservation of fish,
especially as more research has been undertaken to determine the mortality rates of fish of various
age classes as they pass through the turbines of hydropower schemes. Expertise and advancements
in concepts and design principles that focus on downstream movements is lagging in relation to
facilitating upstream movements and therefore the impacts associated with mortality of fish being
drawn into the penstocks and directed though the turbines during downstream movements remains
problematic. This has been identified and well documented as an impact associated with hydropower
schemes at an international level. Research efforts that focus on catering for downstream migrations,
or determining the actual impacts of inhibiting downstream movement of fish are almost completely
lacking for aquatic systems within Africa, and therefore international guidelines set the industry
standard at present. Indeed, as far as it could be ascertained, the actual implementation of structures
to cater for downstream migrations, be it channel provision or actual screens to prevent fish being
drawn into the hydropower infrastructure, has not been implemented within African rivers.
Downstream migrations are categorised into two large groupings, namely passive and active
migrations. Active migrations are undertaken by adult and semi-adult fish that have the ability for
swimming and direction control, and therefore have the ability to choose their downstream route, with
the ability to escape from conditions that they deem unfavourable. Passive migrations refer to the
hatching fish of that season that are passively carried with the water current during elevated/flood
flow conditions, which have very limited ability to control their directionality within a current and move
away from deleterious hydraulic conditions. The individuals that fall within this age class therefore
tend to merely passively move with the bulk of the river flow. Mitigation measures to reduce the
incidences of adult fish being drawn into the turbines are generally focused on physical barriers as well
as behavioural-modifying techniques. Behavioural modification techniques are, however, usually
focused on stopping upstream migrations into turbines and not usually employed to curb downstream
migrations of adult fish. Mitigation measures to curb the draw-in of larval and juvenile fish tend to be
limited to physical barriers only due to their limited ability to actively “choose” their route or through
hydraulic manipulation of water currents such as deflector baffles, etc. The potential mitigation
measures have been explored to increase survivability of fish during downstream migrations, and are
elaborated on below.
4.1 Racks and Screens

Low-sloping turbine intake racks (or screens) use the existing water current to guide downstream-
migrating fish toward one or several bypass entrances (if applicable), and can either be arranged with
a low slope from the bottom to the surface (inclined rack) or with a low slope from one side of the
intake channel to the other (angled rack). Inclined and angled racks have been applied to inhibit
movement of several fish species with variable degrees of success internationally, and is considered
to be the present best practice in Sweden (Nyqvist, et al., 2018). This is, however, largely aimed at
adult fish. The Australian fishway researchers also are utilising inclined and angled racks in order to
divert fish away from being drawn into the penstocks and through the turbines (pers. comm. Dr L
Baumgartner, Charles Sturt University, Melbourne (Jan 2019)). These racks are manufactured from
stainless steel with vertical bars spaced 1-2 mm apart, which makes largescale application extremely
expensive, tend to require a high degree of maintenance to keep them free of debris (although
automatic clearing of the screens is possible), and also affects the flow of water through the screen

due to the small openings relative to material ratio. This type of small-mesh screen is therefore
thought not feasible as a viable mitigation measure for the Kakono HPP.
Racks/screens tend to be fitted to intakes that function as trash racks as a protection factor to the
turbines. Utilising these trash racks to divert fish away from being drawn into the penstocks is
therefore a viable option, and scaling the mesh size to reduce the likelihood of fish passing through
them is regarded as a feasible mitigation option to reduce mortality rates of fish that are migrating
downstream. International research into the effectiveness of screen size in catering for various fish
species of various age classes has led to the development of various guideline documents. Both the
Environmental Agency, UK and US Environmental Protection Agency indicate that openings of between
10 mm and 12.5 mm allows for the protection of up to 92% of fish (EA, 2016; Čida & Rinehart, 2000).
But, again, no specific provision is made for smaller juveniles or larval fish.
The trash racks proposed for the Kakono HPP are vertical bars (12 mm) with a gap of 150 mm between
the bars. The rack slopes at 15° vertically, and is positioned at the upstream side of the dam wall, at
the entrance of the but is positioned perpendicularly to the water flow (Basic design report). A gap of
150 mm is large enough to allow the vast majority of all individuals of all of the fish species through,
thereby increasing the potential of being drawn through the turbines. The trash rack, as it presently is
proposed, would do very little in protecting fish during downstream migrations or movements.
Mesh sizes or gaps between vertical bars of approximately 12.5 mm to 25.0 mm would be considered
sufficient to at least stop larger breeding-sized adult fish from being drawn into the turbines, but may
not be economically feasible for the project to implement. Openings as small as 12.5 to 25.0 mm may
also be too susceptible to debris entrapment, which would then reduce the flow-through of water
within a river such as the Kagera.
Adult fish tend to follow directly on with the downstream current and so would merely pass through a
screen that is angled perpendicular to the flow direction if the screen openings were large enough to
accommodate their respective body sizes. Angling the screen would cause a lot of adult fish to deviate
away from the path of the current and be directed toward the way that the screen is angled. The size
of the screen openings has not changed and therefore would not impact on the flow volumes passing
through it, but a screen with (for example) openings of 90 – 100 mm is orientated at an angle to the
flow would force fish to actively negotiate their way through the screen rather than just pass straight
through it and would most likely cause the fish to be directed away from the screen. This would also
create a hydraulic condition to deflect debris away from the screen. This does not cater for the larval
and juvenile fish with limited swimming abilities that would merely be flushed through the screens as
they are caught up in the currents of flowing water.
Exploration and review of fish-friendly turbines (section 4.5) has indicated that it will, if considered a
favourable approach by the developer, negate the need for any modifications to me made to the trash
racks for physically blocking fish from passing through.
4.2 Behaviour Modifying Devices

A further option of fitment of an electrical screen field within the area of intake to the turbines has also
been explored. A screen that emits a low voltage DC current, which is fitted in a series of increasing
current to discourage fish from entering into the canal has been utilised with success internationally.
This is most relevant to discouraging fish from upstream movement into the turbines from
downstream areas (to effectively deter upstream active swimming movements) but could also be
utilised to discourage adult fish from following the water current downstream toward the turbine
intakes. Downstream movement of larval and juveniles is largely passive, however, with the fish being
driven downstream by floodwaters. A high proportion of the life stages of these fish is made up of
larval or fry stages of their lifecycle. These individuals have limited to no swimming control and very
limited power to overcome currents. It is these individuals that would be drawn through the intake
canal and inevitably through the turbines where they face possible mortality. Electrical fields would
work for controlling the movement of larger fish that could actively swim against the water current,
but not for younger life stages of fish, frogs, invertebrates, etc. This type of deterrent device strategy
has not seen any application within the African context. This mitigation measure is also thought to

have limited applicability to the Kakono HPP development and not thought to offer a significant
biological advantage.
Figure 4-1: A conceptual view of the electrical screen as describes to inhibit larger fish from entering into the
offtake canal and being drawn through the turbines (http://www.fishprotection.eu) Neptune System, Procom
System SA, Poland.
4.3 Enhancing Downstream Migrations Through the

Fishpass Channel
It is acknowledged that the relative proportion of flow volume going through the fishpass channel is
significantly lower than that that will be moving through the hydropower scheme infrastructure and
therefore it is doubtful that a high number of fish will utilise the fishpass channel for downstream
migrations. A method to increase the use of the fishpass channel by fish for downstream migrations
is to design the inflow control structure to increase its area of influence. This may be achieved by
diverting a portion of the main current toward the left bank, and towards the inflow control structure.
This would not influence the volume of water going through the channel, not the operations of the
hydropower scheme, it would merely divert the direction of the current.
The construction of a submerged curtain/weir-type structure within the reservoir itself that could act
as a guide toward the fishpass inflow was considered, but it is likely to be rendered ineffective over a
relatively short period of time due to sedimentation. The structure would act to trap sediments and
enhance sediment settling, which would lead to ultimate decreased water depth within the impact area

and may lead to impacts to the hydraulic functioning of the fishpass itself. This was therefore
discarded as a recommendation.
Smaller fish species and juvenile fish/fry will not inhabit the deeper water of the main channel and
would rather seek refuge from the peripheral zones where emergent vegetation and other natural
features would offer protection of predation. Due to this, it is assumed that many of the smaller fish
would inadvertently utilise the fishpass for downstream passage.
4.4 Dam Design Considerations

Fish mortalities as a direct result of hydropower developments result primarily through being drawn
through the turbines (see section 4.5) or through mortalities incurred when fish are flushed over
spillways that have a height sufficient to cause physical trauma. Studies have indicated that larger-
bodied fish that freefall over a spillway can experience significant physical trauma if their speed
exceeds 15-16 m/s (Larinier & Travade, 2002). This critical velocity is reached after a free fall of about
30-40 m for fish of 15-16 cm in length, but after 13 m only for fish longer than 60 cm. Small fish of
less than about 13 cm in length never reach this damaging critical velocity when free-falling and
therefor are not injured or killed, regardless of the height of the fall.
However, the injury and mortality rates for larger fish (over approximately 18 cm in length) falling in
water released via the spillway gates over the 30 m high Kakono Dam Wall to the river below may be
relatively high. Mortality rates of up to about 37% can be expected due to the fact that these larger
fish can reach critical velocities during the freefall (Larinier & Travade, 2002).
There are some design considerations that could be implemented to abate this impact as the vast
majority of the downstream movement of fish will occur under flood conditions when the flow of the
river exceeds the combined capacity of the turbines. Under these conditions the surplus water will be
released through radial gates. The idea of modifying the spillway features of the dam structure to
allow for ungated and free overflow has been discarded due to hydraulic functional requirements of
the operations of the Kakono HPP.
Free-flow conditions would only be encountered when radial gates are fully open during exceptional
flood events, which has a low probability of occurrence. Hydrological analysis of the Kagera River at
the Kakono HPP site determined that the overall average flow rate of the Kagera River (at the site) is
213 m3/s. The average annual flow hydrograph indicates that this flow rate is usually exceeded during
the period April-August, with the probability of exceedance being calculated at 8% (29.2 days per
annum). The Kakono HPP is designed to cater for flow rates up to 316 m3/s. The probability of the
Kagera River exceeding 316 m3/s is calculated at 6% (21.9 days per annum). The flood analysis of the
river indicates the following:
• 1:2 yr = 301 m3/s (indicating that the turbine capacities are not expected to be exceeded as
frequently as every second year);
• 1:5 yr = 393 m3/s (the probability of this discharge rate within an average year is approximately
2% [7.3 days per year]). Radial gates will spill with a hydraulic depth at the weir crest of 1.150m
(calculated from a radial gate cumulative width of 36 m and the discharge that exceeds the full
capacity of 316 m3/s);
• 1:10 yr = 456 m3/s (probability within a normal year is approximately 1% [3.6 days]);
Ideally, spill flows should be catered for on an annual basis to facilitate downstream migrations,
especially for juvenile fish. This is an aspect that should be considered when flow operational
strategies that take ecological functionality considerations into account are refined.
The shape of the spillway and the turnover ramp at the bottom end, as indicated within the basic design
report and associated drawings, would provide for conditions that would allow for downstream
passage of fish with very limited mortality rates. Threshold rates are exceeded only during extreme
flood events (i.e., the 810 m3/s flow rates coupled to the 1:10 000 yr flood analysis).

4.5 Turbine Model Considerations

It is acknowledged that, with the vast majority of flow of a river being directed through the powerhouse
of a hydropower project, and the fact that micro-screening as a physical barrier to stop small fish being
drawn through the turbine intakes being regarded as largely unpractical, a large portion of fish will
ultimately be drawn through the turbines during downstream movements. This is an impact that is
recognised at the international scale and therefore turbine manufacturers are continuously seeking to
develop turbine technology that allows for greater survival rates of fish whilst still delivering
comparable energy outputs to conventional models. The concept of “fish-friendly” turbine designs
was first introduced in 1993 (Twaróg, 2016), and many manufacturers are making strides in the
development of designs that are regarded as being more fish friendly. To be regarded as being “fish-
friendly”, a turbine has to allow for at least a 95% survivability rate of any fish that pass through it
under normal operating conditions (Hecker et al., 2017). Modern turbine designs exist that can allow
fish to pass through the system unharmed (Bilotta, et al., 2016), but to aim for 100% survivability is
perhaps too optimistic (Schilt, 2007), although studies have shown survival rates for fish <100 mm in
size to be as high as 99.8% (Hecker et al., 2017). High-head hydropower schemes or run-of river
schemes that have a high volume of water, tend to utilise larger turbines that rotate relatively slower
than the smaller turbines used for lower head schemes (EA, 2016), and the operational rotation speed
of the turbine plays a large role in influencing the overall mortality rate of fish. The development of
the Alden turbine (considered a derivative of the existing Francis turbine design), which focuses on
reducing fish mortality whilst retaining generation efficiency, was initiated after the National
Hydropower Association (NHA) formed a non-profit organisation tasked on the research and
development of a more fish-friendly turbine. The Alden turbine differs from the more conventional
turbine designs in that the runner is limited to three blades, which effectively reduced the pressure and
velocity gradients of the water passing through it, which in turn effectively reduces fish mortality rates.
The clearance between the runner and the stay vanes are also minimised, whilst the flow passage
width was maximised (Twaróg, 2016). Case studies of the applications of Alden turbines showed that
a higher level of generation efficiency and a higher fish survival rate for similar flows, heads and fish
species, when compared to traditional turbines can be achieved (Twaróg, 2016).
As part of the overall analysis of the effectiveness of Alden turbines, Twaróg (2016) undertook pilot
studies during 2002 and 2003 on the biological conditions associated with the Alden turbines on a
population of more than 40,000 fish. The results of the study showed that, on average, fish survival
rates exceeded 96%, with smaller fish (< 80 mm total length) showing higher rates of survival (>98%),
and those of eels and sturgeons exceeding 99%.
Based on biological and technical constraints, the appropriate head for the Alden turbine was
determined to be within the range of 9.0 to 36.6 m. It has been shown that heads of less than 9 m
usually resulted in lower fish mortalities, even with traditional turbines, and therefore the application
of Alden turbines in HPPs with heads lower than 9 m would result in limited biological benefits (Twaróg,
2016). The minimum discharge of approximately 17 m3/s has been cited to maintain a desirable fish
survival rate and correct turbine operation. The minimum discharge rate of the Kakono HPP is
expected to not fall below 145 m3/s (for a single turbine). In practice, the head for the Alden turbine
may vary between 7.6 and 43 m, with a minimum flow requirement of 14 m 3/s (Twaróg, 2016 and
Voith Hydro Inc2 – the developers of the Alden turbine). The upper limit is regarded as the practical
size of the machine, rather than the operational or biological considerations. Reasonable sizes of the
runner diameter in the Alden turbine usually are confined to 2.4 to 4.5 m. Diameters less than 2.4 m
tend to limit the clearances between turbine components (i.e. spaces between the vanes) to the point
that it disadvantages the fish survivability. Diameters larger than 4.5 m tend to result in poor economic
ratios for the project due to the high costs of the machinery (Twaróg, 2016). The diameter of the
runner for the Kakono HPP is designed to be 4.54 m (Basic design report).
Recommended rotational speeds of the Alden turbines fall within the range of 90 to 140 rpm. Lower
rotational speeds require a larger, and therefore a more expensive, generator. Higher rotational
speeds reduce the biological benefits offered by the turbine (Twaróg, 2016). The rotational speed of
2 Voith Hydro Inc., Pennsylvania was selected as the sole manufacturer of Alden turbines.

the Kakono HPP turbines is calculated at 157.8 rpm, which then exceeds the recommended rotational
speed limit of the Alden turbine to provide meaningful biological benefit.
A simulation analysis was undertaken on a hydropower station on the Dobczyce Dam, Poland, where
the replacement of the existing Kaplan turbines with Alden turbines was used as a case study. The
Dobczyce HPP (Poland) has two Kaplan turbines and two generators installed at the plant. Further
details for the plant are presented in Table 7, together with the results of the comparative Alden
turbine system (data were generated by Voith Hydro Inc).
Table 7: Comparative data from an existing hydropower station and a simulation analysis if the existing turbines
were to be replaced by Alden turbines under similar circumstances.
Parameters Existing Kaplan turbines Simulated Alden turbines
Installed power 2.5 MW 5.0 MW
Installed discharge 10.70 m3/s 10.7 m3/s
Minimum head 14.8 m 14.8 m
Maximum head 30.7 m 30.7 m
Average annual output capacity 9.6 GWh 10.6 GWh
Runner diameter 1.4 m 2.06 m
Rotational speed 350 rpm 175 rpm
From this, it can be seen that replacement of the Kaplan turbines with Alden turbines, and given the
same head and discharge characteristics, the annual generation capacity of the plant can be potentially
increased to 10.6 GWh (17% increase in generation). This simulation analysis largely aimed at showing
comparative generation capacity and therefore the Alden turbines were sized to achieve maximum
generation capacity. The diameter of the runners is therefore below the recommended limit of 2.4 m.
This, however, is an indication that ecologically-beneficial turbine applications don’t necessarily impact
on the energy models and can, in fact, prove to increase economic gains over conventional turbine
designs.
A further study was undertaken by Hecker et al, (2017), where the feasibility of replacing the Kaplan
turbines with Alden turbines at an existing hydropower station as part of a plant rehabilitation process,
was assessed. The 12 MW Crescent hydropower project on the Mohawk River, near Albany, New York,
is a power facility owned and operated by the New York Power Authority (NYPA). Rehabilitation
procedures were initiated in an effort to abate the high fish mortality rates of the fish that passed
through the existing Kaplan turbines. The outcome of this study indicated an increased overall power
generation of between 4.3% and 6.6%. Fish survivability also increased from the previous 83% to
99.8% (for fish 300 mm adult fish) and 96% to 99.8% for juvenile fish measuring 100 mm (Hecker et
al, 2017).
The choice of turbine within any particular project could therefore dramatically reduce mortality rates
of fish through physical damage. hese turbines, however, tend to limit the impact to fish through
lowering of the probability of coming into contact with the spinning blades and therefore lowering the
probability of physical trauma imposed on fish that get drawn through the turbines. Physical damage
and trauma are not the only causes of mortalities to fish as they pass through the turbines, however.
Exposure to sudden, and often extreme, pressure changes (hydrostatic shock), extreme turbulences
and the effects on the supersaturation of dissolved gases within the water due to the increased
pressures, all play a role in affecting fish health or mortality (Boys, et al., 2014). The development of
the Alden turbine has seemingly successfully addressed these concerns and are indicated as a
promising fish-friendly alternative to conventional turbine models. But they do have limitations in
practical application at various hydropower developments.
In terms of the Kakono HPP, the following design details have been provided:

• Installed capacity: 87 MW
• Turbine type: 2x Kaplan turbines
• Installed max discharge: 316 m3/s combined capacity (158 m3/s x 2)
• Installed min discharge: 145 m3/s (for a single turbine run independently)
• Minimum head: 28.9 m
• Maximum head: 32.9 m
• Operational head: 33.0 m
• Runner diameter: 4.54 m
• Rotational speed of runner: 157.8 rpm
The design parameters for the Kakono HPP do not adequately meet the required criteria for the
application of Alden turbines and therefore the alternative of completely replacing the Kaplan turbines
with the Alden turbine models is not thought feasible.
In light of this, further means of fish-friendly turbine alternatives were explored. Table 8 presents a
comparison of the basic design alternatives available for Kaplan turbines from a prominent turbine
manufacturer (downloaded and adapted from www.mavel.cz/turbines/kaplan). It should be noted that
the specifications indicated are particular to the abovementioned manufacturer. As turbine
configurations tend to be similar across different manufacturers, these specifications are provided to
indicate the general characteristics of the turbine models.
Table 8: Comparisons of various configurations and styles of Kaplan turbines (from Mavel, a.s.).
Turbine
Kaplan turbine layout configuration Main features#
model
• Versatile and can operate under a wide range

of site conditions;
• Runner diameters from 850 to 5500 mm;
Vertical • Power output: 70 kW to 20 MW;
Kaplan • Suitable for both low and high flows and
higher heads;
• Tends to be the most widely-used model of
turbine.
• Best suited for low head and high flow

conditions;
Kaplan PIT
• Runner diameters of 1050 mm to 5500 mm;
• Power output: 400 kW to 8 MW.
• Best suited for low head and moderate flow;

Kaplan • Runner diameters from 1050 mm to 2500
Bulb mm;

Turbine
Kaplan turbine layout configuration Main features#
model
• Suited for installations where space is limited;

• Caters for low to moderate head and flow;
Kaplan Z
• Best suited for turbine replacement

scenarios;
Kaplan S • Flows of up to 14.5 m3/s;
• Power output: 20 kW to 1750 kW.
# Although the main features and turbine configurations are similar across turbine manufacturers, these
specifications are particular to Mavel, a.s., Cz.
Factors that would lead to greater survival rates for fish that pass through the turbines include:
• Number of blades on the runner. The greater the number of blades, the greater the chances
are of blade strike, leading to physical trauma. Mortality rate will increase with the increase in
body legth of the fish;
• Rotational speed of the runner. The faster the rotational speed, the greater the chances are of
fish suffering trauma from blade strike;
• Flow path through the turbine. Convoluted flow pathways increase the shear stress, which
increases the impact and severity of hydrostatic shock to fish;
• The gap distance/space between runner blades. The greater the gap between blades, the less
likely fish would be impacted by blade strike trauma and also the lower the general shear stress
and therefore the significance of hydrostatic shock;
• The gap between the distal end of the blades and the runner housing. The smaller this gap, the
smaller the chances are of fish being caught between the blade and the housing, lowering the
potential for physical trauma. Reducing this gap also reduces shear stress and the significance
of hydrostatic shock impacts to fish.
Due to the general versatility of Kaplan-type turbines, they tend to be the most widely-utilised model
internationally for run of river hydropower projects (Mavel, 2021). Turbine manufacturers have
therefore sought to refining the Kaplan turbine in particular in an effort to reduce fish mortalities.
Developments were also performed and are still underway to modify the design of large Kaplan
turbines (several hundreds of m3/s and heads between 10 and 25 m), with the installation of advanced
turbines Minimum Gap Runner (MGR) – a technology also developed by Voith Hydro Inc. Alstom Hydro
(China) is a further turbine manufacturer that has introduced a version of the MGR turbine
advancement (Nielsen, et al., 2015). The advantages of MGRs over the conventional Kaplan turbines
are (1) the enhancement of overall turbine efficiency due to a greater transference of the energy

carried by the flowing water to rotating the turbines rather than passing freely through gaps between
the runner and the housing, and (2) increased fish survival rates. Increases from 88% to 95% due to
decreased rapid and extreme pressure changes, shear stress, turbulence and blade strike have been
reported at various hydropower stations where the conventional Kaplan turbines were either replaced
of modified with turbines that included the MGR modifications (Albayrak, et al., 2014; NAI, 2000;
Dauble, et al., 2007; USACE, 2013 and Ahmann, et al., 2015).
Numerous studies and reviews of both the economic and biological performances of Kaplan turbines
with the MGR advancement have been undertaken (Nielsen, 2015), which have consistently shown an
increase in performance, with a considerably lower fish mortality rate. The results of one particular
study are presented in Table 9, where the fish survivability rates for three different turbine models,
but all representing a 13.6 MW turbine (Nielsen, et al., 2015).
Table 9: Summary of the Results of a Comparison Study of Fish Survivability on a 13.6 MW unit
(Nielsen, et al., 2015).
Alden Conventional Francis MGR Kaplan
Hub diameter (m) 3.9 2.5 2.7
Rotational speed (rpm) 120 190 277
Number of runner blades 3 13 5
Survival rate for fish of 200 98% <50% 86%

mm, based on blade strike
Nielsen, et al., (2015) also indicate the results of fish survivability rates from comparative data
between Kaplan units that have four and five blades. The study was conducted on eels, which do not
occur within the Kagera River, but the data remain of interest nonetheless. The five blade runners
resulted in a survivability rate of 78.6%, whereas the four-blade runners showed an increased
survivability rate of 92.4%. As deaths were reported as mostly being attributed to physical trauma
through blade strikes, it is clear that the use of less blades would benefit fish survivability.
As it has been established that the vertical Kaplan turbine is the turbine model of choice to best suit
the site conditions, flow rates and head provided by the Kakono HPP, and given fact that the MGR
advancement is seemingly not limited to turbine size, head or power generation capacity, it is
recommended that the turbines include the MGR advancements. It is further recommended that the
turbines be limited to four blades, if possible.

4.6 Conclusion on Recommended Solutions to Improve

Downstream Migrations
From the above analysis of the various possibilities to enhance downstream migrations of fish for the
Kakono HPP, the following conclusions can be presented:
• The installation of infrastructure or devices that would impose a behavioural influence to guide
fish away from the intake structure (e.g. electrical fields, strobe lighting, bubble curtains) has
been found to offer limited biological benefit and therefore not thought to be a practical
application for the Kakono HPP Project;
• Providing for a physical barrier in the form of a mesh screen with small openings (approximately
2 mm gaps) to physically block fish from swimming in towards the intake structure is also
thought to not provide a practical solution to improve the survivability of downstream-
migrating fish. The trash rack as detailed within the basic design report has spacings measuring
150 mm between vertical bars will not be sufficient to block fish from entering into the intake
structure;
• Enhancing downstream migrations through the fish passage has also been deemed to not offer
a significant contributing factor to facilitating downstream migrations of fish due to the small
portion of flow volume ratio between the flow rate through the hydropower infrastructure and
that of the fishpass (316 m3/s maximum, as opposed to 5 to 7 m3/s taking into account the
attraction flows). The position of the fishpass inflow structure is also positioned away from the
pathway of the main river current and therefore there would be very limited draw toward the
fishpass. Moving the fishpass inflow structure more toward the central regions of the main
channel is not thought practical. The construction of a submerged weir/guide curtain to increase
the “area of influence” toward the fishpass channel would enhance settling of sediments. The
sediment builds up behind such a structure would ultimately lead to a decrease in hydraulic
depth and it is suspected that it may be detrimental to the functioning of the fishpass over the
long term. Many juvenile fish seek refuge away from the main channel and deeper waters
(where they are vulnerable to predation) preferring shallower peripheral zones where
vegetation offers meaningful refuge for them. It is these individuals that would most likely
make up the bulk of the fish that utilise the fishpass for downstream migration purposes;
• Enhancing downstream migrations via the spillway of the dam structure was also explored as
a means to facilitate downstream migrations of fish. The spillway for the Kakono HPP is
designed as a gated structure, with three sections measuring 12 m each, separated by concrete
piers. As a high level of control of the reservoir levels is required, altering the spillway to a free-
flowing structure is not feasible. Free-flow conditions would only be encountered when radial
gates are fully open during exceptional flood events (quoted as a discharge rate of 810 m3/s,
which equates to a 1:10,000 year flood event i.e. highly unlikely). The annual average flow rate
of the Kagera River at the site is 213 m3/s. In an average year, this AAF would be exceeded
during the period April to August. The probability of the Kagera River exceeding this value (213
m3/s) is 8% (~29 days of the year). The Kakono HPP is designed for a maximum operating
capacity of 316 m3/s, and, only after this capacity is reached, will water be released through the
spill gates. The calculated probability of the river exceeding 316 m3/s is 6%, which equates to
22 days in a year. Exceedance of a flow rate of 316 m3/s within the Kagera River equates to a
1:3 to 1:4 year flood event will equal or only slightly exceed the turbine capacity flow rates.
Flow volumes through the spill gates to the magnitude where the scenario would significantly
contribute to meaningful downstream migrations of fish would only be in the region of the 1:8
to 1:10 year flood scenarios. Therefore, reliance on the spill gates to offer a reliable means of
enhancing downstream migrations of fish is also not thought feasible nor an ecologically sound
approach. This route of downstream migrations of fish should not be discounted, however, as
spill-over conditions will be encountered. It would therefore provide for meaningful gene flow
of the fish populations within the river section, albeit an unreliable one. The spillway terminates
at its lower end in a flip bucket (a rounded turn-up of the slope set at between 30° and 40°).
This allows for energy dissipation through air resistance as an added protection factor scouring
impacts within the plunge pool. At a flow rate of 810 m3/s, the velocity of the water as it enters
into the plunge pool is approximately 23.8 m/s, which greatly exceeds the recommended 15-

16 m/s velocity limit set for fish to survive a freefall into a plunge pool. This magnitude of flow
is regarded as the 1:10,000-year flood and therefore highly unlikely to impact on the fish. A
more realistic scenario is that of the flow volumes exceeding the turbine capacities within the
magnitude range of 50-150 m3/s. These lower magnitudes of flow will result in a far lower
height trajectory of the spillway flip bucket and would be more in line with the recommended
limits to the deleterious water re-entry velocities of the fish caught up in the flows over the
spillway. The plunge pool is also designed to limit the scouring impacts of the 1:10,000 year
flood event, with the result that it is designed to be have a depth of 25.5 m. This is sufficient to
also allow for a lower likelihood of physical trauma sustained by fish as they enter from the
spillway;
• A further aspect to consider is that the intake chamber of the Kakono HPP remains submerged
by more than 15 m at all times (minimum operating level 15m above the water intake). Many
adult fish that inhabit these depths would find their way through the trash racks and into the
intake chamber. It may, however, have limited relevance to juvenile fish that tend not to swim
to those depths, but prefer to remain in the shallower peripheral waters where vegetation and
other structures offer refuge from predators;
• As the most likely route of downstream migrational movements of the vast majority of fish
would be through the HPP infrastructure, the most feasible solution to facilitating downstream
migrations of fish is to consider turbines that are regarded as being fish friendly to limit the
mortality rate of fish that are to inevitably to be drawn through the turbines during normal
operations of the facility. Turbine designs that are regarded as being fish friendly have been
developed, and are readily available with comparative (or enhanced) power generation
capacities. A design such as a vertical Kaplan turbine that includes the Minimum Gap Runner
(MGR) advancements have shown to significantly increase the survival rate of fish that pass
through them. The survival rate can be further increased by 4-8% by reducing the number of
runner blades from five to four.
Therefore, after exploring the possibilities of enhancing downstream migrations of fish, the order of
concepts rated by significance of contribution would be:
(1) Implementation of fish friendly turbine options,
(2) Downstream migrations via spillway overtopping,
(3) Downstream migrations through the fishpass facility.
The combination of these three means of downstream passage alternatives for the fish would allow
for meaningful biological significance and are considered to be sufficient to fulfil this role.

5 Risk that Nile Perch Establishes within

the Kakono Reservoir
The Nile Perch (Lates niloticus) is a large predatory fish that is originally native to Lake Albert and Lake
Turkana and their tributaries (www.cabi.org, 2019). The linkages and networks of waterways within
the region that provide for habitat connectivity would mean that this is potentially unlikely to have
been the case and perhaps reflects lack of data rather than an accurate account of geographical range
(personal opinion). The Nile Perch is not generally regarded as a migratory species, and tends to favour
lentic (still-standing waters) habitat, completing its entire lifecycle within the regional lake
environments. Telemetry research undertaken for this species within Lake Victoria indicated that they
travel long distances (50-100 km), but remained within the lake environment (Mlaponi, 2011). There
are many factors to consider when conducting telemetry studies and therefore this would not
unequivocally rule out migratory movements of this species through the rivers between waterbodies.
There have been accounts of individuals caught within the Kagera River within the stretch associated
with the Kakono HPP and therefore their presence within the river reach is already confirmed. As with
most freshwater species, there is likely intraspecific variation in migratory strategies and behaviours
between resident lake populations and those found within the rivers. They have been shown, however,
to not be dominant within riverine environments and their presence is regarded as being fortuitous.
This is indicated by the sparse numbers and relative abundances of the species in relation to the
relative abundances of other fish species sampled within the river.
It was introduced, together with Tilapia niloticus (Nile Tilapia) amongst other species into the Lake
Victoria basin during the 1950s to increase the fisheries potential of the region. At the time of its
introduction into Lake Victoria, the demersal fish (those fish that live and feed near the bottom of
waterbodies) population was largely dominated by a wide diversity of Haplochromid species (a very
diverse group of relatively small-bodied Cichlidae species). Up to the time when the population of
Lates niloticus was noted to peak (1970-80s), their diet had consisted predominantly of
Haplochromine species, which saw a large decline in population numbers across the entire group. The
introduction of the Nile Perch is attributed to the suspected extinction of various species, with some
estimates being as high as up to 200 species (Linke & Staeck, 1994), with some species of
Haplochromines not being sampled in fish population studies since the 1980s. The Haplochromine
group of fish was not the only species to show a general decline following the introduction of Nile
Perch. There was a general decline of most species noted within the lake, which was also attributed
to the introduction of the Nile Perch. As the populations of Haplochromines declined, there was a
noted dietary shift of the Nile Perch towards freshwater shrimps (Caridina nilotica). In lakes where
these shrimps were absent, a diet of fish (mainly the small-bodied pelagic Cyprinid Rastrineobola
argentea [Lake Victoria Sardine/Silver Cyprinid] and juvenile Nile Perch) was noted.
Aquatic surveys undertaken the period 1999-2002 indicated that 1.6 million tonnes of Nile Perch
inhabited Lake Victoria. More recent surveys undertaken during 2020 indicated a population decline
to approximately 0.8 million tonnes (a 50% reduction in population in approximately 20 years). This
has been due to fisheries pressures that have targeted this species in particular. As the numbers of
Nile Perch within Lake Victoria have shown a steady decline due to unabated fishing pressure, there
has been a simultaneous increase in Haplochromine numbers and a dietary shift to consist mostly of
Haplochromine species has again been noted. This indicates that the Nile Perch is a highly adaptable,
opportunistic, tolerant and very effective predaceous species that presents a very clear threat to
indigenous fish populations as well as aquatic biota in general within the lake and associated
waterbodies.
It should be noted, however, that the population increase of Nile Perch was not the only contributing
factor to the decline of the Haplochromine populations within Lake Victoria. During the 1950-1960s
there was a considerable increase in nutrient sources to the lake, which lead to eutrophication, an
increase in areas affected by hypoxic conditions and an increase in turbidity. This was shown to be a
considerable contributing limiting factor to the Haplochromine populations. And, structured research
into the taxonomy and systematics of the Haplochromine group was only conducted during the period

1960-1970s, so sources of empirical research only accounted for the significance of the impacts
pertaining to the introduction of Nile Perch from that time onwards. The fact remains, however, that
a population decrease of Nile Perch has seen a simultaneous recovery of the populations of
Haplochromines (and other fish species). It remains undeniable that this species is considered a
significant driver that shapes the fish populations and species community structures (most
significantly being the Haplochromine populations) and survivability within the lake.
Figure 5-1: The known distribution of Lates niloticus (from http://www.fao.org, 2020).
The construction of the Kakono HPP and the associated reservoir on the Kagera River will transform
the lotic (running water environment) to a predominantly lentic (standing water environment) habitat.
This change in flow condition could favour the establishment of Nile Perch and could lead to a
population dominance of this species. As Nile Perch are regarded as generally a non-migratory
species, the suspected numbers within the Kagera River are thought to be low, with the vast majority
of the population being confined to the lake areas. There is evidence, however, of their presence within
the river, indicating that some individuals do utilise the riverine environment for dispersal purposes
and general habitat exploitation. This is not, however, regarded as a breeding migration where sexually
mature adults migrate en masse to spawn collectively over a short period within the season within
suitable breeding habitat. It is therefore assumed that the Nile Perch would not naturally establish a
dominant population within the Kakono reservoir unless deliberately introduced.
A deliberate introduction of breeding adult Nile Perch within the reservoir will provide a foundation for
the establishment of a population within the reservoir that would prey on smaller species and
outcompete other fish species for resources. A general decline of fish species diversity and numbers
will be a consequence of an introduction of Nile Perch. They have been shown to seemingly prefer
different habitat types within different areas. In Lake Victoria they tend to prefer deeper water,
whereas in other lakes they have been shown to have no such preference. This is perhaps also merely
a factor of survey sampling limitations and the lack of long-term data that is able to reveal trends. One
limiting factor that seemingly steers the occurrence of Nile Perch within an area that is common to the
outcomes of most of the research surveys, is that they require high oxygen levels and are therefore
generally absent from low-oxygen (hypoxic) areas such as shallower still-standing water such as the

grass-dominated flood terraces and wetland zones. Another limiting factor, and perhaps the
dominant limiting factor, is turbidity levels. The Kagera River has a high level of turbidity due to the
high silt loads, which is a general characteristic of most of the watercourses within the region. The
lake deltas, floodplains and the lakes themselves capture silts, which greatly increases the clarity of
the water. As Nile Perch are known to be a predaceous species that requires relatively clear water as
it is a visual hunter, it is assumed that they require relatively clear water for feeding purposes. High
turbidity is a well-known limiting factor to the occurrence of purely predatory fish within an area (e.g.
fish species of the Alestidae family), but studies on the environmental factors that limit the occurrence
of Nile Perch within an area have indicated that they adapt relatively well to turbid conditions and that
high turbidity cannot be regarded as a distributional limiting factor (Cornelissen et al, 2015). The
Kakono HPP reservoir will not be large enough to effectively remove the silt loads carried by the Kagera
River from the water column to the point of aiding in water clarity. Much of the larger-grained silts will
settle out due to the lowered water velocity and turbulence levels induced by the impoundment, but
in the absence of floodplains, the water will still carry a relatively high silt content and therefore will
remain relatively turbid. This may impact the occurrence of some of the other predaceous visual
hunting fish species, but will seemingly have a limited impact on the occurrence of Nile Perch. In depth
data regarding the biology of this species tends to be lacking, however, and therefore there remains a
level of uncertainty regarding the degree of tolerance and adaptability of populations under conditions
of higher turbidity. Elsewhere, they have been shown to adapt well to conditions of high turbidity and
therefore turbidity cannot be considered a factor when ascertaining the risk of Nile Perch dominating
the Kakono reservoir. It should also be noted that there is no mechanism that can be utilised in
association with the fishpass that will select against this species and that facilitating upstream
migrations of Nile Perch cannot be excluded. Therefore, there remains the risk that Nile Perch may
indeed establish within the reservoir due to migration from elsewhere for habitat exploitation, or
through the deliberate introduction by people in an effort to increase the fisheries resource within the
area. The provision of a fishpass will not accelerate this potential occurrence. What it will do, however,
is ensure healthy populations of indigenous fish species and allow indigenous species to actively
compete against the Nile Perch.
The Kakono HPP reservoir would tend to enhance the population of Tilapian species that would tend
to dominate within the reservoir, given the expected changes in physico-chemical and flow
characteristics of the reservoir. Tilapian species already form a considerable portion of the fish
population within the Kagera River and therefore they would tend to be a naturally-dominant group
with the establishment of the reservoir, even without deliberate introductions.

