Annex A

SAIEA Independent Review

of the Draft EIA Report

This review form provides a structure that helps the reviewers to assess the EIA’s various components in a scientific way. However, the reviewers try at the same time to maintain a perspective of the “bigger picture” so that SAIEA can advise the client on whether the EIA report makes sense as a whole and if the process was conducive for planning. This review form is divided into the following chapters: 1. Methodology utilised in compiling the EIA report 5. Description of impacts 2. Description of the project 6. Consideration of measures to mitigate impacts 3. Assessment of alternatives to the project 7. Non-technical summary 4. Description of the environment 8. General approach

Review methodology: 1. For each question, the reviewer considers whether the information is relevant to the project. If not, the question is

ignored and the reviewer proceeds to the following question. 2. If the information is relevant, that chapter of the EIA report is read to establish whether the information provided is:

• Complete (C) : all information required for decision-making is available. No additional information is required even though more information might exist.

• Acceptable (A) : the information presented is incomplete, but the omissions do not prevent the decision-making process from proceeding

• Inadequate (I) : the information presented contains major omissions. Additional information is necessary before the decision-making process can proceed.

Name of the project Petroleum Exploration License 39 Exploration

Programme (Shell)

Country where the project is to be located Namibia

Name of company which compiled the EIA report ERM

Name of reviewers Dr Peter Tarr

Date of review 26-31 July 2014 Narrative report (reviewers general opinion of the EIA): Introduction By definition, an external review is an independent opinion, offered in good faith and based on the evidence seen. Although SAIEA will not change its opinion as a result of proponent or stakeholder pressure, we are open to correction if we have misunderstood factual content. Review methodology As specified by the review TOR, the review conducted by SAIEA was entirely desk-top. Ideally, a review team needs to attend a number of meetings during the EIA process where Interested and Affected Parties, consultants and the developer

Southern African Institute for Environmental Assessment

(Reg. No. T 117/2002) P.O.Box 6322, Ausspannplatz, Windhoek, Namibia Tel: +264 61 220579 Fax: +264 61 259183 Email : peter.tarr@saiea.com Website: www.saiea.com

SAIEA REVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR SHELL’S OFFSHORE

PETROLEUM EXPLORATION PROGRAMME, LICENCE 39

2

interact with each other. They should occasionally go into the field with the consultants to see first hand how the work is being done and they should have discussions with people from across the decision making spectrum in order to obtain a truly objective opinion about both the process followed and the product that has been produced. It goes without saying that undertaking the above ideal review is time consuming and costly – often prohibitively so. In this case, the review did not include site visits or attendance of stakeholder meetings. Fortunately the reviewer is familiar with the area in general terms, has knowledge of the petroleum industry in a southern African and international context and understands the development needs and socio-economic realities of Namibia. The material provided for this review comprised hard and electronic copies of the EIA report. Review findings: The reviewer is of the opinion that the consultants applied themselves in a professional way and that the standard of their work is acceptable. A considerable amount of work was done in previous EIAs for seismic surveying in this same block in recent years, and a seismic survey was also undertaken on the back of those EIAs. Thus, this EIA is an update of the previous EIAs, and a reasonable effort seems to have been made to ensure comprehensiveness and transparency in the process. Whilst the process during this EIA was shorter than the previous EIAs, it was far more rigorous in terms of content and the level of detail contained in the report. A full Impact Assessment and Scoping process was undertaken, new specialist studies were commissioned and the existing baseline was updated. The stakeholder engagement for the EIA process involved the same initial registration process, in addition to a 21 day draft EIA comment period, which was not done previously. Formal consultations were held with key authorities (i.e. MME and MET). Other key stakeholders were consulted informally. Given the stage of development (i.e. beginning stages of exploration) this level of detail and consultation is deemed