6 Management and Monitoring Measures

The success of any mitigation measure implemented to abate a negative ecological impact can only
be deemed successful after it has been proven to be so. There are many mitigation measures where
the outcomes are completely calculable and predictable, making for the development of a
management and monitoring plan to ascertain the overall success rate, generally superfluous. This is,
however, not the case when dealing with fish passes. Migratory behaviour amongst fishes is governed
by a complex interplay between climatic changes (seasonal cycling), changes in hydraulic features
within a river, the biological response of prey organisms, and changes in water chemistries that all
result in a hormonal trigger within a fish that then triggers a migratory journey. This is mostly relevant
to obligatory and annual migratory species, but, by catering for the needs of those target species, the
migratory needs of further species are also satisfied. Fish migrations are therefore regarded as a
behavioural response, and the number of biotic and abiotic variables that induce the behaviour make
for an indefinite response when trying to simulate these conditions within an artificial channel – as
what is presented within a constructed fish pass. The success (or failure) of a fish pass can therefore
only be fully determined with the implementation of a structured monitoring plan.
The locality and characteristics of the Kakono River in relation to the Kakono HPP dam infrastructure
and resulting reservoir makes for a unique opportunity to develop a fishpass that makes use of a
natural watercourse. The Kakono River is a relatively small tributary stream of the Kagera River, with
a riparian vegetation that is a dense, broad-leaved tree-dominated community, which is often intrusive
within the watercourse itself. Dense and overhanging vegetation means that the watercourse
transports a lot of fallen branches and large leaves, which tend to snag on intrusive roots and rocks.
Given the high silt load carried by the Kakono River, snagged branches and leaves tend to develop into
mini impoundments and the resulting trapped silts tend to make for a shallow water column. If left
unabated, this scenario could become problematic to fish trying to navigate upstream passage
through the watercourse. The success of utilising the Kakono River as a fishpass facility would
therefore benefit greatly from a management strategy. As part of developing the Kakono River as a
fishpass, it should be acknowledged that the stream will be provided with an elevated baseflow. As
part of the expected increased flow rates, there can also be an expected increase in turbulence, water
velocity and sediment transport. There can also be an expected increase in erosion features that would
impact the banks of the watercourse, shaping them in response to the elevated flow rates. It is
assumed that a new level of equilibrium will be reached between the physical and hydraulic features
of the watercourse, but problem areas may arise that could require intervention and mitigation to
inhibit unabated deleterious impacts.
It is also assumed that the increased baseflow within the Kakono River will increase the sediment
transport capacity and allow for the self-management of much of the entrapped debris in terms of
flushing through the system. The river will, however, have to be routinely monitored from a physical
alteration perspective and any emerging problem areas will have to be subject to a dynamic
management strategy applicable to the type and scale of the emerging concern. Monitoring frequency
will be determined by the response of the system and the findings of the previous monitoring period,
but important monitoring periods would be directly following large rainfall events (the Kakono River
will still have its own catchment area that will contribute to flow volumes).
Biological monitoring will be aimed at determining whether or not fish are indeed utilising the fishpass,
what species they are, what age classes they represent and how important the Kakono River will
become as a refuge habitat where fish will merely exploit it as a representation of an increased
diversity of habitat away from the Kagera River. Monitoring periods should include (at the very least)
a seasonally high flow period and a seasonally low flow period. It is acknowledged that the flow
through the Kakono River will be engineered and therefore generally uniform throughout the year, but
productivity and activity within the aquatic environment is cyclically coincidental with the high and low
flow seasons and therefore sampling during both seasons will generate valuable data. The
characteristics of the Kakono River readily allow for the use of electrofishing and fish traps as suitable
sampling methods.

It is acknowledged that hydropeaking will induce an artificial flow variation that may impact the
physiological triggers within fish and have a negative influence on the migrational movements of fish.
The monitoring plan should take this into consideration and design a plan to ascertain the significance
of this impact.
The flow through the Kakono River will have to be managed to periodically allow for flood or freshet
flows to enhance channel maintenance as well as to increase attraction flows to the fish in order to
locate the Kakono River during peak migratory periods. It will be important to monitor whether the
proposed flow management strategy is successful by determining the level of usage by fish and
therefore monitoring should be conducted to specifically coincide with these induced high-flow
periods.
The degree of establishment of Nile Perch within the reservoir should also be a target of the monitoring
plan.
These are just a few aspects that would require active monitoring and management, but other aspects
such as determining the level of downstream migrations through the Kakono River versus the number
of fish that merely flow over spillways during high-flow periods, and the mortality rate of fish that flow
over spillways and those drawn through the turbines. Many other aspects should also be included
within a monitoring plan. A comprehensive management and monitoring plan will be developed as
part of the final designing and detailing of the fishpass.
A summary of a monitoring plan is present in TABLE XXX below to outline the general requirements,
monitoring targets and frequencies. It should be noted that this regarded as a generalised monitoring
strategy and it would/should be revised for relevance to the specific targets associated with the
Kakono HPP.

Table 10: A generalised monitoring plan and strategy that is aimed at determining the effectiveness of the fish migration strategies presented within this report.
Number of Frequency of monitoring
Aspect Parameters / Focal points Sites** Sampling Methods personnel
required*** Baseline Construction Operations
Visual inspections and reporting:
Emergent erosion, gulley formation Weekly during Monthly during wet
Erosion factors Visual observations,
and deposition of fine silts within Throughout the Kakono wet season; season;
within the photographs and erosion 1 Yes
collection areas that indicate River Monthly during Bi-monthly during
Kakono River descriptions
transportation of finer-grained dry season dry season.
sediments.
Kagera River:
3 sites (upstream, within
the reservoir and
Handheld multi-parameter
TDS, EC, Oxygen (saturation and downstream).
water quality meter
Water quality: In content), pH, temperature and Kakono River: Every 2 weeks to
(example Hanna 1 Yes Every 2 weeks
situ parameters turbidity (if possible) within the 7 sites (intake structure, monthly
Instruments model
Kakono River and Kagera River connection canal, 3 within
HI98194)*
the Kakono River, within the
diversion channel, 1 at
fishpass outfall zone)
Every 6 months
Habitat types and change dynamics Application of the EcoStatus
Habitat (must include a
within the Kakono River, riparian All biological sites RIVER-IHI, IHAS and VEGRAI 1 Yes Every 3 months
assessments high flow and low
vegetation and instream habitat models (for example)
flow period)
Site dependent, but should
Fish surveys should be include at least electro-
undertaken along a section fishing, fish traps and seine
of the river and not confined netting (if possible); 2 to 5
to a single site in order to Gill netting where the site (There are Every 6 months
have the best chance of allows for it (within the safety factors (must include a
sampling in all habitat Kagera River and the to consider for high flow and low
types. reservoir). the survey flow period)
Aimed at comprehensively
methods
determining the trends in fish species
Fish surveys Specific localities will be Catch per unit effort must prescribed). Yes Every 3 months
community structures, age class
defined by site conditions. It be recorded. Genetic analysis
analysis and numbers/abundance.
is envisioned that it would A team of 2 undertaken only
require approximately 4 Application of the EcoStatus experienced once fishway is
areas along the Kagera FRAI models fish biologists operational, every
River, and then throughout should be 6 months.
the Kakono River. Fish Fin clippings for genetic sufficient.
surveys within the reservoir analysis would be useful to
should also be included. determine long-term gene
flow.

7 Investment Cost and Impact on Power

Generation
7.1 Investment Cost
This Section proposes an estimation of the investment cost for the construction of the proposed fish
pass (US_Alt1 alternative described in Section 3.3). This is a high level estimate since no engineering
detail or geotechnical information are available at this early stage of development.
Figure 7-1 below presents the layout of the fish pass, along with the main assumptions that have been
used for the calculation of the investment cost.
Steep part of the Kakono Stream:

channel Reservoir to 80% left natural + 20%
Kakono Stream: rip rap protection
No pools. Excavation
adapted to have a
constant slope (~2%)
Diversion structure:
Channel Reservoir to 100% concrete
Kakono Stream:
50% in concrete + 50%
rip rap protection
Channel Kakono Stream

to Kagera River:
Inlet: 100% 100% concrete
concrete
Outlet:
100% concrete
Figure 7-1 - Conceptual layout of the fish pass (US_Alt1 alternative)
A discharge of 7 m3/s has been considered to evaluate the hydraulic conditions in the fish way and the
need of protection in the Kakono Stream. The geometries of the inlet and of the artificial channels used
for the cost estimation are those presented in Section 3.2.
The diversion structure that is needed on the Kakono River to guide the fish pass flow towards the dam
tailrace is assumed to be a concrete gravity dam, with a mean elevation of 5 m above the ground level.
The estimation of the construction cost is given in Table 11 below, with an outlook on the main works
and their related quantities. The development cost of the fish pass is estimated at about 3 million USD.
Table 11: Breakdown of Fish Pass Design and Construction Costs

Item Unit Quantity Unit price in USD Total price in USD
Excavation - soil m3 40,000 3 120,000

Excavation - rock m3 9,000 10 90,000
Concrete m3 2,700 200 540,000
Reinforced concrete m3 2,500 350 875,000
Rip rap t 2,550 50 127,500
Hydromechanical Equipment LS 1 350,000 350,000
Sub-total construction 2,102,500
Site installation (10%) 131,650
Engineering and Geotechnical fees (15%) 335,123
Miscellaneous and contingencies (25%) 398,241
Sub-total excl. taxes (rounded) 2,970,000

Of note, a discharge of 7 m3/s with the proposed channel geometries would reduce the functionality
of the fish way, as the velocities would approach 3 m/s. It would also require planning an extended
protection of the banks of the Kakono River. To maintain a smaller discharge in the fish pass while still
providing an attraction flow of 5 to 7 m3/s at the entrance of the fish pass outlet, an alternative would
be to pipe the extra auxiliary flow directly into the most downstream chamber of the fishway. The last
chamber of the fishpass would just have to be an oversized pool to ensure enough energy dissipation
occurs so that the turbulence limits are not exceeded within this chamber. That would come in with
the detailed designs, but a very viable alternative to simply increasing the volumes through the Kakono
River. The extra attraction flow could even be supplied by a penstock and turbined through a mini HPP
before being released in the lower chamber of the fishway. In that case, a reduction of the overall costs
(excluding the cost of the mini HPP) could be expected.
7.2 Impact on Power Production

The 2019 Basic Design report from Studio Pietrangeli assumes for an energy production of about
524 GWh based on simulation of 30 years data. The report indicates following general data:
• FSL: 1189.0 masl
• Min operation level: 1180.0 masl
• Tailrace Water Level: 1157.5 masl
• Design Discharge: 316 m3/s
• Installed capacity: 87.8 MW
• Plant factor: 68%
• Energy: 524 GWh
The required discharge to make the fish pass operational will represent a reduction of the generated
power and related energy yield. The design of the fish pass is estimated to be between 5 and 7 m3/s
which will have to be release at any time of year without having the chance to used it for energy
generation. Based on the flow duration curve available for the Project, Figure 7-2 below illustrates the
weight of the ecological discharge related to the amount in the river.
Figure 7-2 - Rated discharge curve showing the discharge for the fish pass (7 m3/s)
600.0
500.0 Qavail
Qfishpass
Dischage [m3/s]
400.0
300.0
200.0
100.0
0.0
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
Probability of exceedance

A run-off production model was used to assess the impact of the flow by-passed into the fishpass on
the energy yield. Considering the inflow data, efficiency curve of the electrotechnical units as well as
variation of the tailwater level in relation with the discharge on the river, the energy losses are
estimated to be around 10 - 15 GWh per year, representing between 2% and 3% of the energy
generation stated in the 2019 Basic Design report.
Based on the 2019 Basic Design assumptions on tariff (11 cts /KWh), the loss of revenue associated
to the energy loss would correspond to a yearly amount comprised between 1.1 and 1.65 million USD.
This excludes the option of a mini-hpp that would turbined the extra attraction flow.

8 Conclusions & Recommendations

Following a desktop analysis and a ground-truthing field survey to determine the feasibility of utilising
the Kakono River as a fishpass channel to enhance migratory freedom for fish to circumvent the
Kakono HPP dam structure, the following salient conclusions could be reached:
• The development of the Kakono HPP and the associated dam infrastructure will create an
absolute migratory barrier to fish, inhibiting all interactions between the upstream and the
downstream reaches. This will have profound impacts on the overall ecological health of the
system and will impact the productivity of the fisheries resources within the region;
• The analysis of the fish species that inhabit the reach of the Kagera River associated with the
site indicated that a high diversity inhabits the river. This includes the CE Labeo victorianus, which
utilises the river as a migratory zone to river reach seasonally-inundated floodplain habitat
zones required for breeding purposes. As a large population of this species inhabits Lake
Victoria, migratory freedom for breeding adults from the dam to access upstream floodplain
habitat is required;
• The Kakono River has a profile that would be suitable as a migratory channel to successfully
cater for the migratory requirements of this fish species;
• The implementation of a formal fishway design was determined to be unsuitable for the site
and infrastructure;
• The Kagera River reach associated with the Kakono HPP site supports a range of fish species
that require migratory freedom for a variety of ecological reasons. The Kakono River provides
a profile that would be utilised by a large diversity of fish species and size classes, thereby
abating the ecological impacts of migratory inhibition;
• Transect profiles of the Kakono River were undertaken and preliminary hydraulic modelling
indicates that the stream profile requires a flow volume of approximately 5 - 7 m3/s to provide
suitable (i) hydraulic depth to facilitate fish movement and to facilitate sediment flushing
through the stream, and (ii) attraction flow;
• As the Kakono River does not intersect the Kakono reservoir inundation zone, a link channel will
have to be established between the reservoir and the link site/outfall site. A preferred channel
profile has been presented for review;
• An inflow control structure has been presented for review that would allow for passive control
of the flow volumes, which is controlled by the reservoir level, but which can be supplemented
through a stoplog system associated with the inflow structure;
• What is considered to be the most suitable localities for the inflow control structure and
associated channel alignment, coupled to a suitable discharge locality on the Kakono River has
been presented for review;
• Flow manipulation through the fishpass channel to cater for seasonal flow variation can be
controlled with a stoplog system. In this way, flow can be increased incrementally with no
interference to the operations of the HPP;
• The profile and habitat presented by the Kakono River is such that it would present increased
habitat diversity to fish and amphibians within the area, and many fish species will utilise the
Kakono River as habitat as well as for migratory purposes. Facilitated flushing of sediments will
also result in substrate scouring, which will increase the productivity of the rocky (in particular)
substrates. The Kakono River did include sections of riffle beds with cobble substrates. This
would present valuable breeding habitat for many fish species;
• There are areas within the Kakono River where erosion of the banks would be aggravated by
supplementing the flow volumes beyond natural baseflow status. Further analysis of these
areas will have to be undertaken and suitable bank stability measures implemented to abate
erosion impacts;
• Some channel maintenance will be required as tree roots that are associated with the channel
lead to snag points that trap floating debris. The increased flow volumes will aid in channel

maintenance, but the channel will have to monitored for snagged debris and the potential for
this to create scouring of the banks due to altered hydraulic conditions;
• There was a concern that the resulting reservoir created by the Kakono HPP and by providing
for migratory freedom of fish, that the exotic Nile Perch (Lates niloticus) could establish and
dominate within the reservoir zones and impact the viability of the populations of indigenous
fish species. From what could be ascertained, it is acknowledged that Nile Perch could
potentially establish within the Kakono reservoir, whether through recruitment from elsewhere
for habitat exploitation purposes or through deliberate introduction into the reservoir. One
reason is that Nile Perch are not considered to be a significant migratory species, showing a
tendency to remain localised within the lake environments. There are limited numbers within
the riverine habitat, making for the assumption that this species would not establish large
enough populations within the Kakono reservoir to dominate the fish species community
structures that are already established, however, the risk of Nile Perch establishing within the
Kakono reservoir from natural recruitment or from deliberate introductions is a possibility;
• The development of a fishpass facility will not enhance the process of establishment of the Nile
Perch within the reservoir. It will allow for recruitment from downstream sources of a great
variety of fish, which may outcompete the Nile Perch due to the limited numbers of Nile Perch
migrating into the reservoir at any given time;
• It is believed that the Kakono River, with relatively limited infrastructure development and
manipulation, could be successfully implemented as a fish bypass channel to facilitate the
migratory freedom of the diversity of fish species inhabiting the reach of the Kagera River
associated with the site;
• Facilitating downstream migrations of fish associated with the Kakono HPP has been
considered. It is felt that, given the recommendations provided for within the report, that this
would be successfully achieved with minimal mortality rates being suffered by the fish;
• The drawing and diagrams provided within the report are also presented as an AutoCAD model
for the perusal of the design engineers.

9 References
Balirwa, J.S., Chapman, C.A., Chapman, L.J., Cowx, I.G., Geheb, K., Kaufman, L., Lowe-McConnell., R.H.,
Seehausen, O., Wanink, J.H., Welcomme, R.L. and Witte, F. (2003). Biodiversity and fishery
sustainability in the Lake Victoria Basin: An unexpected marriage? BioScience Vol. 53 No. 8: 703-
715.
Bilotta, G.S., Burnside, N.G., Gray, J.C. and Orr, H.G. (2016). The effects of run-of-river hydroelectric
power schemes on fish community composition in temperate streams and rivers. PLoS ONE 11(5):
e0154271.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0154271.
Bok, A., Kotze, P., Heath, R. and Rossouw, J. (2007). Guidelines for the planning, design and operation
of fishways in South Africa. Water Research Commission Report no. TT 287/07.
Boys, C.A., Navarro, A., Robinson, W., Fowler, T., Chilcott, S., Miller, B., Pflugrath, B., Baumgartner, L.J.,
McPherson, J., Brown, R. and Deng, Z. (2014). Downstream fish passage criteria for hydropower
and irrigation infrastructure in the Murray–Darling Basin. NSW Department of Primary Industries –
Fisheries Final Report Series, ISSN number 1837-2112.
Burnett, M.J., O’Brien, G.C., Wepener, V. and Pienaar, D. (2018). The spatial ecology of adult
Labeobarbus marequensis and their response to flow and habitat variability in the Crocodile River,
Kruger National Park. African Journal of Aquatic Science, 2018, 43(4).
Cornelissen, I.J.M., van Zwieten, P.A.M., Peter, H.K. and Nagelkerke, L.A.J. (2015). Nile perch distribution
in south-east Lake Victoria is more strongly driven by abiotic factors, than by prey densities.
Hydrobiologica (2015) 755:239-255.
Costa, M.J., Pinheiro, A.N. and Boavida, I. (2019). Habitat enhancement solutions for Iberian Cyprinids
affected by hydropeaking: Insights from flume research. Sustainability 2019: 11, 6998.
Čida, G.F. and Rinehart, B.N. (2000). Hydropower R&D: Recent Advances in Turbine Passage
Technology. Report for the U.S. Department of Energy, Idaho Operations Office. DOE/ID-10753.
EA (2016). Guidance for run-of-river hydropower development. Environment Agency, Bristol, UK.
Froese, R. and D. Pauly. Editor (2019). FishBase. World Wide Web electronic publication.
www.fishbase.org, version (12/2019).
Hecker, G.E., Perkins, N.F., Amaral, S., Jacobson, P.T., Fay, C., Ludewig, P. and Walsh, J., (2017). Retrofit
of the Alden Turbine at New York Power Authority’s Crescent Hydroelectric Project. Presented at
HydroVision International 2017, Denver, Colo., U.S.
Larinier, M., and Travade, F. (2002) Chapter 13: Downstream migration: Problems and facilities. Book
chapter in Bull. Fr. Pêche Piscic. (2002) 364 suppl.: 181-207.
Linke, H. and Staeck, L. (1994). African cichlids II: Cichlids from East Africa. A handbook for their
identification, care and breeding. Tetra Press, Germany. ISBN 1-56465-167-3.
Mlaponi, E. (2011). Spatial and temporal distribution of Nile Perch (Lates niloticus Linnaeus, 1758) in
relation to oxygen in Lake Victoria Tanzanian side. MSc Thesis, Wageningen University of Life
Sciences and Research Centre, Netherlands.
Nyqvist, D., Elghagen, J., Heiss, M. and Calles, O. (2018). An angled rack with a bypass and a nature-like
fishway pass Atlantic salmon smolts downstream at a hydropower dam. Marine and Freshwater
Research 69: 1894-1904, CSIRO Publishing.
O’Brien, G., Dickens, C., Mor, C. and England M. I. (2020). Towards good E-flow practices in the small-
scale hydropower sector in Uganda. Frontiers in Environmental Science (in press).
Ross, M.J. (2015). Determining the biological requirements of selected important migratory fish
species to aid in the design of fishways in South Africa. PhD Thesis, University of Johannesburg.

Schilt, C.R. (2007). Developing fish passage and protection at hydropower dams. Applied Animal
Behaviour Science 104: 295-325.
Skelton, P. (2003). Freshwater fishes of southern Africa. Struik Publishers.
Teugels, G.G., Lévêque, C., Paugy, D. and Traoré, K. (1988). A review of the ichthyological fauna of the
coastal basins of Côte d'Ivoire and western Ghana. Rev. Hydrobiol. Trop. 21(3):221-237.
Thorncraft, G. and Harris, J.H. (2000). Fish passage and fishways in New South Wales: a status report.
Office of Conservation, NSW Fisheries, Sydney. Cooperative Research Centre for Freshwater
Ecology, Technical Report 1/2000.
Witte F; Wanink JH; Kishe MA; Mkumbo OC; Goudswaard PC; Seehausen O, 2007. Differential decline
and recovery of haplochromine trophic groups in the Mwanza Gulf of Lake Victoria. Aquatic
Ecosystem Health and Management, 10:416-433.

End of this Section
9 Cost Benefit Analysis
Contents
9.1 Preamble ................................................................................. 9-1
9.2 Costs ........................................................................................ 9-1

9.2.1 Project Investment ....................................................................................................................................................... 9-1
9.2.2 Cost of Environment and Social Impacts ................................................................................................................... 9-1
9.3 Benefits ................................................................................... 9-3
9.4 Analysis ................................................................................... 9-3
DISCLOSURE AUTHORIZED - Kakono HPP_ESIA_Section 9_CBA_June 2022 Page a

List of Tables
Table 9.1 – Breakdown of Capital Investment Costs ................................................................................................................ 9-1
Table 9.2 - Estimated Budget for the ESMMP Measures under the Responsibility of TANESCO ........................................ 9-2
DISCLOSURE AUTHORIZED - Kakono HPP_ESIA_Section 9_CBA_June 2022 Page b

9.1 Preamble
This cost benefit analysis provides a summary of the investment and operating costs of the Project, and a
summary of the cost of environmental and social management. Benefits are described in terms of income,
and a qualitative assessment of positive impacts on the natural and social environment.
9.2 Costs
9.2.1 Project Investment
The project capital investment costs estimated in the Basic Design (Studio Pietrangeli, 2019) are based on
the cost of construction of infrastructure and camps, civil works, hydraulic steel structures, mechanical
supply, electrical supply, 220 kV transmission line, and environmental monitoring. The cost breakdown is
shown in Table 9.1.
Table 9.1 – Breakdown of Capital Investment Costs

Description Cost (Million USD)
Infrastructure and camps 14.6
Civil works 147.2
Hydraulic steel structures 10.4
Mechanical supply 16.0
Electrical supply 35.6
220 kV transmission line 6.5
Contingencies 21
Engineer, legal, management 15.1
TOTAL Cost 266.4*
Notes
* The value indicated is the cost estimated in the Basic Design study from which has been deducted the 2019 Basic
Design’s estimated cost of environmental monitoring (21.2 million USD).
The total estimated capital investment is USD 266.4 million (TZS 612.45 billion)1, excluding environmental
and social management costs.
The Basic Design study estimated that operating expenditure will be approximately 2.88 million USD per
annum for operation and maintenance costs.
9.2.2 Cost of Environment and Social Impacts
Estimating the financial costs associated with environmental impacts and disturbances is challenging, as
there are no standard criteria for their monetization. For the purpose of this cost benefit analysis, the
environmental and social costs considered are those associated with mitigating and monitoring impacts.
The costs, which can be also considered project investment, for mitigating the negative impacts through
design, engineering and measures during the construction period are estimated to be approximately
USD 15.5 million. The cost of ESMMP implementation during operation is USD 4.5 million per annum for the
first three years, and USD 1.5 million per annum for subsequent years (see Table 9.2).
1
1 USD = 2,299 TZS (13/10/2021)
DISCLOSURE AUTHORIZED - Kakono HPP_ESIA_Section 9_CBA_June 2022 page 9-1

Table 9.2 - Estimated Budget for the ESMMP Measures under the Responsibility of TANESCO
Plan Component Construction Operation per year
52 months First 3 years >3 years
Environmental ESMS 1.- System Development $ - $ - $ -
and Social ESMS 2.- System implementation $ 336,000 $ 156,000 $ 78,000
Management
System ESMS 3.- Environmental and Social Technical Assistance $ 1,714,000 $ 99,000 $ -
Management of MCP 1.- Screening $ 150,000 $ - $ -
Change Procedure MCP 2.- Assessment and approvals $ 300,000 $ - $ -
MCP 3.- Public disclosure $ 25,000 $ - $ -
Detailed Design SURV 1.- Design of the fishpass and fish-friendly turbine $ - $ -
and E&S alternatives $ 3,500,000
Surveillance of SURV 2.- Review of detailed design in line with E&S considerations $ - $ - $ -
Construction
$ - $ - $ -
Works SURV 3.- Environmental supervision of construction methods
Resettlement RAP 1 – Valuation report and payment of compensation $ 1,211,000 $ - $ -
Action Plan RAP 2 - Relocation, rehousing and livelihood restoration $ 435,000 $ 65,000 $ -
RAP 3 – Monitoring and evaluation $ 127,000 $ 22,000 $ -
Community CHS 1.- Construction Health & Safety $ 150,000 $ - $ -
Health and Safety CHS 2.- Community health and safety around and downstream of
the reservoir $ 500,000 $ 400,000 $ 50,000
CHS 3.- Emergency Preparedness Plan $ 250,000 $ 50,000 $ 25,000
Influx INF1.- Planning and Monitoring $ 50,000 $ 25,000 $ -
Management INF2.- Anticipating and managing Project-induced In-migration $ - $ - $ -
INF3.- Addressing potential negative impacts $ 500,000 $ 50,000 $ 25,000
Community CIP 1.- Community Development Assessment $ 150,000 $ - $ -
Investment CIP 2.- Governance and Planning $ 50,000 $ - $ -
CIP 3.- Delivering community investment $ 1,440,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 250,000
Reservoir Zoning RZF 1.- Reservoir zoning $ 50,000 $ 25,000 $ -
& Fisheries RZF 2.- Reservoir fisheries management $ 75,000 $ 75,000 $ 25,000
Alien Invasive AIS 1.- Aquatic weed management $ 250,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000
Species AIS 2.- Alien fish management $ 25,000 $ 50,000 $ 25,000
Biodiversity Action BAP 1.- Wildlife Management and Control $ 200,000 $ 60,000 $ 60,000
Plan BAP 2.- Biodiversity Compensation Strategy $ 1,200,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 500,000
BAP 3.- Additional Conservation Actions $ 925,000 $ 375,000 $ 75,000
Environmental EFMP 1.- Operating Procedures and Adaptative Management $ 50,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000
Flow Management EFMP 2.- Minimum flow during Reservoir filling or Maintenance $ - $ - $ -
EFMP 3.- Fishway Management $ 200,000 $ 50,000 $ 25,000
EFMP 4.- Sediment Management $ 100,000 $ 50,000 $ 25,000
EFMP 5.- Engagement with neighbouring countries $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000
Stakeholder SEP 1.- Community mobilisation and engagement $ 50,000 $ 25,000 $ -
Engagement SEP 2.- Grievance Mechanism $ 50,000 $ 25,000 $ -
SEP 3.- Engagement with NGOs and national level stakeholders $ 50,000 $ 25,000 $ -
SEP 4.- Disclosure and reporting $ 50,000 $ 25,000 $ -
Monitoring MON 1.- Hydrology, Environmental Flow and Water Quality $ 200,000 $ 50,000 $ 25,000
MON 2.- Reservoir and River Geomorphology and Sediment $ 200,000 $ 150,000 $ 50,000
MON 3.- Reservoir Greenhouse Gas Emissions Monitoring $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ -
MON 4.- River habitat, Fish & Aquatic invertebrates $ 160,000 $ 60,000 $ 60,000
MON 5.- Bird Monitoring for Transmission Line Operation $ - $ 25,000 $ 25,000
MON 6.- Land use and Revegetation Progress $ 100,000 $ 50,000 $ 25,000
MON 7.- Fishery Activity $ 100,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000
MON 8.- Socioeconomic Households $ 100,000 $ 25,000 $ -
MON 9.- Project-induced in-migration and local inflation $ 75,000 $ 25,000 $ -
MON 10.- Reporting and public disclosure $ 75,000 $ 25,000 $ -
TOTAL $ 15,448,000 $ 4,487,000 $ 1,523,000

9.3 Benefits
The main benefit of the Project is that it will stabilise power supply in northwest Tanzania and supply electric
power to the national grid. The improved supply of electricity will enhance economic development and
quality of life and reduce the use of charcoal, which will contribute to reducing deforestation, reducing soil
erosion, improving air quality and reducing GHG emissions. Compared to generating the Project’s power
production capacity with Tanzania’s current energy mix, the Project will reduce GHG emissions by an
average of approximately 216,000 tonne CO 2 equivalent per year.
The Project will create approximately 1,000 direct employment opportunities during the construction
phase, and this will generate indirect employment opportunities that will benefit local communities and
stimulate long-term economic development in the area. The Kakono reservoir will have a potential for
development of fisheries (if the risk of alien fish species on indigenous biodiversity can be adequately
managed).
9.4 Analysis
At a total estimated investment cost of USD 287.6 million and a mean annual energy production of
524 GWh, the Kakono hydropower project has been found by the Basic Design Engineer (Studio Pietrangeli,
2019) to be highly desirable from an economic perspective. The expected Levelized Cost of Electricity index
computed by the Basic Design is 4.9 cUSD/kWh, which is one of the cheapest power generation alternatives
in Tanzania (Norplan, 2014c).
The Cost, Economic and Financial Analysis carried out as part of the Feasibility Study (Norplan, 2014c)
concluded that the project was economically viable with an economic Internal Rate of Return of 15.9%, and
this was based on an estimated investment cost of USD 379 million – which is significantly higher that the
investment cost computed in the Basic Design.
In conclusion, the overall cost-benefit analysis confirms that the Project is economically feasible taking into
account all project costs including the environmental and social mitigation costs.

End of this Section
10 Decommissioning
Contents
10.1 Introduction.......................................................................... 10-1
10.2 Dam Decommissioning ....................................................... 10-1
10.3 Transmission Line Decommissioning ................................ 10-1
DISCLOSURE AUTHORIZED - Kakono HPP_ESIA_Section 10_DECOMMISSIONING_June 2022 Page a

10.1 Introduction
It is expected that the Project would have a minimum operating life of at least 40 years, this is assumed
because the financial evaluations to assess the Project’s financial viability have made using this
assumption. However, hydropower schemes can operate for 80 to 100 years.
At the end of the Project life, the facilities will stop operation and it can be expected that installations such
as buildings, electromechanical equipment and the transmission line will be dismantled, and the
equipment taken offsite for reuse, recycling or disposal as waste.
10.2 Dam Decommissioning
It is anticipated that a technical-economic study and decommissioning ESIA will be carried out several
years before the end of the Project life to assess the decommissioning or abandonment solutions for the
reservoir and hydraulic structures.
The assessment will take into consideration the quantity and quality of sediment that has accumulated in
the reservoir, reservoir water quality, negative environmental and socioeconomic impacts and benefits of
draining the reservoir and deconstructing the hydraulic structures.
An alternative solution will also be assessed, where the reservoir is not drained but left as a lake, hydraulic
structures are left in place and actions taken to ensure the structural integrity of the structures and
ensure that passive means are in place for flood control.
10.3 Transmission Line Decommissioning
Assuming the transmission line is not being put to some other purpose, TANESCO would provide a
detailed plan to decommission and remove the transmission line. The plan will include:
• Removal of all transmission poles and any related support structures or bedding to a depth of
1 meter feet below surface levels;
• Removal of all transmission lines or wires;
• Restoration of areas disturbed during decommissioning activities. Disturbed areas will be graded as
close as reasonably possible to its original contours and the soils shall be restored to a condition
consistent with other resource uses. Disturbed areas will be replanted with a native plant seed
mixes suited to the area and shall be consistent with the Alian Invasive Species in the ESMMP;
• Restoration of any Over Ground Access areas along the right-of-way, to be replanted with native
plant seed mixes suited to the area and shall be consistent with the Alian Invasive Species in the
ESMMP, and
• Repair of any existing roads used in accessing the transmission line for decommissioning activities.
All decommissioning work is to be completed within 12 months of closure of the hydropower facility, if
practicable, allowing for seasonal access restrictions due to wet terrain, fire danger or other criteria
limiting access for decommissioning.
DISCLOSURE AUTHORIZED - Kakono HPP_ESIA_Section 10_DECOMMISSIONING_June 2022 page 10-1

End of this Section
Management and Monitoring
Plan
Contents
11.1 Objective and Structure of the ESMMP ........................................... 11-1

Overview .................................................................................................................................................... 11-1
Objectives................................................................................................................................................... 11-1
Who is this ESMMP for? ............................................................................................................................ 11-2
Source Documents and Outputs ............................................................................................................. 11-2
Key dates ................................................................................................................................................... 11-2
Structure of the ESMMP ........................................................................................................................... 11-3
11.2 Principles of the ESMMP................................................................... 11-4

Responsibilities and Organisation........................................................................................................... 11-4
Standards of Environmental and Social Performance ......................................................................... 11-5
Documents flow chart .............................................................................................................................. 11-5
11.3 Results of Environmental & Social Impact Assessment and

Commitments Register .................................................................... 11-8
11.4 Measures Under the Responsibility of the EPC Contractor ........ 11-20
Management systems, Monitoring and Reporting .............................................................................11-21
Ecology.....................................................................................................................................................11-26
Environmental Flow................................................................................................................................11-28
Effluents...................................................................................................................................................11-29
Waste .......................................................................................................................................................11-33
Handling & Storage of Hazardous Substance .....................................................................................11-37
Reservoir and Construction Site Vegetation Clearing.........................................................................11-40
Soil and Erosion Control .........................................................................................................................11-44
Materials Management & Spoil Disposal Management .....................................................................11-46
Atmospheric Emissions and Dust .........................................................................................................11-48
Noise and Vibration.................................................................................................................................11-50
Quarry and Borrow Area Management ................................................................................................11-51
Site reinstatement ..................................................................................................................................11-52
Cultural Heritage & Chance Find Procedure ........................................................................................11-54
Community Grievance ............................................................................................................................11-54
Land acquisition ......................................................................................................................................11-55
Traffic .......................................................................................................................................................11-56
Community Health and Safety ..............................................................................................................11-58
Local Recruitment and Skills Development .........................................................................................11-62
Workers Health & Safety........................................................................................................................11-68
Budget ......................................................................................................................................................11-75
DISCLOSURE AUTHORIZED - Kakono HPP_ESIA_Section 11_ESMMP_June 2022 Page a

11.5 Measures Under the Responsibility of TANESCO ......................... 11-76

Environmental and Social Management System ................................................................................11-77
Management of Change Procedure (MCP) ...........................................................................................11-84
Detailed Design and Environmental and Social Surveillance of Construction Works.....................11-90
Resettlement, Land Acquisition and Livelihood Restoration.............................................................11-95
Community Health and Safety ........................................................................................................... 11-101
Influx Management.............................................................................................................................. 11-110
Community Investment ...................................................................................................................... 11-116
Reservoir Zoning and Fisheries Management .................................................................................. 11-121
Alien Invasive Species Management.................................................................................................. 11-125
Biodiversity Action Plan....................................................................................................................... 11-131
Environmental Flow Management .................................................................................................... 11-156
Stakeholder Engagement Plan .......................................................................................................... 11-165
Environmental & Social Monitoring Programme ............................................................................. 11-179
11.6 Measures Under the Responsibility of Governmental Agencies ..... 11-

194
Resettlement, Land Acquisition and Compensation ....................................................................... 11-194
Monitoring of E&S Conditions in the Environmental Permit ........................................................... 11-194
Ownership & maintenance of Community Investment Initiatives ................................................. 11-197
Watershed and Transboundary Coordination .................................................................................. 11-197
Involvement of Conservation stakeholders in Tanzania ................................................................. 11-197
11.7 Budget and Workplan ................................................................... 11-199

Budget ................................................................................................................................................... 11-199
Work Plan.............................................................................................................................................. 11-199
DISCLOSURE AUTHORIZED - Kakono HPP_ESIA_Section 11_ESMMP_June 2022 Page b

List of Tables
Table 11.1- Key Implementation dates .................................................................................................................................... 11-3
Table 11.2 – Documents Flow Chart ......................................................................................................................................... 11-6
Table 11.3- Properties Rendering a Product Hazardous .................................................................................................... 11-34
Table 11.4- Presence of Priority Biodiversity in Natural and Critical Habitats ............................................................... 11-132
Table 11.5- Summary of Project Impacts on Priority Biodiversity ................................................................................... 11-135
Table 11.6- Summary of Alignment of Mitigation Measures against Mitigation Hierarchy .......................................... 11-137
Table 11.7- Summary of Hectares Directly Impacted by Different Project Components ............................................. 11-138
Table 11.8- Summary of Residual Habitat Impacts for Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity Values .......................... 11-138
Table 11.9- Summary of Proposed Metrics for Habitat Compensation .......................................................................... 11-141
Table 11.10- Summary of Biodiversity Prioritisation Compensation Actions ................................................................ 11-142
Table 11.11- Priority Areas for Conservation Action ......................................................................................................... 11-143
Table 11.12 – Stakeholder Engagement Programme ...................................................................................................... 11-166
Table 11.13 - Responsibilities .............................................................................................................................................. 11-172
Table 11.14 - SEP indicators to be Documented in the E&S Performance Reports ...................................................... 11-173
Table 11.15 - Conditions of the 2016 Certificate delivered by NEMC .............................................................................. 11-195
Table 11.16 - Summary Budget for the ESMMP Measures under the Responsibility of TANESCO ............................. 11-199
Table 11.17 - Estimated Budget for the ESMMP Measures under the Responsibility of TANESCO ............................ 11-200
Table 11.18 - ESMMP Work Plan .......................................................................................................................................... 11-202
List of Figures
Figure 11-1 – Outline organization of TANESCO Environmental and Social team .......................................................... 11-79
Figure 11-2 – Change Management Process........................................................................................................................ 11-85
Figure 11-3 – Map showing distribution of modified, natural and critical (aquatic) habitats in the Project Area ...... 11-133
Figure 11-4 - Protected Areas/IBAs in the Kagera River Basin......................................................................................... 11-144
Figure 11-5 – Institutions Responsible for Implementation of Biodiversity Mitigation and Monitoring Measures. .. 11-148
Figure 11-6 – Grievance Procedure ..................................................................................................................................... 11-171
DISCLOSURE AUTHORIZED - Kakono HPP_ESIA_Section 11_ESMMP_June 2022 Page c

11.1 Objective and Structure of the ESMMP
Overview
This chapter is the Environmental & Social Monitoring and Management Plan (ESMMP) for the Kakono
Hydropower Project (the Project). The purpose of the ESMMP is to guide the implementation of mitigation
measures and monitoring requirements identified through the EIA process conducted in 2016 and through
the Complementary Environmental & Social studies issued in 2022.
The Project is situated on the Kagera River in north western Tanzania near the border with Uganda and west
of Lake Victoria. The Project will be located downstream of transboundary hydropower plants on the Kagera
River comprising: (i) The 80 MW Rusumo Falls HPP, under construction at the time of writing, located 325 km
upstream of the Kakono dam, and (ii) the 16 MW Kikagati-Murongo HPP, commissioned in 2002, located 68
km upstream of the Kakono dam and (iii) the 35-40 MW Nsongezi HPP, construction not yet started, located
15 km upstream from the tail of the Kakono reservoir.
The proposed Kakono Dam is a 61 m high 284 m long, Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) gravity dam in the
riverbed and a 1,380 m rockfill dam on the left and right abutments. The dam safety structures (spillway
and bottom outlet) are hosted in the central blocks of the gravity dam. The gated spillway (3 radial gates)
will protect the dam from extreme floods by safely evacuating the reservoir inflow. It is designed to
discharge a flood of 10,000 years return period (Q 10,000=810 m3/s) and exceptional flood (Probable
Maximum Flood, QPMF= 1,240 m3/s). The bottom outlet (Q= 640 m3/s) can be used to (i) drawdown the
reservoir in an emergency situation or for extraordinary maintenance, (ii) control the rate of reservoir
impounding during first filling, and (iii) flush the reservoir of deposited sediment. The large bottom outlet
will also be valuable during construction, for river diversion.
The powerhouse is outdoor powerhouse at the dam toe. It has an installed capacity of 87.8 MW and a
maximum discharge of 316 m3/s. It will accommodate the two vertical Kaplan turbines (158 m3/s and
44 MW capacity each), the generators, transformers, switchgears, and all auxiliary systems. The main
building, which hosts the two turbines and draft tubes, has main dimensions of about 59 m (length) x 47 m
(width), and 30 m (height) under the machine hall floor. A 220 kV air insulated switchyard was designed to
evacuate the power generated by the powerhouse and to connect to the transmission line. It will be located
on the right bank, in a south direction, close to the powerhouse.
The workforce will be accommodated in two construction camps during the construction period. Local
residents employed for construction will be transported as appropriate from their homes in the valley.
A 52-months construction schedule has been elaborated for the Project. Start of the construction activities
is planned in 2023 and the powerhouse commissions should take place in 2028.
Objectives
This ESMMP is an umbrella document that gives direction to the development of the full complement of
management plans necessary for the Project. The broad aims of the ESMMP are:
• Ensuring compliance with national regulatory authority stipulations and guidelines, as well as ensuring
compliance with the E&S Policies and standards of the AFD and the AfDB;
• Describing practical requirements in sufficient detail that resources can be easily assessed and
allocated.
• Stating the agreed environmental and social objectives for the Project and verifying environmental and
social performance through information on impacts as they occur;

• Responding to changes in Project implementation not considered in the impact assessment process
thus far or responding to unforeseen events.
To achieve these objectives, the ESMMP contains the following information:

• Definition of the environmental and social commitments and mitigation strategy identified in the 2016
EIAs and the 2022 ESIA Study;
DISCLOSURE AUTHORIZED - Kakono HPP_ESIA_Section 11_ESMMP_June 2022 Page 11-1

• Overview of the management actions necessary to implement the commitments and mitigation
strategy, including where appropriate at this stage of the Project, the manner in which they will be
executed, the schedule, the resources and performance indicators.
• Description of the means of monitoring and assessing the performance of the social and
environmental actions, so that they can be adapted and/or improved, plus the corresponding
documentation.
• Definition of responsibilities: roles, communications and reporting process required for the
implementation of the ESMMP.
Who is this ESMMP for?
The ESMMP is an operational document that is available to the public for information. It is linked to the 2016
EIA reports and the 2022 E&S Complementary Studies (see Section 11.1.4). It is intended for several parties:
• TANESCO. The ESMMP acts as the environmental and social roadmap for construction and operations.
It sets out the commitments made by TANESCO before the authorisation to start the main construction
works and establishes the logic behind the social and environmental actions.
• Administrative authorities responsible for monitoring the environmental and social impacts of the
Project and the effectiveness of the mitigation measures. It is also a reference document that local and
central authorities can use to check that TANESCO honours its commitments in the construction and
operations phases.
• Lenders: The ESMMP provides evidence that the commitments made through the ESIA documentation
and the financing process, which reflects the Lenders E&S policies requirements, are actually
implementable and can be monitored and audited.
• Local communities and organisations: The ESMMP describes the measures to mitigate negative
impacts and corrective measures to adapt to unforeseen changes during its implementation. The
ESMMP forms a basis for exchanges and negotiations in the consultation phases and the validation of
the mitigation and compensation strategy proposed by TANESCO.
• Operators of hydropower, irrigation or water supply facilities located downstream or within the same
river basin as the Project. The ESMMP informs such parties of the objectives of each social and
environmental action. In this way, it helps to facilitate possible synergies or avoid interference with
other project ESMMPs, and to develop collective solutions, where appropriate.
The EPC Contractor will develop its own Construction Environmental and Social Management Plan (CESMP)
which will deliver the commitments made in this ESMMP as explained in Section 11.1.4.
Source Documents and Outputs
The ESMMP is the framework document that summarises all environmental and social measures
recommended in, or required by, the various projects documents (i.e. the source documents) and which
translates them into management actions. Detailed specific management plans will be further developed
and/or executed as outputs of the ESMMP during the construction phase and in preparation for operations
and future decommissioning.
The source documents include:
• the EIAs prepared by NORPLAN and approved by the Government of Tanzania (GoT) in 2016 with its
ESMP. The GoT awarded the environmental certification on the basis of the E&S commitments made in
the 2016 EIA report.
• Complementary Environmental & Social studies issued in 2022.
• Environmental and social policies of AFD and AfDB.
• TANESCO Environment Policy and Social Policy
Key dates
The key dates for the Project’s construction and operation activities are summarized in Table 11.1.

Table 11.1- Key Implementation dates

Milestone Planned Date
Project Freeze 2019
Signature of EPC Contract 2023
Main construction period 2024 - 2028
First Reservoir Filling 2027 - 2028
Commissioning of the Powerhouse Start of operation phase 2028
Structure of the ESMMP
Although there is no universally accepted standard format for ESMMPs, the format needs to fit the
circumstances in which the ESMMP is being developed. The present ESMMP has been prepared in 2022
before the EPC Contractor had been contracted.
In this context, the ESMMP has been structured by commitments and responsibilities:
• The present Section 11.1 briefly introduces the context and the objective of the ESMMP.
• Section 11.2 describes the roles planned for each of the entities involved in the E&S Management of
the Project, and the associated organisation.

• Section 11.3 summarizes the Project’s commitments to mitigate or compensate the effects predicted
through the 2016 EIA and the 2022 ESIA Study.

• Section 11.4 describes the E&S management measures which are under the responsibility of the EPC
Contractor. They cover the construction period and the reservoir filling period.
• Section 11.5 details the E&S management measures which are under the responsibility of TANESCO
during the construction, operation and decommissioning phases of the Project.

• Section 11.6 indicates the E&S measures that should be undertaken by the governmental agencies.
• Section 11.7 provides the budget needed to execute the measures under the responsibility of
TANESCO and the workplan for the construction period.

11.2 Principles of the ESMMP
Responsibilities and Organisation
TANESCO will take the full responsibility of the environmental & social management of the construction and
operation of the Project components, including the hydropower, access road and 220 kV Transmission Line
to the existing Kyaka substation. The present ESMMP addresses the environmental and social monitoring
management plan for the hydropower, the transmission line, and the access road component of the Project.
Implementation of Mitigation Prior and During Construction
Although TANESCO takes the overall responsibility for the implementation of E&S mitigation and
compensation measures of the Project, TANESCO delegates to the EPC Contractor the implementation of
the E&S measures relating to the construction methods. This delegation is ruled by the Environmental and
Social specifications that will form part of the EPC Contract and that establish the objectives in terms of E&S
performance for the construction methods. Effective implementation of these specifications will be
supervised by TANESCO. A Performance Security will cover any remedial works required during a period of
two years after full completion.
In the present documents, the management actions that are under the responsibility of the EPC Contractor
are tagged [CC] standing for Contractor Construction ESMP management actions.
Some environmental and social actions that do not relate to the construction methods will be initiated
during the construction period. These actions result from the mitigation strategy of the long-term effects
identified by the 2016 EIA process and the 2022 ESIA Study. Their implementation will be under the
responsibility of TANESCO. In the present document, the management actions that are under the
responsibility of TANESCO are tagged [OC] standing for Owner Construction ESMS management actions.
Likewise, several E&S actions will have to be undertaken by governmental agencies during the construction
period. They are tagged [GC] standing for Government of Tanzania E&S management actions.
The EPC Contractor will develop a Construction ESMP and associated sub-plans or procedures (See Section
11.4). TANESCO will review and approve the documents before the start of the works is authorized. The
actual implementation of the measures defined in the in the Construction ESMP will be monitored by
TANESCO as described in Section 11.5.3.
TANESCO will establish the Owner ESMS (see Section 11.5.1). The ESMS establishes the responsibilities,
practices and resources necessary for implementing the Project-specific management plans listed in
Section 11.5 covering the construction and/or the operation period.
Implementation of Mitigation during Operation
A Hydropower and Transmission Line Components
The operation phase starts with the full commissioning of the turbine units at the Kakono powerhouse (see
Table 11.1 for planned date of commissioning). At that stage, most works will have been taken over from
the EPC Contractor by TANESCO. Most E&S management measures will then be implemented by TANESCO
to ensure compliance with the ESMMP. They are tagged [OO] in this document, standing for Owner
Operation ESMS management Actions. Some of the E&S measures, mostly monitoring, will also be
implemented by the Governmental Agencies and they are tagged [GO] as for Governmental Agencies
Operation E&S management Actions in the present document.
B Road component
The new access road will be owned, maintained, and operated by TARURA.

Implementation of Mitigation during Decommissioning
E&S management actions for the decommissioning phase of the Project cannot be planned at the time of
writing for the following reasons:
Hydropower projects rely on renewable fuel which is supposed to last forever, subject to climate changes.
Unlike a mining project or an oil & gas project, there is therefore no planned depletion of the resource after
a number of years of exploitation. Although the reservoir capacity will eventually be reduced by
sedimentation after decades, there could be solutions to adapt the hydropower production to the new
conditions.
Given the real lifetime of hydropower projects, there are only a few examples in the world of large
hydropower projects being removed or dismantled. There are many examples of hydropower projects being
upgraded (e.g. dam height increase) or water storage scheme being transformed into run-off-river scheme
because the reservoir was full of sediments. In most cases, given the capital investment required for the
construction of large projects, priority is given to refurbishment rather than decommissioning.
Even if the Project had a shorter projected lifetime, it would not be feasible to identify a detailed
decommissioning strategy at the time of writing. Decommissioning is subject to detailed study similar in
scope to construction. Therefore, anything identified at the construction phase would be indicative and
subject to extensive change based on tailored studies carried out as part of the decommissioning scope of
work.
Overall, planning E&S measures for the decommissioning phase at this stage of the project cycle would not
be relevant.
Standards of Environmental and Social Performance
The Project internal stakeholders (i.e. TANESCO, EPC Contractor, Sub-contractors for construction or
operation phases) will comply with all norms, standards, discharge and abstraction limit values defined in
the Tanzanian national regulations.
The Project will also comply with the environmental and social policies of the potential Lenders, namely:
• The African Development Bank Operational Safeguards of 2013 (OS);
• The World Bank’s Environmental and Social Standards of 2018 (ESS).
TANESCO will also apply - and require its subcontractors to comply with - Good International Practices while
managing environmental, social and safety issues. The following documents will, among others, be referred
to by TANESCO as Good International Practices:
• The IFC Good Practice Handbook on Environmental Flows for Hydropower Projects, (February 2018)
• The IFC Good Practice Note on Environmental, Health and Safety Approaches for Hydropower Projects
(March 2018)
• The IFC Good Practice Note: Managing Contractors’ E&S Performance (October 2017)
The Project activities will further comply with norms and standards, recommended by specialised
international organisations affiliated to the United Nations, including:
• The IFC Environmental, Health and Safety guidelines
• The World Health Organization (WHO)
• The International Labour Organization (ILO).
Documents flow chart
Table 11.2 thereafter lists the main documents that will be prepared by the EPC Contractor and TANESCO
as part of the ESMMP implementation. The justification and the content of these documents are further
described in the referred sections.

Table 11.2 – Documents Flow Chart

Document What is required
1. Prepared by the EPC Contractor
CESMP – Part 1 E&S organization and production: Personnel, Roles and responsibilities, Mobilized resources, Site procedures, Communication, Management of non-conformities,
Monitoring and Measuring, Documents and data management, auditing. Includes a Permit management plan and permitting schedule, including E&S studies
preparation and permit approval times and linked to the project construction schedule - See § 11.4.1.3.
CESMP – Part 2 Environmental and Social Protection (site-specific): Environmental Impact and Risk Management Plan, Social Impact and Risk Management Plan, Stakeholder and
Community Management Procedure- See § 11.4.1.3.
CESMP – Part 3 Environmental and Social Procedures, including the following documents:
Biodiversity Awareness Program Measures to protect adjacent areas during construction, detect bird nesting and bat roosting, ban on hunting and fishing. See § 11.4.2.1
Pollution Prevention and Control Plan Measures to identify, drain and treat all effluents generated on site from the construction activities, i.e. liquid discharges, including infiltration, from Worksite,
transporting a pollutant (dissolved, colloidal or particles). See § 11.4.4.1
Water Management Plan Monitoring measures to control the quality of any effluents produced on site and detect non-conformities. See § 11.4.4.4
Site Waste Management Plan Measures to identify, collect, transport and treat all waste produced on the Worksites. See § 11.4.5.1
Chemical Management Plan Measures to identify and manage hazardous substances planned for use on the Worksite (e.g. Explosive, Inflammable, Irritant, Toxic, Corrosive, React with water,
Dangerous for the environment. See § 11.4.6.1
Spill Contingency Plan Measures to detect, manage and treat any spills of hazardous material on site. See § 11.4.6.5
Vegetation Clearing and Debris Management Measures to manage the cutting of above-ground biomass in reservoir and on worksite, collect floating debris from cofferdams headponds and during reservoir
Plan clearing; and transfer logs to forest authorities. See § 11.4.7.1
Slope Stability and Erosion Control Plan Measures to minimize vegetation clearing and prevent increase in sediment loads being exported from the site. See § 0
Materials Management Plan Measures to minimize the footprint, adverse socio-economic impacts and ecological effects, and to ensure long-term stability and control erosion while transporting
and stockpiling the material excavated from all construction sites. See § 11.4.9.2
Spoil Disposal Management Plan Measures to plan the design, opening and rehabilitation of disposal areas for material excavated from tunnels, road construction and worksites foundations. See §
11.4.9.3
Atmospheric Emissions and Dust Measures to identify, manage & reduce nuisances caused by air emissions and dust production from construction activities, including from project’s traffic along access
Management Plan roads and aggregate stockpiles and storage areas. See § 11.4.10.1
Noise & Vibration Control Plan Measures to minimise and manage noise and vibration impacts during construction. See § 11.4.11.1
Quarry and Borrow Area Management Plan E&S management and monitoring measures to operate quarry and borrow areas for rockfill material, aggregates and rip rap material, sand, gravel, clay). See §
11.4.12.1
Site Reinstatement Plan Measures to be implemented at the end of the construction period to rehabilitate all temporary areas disturbed by the works. See § 11.4.13
Cultural Heritage and Chance Finds Measures to manage physical cultural heritage encountered unexpectedly during the construction works. See § 11.4.14
Procedure
Traffic Management Plan Characteristics of the construction fleet of vehicles & site machinery, Predicted Project’s traffic and Measures to minimize the nuisances to neighbourhood generated
by the project fleet and reduce the risk of accident. See § 11.4.17.1
Emergency Response Plan Measures to manage Common Hazards and Emergency Situations during construction, and Responses to circumstance that potentially indicates an increase in the
likelihood of a dam failure hazard or downstream release hazard happening during reservoir filling. See § 11.4.18.9
Flood Management Plan for the construction Control and mitigation measures of the consequences of floods at the dam sites in the event of floods larger than the minimum capacity. See § 11.4.18.7
period
Recruitment Policy and Local Skills Describes the Contractor’s recruitment procedures and employment management systems. See § 11.4.19.2
Development Programme Program to provide skills training to Local Residents with the objective of improving the productivity and skills of Personnel. See 11.4.19.3
Workers Health and Safety Plan Measures to protect the health and safety of workers during construction. See § 11.4.20.1.
Detailed Design
Fishpass and fish-friendly turbine See § 11.5.3
alternatives
DISCLOSURE AUTHORIZED - Kakono HPP_ESIA_Section 11_ESMMP_June 2022 page 11-6

Document What is required

Sediment Management Program See § 11.5.3
Climate Change Resilience Study See § 11.5.3
2. Prepared by TANESCO
Environmental & Social Management system Policies and procedure to quality manage all activities included in the ESMMP. See § 11.5.1.
Community Waterborne Disease Strategy A prevention waterborne diseases strategy, based on the WHO guidelines for drinking water quality and the WHO prevention and control of schistosomiasis and soil-
transmitted helminthiasis. See § 11.5.5
Operational Risk Assessment and Public Safety Operational risk assessment to analyse public safety issues at each dam site and at the LNK powerhouse, as well as downstream of the dams and to describe public
Plan awareness, warning devices and access restrictions, and operating procedures planned to mitigate the identified risks. See § 11.5.5
Emergency Preparedness Plan Responses to circumstance that potentially indicates an increase in the likelihood of a dam failure hazard or downstream release hazard happening during reservoir
filling. See § 11.5.5
Influx Management Strategy Describe the objective of the intervention with respect to project-induced in-migration and its impacts, how the intervention will help achieve the objective, the
intended outcomes on in-migration, and the time frame within which these outcomes might be expected. See § 11.5.5.6
Community Investment Strategy Based on Community Development Assessment, rationalize and prioritize the potential initiatives per community for the first three years. See § 11.5.7
Reservoir Zoning Plan Designate permissible and restricted activities around the reservoir taking into account links with other reservoir management requirements (in order to enhance
catchment condition, and minimise ecological and social threats to reservoir condition. See § 11.5.8
Reservoir fisheries management Plan Describe the potential and requirements for a sustainable fishery in the reservoir. See § 11.5.8
Aquatic Plant Management Plan Long term management and control of aquatic hyacinth in the Kakono reservoir. See § 11.5.9
Alien Fish Management Plan Prevent, monitor, and adaptively manage the potential introduction and increased spread of alien fish in the reservoir if it occurs. See § 11.5.9
Wildlife Monitoring and Control Plan Obtain an understanding of the presence and patterns of large wildlife (megafauna) in the project area as a basis for documenting changes as a result of KSC
expansion and the Kakono HPP. See § 11.5.10.
Biodiversity Compensation Strategy Identify and finance opportunities for enhanced protection of conservation areas with similar biodiversity features to achieve no net loss and/or net gain of biodiversity.
See § 11.5.10
Fish Migration Research Plan Additional Conservation Actions. Research on fish abundance and migration in the Kagera River from the estuary at Lake Victoria to the Akagera Swamps KBA and
National Park. The goal will be to determine the seasonality and extent to which different species undertake migration. See § 11.5.10
Fish Pass Operation and Maintenance Plan Operation and maintenance requirements including removal of sediment and debris from within the pass, removal and disposal of water hyacinths, and channel
excavation to maintain upstream and downstream connectivity (as required) for the lifetime of the project. See 11.5.11.

11.3 Results of Environmental & Social Impact Assessment

and Commitments Register

Environmental or Impact Producing Phase Assessment of significance without mitigation or Commitments Responsibility Reference of this ESMMP where commitments Predicted
Social Value Factor compensation is addressed residual
CO RF OP [+] positive, [-] negative Key Mitigation, Compensation or Management measures

Hydrology
Kagera River Flow Reduction of ◼ ◼  Hi Likelihood: Possible [-] • [M 1] The Kagera River flow continuity will be maintained at any time during the construction period, including for the EPC 11.4.3 Environmental Flow Lo
downstream river Extent: Down to Lake Victoria reservoir filling period. The river flow immediately downstream of the dam site should never be lower than the minimum
flow for Reservoir Duration: Short-term flow regime specified in the 2022 ESIA or in the national regulation, whichever is the most stringent.
filling Magnitude: high • [M 2] Should the Project needs to reduce the time needed for the reservoir filling, an agreement with all downstream TANESCO EFMP 2.- Minimum flow during Reservoir filling
stakeholders will be required to minimise impairment of irrigation for sugar cane fields. Whatever is the agreement with all or Maintenance
downstream stakeholders at that time, the minimum flow downstream of the dam should not be lower than either the flows
indicated in the 2022 ESIA or in the national regulation, whichever is the most stringent.
• [M 3] During the Detailed Design stage, a Reservoir Filling Plan will be prepared as part of the implementation of the ESMMP, EPC 11.4.18.3 Reservoir Filling Plan
which details - amongst other things - the reservoir filling timing and procedure required to comply with the EFlow
requirements and the national regulation and the relevant bodies.
• [M 4] The Reservoir Filling Plan will be discussed with all relevant stakeholders around and downstream of the Kakono TANESCO SEP 1.- Community mobilisation and
reservoir to make sure that any interference with the operation of the pumping stations upstream and downstream of the engagement
dam has been factored into the plan.
• [M 5] The river diversion works and procedures will be designed/prepared so that there is no interruption of river flow - or EPC 11.4.3 Environmental Flow
reduction greater than that allowed in the 2022 ESIA or in the applicable national guidelines whichever is the most stringent-
- at any time during the construction period, including the placement and decommissioning of the cofferdams.
• [M 6] The Owners Engineer will review the design of the river diversion works - and then supervise the works accordingly - TANESCO SURV 2.- Review of detailed design in line with
taking into account the minimum flow requirements specified in the 2022 ESIA or the applicable national guidelines, E&S considerations
whichever is the most stringent.
• [M 7] A staged-approach will be used to close the bottom outlet so that there is no risk of fish stranding downstream of the TANESCO SURV 3.- Environmental supervision of
dam. construction methods
• [M 8] The Kagera River flow rate will be monitored at least twice per day, or as per applicable national guidelines, whichever TANESCO MON 1.- Hydrology, Environmental Flow and
is the most stringent, during the whole construction period by TANESCO downstream of the dam. Water Quality
• [M 9] The EPC Contractor will install a time-lapse video camera downstream of the dam which will film the river during the TANESCO N/A
construction period. Records will be filed with TANESCO.
Sediment venting,   ◼ M Likelihood: Possible [-] • [M 10] Preparation of a sediment venting/sluicing/flushing environmental and social risk assessment and TANESCO SURV 2.- Review of detailed design in line with Lo
sluicing or Extent: Down to Kyaka management/monitoring plan, and implementation of recommended litigation and management measures prior to the first E&S considerations
pressure flushing Duration: Short-term opening of the bottom outlet for sediment management purposes, involving the relevant authorities and other
Magnitude: high stakeholders.
• [M 11] The sediment venting/sluicing/flushing flow rates will be designed and implemented such as that no unnatural TANESCO SURV 2.- Review of detailed design in line with
activation of the floodplain occurs and that community safety issues are planned and managed according to good E&S considerations
international practices
• [M 12] Downstream communities from dam to Kyaka will be informed ahead of each venting/sluicing/flushing operation of TANESCO EFMP 4.- Sediment Management
the nature, timing and risks relating to such an operation.
Groundwater Accidental spills ◼   M Likelihood: Possible [-] • [M 13] Construction site pollution prevention and protection plans, and measures will be developed and implemented for EPC 11.4.4.1 Pollution Prevention and Control Plan Lo
and leaks of Extent: Localised - aquifer underlying the dam and TL worksites.
hazardous construction worksites • [M 20] The quality of wastewater discharges from construction worksites will be monitored to check conformity with EPC 11.4.1 Management systems, Monitoring and
substances Duration: Long-term Tanzania’s and IFC General EHS Guideline discharge limit values . Reporting
Magnitude: high • [M 21] Groundwater at construction worksite will be monitored monthly during construction. EPC 11.4.1 Management systems, Monitoring and
Reporting
  ◼ M Likelihood: Possible [-] • [M 24] Groundwater, Kagera River water quality upstream and downstream of the dam will be monitored for the duration of TANESCO MON 1.- Hydrology, Environmental Flow and Lo
Extent: Localised - aquifer underlying the Project operation (TANESCO). Water Quality
construction worksites
Duration: Long-term
Magnitude: high
Kagera river Potentially ◼   M Likelihood: High probability [-] • [M 13] Construction site pollution prevention and protection plans, and measures will be developed and implemented for EPC 11.4.4.1 Pollution Prevention and Control Plan Lo
contaminated Extent: ~50-100 km downstream the dam and TL worksites.
runoff from Duration: short-term (duration of construction • [M 20] The quality of wastewater discharges from construction worksites will be monitored to check conformity with EPC 11.4.1 Management systems, Monitoring and
worksites, vehicle works) Tanzania’s and IFC General EHS Guideline discharge limit values. Reporting
parking areas, Magnitude: moderate
laydown areas • [M 21] Groundwater at construction worksite will be monitored monthly during construction. EPC 11.4.4 Effluents
• [M 23] Environmental performance of the EPC Contractor will be monitored to check conformity with Project standards and TANESCO SURV 3.- Environmental supervision of
non-conformities will be managed through a non-conformity management process. construction methods
Discharges of ◼   M Likelihood: High probability [-] • [M 14] Construction accommodation camps will be equipped with wastewater treatment facilities to ensure sanitary and EPC 11.4.4 Effluents Lo
sanitary and Extent: detected changes to water quality for domestic wastewater discharges are compliant with Tanzania’s and IFC EHS guideline emission limit values.
domestic ~50-100 km downstream
wastewater Duration: short-term (duration of construction
works)
Magnitude: moderate


Kakono reservoir Reservoir filling  ◼ ◼ M Likelihood: Certain [-] • [M 15] Vegetation from the reservoir footprint (excluding floodplain papyrus) will be removed prior to reservoir filling to EPC 11.4.7 Reservoir and Construction Site M
water alteration of water Extent: reservoir waters reduce lowering of dissolved oxygen levels and reduce reservoir GHG emissions. Vegetation Clearing
quality (increased Duration: ~30 years • [M 16] A Reservoir Biomass Removal Plan will be developed and implemented. EPC 11.4.7 Reservoir and Construction Site
nutrient levels and Magnitude: moderate (for DO) Vegetation Clearing
reduced dissolved
oxygen levels) • [M 18] The Reservoir Biomass Removal Plan will include provisions for the removal and management of floating woody EPC 11.4.7 Reservoir and Construction Site
debris from the reservoir during reservoir filling. Vegetation Clearing
• [M 25] Water quality monitoring results will be publicly disclosed on the Project website. MON 10.- Reporting and public disclosure
Kagera river Reservoir filling  ◼ ◼ M Likelihood: Certain [-] • Measures for the reservoir above, plus: EPC SURV 1.- Design of the fishpass and fish- M
downstream from alteration of water Extent: ~50-60km downstream from dam • [M 19] The detailed Project design will include optional design features for re-oxygenation of turbined waters. friendly turbine alternatives
dam quality Duration: ~30 years • [M 24] Groundwater, Kagera River water quality upstream and downstream of the dam will be monitored for the duration of TANESCO MON 1.- Hydrology, Environmental Flow and
Magnitude: moderate (for DO) the Project operation. Water Quality
• [M 25] Water quality monitoring results will be publicly disclosed on the Project website. TANESCO MON 10.- Reporting and public disclosure
Geomorphology
Increased sediment Banks and bed of ◼   Lo Likelihood: Certain [-] • [M 26] During construction, erosion mitigation measures will be employed to prevent soil erosion and fluvial erosion when EPC 11.4.8 Soil and Erosion Control Lo
supply to immediate the river exposed Extent: ~10-30 km downstream from dam undertaking works on bare soil and banks and when working in the river.
downstream reach to increased Duration: duration of cofferdam construction • [M 29] During construction, worksite surface erosion and effectiveness of control measures will be monitored by taking EPC 11.4.8 Soil and Erosion Control
fluvial erosion Magnitude: low weekly fixed-point photos of cleared areas.
during
construction of
the cofferdam and
river diversion
Reduced sediment Bed sediment ◼   Lo Likelihood: Certain [-] • [M 27] Cofferdams used for construction works in the river will be designed to enable bedload delivery to downstream EPC 11.4.3 Environmental Flow Lo
supply to immediate trapping due to Extent: ~0-5km downstream from dam reaches while construction is taking place.
downstream reach ponding upstream Duration: duration of cofferdam construction • [M 30] During dam construction continuous monitoring of suspended sediment concentration in the Kagera River upstream EPC EFMP 4.- Sediment Management
of the cofferdam Magnitude: low of the cofferdam ponded area and immediately downstream of the construction zone will be undertaken.
Erosion of the bed, Sediment trapping  ◼  Lo Likelihood: Certain [-] • [M 28] During the reservoir filling phase, bottom sluicing will be undertaken to maintain sediment throughflow as best TANESCO EFMP 4.- Sediment Management Lo
banks and floodplain by the Extent: ~0-5 km downstream from dam possible and flows will be sufficient to transport the released sediment downstream to avoid siltation of instream habitats
impoundment Duration: duration of reservoir filling (1-2 immediately downstream of the dam.
during filling months)
Sediment Sediment flushing   ◼ M Likelihood: Certain [-] • [M 36] During Project operation, Fixed point photos and simple staff gauges will be used to monitor sediment deposition TANESCO MON 2.- Reservoir and River Geomorphology Lo
smothering (empty or hard Extent: 20 to 90 km downstream of dam associated with sediment venting or sluicing across the floodplain and along the banks downstream of the dam. Fixed point and Sediment
flushing) Duration: Following flushing/sluicing event, effect photos will be taken immediately before and after venting/sluicing events to document sedimentation around the pumping
can be visible for up to a year or more stations and on agricultural fields within the floodplain down to Kyaka.
Magnitude: low to moderate depending on the
flushing regime and sediment concentration
Aquatic Habitats & Macroinvertebrates
Aquatic habitats and Loss and ◼   Hi Likelihood: Certain [-] • Mitigation for water quality and geomorphology TANESCO EFMP 1.- Operating Procedures and Adaptive M
macroinvertebrates degradation of Extent: 95 ha (local) (for dam wall & related Management
aquatic habitats & construction) and water quality degradation for
macroinvertebrate 10-20 km
s from dam Duration: Permanent loss of aquatic habitats • [M 53] The Project will plan for routing of access roads for the TL to avoid seasonally wet areas; and carefully manage EPC 11.4.2 Ecology
construction (from during construction; short term water quality vehicles to limit impacts on natural terrestrial and aquatic habitats.
earthworks, water impacts.
quality alteration Magnitude: Moderate due to irreversible habitat
and sediment loss but water quality impacts are reversible
transport)
Aquatic habitats and Alteration of  ◼  Hi Likelihood: Certain [-] • Mitigation for water quality and geomorphology: TANESCO EFMP 1.- Operating Procedures and Adaptive M
macroinvertebrates aquatic habitats & Extent: 600 ha aquatic habitat flooded; 1,718 ha Management
–reservoir filling macroinvertebrate open water created extending 35 km along river
s from reservoir for reservoir: local to regional scale.
• Note: Compensation for loss of aquatic habitat will be required to achieve net gain, as discussed in Section 7.5. However, this TANESCO
filling (from Duration: Permanent loss during filling. is not taken into consideration in scoring the residual impact.
inundation; Magnitude): High intensity due to irreversible
sediment, water habitat loss
quality and
hydrology
changes)
Fish Habitat – Loss Loss of fish ◼   Hi Likelihood: Certain [-] • Mitigation for water quality and geomorphology TANESCO EFMP 1.- Operating Procedures and Adaptive M
and Degradation habitat for dam Extent: 95 ha (local) (for dam infrastructure) Management
(Construction) wall construction Duration: Permanent loss of fish habitat
and associated Magnitude: High due to irreversible impact
water quality although localised habitat loss.
degradation and
sedimentation.


Fish Habitat and Loss and  ◼  Hi Likelihood: Certain [-] • [M 49] Except for the footprint of the dam construction site, a riparian buffer zone of 60 m around riparian habitats will be EPC 11.4.2 Ecology Hi
Community – Loss degradation of Extent: 600 ha of fish habitat (local) (for maintained to prevent erosion and sedimentation, rehabilitation and alien plant control will be applied after construction to
and Degradation floodplain reservoir) re-establish natural vegetation.
(Reservoir Filling) habitats with Duration: Permanent loss of fish habitat and • Mitigation for water quality and geomorphology TANESCO EFMP 1.- Operating Procedures and Adaptive
threatened and change in fish community
restricted range Management
Magnitude: High intensity due to irreversible
fish species • Note: Compensation for loss of aquatic habitat will be required to achieve net gain, as discussed in Section 7.5. However, this TANESCO
impact and presence of critical habitat-qualifying
is not taken into consideration in scoring the residual impact.
fish species
Fish Migration Dam wall as   ◼ Hi Likelihood: Certain [-] • [M 56] To facilitate fish migration and gene flow in order to avoid severe reduction of Critical Habitat, the dam will be TANESCO SURV 1.- Design of the fishpass and fish- M
barrier to fish Extent: Dam wall and 36km of reservoir will equipped with a fish pass via the Kakono Stream with an attraction flow of 5-7 m3/s friendly turbine alternatives
migration to interfere with fish migration between
access spawning downstream and upstream reaches
sites and loss of Duration: Permanent fish barrier
gene flow Magnitude: High due to presence of critical
(connectivity) habitat-qualifying migratory fish species
Fish Mortality Fish mortality in   ◼ M Likelihood: Likely [-] • [M 57] Viability of fish-friendly turbines such as Kaplan turbines with advanced Minimum Gap Runner technology will be EPC SURV 1.- Design of the fishpass and fish- M
turbines Extent: fish migrating downstream to spawning investigated, and if feasible installed. friendly turbine alternatives
sites on floodplains or for recruitment
Duration: Permanent
Magnitude: High due to presence of critical
habitat-qualifying migratory fish species
Fish Community in Long term change   ◼ Hi Likelihood: Highly likely [-] • Little mitigation is possible to prevent change in fish community in lotic environment. See alien fish control. TANESCO AIS 2.- Alien fish management Hi
Reservoir in fish community Extent: Reservoir 36 km or 17 km2 (local)
including impacts Duration: Permanent
on critical habitat Magnitude: High intensity as some critical
qualifying species habitat-qualifying migratory and restricted range
( restricted range fish species are present.
species)
Alien Fish (Nile Invasion of   ◼ Hi Likelihood: Highly likely [-] • [M 58] An Alien Fish Management Plan will be developed and implemented in coordination with the Tanzanian Fisheries TANESCO with AIS 2.- Alien fish management Hi
perch) reservoir by Nile Extent: fish migrating downstream to spawning Research Institute (TAFIRI), species to be addressed to include Nile Perch. TAFIRI,
perch and sites on floodplains or for recruitment endorsed by
predation/ Duration: Permanent Ministry of
competition with Magnitude: High due to presence of critical Fisheries
indigenous fish habitat-qualifying migratory & restricted range • Effective alien fish control is likely to be difficult. TANESCO
fish species
Sediment trapping Loss of   ◼ Hi Likelihood: Highly likely [-] • [M 31] Determination of the frequency and rate of sediment management during the operation period will consider technical TANESCO EFMP 4.- Sediment Management M
and bank erosion downstream fish Extent: Reservoir 35 km or 1 7km2 requirements and the need to minimize the impacts on downstream river habitats (TANESCO and Owners Engineer).
habitat caused by Duration: Long-term • [M 32] During Project operation, the flow rate and water quality of the Kagera River waters upstream and downstream of TANESCO MON 1.- Hydrology, Environmental Flow and
bank erosion Magnitude: Moderate as fish expected to shift the Kakono reservoir will be monitored on a regular basis. Water Quality
prey items and adapt to rate of bank erosion /
• [M 33] During Project operation, deposited sediment volumes and particle size, and suspended sediment particle size in the TANESCO MON 2.- Reservoir and River Geomorphology
habitat loss Kakono reservoir will be monitored on an annual basis. and Sediment
• [M 34] During Project operation, the physical dimensions and sediment characteristics of the river channel and floodplain will Lake Victoria MON 2.- Reservoir and River Geomorphology
be monitored downstream of the dam, including a site near the Kagera River Estuary, every two years. Water Basin and Sediment
Board, with
support from
TANESCO
• [M 35] During Project operation, the suspended sediment concentration and dissolved oxygen will be monitored Lake Victoria MON 1.- Hydrology, Environmental Flow and
downstream of the dam during a week before, and a month after each venting or sluicing event. The suspended sediment Water Basin Water Quality
concentration will be monitored at the Kagera River Mouth using satellite imagery. Board, with
support from
TANESCO
Downstream fish Decline in   ◼ Hi Likelihood: Highly likely [-] • [M 31] During Project operation, suspended sediment longitudinal transit through the reservoir will be enhanced by using a TANESCO N/A M
productivity in Lower sediment and Extent: 175 km to Kagera Estuary (KBA and IBA) combination of sediment venting, sluicing and pressure flushing undertaken every year during the high-flow period.
Kagera River nutrient to Duration: Long-term
maintain fish • [M 50] An Aquatic Biomonitoring Programme will be developed and implemented for the Kagera River upstream and TANESCO, with MON 3.- Reservoir Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Magnitude: High as 50% reduction in suspended downstream of the Kakono HPP on an annual basis, starting at least one year prior to start of construction. support from Monitoring
productivity sediment including nutrients predicted
including Kagera TAFIRI and MON 4.- Fish & Aquatic invertebrates
Estuary (KBA & NaFIRRI
Sango Bay IBA) • [M 55] A fish monitoring programme will be undertaken in partnership with the Ugandan and Tanzanian Fisheries TANESCO, with MON 7.- Fishery Activity
Departments in the Kagera River upstream and downstream of the proposed dam, including Kagera Estuary, on a biannual support from
basis. Monitoring will start at least one year prior to construction and continue until fish community stabilises or results TAFIRI and
confirm extent of impact. Monitoring results will be publicly disclosed. NaFIRRI


Fisheries and Potential for   ◼ NK Likelihood: Highly likely [-] • [M 83] TAFIRI and the Missenyi District Fisheries Office will be engaged to conduct a Fisheries Feasibility Study and if viable TANESCO RZF 2.- Reservoir fisheries management NK
Aquaculture increased fisheries Extent: Reservoir 35 km or 17 km2 develop a Fisheries Management Plan, including L. victorianus breeding programme, management of Project-induced
in the reservoir Duration: Short-Medium (depending on fishing fishermen in-migration and Nile Perch control .
(requires further intensity and sustainable use)
assessment) Magnitude: Medium but uncertain as depends on
fish productivity after filling of reservoir
Vegetation and Flora Loss, ◼ ◼  Hi Likelihood: Certain [-] • Limited effective mitigation for habitat loss. Minimisation measures include: EPC 11.4.2 Ecology M
- dam construction fragmentation Extent: 2,124 ha natural vegetated habitats (local • [M 37] Construction work site planning shall seek to minimise impacts on vegetation and an Environmental Compliance
& inundation and degradation to regional) (for dam construction and reservoir Officer with ecological experience will oversee site clearance and ensure control measures are implemented.
of natural habitats footprint)
and flora for dam • [M 38] Construction site clearance activities will be implemented in a manner to minimise loss of vegetation by restricting EPC 11.4.2 Ecology
Duration: Permanent loss of vegetation and flora footprints of vegetation removal, stockpiling and vehicle access.
construction during construction and filling phase. No
facilities and threatened or range restricted species. • [M 39] During construction, topsoil management will be implemented in accordance with a Topsoil Management Plan that EPC 11.4.8 Soil and Erosion Control
quarries and Magnitude: High due to irreversible habitat loss defines the location, storage, size/shape and protection measures for topsoil stockpiles.
inundation
Vegetation and Flora Loss and ◼ ◼  Hi Likelihood: Certain [-] • [M 40] A Terrestrial Alien Invasive Plant Management, Monitoring and Control Plan for the HPP and TL construction activities EPC 11.4.2 Ecology M
- dam construction degradation of Extent: 2,124 ha (local to regional) will be developed and implemented.
& inundation natural habitat Duration: Permanent loss of vegetation and flora • Biodiversity offset to compensate for loss of natural habitat (e.g. by investing in nearby protected areas) as discussed in TANESCO BAP 2.- Biodiversity Compensation Strategy
through during construction and filling phase. No Section 7.5. However, this is not taken into consideration in scoring the residual impact.
establishment and threatened or range restricted species.
spread of invasive Magnitude: High intensity due to irreversible
alien plants habitat loss
Vegetation and Flora Loss of ◼ ◼  Lo Likelihood: Certain [-] • Limited effective mitigation available TANESCO Lo
- dam construction harvestable plant Extent: 2,124 ha (local to regional)
& inundation resources Duration: Permanent loss of vegetation and flora
during construction and filling phase.
Magnitude: Moderate as limited community use
currently, although impact will cause irreversible
resource loss
Vegetation and Flora Loss, ◼  ◼ M Likelihood: Certain [-] • [M 54] A Terrestrial Alien Invasive Monitoring and Control Plan for the TL wayleave operation will be developed and TANESCO 11.5.13 Environmental & Social Monitoring Lo
– construction and fragmentation Extent: 132 ha (localised within 35 m wayleave implemented during at least the first two years of operation after which the requirement will be re-evaluated. Programme
operation of TL and degradation for 38.5 km) (61 ha natural and 71 ha modified)
of terrestrial Duration: Permanent and temporary loss of • [M 41] Terrestrial alien invasive plant management, monitoring and control measures will be conducted along the TL EPC 11.4.2 Ecology
habitats and flora vegetation and flora. wayleave and access routes during construction.
for TL Magnitude: Moderate as some clearance is partly
construction reversible
Vegetation and Flora Loss and   ◼ M Likelihood: Certain [-] • [M 31] During Project operation, suspended sediment longitudinal transit through the reservoir will be enhanced by using a TANESCO EFMP 4.- Sediment Management Lo
– run of river degradation of Extent: mostly impacting 20 km river reach combination of sediment venting, sluicing and pressure flushing undertaken every year during the high-flow period. BAP 1.- Wildlife Management and Control
operation floodplain natural downstream of dam
habitats due to Duration: Long-term incremental impact.
floodplain and Magnitude: Moderate intensity closer to dam,
riverbank erosion attenuating with distance downstream.
Irreversible but occurs at slow rate and may
reach stable state.
Terrestrial Fauna
Terrestrial Fauna – Loss, ◼ ◼  M Likelihood: Certain [-] • Limited effective mitigation for habitat loss TANESCO M
construction and fragmentation Extent: 2,124 ha regional)
reservoir filling and degradation Duration: Permanent loss of faunal habitat
of faunal habitats Magnitude: High, irreversible impact.
in dam and
reservoir area
Terrestrial Fauna – Loss of or ◼ ◼  M Likelihood: Likely [-] • [M 42] The Construction Traffic Management Plan will set speed limits (30 km/h on the dam and TL access roads and EPC 11.4.17 Traffic Lo
construction and disturbance to Extent: Local, focussed in construction footprint 20 km/h on other internal roads), and define speed control measures, tracking of construction vehicles and penalties for
reservoir filling fauna due to near dam wall, quarries, camps and along access non-compliance by staff.
construction- road • [M 43] Faunal protection measures will be implemented that will include snake rescue and translocation, faunal escape EPC 11.4.2 Ecology
related activities Duration: Temporary, limited mostly to measures, checks in open trenches, and wildlife awareness training of staff.
construction period.
• [M 44] TAWIRI will be engaged to conduct surveys of large wildlife around the reservoir during filling to verify if large TANESCO BAP 1.- Wildlife Management and Control
Magnitude: Moderate, largely reversible impact. potentially dangerous animals (crocodile, hippo, elephant) are displaced and pose a risk to communities, ranchers and KSC.


Terrestrial Fauna – Barrier to   ◼ M Likelihood: Likely [-] • [M 45] If found to be required, elephant control measures will be identified and implemented with input of TAWIRI on the TANESCO BAP 1.- Wildlife Management and Control Lo
run-of-river Movement and Extent: Local-Regional right bank of reservoir to minimise elephant damage on community and irrigated agriculture. This could include
operation Increase in Human Duration: Long-term to permanent effect on consideration of the need for electric fencing.
- Wildlife conflict fauna.
Magnitude: Moderate
Terrestrial Fauna – Change in bird   ◼ Lo Likelihood: Likely [-] • No mitigation possible Lo

run-of-river community in Extent: 1,718 ha (36 km length)
operation reservoir Duration: Permanent.
Magnitude: Low intensity, irreversible change in
bird community.
Terrestrial Fauna – Loss of or   ◼ M Likelihood: Possible [-] • [M 46] Access to the dam site along the new access road will be restricted possibly by installing a manned gate at the TANESCO Lo
run-of-river disturbance to Extent: Local (along access road and near dam entrance from the tarred road between Kyaka and Karagwe.
operation fauna through in- site)
migration of Duration: Long-term
people due to Magnitude: Low intensity, potentially reversible
improved access
Terrestrial Fauna – Loss and ◼  ◼ M Likelihood: Possible [-] • - Lo
construction and fragmentation of Extent: Local (along TL corridor)
operation of TL faunal habitat in Duration: Long-term
TL wayleave Magnitude: Low intensity, potentially reversible
Terrestrial Fauna – Mortality of birds  ◼ ◼ Hi Likelihood: Likely [-] • [M 47] The TL design will include bird protection features on the entire TL to reduce risk of bird collision and electrocution. EPC SURV 2.- Review of detailed design in line with M
construction and as a result of Extent: Regional-International (may affect global Spacing between diverters should be adjusted according to the sensitivity of the area crossed by the TL E&S considerations
operation of TL collision with TLs threatened migratory species)
or electrocution Duration: Long-term -Permanent • [M 48] Twice yearly bird monitoring will be conducted along the TL coinciding with seasonal migration periods in November TANESCO MON 5.- Bird Monitoring for Transmission Line
Magnitude: Moderate-High intensity (if globally and March. Monitoring should be continued for the first two years and if bird mortality is evident, then additional monitoring Operation
threatened species impacted), irreversible may need to be considered based on the recommendations of the ornithologist.
Critical habitat Physical presence  ◼ ◼ Hi Likelihood: Certain [-] • [M 56] To facilitate fish migration and gene flow in order to avoid severe reduction of Critical Habitat, the dam will be TANESCO SURV 2.- Review of detailed design in line with M
14 threatened, of the dam Extent: Dam wall and 36 km of reservoir will equipped with a fish pass via the Kakono Stream with an attraction flow of 5-7 m3/s. Bank stabilisation and erosion E&S considerations
restricted range and representing a interfere with fish migration between protection measures will be required.
migratory fish barrier to fish downstream and upstream reaches
species migration and Duration: Permanent fish barrier and alteration to
access to reservoir • [M 15] Vegetation from the reservoir footprint (excluding floodplain papyrus) will be removed prior to reservoir filling to EPC 11.4.7Reservoir and Construction Site
spawning sites Magnitude: High due to presence of critical reduce lowering of dissolved oxygen levels and reduce reservoir GHG emissions. Vegetation Clearing
and loss of gene habitat-qualifying migratory and restricted range
flow fish species • [M 51] An Aquatic Alien Invasive Plant Management and Monitoring Plan will be developed and implemented to minimise the TANESCO AIS 1.- Aquatic weed management
(connectivity). potential emergence of bilharzia, maintain access to fish pass inlet improve water quality and limit impact on fish diversity
Fish species can and abundance.
also be impacted • [M 58] An Alien Fish Policy and Management Plan will be developed and implemented in coordination with the Tanzanian TANESCO AIS 2.- Alien fish management
by alteration to Fisheries Research Institute (TAFIRI), species to be addressed to include Nile perch.
water quality and
• [M 31] During Project operation, suspended sediment longitudinal transit through the reservoir will be enhanced by using a TANESCO EFMP 4.- Sediment Management
lowering of DO
combination of sediment venting, sluicing and pressure flushing undertaken every year during the high-flow period.
levels and
trapping of • [M 60] Ensure transparency, develop a Project website, disclose the ESIA findings locally. TANESCO SEP 4.- Disclosure and reporting
sediment in the
reservoir • [M 61] the Project will be discussed and agreed at a transboundary level prior to decision-making so that the relevant TANESCO EFMP 5.- Engagement with neighbouring
stakeholders in Uganda and Tanzania are aware of the downstream impact on sediment and nutrient contributions to the countries
lower Kagera River and Kagera Estuary on Lake Victoria and the barrier to upstream fish migration, and the key importance
of effectively implementing the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures to avoid significant adverse effects on the
lower Kagera River and estuary and are in agreement that these risks are acceptable.
• [M 59] Biodiversity compensation for significant adverse impacts on natural habitat to meet no net loss requirements – e.g. TANESCO BAP 2.- Biodiversity Compensation Strategy
investment in existing nearby protected areas.
• Monitor sediment, water quality, macroinvertebrate and fish starting prior to construction and continuing through operation TANESCO MON 1.- Hydrology, Environmental Flow and
at sites between the Kakono Reservoir and the Kagera Estuary under an integrated monitoring programme and implement Water Quality, MON 2.- Reservoir and River
adaptive management as required. Geomorphology and Sediment, MON 3.-
Reservoir Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Monitoring
MON 4.- Fish & Aquatic invertebrates
Social
Land acquisition & Land is required ◼   Hi Likelihood: Certain [-] • [M 62] A topography survey of the reservoir will be undertaken and the FSL reservoir footprint physically demarcated. EPC SURV 2.- Review of detailed design in line with M
Restriction on Land for the Extent: 1,862 ha E&S considerations
Use construction of Duration: prior to the start of construction RAP 1 – Valuation report and payment of
permanent and compensation,


temporary Magnitude: medium • [M 63] The 2018 Valuation Report will be updated. The census of affected persons will be updated including an update of TANESCO RAP 1 – Valuation report and payment of
facilities. the inventory and valuation of affected assets and land plots and taking into consideration the Lenders requirements as compensation,
defined in the 2022 RAP.
• [M 64] Implement the RAP. TANESCO RAP 1 – Valuation report and payment of
compensation,
• [M 65] Compensation will be paid before the start of construction, and resettlement assistance and livelihood restoration TANESCO RAP 1 – Valuation report and payment of
will be provided to affected persons. compensation,
• [M 66] Develop and implement a GRM to resolve all grievances related to land acquisition and restriction of land use. TANESCO SEP 2.- Grievance Mechanism
• [M 67] Internal monitoring of RAP implementation (TANESCO RAP unit). TANESCO RAP 3 – Monitoring and evaluation
• [M 68] External monitoring of RAP implementation carried out for 3 years following payment of compensations TANESCO RAP 3 – Monitoring and evaluation
(Independent RAP Consultant).
Risks to Agricultural The erosion of   ◼ Lo Likelihood: Certain [-] • [M 69] Agricultural enhancement initiatives (knowledge and awareness activities) through existing NGOs or institutions TANESCO RAP 2 - Relocation, rehousing and livelihood Lo
Land due to Bank riverbanks Extent: Downstream of the dam aiming at reducing farmers dependencies on flood recession farming and rainfed agriculture will be supported by the restoration,
Erosion downstream from Duration: throughout the project life Project.
the dam is caused Magnitude: minor
by a reduced • [M 70] Effectiveness of agricultural enhancement initiatives proposed to flood recession farmers will be monitored twice TANESCO RAP 3 – Monitoring and evaluation
sediment loading yearly.
in the river
resulting from the
trapping of
sediment in the
reservoir, leading
to, riverbed and
riverbank erosion.
Project-Induced During ◼   M Likelihood: Certain [-] • [M 71] An Influx Management Strategy will be developed for construction (local recruitment, accommodation, TANESCO INF 1.- Planning and Monitoring Lo
Migration construction, the Extent: in the villages located near the transportation, community health) and operation (community health, planning the construction of public amenities,
project-induced construction site community consultation mechanism, reservoir fisheries management).
in-migration Duration: during the construction period • [M 73] Human Resource and Labour Management Principles for the construction workforce will be developed in alignment EPC 11.4.19 Local Recruitment and Skills
involves the Magnitude: medium (2,000-3,000 persons) with national and Lenders’ Policies. The documentation will be available in English and Ki-Swahili. Development
movement of
people into an • [M 74] The Human Resource Policy and Labour Management Principles for the construction workforce will clearly state that EPC 11.4.19 Local Recruitment and Skills
area in response there will be no forced labour and child labour. Development
to economic • [M 75] The Local Recruitment Policy for the construction workforce will be widely communicated.
opportunities.
• [M 76] Recruitment of local people for the construction will be maximised, with a target of 100% of unskilled workers to be EPC 11.4.19 Local Recruitment and Skills
local people. Development
• [M 78] The Project will coordinate with district authorities with regard to the development and implementation of TANESCO INF 2.- Anticipating and managing Project-
urban/spatial plans for existing and new settlements affected by the Project-induced influx. induced In-migration
• [M 79] A Community Grievance Procedure will be developed and implemented. TANESCO SEP 2.- Grievance Mechanism
• [M 80] Monitoring of the implementation of the Community Health Management by the EPC Contractor during the TANESCO CHS 1.- Construction Health & Safety
construction phase.
• [M 81] Monitoring of the implementation of the Influx Management Strategy actions by the EPC Contractor during the TANESCO INF 2.- Anticipating and managing Project-
construction phase. induced In-migration
• [M 72] Community investment initiatives in education, economic and social needs in the lower Kagera valley between TANESCO CIP 3.- Delivering community investment
Businde and Kyaka (e.g. rehabilitation or construction of schools, rural electrification roads).
• [M 77] Support to vocational training centres during construction to increase local employment potential for the operation TANESCO CIP 3.- Delivering community investment
phase.
• [M 82] Audit of EPC Contractors labour management, human resources, working conditions and supply chain will be TANESCO SURV 3.- Environmental supervision of
conducted by an independent organisation. construction methods
• [M 127] Construction workers will be briefed on culturally appropriate behaviour for interacting with local populations to EPC 11.4.1 Management systems, Monitoring and
minimize disturbing communities or giving offence to local population when workers are off camp in urban centres. Reporting
• [M 128] The Project will coordinate with the local police on matters related to safety risks related to Project-induced in- EPC 11.4.20 Workers Health & Safety
migration.
During operation,   ◼ M Likelihood: Possible [-] • [M 83] TAFIRI and the Missenyi District Fisheries Office will be engaged to conduct a Fisheries Feasibility Study and if viable TANESCO RZF 2.- Reservoir fisheries management Lo
fishers may be Extent: in the villages located near the reservoir develop a Fisheries Management Plan, including L. victorianus breeding programme, management of Project-induced
attracted to the Duration: during the operation fishermen in-migration and Nile Perch control .
reservoir to Magnitude: moderate • [M 84] Missenyi District Fisheries Office will be engaged to monitor the implementation of the Fishery Management Plan. TANESCO RZF 2.- Reservoir fisheries management
develop fisheries
Community Health Noise dust and ◼   M Likelihood: Possible [-] • [M 85] Construction Traffic Management Plan(s) for dam and TL construction works will be developed and implemented, the EPC 11.4.17 Traffic Lo
vibration from Extent: in the villages located near the plan(s) will provide information on public roads used by the Project, will be publicly disclosed and provided to local
Project traffic construction site community leaders.


during Duration: during the construction period • [M 42] The Construction Traffic Management Plan will set speed limits (30km/h on the dam and TL access roads and EPC 11.4.17 Traffic
construction Magnitude: low 20km/h on other internal roads), and define speed control measures, tracking of construction vehicles and penalties for
non-compliance by staff.
• [M 86] Project construction activities and road use will comply with Tanzanian legislation, WHO and IFC guidelines for noise EPC 11.4.17 Traffic
and air quality.
• [M 96] Regular noise level monitoring will be performed during construction to demonstrate compliance with WHO and EPC 11.4.11 Noise and Vibration
Tanzanian noise guidelines.
Community Health Adverse impacts ◼   M Likelihood: Possible [-] • [M 87] Construction facilities, worksites and new access tracks (other than TL towers) shall be <200m from residential areas, EPC Lo
(cont.) on community Extent: in the villages located near the wherever feasible.
health due noise, construction site • [M 88] Construction activities shall comply with the General Tolerance Limits for Environmental Noise in Tanzania. EPC 11.4.11 Noise and Vibration
dust and vibration Duration: during the construction period
at construction Magnitude: low • [M 89] Noise-intensive works such as piling, demolition, metalworking, and blasting (in quarries) will not be undertaken at EPC 11.4.11 Noise and Vibration
sites night.
• [M 90] The Project will resolve grievances related to noise, dust or vibration received during construction and where required TANESCO SEP 2.- Grievance Mechanism
will establish the need to alter the construction methods and determine if additional protection measures are needed.
• [M 97] Implementation of the Community Health Management measures by the EPC Contractor during construction will be TANESCO CHS 2.- Community health and safety around
monitored. and downstream of the reservoir
Community ◼   M Likelihood: Possible [-] • [M 91] Development and implementation of a Community Health and Safety Plan for the construction phase. EPC CHS 2.- Community health and safety around Lo
exposure to Extent: in the villages located near the and downstream of the reservoir
communicable construction site • [M 92] Assistance to local authorities to prepare an action plan to protect and fight against HIV/AIDS, Covid-19 and other TANESCO CHS 2.- Community health and safety around
diseases during Duration: during the construction period STDs at a District and ward scale will be provided. and downstream of the reservoir
construction Magnitude: low
related to Project- • [M 93] The Project will coordinate with local authorities to conduct preventive health campaigns regarding communicable TANESCO CHS 2.- Community health and safety around
induced influx diseases. and downstream of the reservoir
• [M 94] Support to existing health centres will be provided through support to health governmental agencies as TANESCO, CHS 2.- Community health and safety around
implementing body: infrastructure, staffing, essential medicine, waterborne and communicable disease prevention actions through health and downstream of the reservoir
for construction and operation phases. In the event of disease outbreak, assistance to impacted health centres to obtain governmental
access to appropriate medication will be provided. agencies
Community Health Project impact on ◼   M Likelihood: Possible [-] • [M 13] Construction site pollution prevention and protection plans, and measures will be developed and implemented for EPC 11.4.4 Effluents Lo
(cont.) water availability Extent: 10-20 km downstream from proposed the dam and TL worksites.
and quality of dam • [M 95] If wells or springs used by a household are affected by the Project, an alternative source of household potable water EPC 11.4.4 Effluents
water resources Duration: construction period will be provided.
Magnitude: medium
Risk of increased   ◼ M Likelihood: Possible [-] • [M 98] Public health awareness campaigns for communities near the reservoir will be conducted in collaboration with the TANESCO CHS 2.- Community health and safety around Lo
prevalence of Extent: near the reservoir and close to the TL local health centres, and will address issues of behavioural change, transmission modes and prevention measures for and downstream of the reservoir
waterborne Duration: throughout the project life malaria and schistosomiasis.
diseases because Magnitude: medium • [M 52] Bilharzia awareness sessions will be organised for workers and local communities and bilharzia management TANESCO CHS 2.- Community health and safety around
of the physical measures implemented. and downstream of the reservoir
presence of the
reservoir • [M 99] Bilharzia information signs will be installed at key locations near the reservoir to inform people of danger. Message(s) TANESCO CHS 2.- Community health and safety around
should be customized to be most effective and understood by the population. and downstream of the reservoir
• [M 100] Malaria home packs containing mosquito nets will be distributed to each community living close to the reservoir in TANESCO CHS 2.- Community health and safety around
collaboration with the local health centres. and downstream of the reservoir
• [M 101] Support to health centres to access appropriate medication in case of increased prevalence of malaria and TANESCO CHS 2.- Community health and safety around
schistosomiasis (bilharzia ) will be provided. and downstream of the reservoir
• [M 104] The evolution of the prevalence of malaria and schistosomiasis will be monitored on a monthly basis by consulting TANESCO CHS 2.- Community health and safety around
the records at local health centres located in the communities near the reservoir. and downstream of the reservoir
• [M 105] Monthly monitoring of the presence and number of snails (genera Bulinus and Biomphalaria) carrying TANESCO MON 3.- Reservoir Greenhouse Gas Emissions
schistosomiasis in slackwaters in the Kakono reservoir and slackwaters of the Kagera River 10 km downstream from the Monitoring
proposed dam will be conducted. The frequency of monitoring can be reduced to twice yearly after 1 year in the absence of MON 4.- Fish & Aquatic invertebrates
snails carrying schistosomiasis.
Risk of EMF and   ◼ M Likelihood: Possible [-] • [M 102] The TL will be designed to comply with WHO and Tanzanian General Tolerance Limits for Environmental Noise EPC SURV 2.- Review of detailed design in line with Lo
corona noise from Extent: communities close to the TL during operation. E&S considerations
TL operation Duration: during construction period • [M 103] The Project will seek to resolve grievance related to corona noise from operation of the TL and where required will TANESCO SEP 2.- Grievance Mechanism
Magnitude: moderate established appropriate measures.
• [M 106] Regular monitoring/patrolling of the TL wayleave to check on the absence of structures, and awareness raising in TANESCO
communities with regards to TL land use restrictions and risks of infringing restrictions.
• [M 107] Local authorities will be engaged regularly to check that no building permits are issued nor spontaneous informal TANESCO
settlements are developing in the TL wayleave.
• [M 108] The TL will be designed to comply with ICNIRP guidelines with regard to EMF exposure. EPC SURV 2.- Review of detailed design in line with
E&S considerations
Impairment of Sugar The reservoir  ◼  Hi Likelihood: Certain [-] • [M 1] The Kagera River flow continuity will be maintained at any time during the construction period, including for the EPC 11.4.3 Environmental Flow Lo
Cane Production and filling could reservoir filling period. The river flow immediately downstream of the dam site should never be lower than the minimum
Irrigation prevent irrigation flow regime specified in the 2022 ESIA or than the reservoir inflow.


of sugar cane Extent: all the operators of irrigated sugar cane • [M 2] Should the Project needs to reduce the time needed for the reservoir filling, an agreement with operators of irrigated TANESCO EFMP 2.- Minimum flow during Reservoir filling
fields and impact plantations pumping station location upstream sugar cane plantations will be required s to minimise impairment of irrigation for sugar cane fields. Whatever is the or Maintenance
sugar cane and downstream of the dam agreement with operators of irrigated sugar cane plantations at that time, the minimum flow downstream of the dam
production. Duration: during construction period should not be lower than either the flows indicated in the 2022 ESIA below or than the reservoir inflow.
Magnitude: major • [M 4] The Reservoir Filling Plan will be discussed with communities and operators of irrigated sugar cane plantations to TANESCO EFMP 2.- Minimum flow during Reservoir filling
make sure that any interference with the operation of the pumping stations downstream of the dam has been factored into or Maintenance
the plan.
The pumping   ◼ Hi Likelihood: Possible [-] • See mitigations measures presented in section 7.3.3.2C. TANESCO Lo
stations’ Extent: all the pumping station location
foundations downstream of the dam
downstream of • [M 109] Coordination with operators of irrigated sugar cane plantations for (i) reservoir filling (and impact on upstream TANESCO EFMP 2.- Minimum flow during Reservoir filling
Duration: throughout the project life pumping station and downstream minimum flow), (ii) long-term riverbank erosion downstream from the proposed dam and or Maintenance
dam could be Magnitude: major protection of pumping stations, (iii) elephant management (TANESCO)
destabilised by
erosion as they
are adjacent to
the Kagera river.
Community Safety Safety risks ◼ ◼  Hi Likelihood: Possible [-] • [M 120] A Hazardous Substances Management Plan for the construction phase will be developed and implemented (EPC EPC 11.4.6 Handling & Storage of Hazardous M
related to Project Extent: near the dam and TL Contractor) Substance
construction Duration: during construction period • [M 121] Construction site layout will adopt appropriate safety distances between onsite areas for storage and handling of EPC 11.4.6 Handling & Storage of Hazardous
worksites, and Magnitude: major hazardous substances and offsite residential areas. Substance
hazardous
materials stored • [M 122] Construction worksites will be fenced, access controlled, and entry permitted only to authorised personnel who EPC 11.4.20 Workers Health & Safety
and handled have received health and safety training/induction.
• [M 123] Communities will be informed of the start of any construction activities at least one week in advance. EPC SEP 1.- Community mobilisation and
engagement
• [M 124] Warning signs and (barbed wire) barriers will be installed to prevent people climbing onto TL towers. EPC SURV 2.- Review of detailed design in line with
E&S considerations
• [M 125] Education/public outreach will be organised in the neighbouring communities to prevent people approaching EPC 11.4.18 Community Health and Safety
potentially dangerous equipment and to inform local people of access restrictions.
• [M 126] Regular community meetings on safety and construction hazards will be organised during the construction works. EPC 11.4.18 Community Health and Safety
Community Safety Risks of traffic ◼ ◼  Hi Likelihood: Possible [-] • [M 85] Construction Traffic Management Plan(s) for dam and TL construction works will be developed and implemented, the EPC 11.4.18 Community Health and Safety M
accident related to Extent: communities near roads used by the plan(s) will provide information on public roads used by the Project, will be publicly disclosed and provided to local
Project-traffic Project community leaders.
during Duration: during construction period • [M 42] The Construction Traffic Management Plan will set speed limits (30km/h on the dam and TL access roads and EPC 11.4.17 Traffic
construction Magnitude: major 20km/h on other internal roads), and define speed control measures, tracking of construction vehicles and penalties for
non-compliance by staff.
• [M 111] The Project will involve local authorities and neighbouring communities when planning timing exceptional convoys. EPC 11.4.17 Traffic
• [M 112] Local authorities and communities will be informed in advance of the arrival of exceptional convoys. EPC 11.4.17 Traffic
• [M 113] Construction vehicle drivers and equipment operators will be provided with training on safe driving. EPC 11.4.17 Traffic
• [M 114] Awareness campaigns will be organised with local communities, including school children, to ensure they are aware EPC 11.4.17 Traffic
of construction traffic related risks.
• [M 115] The Project will maximise the use of existing roads and tracks, vehicles used for construction activities will use EPC 11.4.17 Traffic
already existing roads and corridors as far as possible.
• [M 116] No project-related traffic will be authorised in residential areas between 20:00- 08:00, except for rare occasions EPC 11.4.17 Traffic
such as exceptional convoys that may travel at night to avoid local traffic, and only after TANESCO approval.
• [M 117] The Project will put in place specific road safety measures in sensitive areas, such as schools or cattle grazing EPC 11.4.17 Traffic
grounds, including additional signs, speed-humps or speed bumps and flagmen if necessary.
• [M 118] Communities affected by Project-traffic will be engaged with regard to Project-related traffic schedules and EPC 11.4.17 Traffic
activities.
• [M 119] Grievances from communities regarding Project construction traffic will be managed through the GRM. Supervised by SEP 2.- Grievance Mechanism
TANESCO for
EPC to comply
with
Community Safety Electrical hazards   ◼ Hi Likelihood: Possible [-] • [M 124] Warning signs and (barbed wire) barriers will be installed to prevent people climbing onto TL towers. EPC SURV 2.- Review of detailed design in line with Lo
represented by Extent: close to the TL E&S considerations
the TL during Duration: throughout the project life • [M 125] Education/public outreach will be organised in the neighbouring communities to prevent people approaching EPC 11.4.18 Community Health and Safety
operation Magnitude: major potentially dangerous equipment and to inform local people of access restrictions.
Dam break,   ◼ Hi Likelihood: Possible [-] • [M 131] An Independent Panel of Experts for dam safety will be appointed. The panel will be required to review the design TANESCO CHS 3.- Emergency Preparedness Plan Lo
uncontrolled Extent: downstream from the dam and all aspects of the work, including flood hydrology, hydraulics, seismology, geology, concrete technology and turbines
release and Duration: throughout the project life designed to operate in sediment laden water.
emergency Magnitude: major


release of • [M 132] A dam break risk assessment will be undertaken in alignment with the approach recommended by the International
reservoir water Commission on Large Dams (ICOLD). Risk reduction measures will be integrated into the design to ensure that the overall
risk of dam break is tolerable as per ICOLD risk acceptability criteria. .
• [M 133] An Emergency Response Plan including a dam failure or gate failure/malfunction will be prepared and include flood
modelling of the worst-case scenario.
• [M 136] Dam inspection and maintenance procedures will be developed and implemented to ensure the integrity of the EPC for
Project structures and equipment as per ICOLD guidelines. procedure
development.
TANESCO for
implementation
during
operation
• [M 134] A comprehensive Dam Safety and Operation Manual will be developed and maintained. The manual will meet the TANESCO Technical Specifications Lo
World Bank’s Dam Safety Policy concerning the design, construction, operation and maintenance of the Project and
downstream users.
Risk of drowning  ◼  Hi Likelihood: Possible [-] • [M 110] Access to the Kagera river with the reservoir footprint will be forbidden during the reservoir impoundment. Warning EPC 11.5.3.3B - SURV.2- Review of detailed design M
Extent: communities near the reservoir and river signs will be placed in all KSC camps and villages located close to the reservoir. in line with E&S considerations
downstream from the proposed dam [M 62] A topography survey of the reservoir will be undertaken and the FSL reservoir footprint physically demarcated.
• TANESCO CHS 1.- Construction Health & Safety
Duration: throughout the project life
Magnitude: major
During operation   ◼ Hi Likelihood: Possible [-] • [M 129] Prior to undertaking planned activities that result in rapid change in downstream water levels, the local population TANESCO SEP 1.- Community mobilisation and M
of there may be Extent: near the dam, the reservoir will be informed at least one week in advance and advised to keep away from the river. engagement
short periods Duration: throughout the project life
when flows are Magnitude: major
modified, with • [M 130] Strict operating rules will be developed for the operation and testing of the proposed dam’s bottom outlet. EPC for Technical Specifications
rapid increase in procedure EFMP 1.- Operating Procedures and Adaptive
flow rate, and development. Management
potentially people TANESCO for
conducting implementation
activities near the during
riverbank may be operation
taken by surprise • [M 135] A 5-year reservoir shore erosion line will be estimated in areas adjacent to the identified structures located in the TANESCO
and there is a risk proposed reservoir, and the resulting incremental increase in land take for Mugaba and Bugara villages will be managed
that drowning through the GRM.
could happen.
There is a risk that
slopes around the
proposed
reservoir become
unstable over
time and could be
potentially
dangerous for the
local residents.
Fisheries Dam construction ◼ ◼  Lo Likelihood: Possible [-] • [M 110] Access to the Kagera river with the reservoir footprint will be forbidden during the reservoir impoundment. Warning TANESCO Lo
and operation will Extent: Upstream and downstream of the dam signs will be placed in all KSC camps and villages located close to the reservoir.
cause a Duration: During construction period
permanent loss of Magnitude: minor • [M 137] The project will monitor the fisheries activities downstream of the dam, to confirm the predictions of the 2022 ESIA TANESCO MON 7.- Fishery Activity
fish habitats that or undertake corrective measures if a change against the baseline is detected and is caused by the project operation.
may reduce fish
Reduced fish   ◼ Lo Likelihood: Possible [-] • See measures for fish impact management TANESCO Lo
stock caused by Extent: Upstream and downstream of the dam
dam impact on Duration: throughout the project life
fish migration - Magnitude: minor
loss of income for
local fishers.


Cultural Heritage The Project will ◼ ◼  M Likelihood: Certain/possible [-] • [M 138] When preparing the new Valuation Report, interviews will be performed with affected persons and local residents to TANESCO RAP 1 – Valuation report and payment of Lo
directly impact the Extent: Under the TL and at the reservoir reassess the costs for grave reinstatement, including transportation and reinterment, as well as all rites or ceremonies compensation,
7 graves located footprint costs.
in the TL Duration: during construction period • [M 139] The management of Project affected graves will take into account peoples’ beliefs and traditions, any re-interment TANESCO RAP 2 - Relocation, rehousing and livelihood
wayleave. The Magnitude: moderate is to be in a place approved by the deceased person’s family. restoration,
project area has a
possible • [M 140] Prior to the start of construction works, each community affected by the Project will be engaged to confirm cultural TANESCO SEP 1.- Community mobilisation and
archaeological heritage elements of local value and establish where if and where any modifications to Project design are required. engagement
potential and • [M 141] Awareness sessions will be organised for construction works to inform them of the sensitivity of archaeological TANESCO SEP 1.- Community mobilisation and
underground artifacts. engagement
heritage
• [M 142] A Chance find procedure compliant with the Antiquities Act of 1964 will be developed and implemented. EPC 11.4.14 Cultural Heritage & Chance Find
resources could
Procedure
be drown during
the reservoir • [M 143] If an artefact of national or international significance is discovered, the EPC Contractor report it immediately to EPC for Chance
filling. TANESCO who in turn will notify the Division of Antiquities and the responsible local authorities (EPC Contractor and Find Procedure
Additionally, one TANESCO). TANESCO for
sacrifice site will liaison with
be impacted by Division of
the reservoir Antiquities
impoundment. • [M 144] A Workers’ Code of Conduct will be developed for the construction workforce and will include measures regarding EPC 11.4.1Management systems, Monitoring and
respect for the beliefs and customs of the populations and community relations in general, and specific responsibilities Reporting
related to any cultural heritage encountered during construction.
• [M 145] The Workers’ Code of Conduct for the construction workforce will include strict “no alcohol or drugs” and no EPC 11.4.1Management systems, Monitoring and
gambling policy at all times. Reporting
• [M 146] Appropriate rites or ceremonies to relocate sacrifice sites will be discussed with the affected communities. TANESCO RAP 2 - Relocation, rehousing and livelihood
restoration,
Visual Amenity During ◼ ◼  M Likelihood: Certain [-] • - M
construction, the Extent: the area inside Kyaka village and the
main impacts that Kitengule/Missenyi land.
could occur will be Duration: during construction period
caused by change Magnitude: moderate
of landscape due
to the
construction of
new elements.
It will change key
characteristics of
the area and the
nature of the
views experienced
by people who live
within in it, visit it
or travel through
it.
Physical presence   ◼ M Likelihood: Certain [-] • [M 149] Areas disturbed during the construction phase will be restored to their pre-project state. EPC 11.4.13 Site reinstatement M
of dam, TL and Extent: the area inside Kyaka village and the
the new access Kitengule/Missenyi land.
• [M 150] Landscape planning will be conducted for new permanent structures. EPC
road will cause Duration: throughout the project life
visual amenity Magnitude: moderate
and change the
character of the
zone of visual
influence.
Climate Change Risks
Project Climate change   ◼ M Likelihood: Probable [-] • [M 151] Use a long-term hydrological model to predict future river flow prediction - establishment of a rainfall/runoff EPC SURV 2.- Review of detailed design in line with Lo
infrastructure and alteration to Extent: project facilities modelling tool to assess future daily flows based on future climate scenarios (temperature, precipitation) and with fine- E&S considerations
Kagera river flow Duration: throughout the project life graded mesh size adapted to the Kagera catchment. Use the findings of the model to as part of a decision-making to
regime and Magnitude: moderate process for including the proposed structural and operational climate resilience measures in the detailed project design and
intensity and planning.
frequency of flood
events
Cumulative Impact


Water quality Incremental ◼  ◼ M Likelihood: Probable [-] • The Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts are managed through the control and mitigation measures for Project TANESCO Lo
Fish and fish increase in Extent: variable depending on receptor impacts assessed elsewhere in this assessment and no additional specific control and mitigation measures have been
habitats impacts because Duration: throughout the project life identified.
Terrestrial habitat of spatial and Magnitude: moderate
and wildlife temporal overlap
Communities with impacts from
KSC estate,
increased
demographics in
the upstream
watershed,
deforestation in
the upstream
watershed,
climate change,
upstream HPPs
and other TL
projects
Transboundary Impacts
Fish population in Physical presence   ◼ M Likelihood: Probable [-] • The Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts are managed through the control and mitigation measures for Project TANESCO Lo
the Akagera of the dam acting Extent: Kagera river upstream from the proposed impacts assessed elsewhere in this assessment.
swamps (Rwanda) as a barrier for dam to the Akagera swamps and downstream to
Fish population and ecological Lake Victoria
sediment/nutrients continuity and Duration: throughout the project life
in Lake Victoria trapping sediment Magnitude: moderate
(Uganda) reducing sediment
transport
downstream

11.4 Measures Under the Responsibility of the EPC

Contractor

Management systems, Monitoring and Reporting
Environmental & Social Standards
[CC- 1] The Contractor shall comply with all national, regional and local government environmental and
social (E&S) laws,
[CC- 2] In addition, the Contractor shall ensure each executed obligation under this Section 11.4 complies
with the Lender’s E&S policies and standards listed in Section 11.2.2.
[CC- 3] In addition, the Contractor will ensure each executed obligation under this Section 11.4complies
with the relevant mitigation measures stipulated in the Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA)
completed for the Project in 2016, and the 2022 ESIA Study, unless instructed otherwise by the
Employer.
[CC- 4] The Contractor will list all texts, standards and other regulatory limitations in the Construction
Environmental and Social Management Plan referred to in Section 11.4.1.3 and will specify the means
taken for compliance.
[CC- 5] The Contractor shall comply with all of the above when developing the plans and policies
required under this section.
[CC- 6] The Contractor will comply with, and ensure that each Subcontractor at any tier complies with,
the requirements of this Section 11.4 during the performance of the Works. Whenever a conflict arises
among the standards set forth in this Section 11.4, or the applicable laws, the Contractor will comply
with, and ensure that each Subcontractor at any tier complies with, the most stringent standard.
Resources Allocated to Environmental and Social Management
A Human resources
[CC- 7] The human resources requirements specified hereafter are the minimum resources required for
E&S management by the Contractor. The staffing levels will be consistent with regulatory, Employer and
Lender requirements.
[CC- 8] TANESCO will, at reasonable intervals or when the Contractor’s performance requires, audit the
E&S performance of the Contractor.
[CC- 9] The Contractor shall appoint an Environmental & Social Manager (E&S Manager) in charge of
implementing the present measures under responsibility of the EPC Contractor. The E&S Manager shall,
amongst other items: (i) Be able to speak, read and write English fluently, (ii) Hold a relevant University
degree and significant experience of at least 10 years in designing and monitoring the implementation of
E&S aspects on similar Projects, (iii) Be permanently based at Site for the full duration of the Works, (iv)
Have the authority to suspend Works when necessary, and allocate all resources, Personnel and
Equipment required to take any corrective actions, (v) Maintain close communication with the Employer’s
E&S Director.
[CC- 10] The Contractor shall appoint an Environmental & Social Supervisor (E&S Supervisor) for each
shift for the Kakono HPP areas and the Transmission Line. Site E&S Supervisors represent the E&S
Manager within Works areas. Their role is to ensure that the Works are carried out in accordance with the
Contract and to record and notify the E&S Manager of any non-conformities.
[CC- 11] The Contractor shall appoint a Community Relation Supervisor (CR Supervisor) responsible for
relations with external stakeholders for the Works. This may include local communities, administrative
authorities, and representatives of economic activities located within one-hour travel from the Site. The
CR Supervisor shall, amongst other items: (i) Liaise closely with the Employer’s Community Relations
team and be responsible for resolving community grievances in a timely manner where the Contractor is
responsible; (ii) Be based permanently at Site and must be fluent in Swahili and English; (iii) Have
experience in community relation management obtained on similar Projects.
[CC- 12] The Contractor shall ensure relevant administrations and local authorities are informed of the
existence of the CR Supervisor when required and provide them with the contact details.

[CC- 13] The Contractor shall appoint Environmental & Social Experts (E&S Expert) as required to support
the Environmental and Social Manager in areas where external expertise is required. The E&S Experts
shall, amongst other items: (i) Have experience in delivering a similar Project, with similar Lender’s E&S
requirements, (ii) Examine the E&S implications of technical alternatives proposed during the design
development.
[CC- 14] The Contractor shall appoint an Archaeologist on Site as of the start of the construction
activities to: (i) Train the relevant Contractor’s Personnel on the Chance Finds Procedure (see Section
11.4.14), (ii) use their professional judgement and experience to determine where, and to what depth,
they would need to be present to observe the works, (iii) Intervene when chance finds are discovered, (iv)
Apply and report the Chance Finds Procedure, (v) Provide a watching brief whenever top soil is removed.
[CC- 15] The Contractor shall appoint an Employment Services Officer, with experience in vocational
training and construction recruitment, and with the assistance of sufficient qualified support personnel,
who together shall have defined roles, responsibility and authority for: (i) Implementing the Recruitment
Policy (see Section 11.4.19.2); (ii) Administering and monitoring the Local Skills Development
Programme; (iii) Identifying and fostering local employment opportunities; (iv) Preparing and posting
notices and advertisements, and collect and screening applications either for direct recruitment or for
eligibility to Local Skills Development Programme (see Section 11.4.19.3); (v) Advising job applicants on
employment requirements and on terms and conditions of employment; (vi) Co-ordinating the
Contractor’s requirements in terms of skills and training needs; (vii) Assisting Local Residents in applying
for and obtaining jobs related to the Project; (viii) Maintaining a database of Local Residents interested in
employment or skills development activities; (ix) Maintaining statistics and records to compile and
prepare reports on local recruitment and skills development programme indicators; (x) Arranging for
appropriate skills testing of Local Residents; and (xi) Completing functions to ensure that the Local Skills
Development Programme is properly administered.
B Monitoring equipment
[CC- 16] Portable equipment for water, air, soil, dust, sound and vibration monitoring shall be provided
by the Contractor to perform at minimum the monitoring of the following parameters as required by the
standards set out in 11.2.2:
• For water & wastewater: Probes for in situ measurement of temperature, pH, EC, turbidity, dissolved
oxygen.
• Air monitoring: Portable equipment for in situ measurement of particulate matters (PM), CO, CO 2.
• Sound and vibration measurement: dB, peak particle velocity.
C Data Management
[CC- 17] TANESCO has implemented a Project wide, integrated data management system to manage
health, safety, environment and social aspects on the Project (see Section 11.5.1). The Contractor shall
conform to this system, as directed by TANESCO, which facilitates coherent and consistent reporting and
data analysis.
[CC- 18] All health, safety, environment and social aspects shall be entered, in a timely manner, into this
system, such as, but not limited to, reports, monitoring data, test results, data recording, grievances,
incidents.
[CC- 19] The Employer shall offer initial training to the relevant Contractor’s Personnel on the system.
Construction Environmental & Social Management Plan (CESMP)
A Structure
[CC- 20] The Contractor shall deliver to TANESCO for review a plan which defines the organisational and
technical provisions required to satisfy the present measures under responsibility of the EPC Contractor:
The Construction Environmental and Social Management Plan - CESMP.

[CC- 21] The CESMP will comprise of three parts: Part 1- Environmental and Social Organisation; Part 2-
Environmental and Social Protection; Part 3- Environmental and Social Procedures.
[CC- 22] Part 1: Environmental and Social Organisation, is an umbrella document which includes the
Contractor’s Environmental Management System documentation: E&S Policy, Zone of Influence and
Project Work areas, Document Map, Personnel organogram with reporting lines, Personnel roles and
responsibilities, Resource mobilization, Inspection checklist, Inspection and auditing schedule, Change
Management Procedure, Monitoring and Measuring Plan, Environmental Incident Reporting and
Corrective Action Plan, Photo cataloguing Procedure, E&S Training Programme.
[CC- 23] Part 2: Site Environmental and Social Protection, is a site-specific overview of the identified
impacts generated by the Project and the mitigation measures developed and implemented to manage
these. It includes the Environmental and Social Impact and Risk Management Plans: Accurate delineation
of site on 1/5 000e topographical map relating the location of works and storage areas and access roads;
sensitive locations and areas of concern (e.g. graveyards, water course); summary of potential adverse
effects on local community and natural environment; proposed mitigation measures. Part 2 also includes
the Stakeholder and Community Management procedure.
[CC- 24] Part 3: Environmental and Social Procedures, comprises specific plans and procedures that
describe exactly how E&S issues are to be controlled, managed and reported on. The Contractor shall
prepare and implement E&S procedures detailing, for each of the aspects considered, the environmental
best practices that it will implement to eliminate or reduce potential impacts on the natural or human
environment resulting from the Works. The Contractor’s E&S performance will be evaluated based on its
capacity to implement the measures detailed in the procedures and the results obtained.
[CC- 25] Each Environmental and Social procedure in Part 3 shall include as a minimum: (i) Cross
references to applicable legislation and Lender's standards and guidelines, (ii) Roles and responsibilities,
(iii) Cross reference to other procedures, (iv) Identification of construction activities with potential risks in
the field of concern, (v) Description of all or some of the mitigation measures proposed in Part 2
“Environmental and Social Protection”, (vi) Implementation, monitoring and adaptive management
process, (vii) Technical description or measurement / monitoring methods, (viii) Timeframe.
B Submission, Approval and Revision
[CC- 26] The Contractor shall submit the CESMP to TANESCO within 30 days prior to the planned start of
any construction activity for the Works. TANESCO shall provide comments to the Contractor within 15
days after receiving the CESMP. If applicable, the Contractor shall submit the revised CESMP, integrating
TANESCO’s comments, to TANESCO for review within 7 days after receiving TANESCO’s comments.
[CC- 27] No construction activity for the Works shall commence prior to the CESMP being finalised except
as authorized by TANESCO. The commencement of Works in each area shall be authorised by the
Employer only after non-objection of the related E&S procedures.
[CC- 28] During the Works, unless otherwise agreed with TANESCO, the CESMP shall be updated by the
Contractor every 6 months and reissued to TANESCO for review. The revised version shall highlight the
new elements incorporated in the CESMP. Any amendment to the law shall be clearly stated in the
update.
Reporting, Monitoring, Training
A Non-conformities
[CC- 29] The Contractor shall record all environmental incidents, non-conformities and non-compliances
through the Project’s environmental incident reporting procedure. The environmental incident reporting
procedure shall be defined by TANESCO and will utilise the same online software solution to manage the
process as that used by TANESCO. It is a systematic approach designed to identify, evaluate, investigate,
correct and document environmental incidents, non-conformities and non-compliances during the
Project.
[CC- 30] Environmental incidents will be evaluated and managed in the standard Tiers 1, 2 and 3 format,
as defined in the environmental incident reporting procedure.

B Ad-hoc and Monthly progress reporting
[CC- 31] During the Works, in addition to the CESMP requirements, the Contractor will submit to
TANESCO ad-hoc, weekly and monthly progress reports, using the data reporting formats approved by
TANESCO.
[CC- 32] Ad-hoc reports will deal with a specific environmental and/or social issue as may be requested
by TANESCO.
[CC- 33] Monthly progress report: (i) Summary of all E&S initiatives implemented in relation to the Works
and specified key performance indicators; (ii) The results of monitoring analysis (drinking water,
wastewater, storm-water, discharge from sedimentation ponds, air quality, dust, noise, light pollution
etc.) carried out during the month; (iii) The status of environmental non-compliances and non-
conformities opened or closed during the month; (iv) The status of community grievances opened or
closed during the month; (v) Particular activities carried out during the last week and scheduled for the
coming month; (vi) Status of E&S-related permit applications and approvals, and (vii) Any other
information requested by the Employer relating to the Works.
C Site Inspections
[CC- 34] The E&S Manager will carry out an E&S inspection of the Works on a weekly basis jointly with
TANESCO. The daily inspection checklist shall be in Part 2 of the CESMP.
[CC- 35] A detailed written report will be drafted by the Contractor for each weekly inspection, in a
format approved by TANESCO, addressing non-conformities detected and good practices. The report
shall be submitted to TANESCO within 3 days of the inspection.
[CC- 36] Non-conformities and good practices shall be documented and photographed, with relevant
evidence explicitly indicating the location, date of inspection and a brief description of the non-
conformities /good practice in question.
D Monitoring
[CC- 37] The Contractor shall prepare a Monitoring and Measuring Plan that lists the regulatory and other
monitoring requirements, the relevant parameters, criteria to be measured, the periodicity. This plan will
cross reference the Procedure that describes incident reporting and corrective action.
[CC- 38] Effluent Monitoring: see Section 11.4.4.4
[CC- 39] Dust emission Monitoring: see Section 11.4.10.1
E Staff Code of Conduct and Training
[CC- 40] The Contractor shall prepare and implement an E&S training programme for its Personnel and
detail it in the CESMP (Part 2)
[CC- 41] Training for each role is identified through a comprehensive training and competency / skills
matrix covering the training that will be required for each role.
[CC- 42] Training sessions are two-fold: induction sessions for starting the Works, and technical training
as required in relation to the execution of the Works. The training activities are to be documented in the
monthly progress report.
[CC- 43] Induction sessions are organised for each Personnel and shall cover as a minimum:
• Rules of procedure.
• Workers Code of Conduct and engagement with local community.
• Protection of biodiversity, including restrictions on harvesting, hunting and purchase of bushmeat.
• Protection of areas adjacent to the Site, including fire control measures.
• Waste Management.

• Risks relating to sexually transmitted diseases.

• Basic health: combating waterborne diseases and improving hygiene.
• Asset damage procedure in the event of accident
• Relationship with the local communities.
• Regular tool-box-talks on relevant and topical issues and related to incident reporting figures.
F Documentation of Worksite Conditions
[CC- 44] The Contractor shall document changes in condition of all Works areas from the start of Works
until the issuance of the Taking-Over Certificate. Documentation shall comprise dated and geo-
referenced colour photographs taken weekly from a constant angle and viewpoint.
[CC- 45] The Works areas condition shall be documented as a minimum for the following stages:
• Before any disturbance at the start of the Works.
• On completion of the Works
[CC- 46] The Contractor shall specify in each E&S procedures (i) the list of viewpoints to be used, (ii) areas
to be photographed, and (iii) methods used for taking and archiving photographs. Adjacent areas (100 m
from the perimeter of the Works area) are included in photographic documentation.
[CC- 47] Unless instructed otherwise by TANESCO, structures to be buried will be photographed weekly
until covered. As a minimum the structures are photographed twice for Works with duration of less than
seven days, and at least once a week for Works with a longer duration.
[CC- 48] Photographs are to be archived in digital format and provided to TANESCO on a monthly basis in
format and medium approved by TANESCO. The nomenclature of electronic files for photographs shall
explicitly indicate the Works area, date and structure documented.

Ecology
Biodiversity Awareness Plan
[CC- 49] The Contractor will prepare, execute and document a Biodiversity Awareness Plan for the
Contractor’s Personnel and train them accordingly, which reflects the requirements of this Section
11.4.2. This shall be done through weekly toolbox talks, posters and specific focussed sessions.
[CC- 50] The workers Code of Conduct shall include ecological protection measures such as restrictions
on fires in non-designated areas; hunting / harvesting or disturbance of natural resources and wildlife;
speed control and traffic risks to animals; pollution prevention, and appropriate waste management etc.
[CC- 51] Unless instructed otherwise by TANESCO, the Contractor shall use construction methods and
means of protection that ensure minimizing the adverse effects on vegetation, soils, groundwater,
biodiversity, natural drainage and the water quality in the areas adjacent to the Site for the entire
duration of the Works.
[CC- 52] Adjacent areas not designated as Project land will be actively protected through demarcating
work site boundaries on site development plans and on the ground to minimise risks of encroachment,
including vehicle access and parking areas. Sites for construction facilities, spoil dumps and topsoil
stockpiles will be sited on disturbed ground wherever possible.
[CC- 53] Burning of any material shall not be permitted unless agreed otherwise with TANESCO in
designated places.
Wildlife Protection
[CC- 54] Hunting and fishing shall be strictly banned for the Contractor’s Personnel.
[CC- 55] Deliberate killing or injuring of snakes will be forbidden. Any snakes found shall be removed by a
trained snake handler and relocated to a safe area (away from settlement).
[CC- 56] All staff shall be made aware of potential for elephant encounters and measures to protect
themselves without injury to elephants. If ongoing issues occur due to problem elephants, TAWIRI shall
be notified to assist with finding a solution.
[CC- 57] Excavations and trenches shall be covered or a means of egress provided when left open for
more than 48 hours to mitigate risk of injury or mortality of animals.
[CC- 58] For reservoir structure/building clearance, bat specific measures to be included in the
Demolition Method Statement.
Ecological Clerk of Works
[CC- 59] The Contractor shall employ an ecologist (Ecological Clerk of Works) with appropriate ecological
experience to be on Site for each shift during the vegetation clearing works.
Alien Invasive Plants
[CC- 60] The Contractor shall prepare an Alien Plant Management Procedure documenting the control
measures to be taken to minimise risk of introduction and spread of alien plants along access roads,
around quarry sites, and within the construction areas. The plan will include measures to address the
following risks:
• Potential for earth excavating, bulldozing or trucks to carry and introduce alien plant matter to the
project construction sites.
• Potential for fill material from quarries and borrow pits to be contaminated with alien plants and be
introduced to construction sites.

• Potential for vegetation clearance and earth moving along access tracks and new or widened roads in
areas with alien plants to create opportunities for spread and encroachment into adjacent habitats.
• Potential for alien plants to be spread during alien clearing and transport (e.g. on open trucks/trailers).
[CC- 61] The Ecological Clerck of Work will identify the range of alien invasive plants that may occur on
the site and with an understanding of the risks and control measures required to manage them.
[CC- 62] The EPC Contractor will be responsible for post-construction site monitoring for 1 year after
completion of construction and will include alien plant, erosion and sedimentation, and reinstatement of
vegetation.
[CC- 63] A dedicated wash bay will be constructed draining to a collection pond where all vehicles
entering the construction sites will be cleansed to ensure no vehicles brought to site carry alien plant
seeds or soil and mud contaminated with alien plant seeds. Records of vehicle washdowns at wash bays
will be maintained for verification.
[CC- 64] The EPC Contractor will conduct a drive through or walkover of the transmission line route,
access roads, quarry areas and dam construction sites to confirm presence of alien invasive plants and
will map and take coordinates of locations. Alien plants at these sites should be promptly removed by
hand (where possible) and immediately bagged or loaded onto enclosed or covered truck (to minimise
risk of windblown seed) for removal to a designated waste site or incineration (where possible). This
should be done prior to vegetation clearance for construction to limit the risk of spread and requirement
for ongoing management control.
[CC- 65] The EPC Contractor will conduct routine checks of vehicles entering the site and use of wash bay
facilities and will complete a checklist to demonstrate compliance.
[CC- 66] Contaminated fill material may only be used in areas where risk of alien plant spread is minimal,
i.e. areas which will be paved or covered with impermeable surface.
[CC- 67] The EPC Contractor will conduct monthly checks of all construction footprints, along roadsides
and at topsoil stockpiles to monitor the presence of alien plant invasion. Any evidence of alien plants will
be cleared and removed within 24 hours. Records of alien invasion and control measures implemented
will be recorded on daily log or field check sheets. Follow up checks may be required to monitor regrowth
in cleared sites.

Environmental Flow
[CC- 68] The Kagera River flow continuity will be maintained at any time during the construction period,
including for the reservoir filling period.
[CC- 69] The river flow immediately downstream of the dam site should never be lower than the
minimum flow regime specified in m3/s in the table below or that specified in the national regulation,
whichever is the most stringent.
[CC- 70] Cofferdams used for construction works in the river will be designed to enable bedload delivery
to downstream reaches while construction is taking place
[CC- 71] The river diversion works and procedures will be designed, prepared and executed so that there
is no interruption of river flow - or reduction greater than that allowed in [CC- 69] - at any time during the
construction period, including the placement and decommissioning of the cofferdams.

Effluents
Pollution Prevention and Control Plan
[CC- 72] Effluents consist of liquid discharges, including infiltration, transporting a pollutant (dissolved,
colloidal or particles).
[CC- 73] The Contractor shall prepare and implement a Pollution Prevention and Control Plan as part of
the CESMP. The plan shall detail all Site-specific measures the Contractor will implement during the
Works to identify, drain and treat effluents generated on Site from the Works.
[CC- 74] Pollution is the introduction of substances or energy into the environment, resulting in
deleterious effects of such a nature as to endanger human health, harm living resources and
ecosystems, and impair or interfere with amenities and other legitimate uses of the environment.
[CC- 75] No effluent is discharged by the Contractor, or the Contractor’s activities, into water courses or
soils without prior treatment and without monitoring of the treatment’s performance to guarantee the
absence of pollution.
[CC- 76] The Contractor shall primarily focus on pollution prevention. For all activities involving chemicals
on Site, a source - pathway - receptor assessment will be carried out by the Contractor and documented,
and measures identified to prevent harmful substances entering the pathway at source. Measures also
shall define the actions to be followed to prevent discharge to the environment in the event that harmful
substances do end up in the pathway.
Wastewater
[CC- 77] The Contractor shall provide, install and maintain sewage treatment plants or other treatment
process for disposal of sewage from all houses, offices, camps and other buildings constructed by the
Contractor.
[CC- 78] The system shall comply with the relevant statutory requirements and international standards.
[CC- 79] Sewage treatment plants will be sufficient for the number of personnel resident.
[CC- 80] Black water and grey water will be treated separately, unless the sewage treatment plant is
capable of processing both waste streams.
[CC- 81] Oil separators shall be used for canteens unless the sewage treatment plant is capable of
processing the waste.
Runoff from Work Sites
A Principles
[CC- 82] Runoff consists of the rainwater flow on the surface or the soil and from other technical
surfaces at Site. Runoff will be considered as an effluent unless demonstrated otherwise, as
documented and substantiated by the Contractor and approved by TANESCO.
[CC- 83] All areas with generators, hydrocarbon storage tanks and refuelling stations shall have
impervious surfaces with secondary containment and shall be drained and equipped with an oil
separator.
[CC- 84] Runoff from workshops, parking areas and garages shall be drained and equipped with oil
removal treatment to prevent pollution.
[CC- 85] Effluent from batching activities and cleaning of concrete trucks shall be collected in settlement
ponds and treated in line with international good practice. This treatment will be subject to detailed study
submitted to TANESCO for approval prior to start of the batching plant operation, in advance enough to
allow mobilization of the appropriate treatment equipment.

[CC- 86] Sludge resulting from the maintenance of oil separators, batching plant settlement ponds and
tunnel water settlement ponds are considered as hazardous waste and shall be disposed of in line with
the Waste Management Plan (See Section 11.4.5).
[CC- 87] Drainage flows shall not be allowed to discharge onto agricultural land, wetlands or community
water supplies.
B Tunnel Waters
[CC- 88] The Contractor shall ensure that all water in the underground works, whether flowing into the
Works from natural ground water sources or as a result of the construction operations is confined to
defined flow channels and is so prevented from spreading over the whole floor of the excavated areas.
[CC- 89] The Contractor shall furnish, install, calibrate, operate, and maintain throughout the
underground works accepted measuring devices for measuring the quantity of water introduced into the
Works such that the net amount of ground water removed may be ascertained.
[CC- 90] All water discharged from the underground works shall be discharged into settlement ponds
before release into natural waterways unless clean water is piped separately to waste.
[CC- 91] Mitigation to avoid cement contamination of tunnel waters will be defined and included in the
CESMP. Mitigation to treat any tunnel waters contaminated with cement (including shotcrete) will be
defined and approved prior to any tunnelling works commencing.
C Settlement ponds
[CC- 92] The Contractor shall construct, operate and maintain settlement ponds with sufficient capacity
for their purpose, with suitable oil traps and acid dosing to reduce pH at each point where contaminated
water is discharged from the Works.
[CC- 93] Ponds shall be designed in order to ensure compliance with Tanzanian standards and good
international practices for total suspended solids loads in discharges.
[CC- 94] All contaminated water runoff from work areas and excavations shall be discharged into
settlement ponds, to remove oil, sand, silt, cementitious materials and other suspended matter. The
outflow from each settlement pond shall be arranged to prevent any floating oil from leaving the pond
irrespective of the volume of water entering the pond.
[CC- 95] Trucks used for the transport of cement or concrete shall not be cleaned near streams but only
in areas draining directly to settlement ponds.
[CC- 96] Ponds shall be constructed using any suitable materials and shall be watertight. They shall be
sub-divided to enable sections to be cleaned while other sections are in operation.
[CC- 97] Natural ground water and stormwater from areas outside the immediate area or the
Contractor’s activities must be prevented from flowing into the ponds. In this regard, it is particularly
important to ensure that any diversion berms or drains protecting ponds constructed below ground are
adequately maintained.
[CC- 98] Separate settlement ponds shall be constructed to collect surface water runoff from spoil
areas.
Effluent Monitoring
A Water Management Plan
[CC- 99] The Contractor shall submit a Water Management Plan detailing the location and characteristics
(flow, expected quality, discharge frequency) of all sources of effluents and outlets in the natural
environment impacted by the Contractor’s activities.

[CC- 100] The Contractor shall carry out the monitoring of the effluent quality pursuant to this plan and
best industry practices. The effluent monitoring shall be carried out pursuant to and using equipment
that complies with the relevant ISO standards.
[CC- 101] The CESMP shall detail the proposed effluent quality monitoring plan with the following
details, but not limited to: Location of sampling sites; Frequency of analysis performed and parameters
controlled; Analytical methods used for the control of each parameter; Proposed structure of the
database for water monitoring results and trending against compliance values.
B Monitoring
[CC- 102] At a minimum, the sampling stations shall include the effluent stream prior to discharge, then
at 5 m and 10 m down the river or the stream to check for dilution effects. River water prior to discharge
shall also be tested to understand to what extent discharges are affecting river water quality.
[CC- 103] The physical and chemical parameters of the effluent that are monitored are those that are
listed in the Tanzanian environmental regulations, or if these do not exist, the parameters are based on
the recommendations of specialised international organisations. The parameters shall have prior
approval from TANESCO.
[CC- 104] As a minimum, the following quality indicators shall be monitored:
• Organic pollution: BOD5, nitrates, phosphates, particularly for effluents from living areas and
sanitation systems.
• Oils and grease, particularly for drainage water from mechanical activities, hazardous products storage
(hydrocarbons), and wastewater from food preparation/consumption areas.
• Suspended matter, in drainage water from anti-erosion activity areas and settlement ponds.
• Suspended matter and pH at the outlet of batching area settlement ponds.
• Bacterial pollution: Presence of faecal and total coliform in drinking water storage and distribution
network.
• Groundwater pollution in relation to landfill sites: BOD5, COD, ammoniac nitrogen, nitrates, chlorine,
zinc, chromium, lead, mercury.
• For all samples, the following parameters shall be measured in situ: temperature, pH, electrical
conductivity, turbidity, dissolved oxygen.
[CC- 105] The Contractor shall regularly monitor the effluent quality involving the following operations
and facilities:
• Treated effluent from wastewater treatment plants (lagoons, septic tanks).
• Tunnel water.
• Settlement ponds related to batching plants activities and crusher plants.
• Settlement ponds related to storm-water at sites considered particularly sensitive.
• Drainage water from workshop sites, hazardous products storage sites and food preparation/
consumption areas.
• River work sites, with monitoring of the solids content of water upstream and downstream of the
works.
• Monitoring wells drilled for landfill control.
[CC- 106] Effluent quality monitoring shall be performed according to a variable frequency from weekly
to monthly, depending on sites, activities involved and sensitivity.
[CC- 107] In the event of an incident or non-compliance monitoring will take place on a daily basis until
the results indicate that the pre-incident condition has been achieved.
[CC- 108] The Contractor shall submit an effluent quality monitoring report on a monthly basis, as part
of the monthly progress report, including documentation for the following for each effluent discharge
point:
• Average flow rates of discharged effluents.

• Discharge frequencies and durations over the month.

• The physical and chemical quality of the effluent discharged.

Waste
Site Waste Management Plan
[CC- 109] The Contractor is responsible for identifying, collecting, segregating, transporting, disposing
and treating all waste produced during the Works at Site.
[CC- 110] The Contractor shall prepare and implement a Site Waste Management Plan as part of the
CESMP. The plan shall detail all Site-specific measures the Contractor will implement during the Works to
identify, collect, transport and treat all waste produced on Site.
[CC- 111] The plan shall be submitted not less than 30 days prior to mobilization to the Site.
[CC- 112] The plan shall follow the waste management hierarchy as specified in the EU Waste
Management Framework.
Segregation and Register of Waste
[CC- 113] The Contractor shall establish a secure centralised waste segregation and management area
of sufficient size and to international standards before Works commence.
[CC- 114] All waste shall be segregated into different waste streams.
[CC- 115] The Contractor shall establish and maintain a waste register which is at the disposal of
TANESCO.
[CC- 116] This register shall initially record all anticipated types of waste generated by the project, its EU
waste code, the quantity and treatment, i.e. reuse, recycling, disposal options.
[CC- 117] This register shall subsequently record all actual waste management operations including
production, collection, temporary storage, transport, and treatment. The following aspects are to be
documented in this register: (i) Type of waste; (ii) Waste quantities; (iii) Waste code; (iv) Name and
address of the third-party waste transporters and waste management facilities receiving waste or
parties taking possession of the substances no longer considered as waste; (v) Name and address of
waste transport contractors; (vi) Actual waste treatment.
[CC- 118] The Contractor shall keep detailed records of the waste manifests for the collection, transport,
treatment and/or elimination of waste.
[CC- 119] The Contractor shall implement specific waste management practices adapted to the level of
danger for human health or the natural environment. Three waste categories are identified the Site and
in tracking documents:
• Hazardous waste: any waste with one or several dangerous properties as listed in Table 11.3.
• Non-hazardous waste: any waste with no properties rendering it hazardous. Non-hazardous waste
contaminated by hazardous material will be considered as hazardous waste, unless indicated
otherwise by TANESCO.
• Inert waste: any waste unaffected by any significant physical, chemical or biological modifications,
which does not decompose, burn or produce any physical or chemical reaction, is not biodegradable
and does not damage any substance with which it comes into contact in a manner likely to cause
damage to the environment or human health.
[CC- 120] Waste shall be categorised and stored separately prior to removal from the Site, depending on
the level of danger, phase (liquid, solid or gas), the waste management solution to be applied and its
potential in terms of recycling or reuse.

Table 11.3- Properties Rendering a Product Hazardous

Property Description
Explosive Substances and preparations which could explode in the presence of a flame or which are more
sensitive to impacts and friction than dinitrobenzene.
Combustive Substances and preparations which, when in contact with other substances, particularly inflammable
substances, undergo strongly exothermic reactions.
Easily inflammable Substances and preparations (i) in liquid phase (including extremely inflammable liquids), with a flash
point below 21°C, or which can heat up to the extent of spontaneous combustion in ambient air; or (ii) in
solid phase, which can burst into flames easily in the brief presence of a source of inflammation and
which will continue to burn after the removal of the source of inflammation or (iii) in gaseous phase,
which are inflammable in air at normal pressure; or (iv) - which, when in contact with moist air or water,
produce dangerous quantities of gases which are easily inflammable.
Inflammable Liquid substances and preparations, with a flash point equal to or above 21°C and less than or equal to
55°C.
Irritant Non-corrosive substances and preparations which, when in immediate, extended or repeated contact
with the skin and mucosa, can cause inflammation.
Harmful Substances and preparations which, in case of inhaling, swallowing or cutaneous penetration, can lead
to risks of limited severity.
Toxic Substances and preparations (including highly toxic substances and preparations), which, in case of
inhaling, swallowing or cutaneous penetration, can lead to serious, acute or chronic risks, and even
death.
Carcinogenic Substances and preparations which, in case of inhaling, swallowing or cutaneous penetration, can lead
to or increase the frequency of cancer.
Corrosive Substances and preparations which, in case of contact with living tissues, can destroy the latter.
Infectious Substances containing viable micro-organisms or their toxins, for which it is known or we have good
reasons to believe that they cause disease in humans or other living organisms.
Harmful to substances and preparations which, in case of inhaling, swallowing or cutaneous penetration, can
reproduction function induce or increase the frequency of undesirable non-hereditary effects in offspring or have a negative
effect on reproductive functions and abilities.
Mutagenic Substances and preparations which, in case of inhaling, swallowing or cutaneous penetration, can lead
to hereditary genetic disorders or increase the frequency of these disorders.
React with water Substances and preparations which, in case of contact with water, air or an acid, release a toxic or highly
toxic gas.
Sensitizing Substances and preparations which, in case of inhaling or cutaneous penetration, can lead to a
hypersensitisation, so that renewed exposure to the substance or preparation will cause characteristic
harmful effects. This property can only be considered if test methods are available.
Ecotoxic Substances and preparations with inherent or potential immediate or deferred risks for one or several
environmental components.
Dangerous for the Substances and preparations which are likely, after elimination, to lead to another substance, by any
environment means, e.g. a lixiviation product, with one of the above characteristics.

Recycling
[CC- 121] The Contractor shall assess the availability of local services for local recycling and re-use and
effectively implements available local recycling or re-use options for waste.
[CC- 122] The Contractor shall engage a qualified company for the collection and the recycling of
recyclable materials. Recyclable wastes are to be removed from their temporary storage location on a
regular basis, not less frequently than every two months.
Temporary Storage of waste
[CC- 123] Waste shall be collected from each area at the same rate that it is produced and is to be placed
in temporary locations meeting the following criteria: (i) Located at a distance of over 100 m from any
natural sensitive area and over 500 m from any socioeconomic sensitive area (school, market,
healthcare centre, water well or catchment area), with the exception of waste storage areas in camps; (ii)
Protected from moving machinery and vehicles, but easy to access for regular collection; (iii) Protected
from the possibility of landslides; (iv) Located on a flat impervious surface to prevent infiltrations; (v)
Under cover for non-inert waste; (vi) Stored in containers of the appropriate size, tightness and level of
resistance depending on the danger and phase (solid, liquid, gas) of the waste; (vii) Liquid wastes storage
is equipped with secondary retention with a volume at least 110% of the largest container; (viii)
Hazardous waste stored pursuant to approved practices.
[CC- 124] Duration of storage in temporary location (time between two collections) is logged into the
waste register for each temporary waste storage location.
[CC- 125] The Contractor shall implement measures for protecting waste storage areas from animals.
[CC- 126] Waste is removed from the Site and transported to recycling, treatment and waste
management facilities on a regular basis. The frequency of removal shall guarantee:
• No overflow from containers or windblown waste.
• No unpleasant odour or emissions which are dangerous for human health.
• No proliferation of insects, rodents, dogs or other animals which are harmful or dangerous for human
health or which predate on small mammals and birds.
• Regular cleaning of containers and surfaces on which they are located (ensuring drainage of any
cleaning chemicals to a bunded area and avoidance of soil or water contamination).
[CC- 127] Unless otherwise instructed by TANESCO, waste incineration is prohibited at Site. Exceptions
are medical waste, unless instructed to the contrary by TANESCO.
[CC- 128] The use of third party waste management services is subject to a documented prior audit of
the treatment, storage and recycling facilities by the Contractor, to guarantee the conformity with the
provisions of this Section 11.4.5. A copy of the audit report shall be provided to TANESCO.
[CC- 129] The provisions applicable to the Contractor regarding waste management also apply to any
third-party waste management contractors. TANESCO reserves the right to inspect third party waste
management facilities of such contractors and prohibit the Contractor from using the facilities if the
facilities do not comply with the specified requirements.
Non-Hazardous Waste Management
[CC- 130] Non-hazardous waste may be either disposed of in municipal landfill or the Contractor may
develop its own landfill sites, subject to approval by the Tanzanian authorities and the Employer. If the
EPC Contractor uses municipal landfill, this landfill will be subject to a documented audit which
demonstrates that the quantity and type of wastes brought by the EPC Contractor does not raise an
incremental risk for the environment and community which cannot be handled by the present
management of the municipal landfill. If the project develops its own landfill then the following
specifications apply.

[CC- 131] Non-contaminated inert waste is removed and can be disposed of to landfill with unused
backfill material. The location, capacity and environmental protection measures, particularly for water
courses, implemented by the EPC Contractor or Subcontractor, will comply with the provisions of this
Section 11.4.
[CC- 132] Non-hazardous waste that cannot be recycled is disposed to landfill, and shall comply with the
following criteria:
• The landfill is located away from sensitive receptors.
• The bottom of the landfill is not closer than 2 m above the highest seasonal level of the water table.
• The landfill is fully fenced and its access controlled at all times.
• Walls and base of landfill cells are made impervious by a geo-membrane at least 2.5 mm thick with
welded seams, or by a layer of compacted clay with a minimum thickness of 0.5 m and a permeability
factor less than 10-7 cm/s.
• Drained for the recovery of leachates.
• Leachates are treated prior to release in the environment, either by aerobic/anaerobic lagooning
treatment or transfer to any other treatment facility.
• Treated leachate BOD5 shall not be higher than 50 mg/l.
• Each landfill cell is surrounded by an external peripheral drainage to minimize drainage water inflow.
• Regularly compacted and covered by soil to limit odours and the proliferation of insects and rodents.
• When a landfill cell has reached full capacity, vents are installed to evacuate gases, and the landfill
covered by a geo-membrane with a minimum thickness of 1 mm, or a 30-cm layer of compacted clay,
and a top layer of 1.5 m of topsoil, which is revegetated.
• At least two piezometers joining the underlying aquifer are installed by the Contractor, one upstream
of the landfill and the second downstream, assuming the general direction of the underground water
flow. These piezometers allow regular monitoring of the water table depth next to the landfill and
regular sampling of underground water for quality analysis and detection of any pollution from the
landfill, should it happen.
• The facility is sized to accommodate the domestic waste production during the construction period as
well as the waste production of the Operator's housing during the first 5 years of operation of the
Project.
Hazardous Waste Management
[CC- 133] The Contractor may engage a specialised Subcontractor to manage hazardous waste, who is
accredited in Tanzania for this activity.
[CC- 134] In the absence of an existing waste management solutions for hazardous waste, the
Contractor takes the following action:
• Medical waste is incinerated in a specific facility constructed and accredited for this purpose
• Used oil, hydrocarbons, lubricants, paints, solvents and batteries are transported in drums to waste
management facilities. Sludge from settling tanks/ponds, septic tanks or oily water skimmers will also
be managed in the same way.
• Contaminated soils from construction/demolition will be treated, stabilised and disposed to landfill.
• Prior approval from TANESCO is required before implementing waste management solutions on any
other hazardous waste.
• The Contractor shall provide documentation on the hazardous waste landfilled at sites other than
accredited third-party waste management facilities. The documentation shall include a plan showing
the location of landfill sites. The document is to be provided to local authorities whose jurisdiction
covers the landfill sites.

Handling & Storage of Hazardous Substance
Hazardous Substance Handling and Storage Management Plan
[CC- 135] A substance is considered dangerous if one or several of its properties render it hazardous
(see Table 11.3).
[CC- 136] The Contractor shall prepare and implement a Hazardous Substance Handling and Storage
Management Plan, in accordance with the provisions detailed below. The plan shall also comply with the
Environmental Management (Hazardous Waste Control and Management) Regulations, 2021. The plan
shall include the material safety data sheets (MSDS) of all chemicals used. The plan shall detail all Site-
specific measures the Contractor will implement during the construction phase to identify and manage
hazardous substances planned for use on Site.
[CC- 137] The procurement policy shall ensure and document that any alternative to hazardous
substances shall be considered where possible following the standard mitigation hierarchy.
Transport and Handling
[CC- 138] The Contractor shall obtain all necessary authorisations and/or licenses for the storage and
use of dangerous substances from local authorities. A copy of the authorisations shall be submitted to
TANESCO.
[CC- 139] For each dangerous substance used, the Contractor will implement the recommendations
described (i) in the MSDS, and (ii) by the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of
Chemicals established by the United Nations for hazardous chemicals.
[CC- 140] All handling or transferring of hazardous substances is to be performed on impervious
surfaces equipped with spill retention.
[CC- 141] Copies of MSDS are to be kept on at the work areas, and made available to personnel. These
shall be in English, Tanzanian and Swahili if available. The Contractor shall submit to TANESCO copies of
all MSDS.
Storage of Hazardous Substances
[CC- 142] Storage areas shall be designed and equipped by the Contractor based, not only on the
chemical and physical properties of the products, but also on the types of containers stored, the number
of people requiring access, and the quantities of the substance used. The size of areas allocated for
storage will be calculated based on the volume of the hazardous material that will be on site during peak
construction for the relevant activity.
[CC- 143] The Contractor shall plan for the storage and management of hazardous waste.
[CC- 144] Safety distances between onsite areas for storage and handling of hazardous substances and
offsite residential areas will conform with best industry practices.
[CC- 145] Storage areas for hazardous substances shall adhere to strict rules, which will be regularly
checked by the E&S Manager. The rules include the following as a minimum:
• Access to the storage area is limited to trained and authorised individuals equipped with the
appropriate personal protective equipment.
• An inventory is maintained up to date and all in/out movements of hazardous product are registered.
• MSDS must be available for all stored hazardous substances, and the substances must be clearly
labelled.
• A strict and methodical storage system is implemented (storage plan posted, large or heavy packaging
may not be stored at heights, equipment and tools may not be stored in the hazardous substance
storage room).

• Compliance with product expiry dates and implementation of a disposal procedure for substances
which are not needed or which have expired.
• Entrances, exits and access to emergency equipment are kept clear at all times.
• Storage areas for hazardous substances are clearly identified with warning signs at the entrance. The
Contractor displays the storage plan (location of the different products, maximum inventory), a
summary of labelling system and information on chemical incompatibilities in English and Swahili
languages.
• Chemicals which could react together (leading to explosions, fire, projections or the emission of
dangerous gases) are physically separated.
• Products that react violently with water are stored so as to prevent contact with water, even in the
event of flooding.
• Inflammable products are stored separately in a dedicated area with adequate ventilation at all times.
[CC- 146] Buildings used to store large quantities of hazardous substances are to be isolated from other
buildings to avoid the spreading of fire. Such buildings are to be constructed using solid and non-
combustible building materials, and are to be equipped with evacuation systems and the appropriate
firefighting equipment. Access to the buildings shall be clear, allowing for rapid evacuation in the event of
an accident. The electrical systems shall be reduced to the essential minimum, and access points shall be
equipped with adequate lighting (300 lux as minimum).
[CC- 147] All storage areas for hazardous substances are to be equipped with secondary retentions to
retain any spill or leakage from one of the containers stored. The secondary retention volume is defined
as a minimum of 110% of the volume of the largest container stored on the site taking into consideration
the volume occupied by the stored containers. Secondary containment bunds are to be maintained
empty of rainwater.
[CC- 148] Tanks are to be equipped with level detectors and safety systems to prevent overfilling.
[CC- 149] Suitable absorbents (neutralising and non-combustible) are to be made available in the
storage area to clean up any spills and leaks. Polluted soils are to be removed and managed as
hazardous waste.
[CC- 150] The Contractor shall maintain the storage area at a suitable temperature for hazardous
substances to prevent overpressure and bursting of containers.
[CC- 151] Runoff from worksite areas where hazardous materials are stored or handled is to be
collected and routed to an oil-water separator for separation of hydrocarbons before discharge of runoff
to the natural environment.
Refuelling
[CC- 152] Refuelling of Project vehicles and plants shall be to the extent possible at dedicated refuelling
stations equipped with impervious platforms.
[CC- 153] Refuelling shall be included in the Pollution Prevention and Control Plan (Section 11.4.4.1).
[CC- 154] Refuelling of machinery outside the refuelling stations is performed using a dedicated
equipment to minimize risks of leakage and soil contamination. Portable retention equipment shall be
used systematically to collect any accidental spill.
[CC- 155] Refuelling shall be in line with best industry practice.
Spill Contingency Plan
[CC- 156] Prior to mobilization on Site, the Contractor shall prepare, submit and implement a Spill
Contingency Plan demonstrating its capability and state of readiness for responding and taking
appropriate action in the event of a hazardous substance spill.
[CC- 157] The Plan includes the following:

• Flow chart of response organization.

• Action Plan: Potential spill sizes and sources for each hazardous material on site, potential
environmental or social impacts of spill (include worst case scenario), procedures (including alternative
action in case of impeding environmental conditions).
• Procedures for initial actions.
• Spill reporting procedures.
• Procedures for containing and controlling the spill e.g. on land, water, snow, ice, etc.
• Procedures for transferring, storing, and managing spill-related wastes.
• Procedures for restoring affected areas.
• Resources available for responding to spills: On-site resources e.g. spill kits, booms, sorbent materials,
earth moving equipment; and Off-site resources e.g. contact numbers for deployment and time
estimate.
• Training Program: Outline of training program, training schedule and record keeping.
[CC- 158] The locations of adequate and suitable spill response kits shall be identified in the Site
Environmental Protection Plans (Part 2 of CESMP) based on the locations of potentially polluting works.
[CC- 159] All generators and other power-generating equipment used during construction shall have
secondary containment.

Reservoir and Construction Site Vegetation Clearing
Vegetation Clearing and Debris Management Plan
[CC- 160] The Contractor shall prepare, submit and implement a Vegetation Clearing and Debris
Management Plan prior to the start of construction at Site which will provide an overview of clearing
activities on each of the clearing sites. It will include links to the Alien Plan Management procedure to
minimise risk of alien plant spread during vegetation clearance activities
[CC- 161] The Contractor shall map and survey habitat loss areas that are scheduled for reinstatement
or landscaping prior to loss to inform the revegetation activities required as part of the Site
decommissioning and reinstatement activities.
[CC- 162] Specific agreement from TANESCO is to be obtained prior to any clearing works.
[CC- 163] Burning of wood and debris is not permitted without explicit, written approval by TANESCO.
[CC- 164] The plan shall include as a minimum: dam site, reservoir, quarries, borrow areas,
powerhouses, disposal areas, access roads, rehabilitated and new/rehabilitated road(s) and power
supply lines. For each of the clearing sites, the plan shall describe:
• Areas to be cleared in hectares, with details on area where stumps are removed and areas where
stumps are retained.
• Clearing schedule taking into account constraints on bird nesting periods.
• Methods of clearing.
• Location and layout of lay-down areas, including laydown areas.
• Management of waterborne woody debris entering in the reservoir during the Works (accumulating
against the upstream cofferdams) and during the reservoir filling period (approach for collection,
evacuation and disposal).
[CC- 165] The Vegetation Clearing and Debris Management Plan will also describe the measures taken
by the Contractor to re-use the rapidly-degradable biomass, non-commercial non-rapidly biomass and
top soil extracted within the reservoir areas for reinstatement of construction sites located outside the
reservoir area (e.g. mulching and chipping, and creation of wood briquettes).
[CC- 166] Potential for providing wood resources to nearby communities shall be considered and
arranged. Stockpiles of wood resources shall be set aside for community collection in a designated place
that takes into account restrictions on public access to the construction sites.
Clearing Method for Dam and Transmission Line Construction
[CC- 167] Vegetation clearance shall comply with Tanzanian regulatory requirements including the
Forest Regulations of 2003 which regulate the removal and transport of forest produce. This may
require a harvesting permit issued by the District Forest Officer.
[CC- 168] Vegetation clearing using chemicals is not permitted.
[CC- 169] Vegetation clearing using a bulldozer is not permitted in zones less than 5 meters from areas
designated as sensitive by TANESCO (e.g. seasonal wetlands or river corridors), where only manual
clearing is authorised. Sensitive areas will be delineated prior to commencing works using appropriate
means (e.g. security tape).
[CC- 170] Unless otherwise authorized by TANESCO, burning vegetation is not permitted. If permitted,
any vegetation burning associated with biomass removal would be conducted according to the legal
framework and in accordance to a Smoke Management Plan, submitted to TANESCO for review with
community representatives prior to any burning activities. This plan would (i) identify smoke sensitivity
zones (populated areas), (ii) schedule the annual burn programme, (iii) identify sensitive time periods, (iv)
determine set-back distances, firebreak needs and specify burn procedures (Debris pile construction and
seasoning, Pre-burn protocols, Light-up procedures including venting forecasts, Ignition criteria and
smoke release periods, Burn operator training, Post-burn protocols).

[CC- 171] Tree felling, included in the Vegetation Clearing and Debris Management Plan, shall avoid
nesting periods for birds, such as raptors between March and September (with June-September
considered more critical) where possible. The Vegetation Clearing and Debris Management Plan shall
clearly specify the schedule and the methodology involved, and to be approved by TANESCO prior to
commencing the Works. This shall include provisions to minimise and manage potential encounters with
elephants. Thereafter, deviations from the Plan will be subject to the Employer’s approval.
[CC- 172] The Contractor shall employ an ecologist or suitably qualified Ecological Clerk of Work to be on
Site during this work. His/her role will be to ensure compliance with minimum vegetation clearance;
observe risks to or from wildlife; observe presence of alien invasive plants and control measures; as well
as other compliance measure related to use of fire, herbicides, waste, and contractor staff behaviour.
[CC- 173] Areas cleared prior to undertaking earthworks shall be shown on a plan with a minimum scale
of 1/10,000. Plans are to be submitted to TANESCO for validation prior to starting clearing works.
[CC- 174] The Contractor shall physically demarcate zones to be cleared using a method approved by
TANESCO.
[CC- 175] Where possible large woody trees with diameter >30cm in the servitude or access route shall
be retained where possible while maintaining safety clearance. The characteristics (location, species,
diameter at breast height) of trees to be retained (not cut down) are to be defined by the Contractor in
coordination with TANESCO. Such trees are to be marked with paint and protected against clearing
machinery using a method approved by TANESCO. Prior to clearance, the Contractor’s Ecological Clerk of
Work shall perform a walk over to identify and mark potential trees to be retained where possible.
[CC- 176] A pre-construction walk over survey of the alignment to be cleared should be conducted to
check for large raptor bird nests. Any trees found to have active nests of raptors should be retained
where possible or left for clearing post nesting periods once fledged birds have left the nest.
[CC- 177] If any bat roost is suspected to be in a felled tree, the tree is to be left in situ overnight to allow
relocation of bats, and the Site Ecologist and TANESCO informed immediately. Follow up checks should
be conducted to confirm if such trees are still in use by bats.
[CC- 178] Clearing shall be undertaken without or causing minimal damage to adjacent non-cleared
areas. Topsoil is to be stored within the cleared areas at the edge of the cleared zone or an otherwise
agreed location. Clearing shall be undertaken working from the edge of the zone inwards.
[CC- 179] For salvageable wood:
• During clearing, the Contractor shall stockpile separately: (i) tree trunks with a diameter greater than
80 mm (ii) protected trees such as Pterocarpus angolensis according to the laws and (iii) trunks with a
smaller diameter, branches, leaves, stumps and roots. A stockpile area shall be located along the main
access road to the dam site in an area where community members are permitted to collect it and
preferentially close to the main tar road between Karagwe and Kyaka if possible for improved access.
• Unless instructed otherwise by TANESCO when validating the plans or unless specified otherwise in the
Tanzanian regulations, the trunks of trees exceeding the diameter defined by TANESCO shall be
transported and stored at a location at the edge of the cleared areas as instructed by TANESCO.
• The Contractor shall provide security at the wood storage areas to prevent theft.
[CC- 180] For other wood, the Contractor shall mulch woody material that defined as having no
economic value. The mulch material shall be stockpiled in a laydown area outside of the reservoir
inundation zone for use during site rehabilitation. Any other green waste shall be removed to spoil areas
for disposal.
[CC- 181] For aquatic and riparian floodplain vegetation in dam wall location:
The approach to removal and deposition of floodplain vegetation will be described in the Vegetation
Clearance and Debris Management Plan. Specific attention will need to be given to minimising dislodging
and allowing cleared papyrus vegetation from floating downstream where it may pose risks to
downstream river users or operators. Vegetation will need to be removed from the river margins on both
sides and trucked to a suitable and approved dump site.

Clearing method for Reservoir Vegetation Clearance
[CC- 182] A Reservoir Vegetation Clearance Plan shall be compiled and implemented by the Contractor
that targets the removal of woody biomass (trees and shrubs) below the full supply level with the aim of
reducing the risk of anoxic water quality conditions after filling. Clearance will also remove the risk of
submerging trees that may pose a risk to boats on the reservoir and reduce the risk of unsightly dead
tree stumps. Where feasible, removal of manure in existing cattle kraals should also be removed as
these represent concentrated sources of nutrients.
[CC- 183] The plan shall document and map the type and extent of vegetation to be cleared; the
methods to be used to remove vegetation (and cattle waste); the phased procedure for implementation
to enable wildlife to escape; the reduction, disposal or reuse of cleared debris; and whether and how
communities can or will benefit from the woody biomass. The plan should include measures to minimise
risk to and from wildlife and cattle, and people in the area, and should designate specific access routes to
the areas to be cleared below the full supply level to maximise retention of vegetation around the
margins of the reservoir. No free movement of bulldozers / excavators will be permitted. The plan
should be compiled in consultation with NARCO and KSC.
[CC- 184] Vegetation clearance in the reservoir prior to filling shall comply with Tanzanian regulatory
requirements including the Forest Regulations of 2003 which regulate the removal and transport of
forest produce. This may require a harvesting permit issued by the District Forest Officer.
[CC- 185] Vegetation clearance in the reservoir should aim to commence in the lowermost portions of
the reservoir closes to the dam wall and gradually work upstream and upslope to enable wildlife to
disperse into adjacent woodland.
[CC- 186] Vegetation clearing using chemicals is not permitted.
[CC- 187] Vegetation clearing using a bulldozer will avoid seasonal wetlands with low biomass where
only manual clearing is authorised if necessary. Sensitive areas will be delineated prior to commencing
works using culturally appropriate manners (e.g. security tape).
[CC- 188] Unless otherwise authorized by TANESCO, burning vegetation is not permitted. If permitted,
any vegetation burning associated with biomass removal would be conducted according to the legal
framework and in accordance to a Smoke Management Plan, submitted to TANESCO for review with
community representatives prior to any burning activities. This plan would (i) identify smoke sensitivity
zones (residential areas), (ii) schedule the annual burn programme, (iii) identify sensitive time periods, (iv)
determine set-back distances, firebreak needs and specify burn procedures (Debris pile construction and
seasoning, Pre-burn protocols, Light-up procedures including venting forecasts, Ignition criteria and
smoke release periods, Burn operator training, Post-burn protocols).
[CC- 189] Reservoir clearance is expected to be a year-long activity and it will be difficult to avoid
seasonal bird breeding periods. However, any trees found to contain raptor bird nests shall be retained
and not felled during March and September (with June-September considered more critical).
[CC- 190] Reservoir clearance will be limited to removing vegetation below the full supply level while
retaining a 60m wide band of natural vegetation around the margin to protect soils and minimise erosion
and sedimentation, and facilitate future establishment of floodplain vegetation.
[CC- 191] The services of an ecologist or suitably qualified Ecological Clerk of Work will be retained on
Site during reservoir clearance. His/her role will be to ensure compliance with the Reservoir Vegetation
Clearance Plan, including extent of vegetation clearance; retention of trees with raptor nests; wildlife
encounters and successful escape; vehicle access to the reservoir; and contractor staff behaviour,
amongst other aspects.
[CC- 192] Areas to be cleared shall be shown on a plan with a minimum scale of 1/10,000. Plans are to
be submitted to TANESCO for validation prior to starting clearing works and shared with KSC and NARCO
indicating timing of activities in each area in order to obtain approval and access to the land.
[CC- 193] The Contractor shall physically demarcate zones to be cleared using a method approved by
TANESCO (e.g. red/white marking tape). Contractors appointed to clear the vegetation should also be
provided with a shape file of the full supply level, designated access routes and areas to be cleared for
loading onto tablets or phones to verify locations in the field.

[CC- 194] A pre-clearance walk over survey of the areas to be cleared should be conducted to check for
large raptor bird nests. Any trees found to have active nests of raptors should be retained.
[CC- 195] If any bat roost is suspected to be in a felled tree, the tree is to be left in situ overnight to allow
relocation of bats, and the Ecologist/ECO and TANESCO informed immediately. Follow up checks should
be conducted to confirm if such trees are still in use by bats before removal and disposal is permitted.
[CC- 196] For salvageable wood:
• During clearing, the Contractor shall stockpile separately: (i) tree trunks with a diameter greater than
80 mm and (ii) trunks with a smaller diameter, branches, leaves, stumps and roots. Stockpile areas
shall be located along public access roads in an area where community members are permitted to
collect it (depending on who is contracted to remove it and whether they are responsible for providing
community benefits).
• Unless instructed otherwise by TANESCO when validating the plans or unless specified otherwise in the
Tanzanian regulations, the trunks of trees exceeding the diameter defined by TANESCO shall be
transported and stored at a location at the edge of the cleared areas as instructed by TANESCO.
• The Contractor shall provide security at the wood storage areas to prevent theft.
[CC- 197] For other wood, the Contractor shall mulch woody material that is defined as having no
economic value. The mulch material shall be stockpiled in a laydown area outside of the reservoir
inundation zone for use during site rehabilitation / landscaping. Surplus can be made available to local
community or land users. Any other green waste shall be removed for disposal.
Floating Debris
[CC- 198] Reservoir filling will result in the collection of vegetation debris in the impoundment. Access to
collect and evacuate floating debris upstream of the dam during reservoir’s first impoundment and
operation shall be designed, built and operational prior to reservoir’s filling.
[CC- 199] Prior to reservoir’s filling, laydown areas shall be made available downstream of the dam to
dispose floating debris which are removed from the reservoir during operation.
[CC- 200] Floating debris shall be collected and removed from the reservoir after reservoir filling.
Economic trees shall be recovered and stockpiled for transfer according to Tanzanian regulations. Non-
economic timber and woody debris shall be mulched and stored in stockpiles.

Soil and Erosion Control
Soil, Slope Stability and Erosion Control Plan
[CC- 201] The Contractor shall plan earthworks and optimise the management of space to ensure that
all cleared surfaces and areas exposed to soil erosion are minimised across the Site.
[CC- 202] The Contractor shall prepare and implement a Soil, Slope Stability and Erosion Control Plan, as
part of the CESMP, that details all Site-specific measures to minimize vegetation clearing and to prevent
erosion site erosion from affecting adjacent areas. Temporary and permanent erosion control techniques
shall be described and consideration given to landslip potential. Suitable drainage design is to be
submitted to TANESCO for approval before the Contractor commences the Works.
[CC- 203] Unless authorized otherwise by TANESCO, side casting of any material during the Works is not
permitted.
Topsoil
[CC- 204] Unless indicated otherwise by TANESCO or specified in the relevant permits, the top 20 cm of
the soil will be considered as topsoil.
[CC- 205] An archaeologist with a watching brief is to be present whenever top soil is disturbed.
[CC- 206] After vegetation clearing, all topsoil from Temporary or Permanent Works areas excluding
reservoir area shall be removed and safely stored separately from other excavation spoil and shall be
clearly indicated on Site by appropriate signs. The height of stockpiles shall be proposed in the E&S
procedures and shall be limited to 3 m for topsoil. Topsoil stockpiles shall be sloped to minimise runoff
and prevent soil erosion and loss.
[CC- 207] Topsoil from the reservoir shall be removed to the extent that may be required for landscaping
and site rehabilitation works.
[CC- 208] Top soil storage areas shall be monitored to ensure there is no compaction, waterlogging,
erosion, damage from vehicle access or growth / spread of alien plants. If necessary, a geotextile shall
be used to cover topsoil stockpiles to protect them from wind or water erosion.
Storm-water Drainage
[CC- 209] The gradient of sites shall allow the collection and drainage of rainwater from the entire
surface area to one or several discharge points. No pools of water should be created. The Pollution
Prevention and Control Plan (See section 11.4.4.1) shall include water run-off and siltation issues and
prevention through the creation of stabilised embankments; use of silt fences (see below) and
geotextiles; and measures to restrict water velocity in drainage channels.
[CC- 210] The drainage network is to be inspected regularly against damage caused by scouring, gullying
of sediment deposit, channel obstruction and loss of vegetation cover.
[CC- 211] Rainwater from vehicle parking areas, machinery areas and workshops shall be subject to
treatment with oil separators.
Silt Fences
[CC- 212] The Contractor shall install silt fences to slow the flow of water and control sediment transport
during road construction works and at the boundaries of the main excavations. Silt fences shall be
required for lands with (i) a gradient of more than 20%, (ii) where land is disturbed by the Works and
exposed to sheet erosion, and (iii) the surfaces are susceptible to silt erosion.

[CC- 213] Silt fences shall be installed on the slope or at the base of the slope to protect the natural
drainage system from sediment accumulation at levels higher than the natural situation. These barriers
shall comply with the following principles:
• Made with geotextiles or straw bales or any other means approved by TANESCO.
• Silt fences are installed following contour lines.
• Deployed before the start of the Works and removal of topsoil. Silt fences can be used for the physical
demarcation of working areas.
• Installed, cleaned, maintained and replaced according to manufacturer recommendations.
• Drainage surface area does not exceed 1,000 m² per 30 m of barrier. The length of the slope behind
the barrier is less than 30 m, and is not used for flows in excess of 30 l/s.
• The extremities of the fence are directed up the slope.
• Supporting posts must not be more than 2 m apart and must be sunk at least 75 cm into the ground.
• Along the length of the fence, upstream of the posts, a 20 cm wide trench 30 cm deep is excavated to
bury the bottom part of the geotextile used for the fence. It must follow the sides of the trench, and
must permit an 80 cm width of the geotextile to be buried.
• If a large amount of sediment accumulates, the bottom part of the fence must be reinforced by a grille
which must also be partly buried.
• The fence is inspected every week and the sediment is removed when it reaches 1/3 of the height of
the fence.
Erosion Control on Steep Slopes
[CC- 214] Erosion control on steep slopes subject to gully erosion shall be carried out by appropriate
erosion control best industry practices. This issue is frequently observed along slopes of major
excavations or spoil areas. These measures shall rely on (i) storm-water control design (peripheral
drainage), (ii) design of the slope (including berms), (iii) run-off control by revegetation and (iv)
stabilisation of sensitive areas by hard engineering methods.
[CC- 215] Erosion control techniques to be considered shall be fully described in the Soil, Slope Stability
and Erosion Control Plan, to be prepared by the Contractor and approved by TANESCO, which will include
both temporary and permanent erosion control measures.
[CC- 216] The effectiveness of erosion control measures will be the subject of a monitoring programme.
Universal Soil Loss equation assessment may be used as a means of quantification.
In-River Works
[CC- 217] In-river construction works are to be planned by the Contractor in order to avoid major
discharge of sediments or pollution in the river stream to the extent practicable.
[CC- 218] No unnecessary infrastructure or activities shall be permitted within 60m of a water course.
[CC- 219] The Contractor shall detail its methodology regarding sedimentation control in the E&S
procedures for (i) river diversion works, (ii) dam site and cofferdam construction (iii) tailrace channel and
(iv) any other in-river works.
[CC- 220] Biodegradable oils are to be used in plant and equipment operating in watercourses.

Materials Management & Spoil Disposal Management
General principles
[CC- 221] Material excavated at the Site will be re-used as far as their geotechnical properties allow as
construction material (after screening or for unselected fill material) in order to minimize the volume
being disposed. The issues here shall be dealt with in the Material Handling and Storage Management
Plan.
[CC- 222] Spoil generated will be classified according to its geotechnical characteristics and engineering
properties.
[CC- 223] It is the responsibility of the Contractor to determine if the chemical and geotechnical
properties of excavated material meet relevant specifications for future end use such that they do not
cause harm to human health or the environment. This includes the effect that the excavated materials
may have on the environment where they are to be reused. Biological factors e.g. presence of invasive
species or noxious weeds, as well as the effects of any radioactivity should also be considered. Measures
based on a suitable risk assessment should be taken such that there is no adverse effect or risk to
humans, animals, or ecosystems. This includes impacts on water, air, plants or other soils.
[CC- 224] The contamination of groundwater shall be prevented and considered in executing the spoil
disposal. Groundwater protection is to be considered in the Material Management Plan and all the related
Project decisions made regarding the suitability for the reuse of the excavated soils and materials.
Materials Management Plan
[CC- 225] The Contractor shall prepare and submit a Materials Management Plan that documents how
excavated soils and materials are to be handled. This Plan, subject to formal amendments, must be
implemented throughout the execution of the Project.
[CC- 226] The Contractor shall prepare and attach to the Materials Management Plan:
• A materials flow chart showing the origin and final destination of materials (top soil, sand, aggregates,
rocks, quarry run, spoil) used during the Works. Consolidation/compaction must be considered in the
mass balance calculations.
• A location plan for the sites and a plan of the sites which identifies where different materials are to be
excavated from, stockpile locations (if applicable), where materials are to be treated (if applicable) and
where materials are to be reused.
• A schematic of proposed materials movement and an estimate of the Project traffic generated by the
movements from source to destination, during daily and night time.
• The materials flow chart shall highlight what are the quantities of top soil required for the
reinstatement of temporary facilities at end of the construction period, and from what site this top soil
will be taken for the reinstatement work.
[CC- 227] The Materials Management Plan must be prepared and submitted prior to movement of
excavated soils and materials, and provides the following information:
• Details of Contractor’s Personnel involved with implementation of the Materials Management Plan.
• Description of the excavated materials in terms of potential reuses and relative quantities involved by
categories of materials, with a breakdown for each site.
• Specification for use of materials against which proposed materials will be assessed based on an
appropriate risk evaluation or risk assessment at the place excavated materials will be used.
• Where and, if appropriate, how excavated materials will be stored or temporarily stockpiled for reuse.
• The intended final destination and reuse of excavated soils and materials, with clear distinction
between (i) excavated soil and materials reused for construction purposes and (ii) excavated soils and
material that is surplus to requirements or unsuitable for reuse in fill and embankments.
• How excavated soils and materials are to be tracked to monitor materials movements, including
include transfer of loads on Site into stockpiles awaiting use (as appropriate) and final placement.

• The contingency arrangements that must be put in place.
[CC- 228] Shortage of top soil must be anticipated for the reinstatement of temporary facilities. The
Material Flow Chart will indicate how the top soil and vegetation taken from the reservoir areas below
full supply level and from the other material storage areas will be re-used to rehabilitate temporary
facilities outside of the reservoir areas.
Spoil Disposal Management Plan
[CC- 229] Spoil is defined as any earthen material that is surplus to requirements or unsuitable for reuse
in fill and embankments (such as unsuitable rock and soil material) or material that represents a
geochemistry hazard.
[CC- 230] The Contractor shall prepare and implement a Spoil Disposal Management Plan, as part of the
CESMP, that details all measures the Contractor will implement during the Works to minimize the
footprint, adverse socio-economic impacts and ecological effects, and to ensure long-term stability and
control erosion while stockpiling the material excavated from the Site.
[CC- 231] The Spoil Disposal Management Plan shall cover the Works but be prepared and implemented
for each of the four main work areas (UNK dam area, LNK dam area, LNK powerhouse/penstock area and
Namakhvani-Alpana road area). It shall cover the management of all spoil generated on the Works.
[CC- 232] The plan shall include the following:
• Spoil types.
• Spoil strategy to: (a) Minimize the amount of spoil generated, (b) Maximise the beneficial reuse of spoil
on Site and off Site based on its classification, (c) Manage the excavation, storage, transport reuse and
disposal of spoil to minimise impacts and meet other environmental or social requirements.
• Spoil generating activities.
• Volumes and sources of spoil per work area.
• Spoil classification, e.g. virgin excavated natural material, inert fill, potentially contaminated material.
• Locations of spoil disposal, off Site storage and re-use sites.
• Transportation of spoil.
• Storage of spoil.
• Potential E&S adverse impacts.
• Management measures and mitigation strategies.
• Long-term maintenance requirements.
[CC- 233] For each proposed Spoil Disposal Area, the Contractor shall perform the required site
investigations and engineering studies demonstrating:
• Mass stability and prevention of mass movement during and after construction.
• Drainage control to ensure safe transfer of flood waters.
• Maintaining of river or streams flood capacity.
• Toe reinforcement and angle of slope for each material type.
[CC- 234] The spoil disposal area design must be in accordance with Tanzanian requirements and
approval from the government must be received prior to the start of disposal activities.
[CC- 235] The Site rehabilitation and revegetation activities of spoil areas will also need to align with
spoil permit requirements in Tanzania and Lenders E&S policies

Non-Waste Spoil
[CC- 236] Subject to the Environmental Permit conditions, disused quarry areas and borrow areas shall
be filled in with excavated material to minimize the opening of new areas for disposal purposes.
[CC- 237] Before starting operation on the disposal area, a site drainage system shall be put in place that
satisfies the requirements in the Contract.
[CC- 238] Unless instructed otherwise by TANESCO, to ensure stability and resistance to rainwater runoff
erosion, spoils disposal areas shall not exceed a height of 6 m, with a maximum slope of 3:2 (H:V). The
slope is to be intercepted at a height of 3 m by a berm at least 2 m wide with a peripheral drainage ditch
and also header drains where appropriate.
[CC- 239] For permanent spoils disposal areas, the stockpile is to be shaped and compacted every 30 cm
to ensure long-term stability. Should such stable dispositions not be satisfied by the Contractor for any
technical reason (for example limited availability of land), the Contractor shall produce a complete design
of the spoil disposal supported by appropriate method statement related to drainage, slope stability,
spoils compaction, and ultimate reinstatement and revegetation and obtain the approval of TANESCO
prior to any works on the spoil disposal area.
[CC- 240] The drainage system shall be lined (rockfill, concrete) at all points where run-off will
concentrate and along vertical ditches. Culverts shall be designed through spoil disposal areas where
necessary and open culverts shall be considered where there is a risk of blockage. If closed culverts are
used these shall be subject to regular maintenance.
[CC- 241] The slopes of any permanent spoil disposal shall be vegetated in parallel with the progress of
the disposal. For example, when constructing the first berm, the slope between ground level and this
first berm shall be immediately covered by preserved topsoil to favour natural vegetation of the slope.
[CC- 242] Temporary disposal areas in place for more than 60 days are to be protected against runoff
erosion by (i) revegetation using fast growing grass species, either by direct seeding or by hydro-seeding,
or (ii) using other natural anti-erosion cover, such as geo-jute matting, with prior approval from
TANESCO. Geo-jute is preferable as an anti-erosion measure.
Treatment Prior to Reuse
[CC- 243] Other excavated materials may not have the required characteristics for reuse without first
being treated. These excavated soils and materials may require further biological, chemical, physical or
combination of these treatments that will need to be carried out. These treatment activities should be
technically appropriate and in compliance with any required local regulatory requirements or approvals
prior to reuse or final disposal.
[CC- 244] Sludge from sediment ponds needed to treat tunnel waters may fall into this category. These
ponds will generate large quantities of very fine sediments which are likely be mixed with concrete
waters. Any proposed disposal of sediment pond sludge will have to be approved by TANESCO prior to
disposal.
Atmospheric Emissions and Dust
Air Quality and Emissions Plan
[CC- 245] Emissions refer to any discharge into the air of solid substances, aerosols, gases, radiation, or
energy, whether point sources (e.g. incineration stack) or diffuse (e.g. fugitive dust emissions from road
used by trucks).

[CC- 246] The Contractor shall prepare and implement an Air Quality and Emissions Management Plan as
part of the CESMP. The plan shall detail measures the Contractor will implement during the Works to
identify and manage the source of air emissions and dust production resulting from the construction
activities including, but not limited to, traffic along the access roads. The plan will also include specific
measures for the reduction of the greenhouse gas emissions in compliance with the Lenders E&S
standards and proportionate to the potential impacts referring to greenhouse gas emissions.
[CC- 247] The Contractor shall use Equipment and adopt construction and transport methods with
atmospheric emissions that are not in excess of the threshold emission values specified in Tanzanian
Law or the IFC Environment, Health and Safety Guidelines, whichever is the most stringent.
[CC- 248] The Contractor shall document the maintenance records for the Contractor’s Equipment. The
records will be in English and will be at the disposal of TANESCO. The fleet of vehicles or equipment
emitting combustion gases shall be maintained at the intervals and according to the methods specified
by the manufacturer.
Dust-reduction measures
[CC- 249] The Contractor shall implement dust-reduction measures on the Site and along roads used by
Project vehicles.
[CC- 250] On unpaved roads used by the Contractor’s Equipment:
• The Contractor shall take action to abate fugitive dust emissions generated by vehicles or mobile
equipment in residential areas, beekeeping areas, vineyards / crops located adjacent to roads, and on
roads within the Site.
• The abatement measures shall include, but are not limited to: (i) the regular spray of water or any
other non-hazardous dust suppression agents to maintain humidity of the road and the cohesion of
fine particles; (ii) Reduction of vehicle speed in and near sensitive receptor areas; (iii) Covering loaded
haulage lorries; (iv) Use of magnesium chloride on the road.
[CC- 251] The Contractor shall describe in the CESMP the road sections designated for the application of
dust suppression measures and the methods and frequencies programmed.
[CC- 252] When storage, transport and handling of bulk materials are in the open air and exposed to the
wind, the Contractor shall implement the necessary dust abatement measures, including one or several
of the following techniques: humidification of the surface, covering of the surface, and/or vegetation of
the surface.
[CC- 253] Used engine oil for dust abatement on non-surfaced roads is strictly forbidden.
[CC- 254] Dust emission is to be monitored by the Contractor on a regular basis within the Works and
along sensitive sections of roads in accordance with the Contract.
[CC- 218] The Employer shall consult with the local community, with the involvement of the Contractor,
to arrange for temporary relocation of beehives that are at risk from fugitive dust

Noise and Vibration
Noise & Vibration Control Plan
[CC- 255] The Contractor shall prepare and implement a Noise & Vibration Control Plan as part of the
CESMP.
[CC- 256] The Contractor shall use Equipment and adopt construction and transport methods so as not
to generate noise levels in excess of threshold values recommended by the Tanzanian regulations and
World Health Organization.
Noise & Vibration Control During Construction
[CC- 257] Where communities are located close to worksites, camps, access roads and public roads
affected by construction traffic, the Contractor shall study, propose, implement and monitor the
efficiency of, all reasonable and practicable measures to minimize noise resulting from the activity and to
minimize the acoustic nuisances to adjacent households during day and night.
[CC- 258] Noise barriers or acoustic shields shall be considered if Works are close to sensitive receptors.
[CC- 259] If and when required by TANESCO, the Contractor shall provide all details on noise-generating
equipment and facilities planned to be used or installed in the Works during the construction period and
the operation phase. For the construction period, this includes all Plant and Equipment to be used during
the Works.
[CC- 260] Noise-intensive works such as piling, demolition, metalworking, and blasting (in quarries) will
not be undertaken at night
[CC- 261] The Contractor shall monitor the vibration level at buildings nearest to the Works during
activities which could generate offset vibration effects. The Contractor shall prepare a pre-construction
condition survey for all buildings located within 1 kilometre of any blasting activities. The condition
survey will be used to assess the effect of blasting on structures and the scope of any remediation works
necessary to repair the effects of blasting.
[CC- 262] The Works noise levels shall comply with local and international norms and standards and
must under no circumstances expose anyone to intensities higher than 80 dBA without proper ear
protection.

Quarry and Borrow Area Management
Quarry and Borrow Area Management Plan
[CC- 263] The Contractor shall prepare and implement a Quarry and Borrow Area Management Plan for
areas to be exploited for rockfill material, aggregates and rip rap material as well as for the other borrow
area (sand, gravel, laterite clay) that details all the E&S measures to be implemented for the operation of
these sites.
[CC- 264] For each quarry and borrow area site, the Quarry and Borrow Area Management Plan shall
include the following considerations:
• A plan showing the extent to the area to be developed.
• A method statement defining the proposed working methods.
• The proposed access and haulage routes between the quarry/borrow area and the destination for the
extracted material.
• A justification for the quantities of material to be extracted, an estimate of the waste materials to be
generated and disposal details for such waste materials.
• Details of the measures taken to minimize the quarry area and its visual impact on the surrounding
area.
• Details of the measures to be taken for the long-term reinstatement of the quarry and borrow areas.
These shall include re-establishment of vegetation, restoration of natural water courses, avoidance of
flooding of the excavated areas, achievement of stable slopes, and avoidance of features which would
otherwise constitute a risk to health and safety or a source of environmental pollution.
• Measures which are recommended to minimize the significance of each identified impact.
• Quarry faces and excavations shall be made safe and buildings, plant, equipment and debris and
miscellaneous stockpiles of material shall be removed from the areas.
• Contour and level quarry surfaces to prevent ponding of water to reduce risk of drowning and water
borne disease.
Principles
[CC- 265] In order to avoid damages to habitats and reduce landscape effects, the Contractor will make
all efforts, and document these efforts, to avoid and if not possible to minimize, encroachment of the
quarry and borrow areas above the two reservoir full supply levels.
[CC- 266] Materials, other than waste materials, extracted from quarrying operations under the Project
shall be used exclusively for the Works.

Site reinstatement
Site Reinstatement Plan
[CC- 267] Unless instructed otherwise by TANESCO, the Contractor shall reinstate all areas disturbed by
the Works, prior to the issuance of the Taking-Over Certificate.
[CC- 268] The Contractor shall prepare and implement a Site Reinstatement Plan as part of the CESMP.
General Principles
[CC- 269] All Temporary Works are to be removed unless instructed otherwise by TANESCO.
[CC- 270] After removal of buildings, structures and rubble, the Contractor shall return the Site to the
original or better condition, according to the following provisions:
• A detailed survey of the Site is carried out before any earthworks commence. This survey must record
all details of the Site that will need to be restored, including landscape configuration, vegetation
mapping of the areas to be lost and characterising them with a floristic species list with abundances,
as they will have to be restored post-construction.
• Land is contoured to ensure that run-off water drains without eroding soil or stagnating in pools.
Unless instructed otherwise by TANESCO, the gradients of restored sites (including access roads used
for construction) must be similar to the adjacent undisturbed land.
• Reinstated sites do not represent hazards for people: Areas near steep drops are indicated with
permanent signs; Holes are refilled; Sharp or unstable items are rendered inoffensive; Reinforced steel
bars which are protruding and no longer needed for construction are removed.
[CC- 271] Public roads that have been damaged by the Project trucks, which are not flooded by the
reservoir, not relocated or renovated by the Project, will be repaired and improved post construction.
Landscaping and Revegetation
[CC- 272] The Contractor shall undertake landscaping and revegetation of areas disturbed by the Works
including power station sites, road excavation and fill slopes, and Temporary Works.
[CC- 273] Reinstatement work shall be in two parts:
• Technical reinstatement, involving landscaping, slope modelling, decompaction, terracing, permanent
erosion control and drainage schemes.
• Biological reinstatement which involves the spreading of topsoil and seeding/planting the area
appropriately.
[CC- 274] Topsoil and soft biomass set aside from the reservoir area during initial earthworks shall be
re-used for rehabilitation of construction sites located outside the reservoir area.
[CC- 275] Topsoil set aside during initial earthworks shall be evenly spread over areas which have been
levelled or where ruts have been cut into compacted areas. The surface of compacted soils on Worksites
is to be loosened by scarifying (using rakes or other acceptable methods).
[CC- 276] Revegetation works shall be planned in advance to ensure sustainable reinstatement and
described accordingly in the CESMP: methods, plant species to be used and their origins, activity
schedule.
[CC- 277] Prior approval by TANESCO is required regarding the origin of seeds and plants proposed by
the Contractor. The species used for revegetation must be of local provenance and suitable for the local
environmental and climatic conditions, and selected according to the specific rehabilitation programme:
stabilisation of backfill, landscaping, drainage, prevention of erosion.

[CC- 278] In the Temporary Works areas, excluding dam access roads, spoil disposal areas, borrow areas
and quarry areas, the Contractor shall replace removed woodland with similar species of tree, if
practicable, but otherwise it shall revegetate suitable for pasture land grass.
[CC- 279] Trees planted shall be two year old pot grown trees procured in Tanzania.
[CC- 280] Land which was not woodland, including spoil disposal areas, borrow areas, and quarry areas,
prior to the Works shall be revegetated suitable for pasture land grass. Revegetation is not required for
areas below reservoir or in river areas.
[CC- 281] A stabilization matrix such as geo-jute shall be installed by the Contactor prior to seeding with
pasture species or hay shall collected and spread on the ground.
[CC- 282] The Contractor shall demonstrate that the species selected for revegetation are not classified
as invasive species for the local region, in compliance with national invasive species list, as applicable.
[CC- 283] Revegetation shall be undertaken throughout the duration of the Works, and is not limited to
the reinstatement of Works areas at the end of the Works.
[CC- 284] Biological reinstatement shall be subject to a detailed monitoring programme that records the
effectiveness of vegetation establishment.
[CC- 285] The measures under this Section 11.4.13.3 apply to the side casting of spoil material
generated during the excavation works if side-casting has been authorized by TANESCO.

Cultural Heritage & Chance Find Procedure
[CC- 286] Chance find is defined as physical cultural heritage encountered unexpectedly during the
Works.
[CC- 287] The Contractor shall prepare and implement a Cultural Heritage and Chance Finds Procedure
as part of the CESMP. Such chance finds procedure shall include notification of relevant Tanzanian
competent bodies of found objects or sites:
• Alerting Project Personnel to the possibility of chance finds being discovered.
• Securing the area of finds to avoid any further disturbance or destruction.
• Reporting to TANESCO.
[CC- 288] The Contactor shall not disturb any chance finds until an assessment by a designated and
qualified specialist is made and actions consistent with Tanzanian legislation are identified.
[CC- 289] The Contractor shall train the relevant Personnel on the Cultural Heritage and Chance Finds
Procedure and document the participation to this training. Training is to be carried out by the
Contractor’s archaeologist.
[CC- 290] The Contractor shall define who will be responsible for monitoring excavations at all Works
sites in order to determine who needs to be trained to this Procedure, and document this measure.
[CC- 291] A qualified archaeologist shall be present during all top soil removal activity.
[CC- 292] The E&S Manager shall observe all trained staff after the training to ensure that they are
complying with the procedures. An electronic log is to be kept by the archaeologist for all excavations
signing off that no finds were identified.
[CC- 293] All cultural heritage elements located adjacent to a construction site or the external
boundaries of the future reservoir (within 30 m), will be protected from potential damages due to
construction methods.
[CC- 294] Commitment to not block accesses to places of worship throughout the construction phase as
much as possible, taking into consideration safety issues.
[CC- 295] Provide alternative access whenever possible to upland places of worship where current
access cannot be maintained for safety reasons
Community Grievance
[CC- 296] The Contractor shall use the Community Grievance Procedure as set up by TANESCO (see
Section 11.5.12.3). This is designed to record all grievances coming from local communities and other
stakeholders (not Workers, whose grievances are managed in a separate system).
[CC- 297] TANESCO shall decide whether the resolution of the grievance is the responsibility of the
Contractor or Employer.
[CC- 298] Contractor shall maintain a register – Compensation Register – which records the amount of
compensation spent for grievance resolution.

Land acquisition
[CC- 299] The Contractor is responsible in defining land requirements on time and with appropriate level
of detail to allow land registration and land acquisition by TANESCO.
[CC- 300] The Contractor shall not utilize land without following TANESCO procedure for land acquisition.

Traffic
Traffic Management Plan
[CC- 301] The Contractor shall prepare and implement a Traffic Management Plan as part of the CESMP.
The Contractor shall define the characteristics of all the Contractor’s Equipment, and identify the main
movements envisaged, in the CESMP.
[CC- 302] The Contractor shall perform a pre-condition survey and video of all roads, comprising those
from Bukoba to the Site, to be used before the start of any Works, including above ground crossing of
utilities and culverts.
[CC- 303] The pre-condition survey shall be signed-off by the or other relevant authority as directed by
the Employer, prior to Works commencing.
[CC- 304] The Contractor shall include the itineraries used by the Contractor’s Equipment during transit
through Bukoba and between the different Sites for information of TANESCO and the Contractor in
collaboration with the client (TANESCO) should seek permits for transporting abnormal luggage (goods)
from the relevant authorities.
[CC- 305] A swept path analysis is to be performed and available to demonstrate that the planned
itineraries can accommodate the movement of largest and longest vehicles intended to be mobilized by
the Contractor and its Subcontractors, without causing damage to assets and property, particularly for
sites where room for vehicle manoeuvres is limited such as crossing of villages.
Public Information on Project Traffic
[CC- 306] The Contractor shall inform the administrative authorities of areas crossed by the Contractor’s
vehicles, of the itinerary and characteristics (frequency of passing, size and weight of trucks, materials
carried) of the Contractor's fleet of vehicles.
[CC- 307] The Contractor shall establish and document a procedure to avoid obstruction of local traffic
due to Project vehicles during normal operations and in case of accident or heavy vehicle breakdown.
[CC- 308] Announcement to the community will be made in advance of heavy and wide loads convoys
following a procedure (method of information, target groups, timing) to be approved by the Employer.
Traffic Safety
[CC- 309] The Contractor shall take action to limit and check the speed of all the Contractor’s Equipment.
[CC- 310] The maximum speed of the Contractor’s Equipment shall comply with the lowest of the
following: the speed limit defined according to the country regulations or the following limit:
• 30 km/h within the Site and in villages or hamlets.
• 80 km/h on unpaved roads outside of towns, villages, hamlets and camps.
[CC- 311] Actual speed limit should be adopted in accordance to local road conditions (including sensitive
community areas) but which does not exceed the above-stated values. The Contractor shall identify
speed limits along roads to be used including lower limits for sensitive areas (e.g. close to schools).
[CC- 312] Actions to limit and check the speed of all vehicles and machinery used to execute the works
will be implemented, including on-board GPS trackers. Traffic marshals will be affected at key locations
in the villages.
[CC- 313] Except for exceptional conditions, heavy vehicles (i.e. with a GVWR of more than 3.5 tons) will
not use public roads at night between 22:00 and 06:00. Project’s heavy vehicles (i.e. with a GVWR of
more than 3.5 tons) will be forbidden to circulate in the villages at times when pupils go to school or
come back from school.

[CC- 314] In coordination with the competent Tanzanian authorities, the Contractor shall provide and
install signs and mirrors (on sharp bends) for the fleet of vehicles along public roads used by the Project,
when public signs and mirrors are inadequate.
[CC- 315] Seat belts shall be worn at all times. Drivers shall not be permitted to use mobile phones while
vehicles are in motion, unless wireless hands free is used in accordance with the law.
[CC- 316] The Contractor shall provide each of its drivers with a map at the appropriate scale of the
roads authorised for the execution of the works, clearly indicating the maximum speeds authorised, and
ensures their understanding.
[CC- 317] Actions to limit and check the speed of all vehicles and machinery used to execute the Works
shall be implemented by the Contractor, including on-board GPS trackers.
[CC- 318] Flag men shall be utilized at key locations in the villages crossed by the Contractor’s
Equipment
[CC- 319] It is strictly prohibited to transport people, animals, equipment or products other than those
associated with the Project, required for the Works, and the management of Sites, on board any of the
Contractor's Equipment.
[CC- 320] The Contractor shall ensure vehicles used to carry materials which could be projected (sand,
crushed material, aggregates, selected materials) on public roads have a means to ensure the material is
contained e.g. covered with a tarpaulin (or similar), not completely filling the vehicles etc.
[CC- 321] There will be zero tolerance for driving under the influence of drink and the Traffic
Management Plan will document the implementation of control measures. Mechanisms to screen drivers
are to be introduced and controls documented.
[CC- 322] The Contractor monitors and documents accident trends and revises its control measures to
reflect trends with objective of reducing the likelihood and consequence/severity of accidents to project
and third party property (including livestock) and people.
[CC- 323] The Contractor shall carry out regular inspections along the roads used by Equipment to
ensure compliance with the Contract. The Contractor shall record these inspections and the results and
transmit a summary of checks carried out for the previous month to TANESCO in the monthly progress
report.

Community Health and Safety
Support to Community Safety Planning
[CC- 324] TANESCO shall be informed of any damage caused to people, or the property of individuals,
within 3 hours of the event, regardless of the value.
[CC- 325] The Contractor shall support TANESCO in the preparation and implementation of a Community
Safety Plan, which shall include regular community meetings on:
• Safety and construction hazards.
• Announcement in advance of heavy construction activities.
• Progress of construction works / construction activities planned.
• Restriction of access to Works sites.
• Awareness campaigns on traffic related risks, including school children.
Support to Community Health Planning
[CC- 326] The presence of Contractor’s Personnel could increase communicable diseases. The
Contractor shall support TANESCO in the preparation and implementation of a Community Health Plan
that governs:
• The coordination with local health authorities.
• Community awareness raising campaigns on health issues via posters, leaflets, through health clinics,
and community meetings.
• The monitoring of implementation of Personnel’s health specifications by Subcontractors.
[CC- 327] The Contractor shall carry out health awareness campaigns and community interactions with
all Personnel.
[CC- 328] Community awareness raising campaigns on health issues shall be implemented with the
medical staff mobilized by the Contractor in camps.
[CC- 329] The Contractor shall plan and implement measures required to minimize light pollution such
as directional floodlights during the Works.
Reservoir Filling Plan
[CC- 330] The Contractor shall prepare and implement a Reservoir Filling Plan one year prior to start of
the filling of the Kakono reservoir, covering a risk and safety analysis, management of vegetation
clearing, the filling and the water level, management of floating debris, monitoring concept and
procedure during the reservoir impounding, detailed operation and procedure of the safety facilities,
reservoir triggered seismicity monitoring and mitigation measures in case of triggered seismicity.
[CC- 331] The Contractor shall, subject to TANESCO approval, install sufficient seismographs to monitor
seismic activities and demonstrate absence of reservoir triggered seismicity during reservoir filling and
the first year of operation.
[CC- 332] The Contractor shall collect and dispose all debris accumulated as a result of the reservoir
impoundments
Access Restrictions
[CC- 333] During the Works, the Contractor shall organize access restrictions and control to working sites
and warning signs for local communities, tourists or crossing of herders and herds.

[CC- 334] During the Works, the Contractor shall organize control of access newly installed by the
Contractor for construction purpose (excluding the public roads rehabilitated or relocated as part of the
Project), preventing use of unauthorized vehicles.
[CC- 335] Access restrictions to riverbed immediately downstream of the dam and the plunge pool and
warnings signs about spillage, risk of fall from height and drowning, are to be installed for the
construction and operation phases.
Maintaining Access
[CC- 336] Safe access to existing trekking trails, pastures, cultivated lands or cemeteries which are away
from the Work areas and which could be blocked by temporary facilities such as construction camp or
site installations will be maintained by the Contractor in consultation with the local communities.
[CC- 337] Where the public could be exposed to danger by any of the Works, the Contractor shall as
appropriate provide suitable flagmen, barriers and/or warning signs in Swahili and English. The
Contractor shall provide alternative safe access routes together with viewpoints and parking areas.
Public Safety Booms, Alarms, and Signage

[CC- 338] The requirements below shall be implemented at the time of impounding the dams, and the
design shall be subject to approval by TANESCO.
[CC- 339] Signage and audible alarms shall be provided by the Contractor to notify the public of potential
hazards at the dam and power station sites. Signage shall be consistent with the recommendations of
the Canadian Dam Association Bulletin “Guidelines for Public Safety Around Dams”, 2011 and shall
comply with relevant regulations in Tanzania.
[CC- 340] A boom shall be installed upstream of the dam to prevent access by boat or swimmers to the
face of the dam, the power intake, and the spillway. Several warning buoys shall be installed along the
boom with warning signs. The boom shall also be designed to retain floating debris. Arrangements shall
be made for removal of debris from the end of the boom.
[CC- 341] Signage shall be used at the booms, at the dam site, in the spillway discharge channel, and in
the powerhouse sites. Signage shall alert the public concerning the site ownership, no-trespass areas,
hazardous zones, and public use areas. Signs shall present a message consistent with the degree of risk
to the public.
[CC- 342] In relation to future management of floating aquatic weeds in the reservoir, design the floating
booms or other containment fences to i) prevent intake of aquatic weeds into turbines; ii) prevent aquatic
weed clogging the area around the fish pass inlet to facilitate dispersal of fish into the reservoir and iii)
divert some floating masses of aquatic weed that enter the reservoir in areas where they can be
mechanically collected.
[CC- 343] Audible alarms shall be provided at the spillways and powerhouse tailrace areas. The alarms
shall provide warnings in advance of any increase in the flow rate from the facilities. The alarms shall be
designed to give an advance warning with a delay period before the start of the flow release.
Flood Management
[CC- 344] The Contractor shall prepare a Flood Management Plan for control and mitigation of the
consequences of floods at the dam site in the event of floods larger than the minimum capacity. The
flood management plan must be consistent with the Emergency Preparedness Plan specified in Section
11.4.18.9. The Contractor may opt to increase the design capacity of the diversion channel and
cofferdams or may opt to use active flood control measures such as sequencing of construction
according to flood seasonality, localized temporary flood diversion works, temporary overtopping of
structures during floods, or other such measures as may be effective to comply with the requirement
[CC- 345] above.

[CC- 345] River flow for the dam site works at the Kakono dam shall be managed using a combination of
diversion channel and cofferdams, which shall be defined on the basis of a minimum flood return period
of 5 years for the annual peak instantaneous flood.
[CC- 346] The Contractor shall design, implement, and operate a flood flow forecast for the river basin to
anticipate high flood events during the construction.
[CC- 347] In the event a flood event is forecast with peak flow at the dam or powerhouse sites greater
than the diversion works design flood criteria, the Contractor shall take actions necessary to minimize
the effect of the flood by raising cofferdams, removal of Goods that could be damaged, or other
appropriate measures prior to and after the onset of the flood peak.
Groundwater Levels
[CC- 348] Groundwater levels used in analysis and design will be based on actual measurements from
boreholes or instruments in the vicinity of the structures.
[CC- 349] Where piezometric levels are anticipated to be affected by construction and future operation
of the Works, seepage analysis shall be performed to determine the appropriate piezometric conditions.
[CC- 350] The description of hydrogeological conditions will include both local and regional
characteristics. In particular, aquifers, their possible interaction, confined/unconfined aquifers and water
barriers as well as the flow conditions and the connection to water at the surface shall be described
(Groundwater levels; Permeability; Type of circulation and type of aquifer; Direction and velocity of water
flow; Hydraulic conductivity; Transmissivity; Water chemistry; Pore pressure, hydraulic head, gradient;
Location of springs and wells with registration of field parameters; Storage capacity of rocks and soils;
Recharge – discharge area, water balance).
Emergency Preparedness Plan
[CC- 351] The Contractor shall prepare and implement an Emergency Response Plan (EPP) as part of the
CESMP.
[CC- 352] The Contractor shall assist TANESCO in conducting the required public consultations on the
EPP during the main Works.
[CC- 353] The EPP will be structured into two sub-plans: (a) EPP during construction for Common
Hazards and Emergency Situations; and (b) EPP during construction for Cofferdam and Dam Break.
A Common Hazards & Emergency Situations
[CC- 354] The EPP for Common Hazards and Emergency Situations during construction will be structured
as such:
• Identification of potential emergencies based on hazard assessment.
• Procedures to respond to the identified emergency situations.
• Procedures to shut down equipment.
• Procedures to contain and limit pollution.
• Procedures for decontamination.
• Procedures for rescue and evacuation, including a designated meeting place outside the facility.
• Location of alarms and schedule of maintenance.
• List and location of Equipment, facilities and Personnel responsible for responding to the emergency
(fire-fighting equipment, spill response equipment, personal protection equipment for the emergency
response teams, first aid kits and stations).
• Protocols for the use of the emergency equipment and facilities.
• Schedule for periodic inspection, testing and maintenance of emergency equipment.
• Clear identification of evacuation routes and meeting points.

• Schedule of trainings (drills), including with local emergency response services (e.g. fire fighters).
• Procedures for emergency drills.
• Emergency contacts and communication protocols, including with affected communities when
necessary, and procedures for interaction with the government authorities.
• Procedures for periodic review and update of emergency response plans.
[CC- 355] The EPP for Common Hazards and Emergency Situations during the Works will be prepared
and submitted to TANESCO for approval not later than four months prior to Commencement Date.
B Cofferdam and dam break during construction
[CC- 356] The EPP for cofferdam and dam break during construction will be structured as such:
• Purpose
• Project information.
• Flood studies and inundation maps.
• Emergency detection, evaluation and classification.
• Notification flowcharts.
• Evacuation table.
• Roles and responsibilities.
• Emergency alert system.

Local Recruitment and Skills Development
[CC- 357] “Local Resident" means a person who is registered as living in Missenyi, Karagwe or Kyerwa
Districts.
[CC- 358] “Local Supplier" means a contractor, licensee, service provider or good manufacturer who is
registered as operating in Missenyi, Karagwe or Kyerwa Districts.
Recruitment Targets
[CC- 359] The Contractor shall ensure that, at any time, that Tanzanian nationals shall comprise more
than 50% of the total working hours by the Contractor.
[CC- 360] The Contractor shall use its reasonable efforts that a minimum of 15 % of the total working
hours of the Local Resident employees shall be women.
[CC- 361] Notwithstanding this obligation [CC- 360], the Contractor shall use its reasonable efforts to
have Tanzanian nationals comprise 75% of the total working hours of all Personnel employed and to
have Local Residents comprise not less than 50% of the total working hours of all Tanzanian Personnel
employed by the Contractor at the Site.
[CC- 362] Definitions of skills/semi-skilled/unskilled labour are as defined by the ILO, described in
ISCO 08 “Volume I - International Standard Classification of Occupation – Structure, group definitions and
correspondence tables”. Definition of the four ISCO Skills levels shall correspond as follows:
• Unskilled occupations = ISCO Skill Level 1
• Semi-skilled occupations = ISCO Skill Level 2
• Skilled occupations = ISCO Skill Level 3 and 4
[CC- 363] The Contractor shall use reasonable efforts to have 100% of the total working hours for
unskilled Personnel be provided by Local Residents. If suitable Personnel are not available, the
recruitment may be extended to the nearest villages and towns of the Kagera region as secondary
catchment areas.
[CC- 364] The Contractor shall target to have 50% of the total working hours of semi-skilled Personnel
be provided by Local Residents.
[CC- 365] The Contractor shall give preference to Tanzanian nationals for skilled Personnel, where
available and subject to suitable qualifications and experience.
Recruitment Policy
[CC- 366] Within 30 days after the start of the Works, the Contractor shall submit a Recruitment Policy,
for acceptance by TANESCO, which describes the Contractor’s recruitment procedures and employment
management systems (the “Recruitment Policy”). The Recruitment Policy shall comply with Tanzanian
legislation and the international guidelines outlined in Section 11.2.2, and based on principles related to
transparency, non-discrimination, fair treatment and equal opportunity.
[CC- 367] No more than 100 Personnel shall be employed or contracted by the Contractor or its
subcontractors at Site without an approved Recruitment Policy in place.
[CC- 368] The content of the Recruitment Policy shall include the following:
• Statement of commitment to meeting Tanzanian Labour Laws (including ILO conventions) and
international guidelines with regards to recruitment and labour management, including non-
discrimination and equal opportunities;
• Description of measures to be implemented by the Contractor to enhance availability of employment
opportunities to Local Residents;

• Description of local recruitment process and job application procedure to be disclosed in Tanzanian
and English;
• Description of measures to ensure transparency of recruitment process and measures to ensure equal
opportunities for all local people subject to appropriate skills;
• Description of measures to encourage women to participate in recruitment opportunities; and
• Description of the disciplinary and dismissal process.
[CC- 369] The Contractor shall advertise all job vacancies locally.
[CC- 370] The Recruitment Policy shall form an integral part of the Contractor’s organization and overall
management system. The structure, responsibility, practices, processes and resources for implementing
recruitment policies, objectives and target shall be coordinated with operations, quality assurance, and
occupational health.
[CC- 371] The Contractor shall not accept from any applicant or Personnel any amount of money or in-
kind gift to secure a job on the Project. The Contractor shall cover all recruitment and processing fees,
costs, and expenses, including those associated with travel for interviews and skill testing or securing
identity cards, police checks, or medical examinations. The Contractor shall not require candidates or
Personnel to participate in any form of forced or mandatory savings in order to recoup employment
costs associated with recruitment or other services.
[CC- 372] The Contractor shall adhere to the requirements of the Labour Code. The Contractor shall be
required to obtain signed consent from a parent or guardian to employ workers who are 16 to 18 years
of age. No worker under 18 years of age shall be involved in any hazardous work. The Contractor shall
maintain records to demonstrate that it has checked the age of its own, and subcontracted employees
demonstrating this commitment is met.
[CC- 373] The Contractor shall require their Subcontractors to adhere to their Recruitment Policy via the
use of contractual clauses.
Local Content Plan
[CC- 374] The Contractor shall prepare and implement a Local Content Plan which details how the
Contractor intend to achieve the objectives and measures specified in this Section 11.4.19, and which
shall detail the following sub-plans: (i) Local employment and training; and (ii) Local Procurement of
goods and Services.
[CC- 375] The detailed Local Employment and Training sub-plan shall include:
• A forecast of the hiring and training needs of the contractor or its subcontractors, which
shall, among others, contain: (i) a specification of the skills needed; (ii) the anticipated
skill shortages in the local resident workforce; (iii) the specific training requirements; and
(iv) the anticipated training program planned, month by month, to maximize the local
residents into the manpower recruited on site. The program shall be open to Personnel
designated by the Contractor but shall not involve fewer than 1,000 persons who shall
receive training as required to suit the Project employment forecast.
• A time frame within which the contractor will provide employment opportunities for the
local residents workforce for all phases of the construction period to enable members of
the local resident workforce be prepared for such opportunities; and
• Efforts made and procedures adopted for the accelerated training of local residents.

[CC- 376] Preference will be given to goods and services provided, manufactured or locally available in in
Missenyi, Karagwe or Kyerwa Districts, otherwise in Tanzania, provided that such goods and services are
of competitive terms and meet standards acceptable by the Tanzania Bureau of Standards or other
acceptable standards as specified in the Technical Specifications.
[CC- 377] The detailed Local Procurement of goods and Services sub-plan shall include:
• A forecast of the goods and services which could be hired locally.
• A time frame within which the contractor will provide purchase opportunities for the local suppliers for
all phases of the construction period to enable operators based in in Missenyi, Karagwe or Kyerwa
Districts to be prepared for such opportunities; and
• Efforts made and procedures adopted to facilitate the identifications and information of local suppliers
about these opportunities.
Recruitment Process
[CC- 378] The Contractor shall develop and provide to TANESCO for approval a description of their
recruitment processes. This process shall be managed by the Contractor’s Employment Services Officer
and linked to the Local Skills Development Programme.
[CC- 379] The recruitment process shall as a minimum have the following steps:
• Initial screening of application against general job requirements based on practical experience and
education;
• Skills assessment and/or interview (skill tests must be directly related to the position and shall be
measurable against objective criteria);

• Employment confirmed via written contract stating working conditions and terms of employment; and
• Induction – this shall be standard company practice and shall be separate to the Local Skills
Development Programme.
[CC- 380] The Contractor shall review all applicants from Local Residents who apply for advertised
positions and where their existing qualifications do not allow for their direct employment, identify their
eligibility to enter into the Local Skills Development Programme.
[CC- 381] One week after the start of the construction works, the Contractor shall establish a local
employment office in in Kyaka and Businde, at locations approved by TANESCO.
[CC- 382] A representative of the Contractor is to be present in these offices at least two mornings each
week, from one week after the start of the construction works to a date approved by TANESCO.
[CC- 383] The Contractor shall provide information on job vacancies with required qualifications,
duration, location etc. as required to allow local employment candidates to submit applications.
[CC- 384] Candidates interested in recruitment shall submit applications to the Employment Services
Officer.
[CC- 385] A transparent screening process shall be implemented by the Contractor to decide whether
applicants are directly employed, invited to participate in the Local Skills Development Programme, or if
they are not eligible for either.
[CC- 386] The screening process shall be similar to that taken for direct recruitment and include
assessment of where people are from (whether they can be considered a Local Resident), their level of
education, any certifications or credentials, and their previous job experience.
[CC- 387] Candidates with certificates shall still have to undergo a skills assessment for job
opportunities. If skills are found to be not up to standard, the candidate may be invited to take part in the
Local Skills Development Programme.

Human Resources Policy
[CC- 388] Within 30 days after the start of the Early Works, the Contractor shall develop and provide to
TANESCO for approval a written policy outlining Personnel employment conditions and rights, Personnel
relationships, conduct, and grievance mechanism (the “Human Resources Policy”). The Human
Resources Policy shall comply with Tanzanian legislation and the international guidelines outlined in
11.2.2. The Contractor shall provide this policy for approval by TANESCO.
[CC- 389] No more than 100 Personnel shall be employed or contracted by the Contractor or its
subcontractors at Site without an approved Human Resources Policy in place.
[CC- 390] The Contractor’s Human Resources Policy shall include the following:
• Entitlement to and payment of wages; permissible wage deductions;
• Payment of wages by electronic bank transfers;
• Methods to limit employee turnover for employees who complete their full contracted period of
employment.;
• Overtime payments; hours of work and any legal maximums;
• Entitlement to leave for holidays, vacation, illness, injury, and maternity and other reasons;
• Entitlement to benefits;
• The Personnels’’ right to form and join workers’ organizations of their choosing without any
interference or employment consequences and to bargain collectively with the Contractor;
• Disciplinary and termination procedures and rights;
• Conditions of work;
• Occupational safety, hygiene and emergency preparedness;
• Non-harassment preventive measures (through policy, monitoring, grievance mechanisms etc),
including sexual harassment and bullying/intimidation.
• Arrangements to provide a safe working environment for women, with adequate segregation/facilities.
• Promotion requirements and procedures;
• Internet usage;
• Alcohol and other substance use;
• Workers code of conduct;
• Template employment contract for Personnel; and
• Workers grievance mechanism.
[CC- 391] The Personnel code of conduct and labour grievance plan shall be displayed clearly at Works
sites in English and Swahili.
[CC- 392] The Contractor shall be responsible for holding a toolbox talk at least every six months on
labour rights, the Project’s commitment to upholding labour rights, the general terms and conditions
reflected in their Human Resource Policy and the labour grievance procedure.
[CC- 393] The Contractor shall provide all Personnel with written contracts, in the chosen language of
the Personnel, with a verbal explanation stating the terms and conditions of service, the voluntary nature
of employment, the freedom to leave (including the appropriate procedures) and any penalties that may
be associated with a departure or cessation of work.
[CC- 394] Direct hire Personnel shall receive standard company induction training and undergo a
probation period as legally required and stated in the written contract.
[CC- 395] The Contractor shall provide all Personnel with a signed certificate at the end of their
employment stating how long they have been employed, what role they have been employed in, and
what training they have received, in English, and/or Swahili as specified by the Personnel.
[CC- 396] Where practicable, the Contractor shall provide transport to employees located along routes
used for transport of camp-resident employees to work sites. Depending on the level of employment
from other villages, the Contractor in good faith may elect to implement additional transport from
collection points where appropriate to mitigate traffic impacts and project-induced in-migration.

[CC- 397] The Contractor shall require their Subcontractors to adhere to their Human Resources Policy
via the use of contractual clauses.
Workers Grievance Mechanism
[CC- 398] Personnel will have a right to be part of a union.

[CC- 399] A Personnel’s grievance mechanism shall be established and defined in the Human Resource
Policy.
[CC- 400] The Personnel’s grievance mechanism shall be explained to Personnel as part of their formal
induction and signage, in English and Swahili, shall be placed in communal areas around Site providing
details of the mechanism and how grievances can be made.
[CC- 401] Personnel shall be able to raise their grievance by referring to a Personnel’s representative or
by filing a form and posting it in the complaint boxes located in key locations across the Site or online,
without fear of reprisal.
[CC- 402] The Contractor shall register and track the grievances in a Personnel’s grievance database. A
formal response to each grievance shall be provided and recorded in the database. The Contractor will
utilise the same online software solution to manage the process as that used by TANESCO.
[CC- 403] A formal response to each grievance shall be provided and recorded in the database. The
Contractor shall transmit the grievance resolution to the Personnel and document the resolution and the
Personnel’s acceptance.
[CC- 404] The Personnel s’ grievance mechanism shall be available to all Personnel, regardless of
whether they are direct employees or employees of subcontractors.
Demobilisation Plan
[CC- 405] Twenty-four months prior to the Commercial Operations Date, the Contractor shall prepare
and submit to TANESCO for approval a Demobilisation Plan to anticipate significant job losses resulting
from the Project’s transition from construction to operation.
[CC- 406] The plan will be prepared and implemented in line with national law and Good International
practice and based on the principles of non‐discrimination, and will reflect the Project’s consultation with
employees and their organizations, and eventually with the appropriate governmental agencies.
[CC- 407] This plan should include:
• The reasons why job losses are necessary;
• The timescale and when notice of employment contract end will be given;
• What jobs are likely to be maintained during the operation phase and how best employees would be
selected for the transition between construction and operation;
• How broader community impact issues are to be addressed; and
• The consultation process proposed with the workforce and the local authorities.
Local Content Performance Report
[CC- 408] The Contractor shall include as part of monthly progress reporting on recruitment the
following information:
• The total working hours of local, national, and international staff employed and their role which is to
be broken down in accordance with skill base;
• Number and level of international posts for which local and national staff are trained and hired;
• Percentage of full time equivalent (FTE) employees in Tanzanian-registered companies who are
national and of that, the percentage of local and/or national staff who are in management or
supervisory positions;

• Number and type of new alliances, partnerships and joint ventures with national firms to execute
contract and transfer technology;
• Number, type and duration of outreach activities and procedures for maximising the direct hiring of
Tanzanian citizens.
[CC- 409] Labour reporting should be disaggregated by age, gender and skill level (See section 11.4.19.1
for definition of skill levels).
(2) A licensee and contractor shall provide to the
Authority, as the case may be a semi-annual report on-
(a) employment and training activities for the
reporting period; and
(b) a comparative analysis of the Employment and
Training Plan with the employment and
training activities undertaken to monitor
compliance.
(3) The semi-annual report referred in
subregulation (2) shall include information from its
subcontractors or any other persons engaged in petroleum
activities.

Workers Health & Safety
Health and Safety Plan
[CC- 410] The Contractor is responsible for the Health and Safety of all persons on the Site and all
appropriate precautions shall be made to prevent accidents and personal injuries. Within 60 days
following the start of the Early Works, the Contractor shall submit a Health and Safety Plan for the
approval of TANESCO which addresses all actions specified in this Section 11.4.20.
[CC- 411] The Contractor shall comply with the Occupational Health and Safety provisions included in the
IFC Environmental, Health, and Safety (EHS) Guidelines. The IFC guideline provisions shall be read as
obligations. Additional requirements are described in the following paragraphs.
[CC- 412] The Contractor shall implement a Health and Safety Policy which shall be in force throughout
the duration of the Contract. The Health and Safety Plan shall include but not be limited to:
• Key Performance Indicators (KPI) for the health and safety program. KPI for safety shall include, but
not be limited to, zero loss of life, zero disabling injuries, and minimization of lost time events.
• The duties of the Safety Officer and his deputy including the proportion of their working time to be
spent on health and safety duties.
• The duties of the Medical Officer in respected of health and safety matters including periodic inspection
of all Work areas.
• Notification, investigation and recording of accidents.
• Arrangements for disseminating information concerning sexually transmitted diseases.
• Code of practice to be used to ensure healthy and safe working conditions and the management of
hazardous conditions.
• The arrangements for disseminating information, training and supervision to Personnel to ensure the
codes of practices are conformed with. This shall include but not be limited to safety rules on Site,
emergency response procedures or evacuation, skills requiring a Permit to Work, first aid training and
transporting the injured.
[CC- 413] The Code of Practice shall be based on a recognised standard and shall be of no less a
standard than that of Safety and Health in Building and Civil Engineering Work of the International Labour
Office (Geneva) and the safety practices prescribed by the International Tunnelling Association (ITA).
[CC- 414] The Contractor shall establish, subject to approval of TANESCO, an effective training program
in health and safety, first aid, and other services required to satisfy his obligations.
[CC- 415] Risks to Project workers from potential natural hazard events such as flood, rockfall, landslide
and seismic events will be minimised at the accommodation camps and work sites. The Contractor will
perform and document a risk assessment which (i) identifies all natural hazards with potential effects on
accommodation camps and work sites, (ii) defines structural and non-structural risk reduction measures
(avoidance, monitoring, protection, emergency response), and (iii) predicts and mitigates where
necessary any potential adverse effects of the proposed risk reduction measures on community.
Construction Camps
[CC- 416] The Contractor shall be responsible for the design, provision, construction, operation, and
maintenance of all accommodation and related facilities required for his labour. Such facilities shall
conform as a minimum with the provisions specified thereafter.
[CC- 417] Contractor’s Personnel not originating from the local communities located in the districts of
Missenyi, Karagwe and Kyerwa shall be accommodated in the Contractor construction camps or other
suitable accommodation.
[CC- 418] The accommodation provided for the Contractor’s Personnel in a camp or an alternative
structure outside of the Works area will comply with the provisions of the 2009 guidance note by IFC and
the EBRD on Workers’ accommodation: processes and standards.

[CC- 419] Unless specified otherwise by TANESCO, Personnel shall be housed in rooms with flooring of a
hard and impervious material. Separate housing facilities shall be provided for male and female
personnel.
[CC- 420] The dedicated area per Personnel shall not be less than 4 m², and the ceiling shall not be lower
than 2.20 m. Each Personnel shall be allocated a closet or locker volume for the storage of personal
belongings.
[CC- 421] A separate bed shall be provided for each Personnel.
[CC- 422] Rooms shall be lit and equipped with power sockets, beds and windows fitted with insect
screens.
[CC- 423] Night-time noise levels to which Personnel are exposed shall comply with the limits
recommended by the World Health Organization.
[CC- 424] Sanitary and toilet facilities shall be designed to provide workers with adequate privacy,
partitions and lockable doors. Sanitary and toilet facilities shall not be shared between men and women.
[CC- 425] Toilet facilities shall be well lit and well ventilated. Each toilet equipped with flush system shall
be connected to an individual or collective wastewater treatment system. Dry pit latrines are prohibited
in the camps.
[CC- 426] On Works areas, the Contractor shall provide the necessary toilet facilities.
[CC- 427] Sanitary areas (all showers, sinks, urinals, toilets etc.) shall be cleaned and disinfected by the
Contractor’s cleaning service at least once every 24 hours. Cleaning operations shall be documented.
[CC- 428] The canteen, kitchen and kitchen utensils shall be cleaned after each meal service.
[CC- 429] Fire extinguishers shall be made available in each building at clearly identified locations, and
fires are strictly forbidden outside of the cooking area.
[CC- 430] The Contractor shall construct and maintain a Personnel’s leisure area in each camp.
Food
[CC- 431] The Contractor shall provide meals in a canteen area and according to a food supply system at
all Works areas.
[CC- 432] Food supplies for the meals of the Contractor’s Personnel shall exclude any meat obtained
from hunting or poaching in Tanzania.
[CC- 433] The Contractor shall define and implement actions to guarantee (i) the quality and quantities
of food, (ii) compliance with health rules when preparing meals, (iii) fitting out and servicing premises and
equipment, both in the kitchen and food storage areas.
[CC- 434] The Contractor shall inspect and document the cleanliness of food transport vehicles,
temperature control and the cold chain, as well as best before dates, and take the necessary corrective
actions. The temperatures of chillers shall be checked regularly.
[CC- 435] The Contractor shall check that health requirements are met for food storage conditions in the
kitchen or other locations, food cooking times and temperatures, and the conditions in which prepared
products are left prior to consumption, to ensure no health risks. Prepared food shall be eaten or thrown
away, no food remains are reused.
[CC- 436] The Contractor shall recruit trained canteen personnel and ensure that supervisors monitor
compliance with sanitary instructions. The Contractor shall ensure that canteen personnel have means of
ensuring compliance with health rules (changing rooms, linen, hand washers, the condition of flooring
and paint, and the existence of a cleaning plan).
[CC- 437] The officer responsible for hygiene shall audit all Works areas every 3 months, and document
the results, to assure hygienic conditions under which meals are prepared and food conserved. The
results of this audit shall be provided to TANESCO.

[CC- 438] The Contractor shall inform the Contractor’s Personnel concerning appropriate behaviour for
workplace hygiene. The Contractor shall regularly reiterate the importance of hygiene, document these
reminders, and ensure that the information is understood, easy to apply and scrupulously complied with.
[CC- 439] The Contractor shall provide three free meals daily to all Personnel accommodated in the
camps or in Contractor arranged accommodation. Food will be culturally appropriate.
[CC- 440] The Contractor shall provide in the canteen camps lunch meals per shift to local employees
who are not accommodated in the camps and who are living in nearby villages.
[CC- 441] Where a catering service is provided, catering staff must be competent and experienced,
medically examined, certified as fit for catering work, and trained in food hygiene.
[CC- 442] Food transport, storage, cooking and waste disposal shall be subject to the approval of the
health authorities and in accordance with the Contractor’s Health and Safety Policy.
[CC- 443] Where Personnel’s own food is consumed, facilities shall be provided for washing hands and
storage of waste or refuse. For Personnel who do not take their meals in a formal canteen on the Site,
the Contractor shall establish adequate and suitably located covered eating facilities, which provide
protection from the elements. Such facilities shall have hardened floors and shall be provided with tables
and seating for the relevant number of people as well as potable water supply, washing facilities, toilets
and sufficient refuse bins in order to maintain the Site in a neat and sanitary condition. Each such facility
shall be properly cleaned after every meal.
Water supply
[CC- 444] The Contractor shall provide, operate and maintain a sufficient potable water supply during the
duration of the Contract to his own facilities. The quality of the potable water shall comply with relevant
World Health Organization (WHO) quality criteria.
[CC- 445] The Contractor shall provide, operate, maintain for the duration of the construction activities
an industrial water supply and distribution network to suit his requirements.
[CC- 446] The Contractor shall arrange his potable and industrial water supply system so as not to
interfere with any other water supply facilities.
[CC- 447] Regardless of the means of supply of drinking water selected and approved, the quality of the
drinking water provided is to be tested on a regular basis.
Sanitation and Cleaning
[CC- 448] The Contractor shall ensure that the Site and all facilities for which he is responsible are
maintained in a clean and sanitary condition at all times. The sanitation services shall comply with the
regulations of the health authorities concerned. They shall also be located conveniently to all points
where the Works is in progress.
[CC- 449] The sanitation services shall include:
• Metal dust bins or equivalent plastic refuse bins with lids shall be provided by the Contractor for all
buildings and refuse shall be collected and removed from all facilities on the Site and Works area
periodically to avoid overflow of waste, but at least twice per week. Refuse from food preparation and
eating areas shall be collected and removed daily.
• Cleaning of streets and of drains shall be carried out sufficiently frequently to maintain the Site and
Works areas in a neat and tidy condition.
• The Contractor shall execute a programme to control the incidence of noxious pests and vermin on the
Site and Works area. Use of residual pesticides will not be accepted.

Health
A First Aid Posts and Ambulances
[CC- 450] Unless instructed otherwise by TANESCO, for Work areas with more than 25 workers present
at any one time and where it is not possible to reach a hospital or a medical clinic within a period of 30
minutes, by land and in normal conditions, the Contractor sets up a first aid post.
[CC- 451] First aid stations at or close to the areas of the Site where most of the Works is being carried
out.
[CC- 452] The first aid posts shall be equipped with medical supplies and staffed during all the Works by
competent medical orderlies who shall have direct phone communication with a medical clinic, and shall
be assisted as required by the Contractor’s Personnel with first aid qualification.
[CC- 453] One ambulance or vehicle accepted as such by the relevant Government Medical Officer of
Health and approved by TANESCO will normally be stationed close to the first aid posts.
B Medical Officers
[CC- 454] The Contractor shall designate one or more qualified medical doctor for each of the UNK and
LNK sites (the “Medical Officers”).
[CC- 411] The Medical Officers shall be qualified medical doctors experienced in construction projects
who will supervise the first aid facilities and manage implementation of the Health and Safety Policy
defined by the Contractor.
[CC- 455] The Medical Officer shall have had at least 5 years professional “hands on” experience for
international site services, be registered as a medical practitioner and be adequately experienced in
medicine, surgery and obstetrics. The qualifications for the Medical Officers shall be from well qualified
and well-recognized institutions.
[CC- 456] The Medical Officer is to be at Site at all times, working full-time during normal day-shift hours.
The Medical Officer is to be on-call when more than 20 workers are working simultaneously outside of
normal day-shift hours.
[CC- 457] The Medical Officer shall be ready to supply medical and surgical services at short notice on
request. The Contractor shall install a means of rapidly summoning the doctors to the site of an accident
or fire.
[CC- 458] Helicopter pads or clear areas shall be provided near the main Works areas and the Contractor
shall make arrangements whenever necessary to transfer serious cases to suitable hospitals or clinics.
C First aid and Rescue Teams
[CC- 459] The Contractor shall provide and maintain adequate boxes of first aid materials together with
stretchers at prominently marked locations within 100 m of each working site on the surface and
underground or as required by TANESCO.
[CC- 460] The Contractor shall institute and operate a basic first aid training programme to ensure that
each foreman or work crew leader is trained in first aid and possesses a recognized certificate to that
effect within 3 months after his/her appointment.
[CC- 461] The Contractor shall make available, train and equip sufficiently suitable experienced workmen
to staff a rescue team for each shift of the works
[CC- 462] At an early stage of the Works, the Contractor shall undertake the organisation, equipping and
training of rescue teams. These teams shall be trained in underground rescue work and general first aid
work and shall be kept to full strength and in an efficient state of training.
[CC- 463] The Contractor shall make arrangements to ensure prompt intervention by the designated

Kakono HPP Environmental and Social Impact Assessment June 2022 Compressed-Compresse

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kakono HPP Environmental and Social Impact Assessment June 2022 Compressed-Compresse

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kakono HPP Environmental and Social Impact Assessment June 2022 Compressed-Compresse

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TANZANIA ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED

Environmental & Social Impact Assessment Report

ISSUE AND REVISION RECORD

1 June 2022 Authorized by TANESCO with D Buffin TANESCO

See Section 2 for authors

Disclosure Authorized - Kakono HPP_ESIA_Section 0_COVER_June 2022

Section 1: Non-Technical Summary

Section 3: Project Description

Section 4: Legal and Institutional Framework

Section 5: Environmental and Social Baseline Data

Disclosure Authorized - Kakono HPP_ESIA_Section 0_COVER_June 2022

5.4 Ecosystem Services

Section 6: Stakeholder Engagement

Section 7: Environmental and Social Impacts & Mitigation Measures

Section 8: Analysis of Alternatives

Section 9: Cost Benefit Analysis

Disclosure Authorized - Kakono HPP_ESIA_Section 0_COVER_June 2022

Section 10: Decommissioning

Section 11: Environmental and Social Management and Monitoring Plan

Section 12: Conclusion

Disclosure Authorized - Kakono HPP_ESIA_Section 0_COVER_June 2022

Abbreviations & Acronyms

Disclosure Authorized - Kakono HPP_ESIA_Section 0_COVER_June 2022

ECO Environmental Compliance Officer

Disclosure Authorized - Kakono HPP_ESIA_Section 0_COVER_June 2022

Disclosure Authorized - Kakono HPP_ESIA_Section 0_COVER_June 2022

SPI Specific Pollution Sensitivity Index

Disclosure Authorized - Kakono HPP_ESIA_Section 0_COVER_June 2022

Disclosure Authorized - Kakono HPP_ESIA_Section 0_COVER_June 2022

DISCLOSURE AUTHORIZED - Kakono HPP_ESIA_Section 1_SUMMARY_June 2022

1.1 Introduction .......................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 Policy, Legal and Administrative Framework .................................... 1-1

1.3 Project Description and Justification.................................................. 1-2

1.4 Description of the Project Environment ............................................ 1-2

1.5 Project Alternatives ............................................................................. 1-6

1.6 Results of Comparison of Alternatives .............................................. 1-7

1.7 Potential Impacts ................................................................................. 1-7

1.8 Mitigation or Enhancement Measures and Complementary Initiatives

1.9 Expected Residual Effects and Environmental Hazard Management

1.10 GHG Assessment and Climate Resilience ....................................... 1-12

1.11 Monitoring Programme .................................................................... 1-13

DISCLOSURE AUTHORIZED - Kakono HPP_ESIA_Section 1_SUMMARY_June 2022

1.12 Public Consultations and Public Disclosure ................................... 1-14

1.13 ESMMP ............................................................................................... 1-15

1.14 Conclusion ......................................................................................... 1-16

1.15 References and Contacts ................................................................. 1-16

DISCLOSURE AUTHORIZED - Kakono HPP_ESIA_Section 1_SUMMARY_June 2022

1.2 Policy, Legal and Administrative Framework

DISCLOSURE AUTHORIZED - Kakono HPP_ESIA_Section 1_SUMMARY_June 2022 page 1-1

1.3 Project Description and Justification

1.4 Description of the Project Environment

DISCLOSURE AUTHORIZED - Kakono HPP_ESIA_Section 1_SUMMARY_June 2022 page 1-2

Figure 1-1 - Project Location

DISCLOSURE AUTHORIZED - Kakono HPP_ESIA_Section 1_SUMMARY_June 2022 page 1-3

DISCLOSURE AUTHORIZED - Kakono HPP_ESIA_Section 1_SUMMARY_June 2022 page 1-4

DISCLOSURE AUTHORIZED - Kakono HPP_ESIA_Section 1_SUMMARY_June 2022 page 1-5

1.5 Project Alternatives

DISCLOSURE AUTHORIZED - Kakono HPP_ESIA_Section 1_SUMMARY_June 2022 page 1-6

1.6 Results of Comparison of Alternatives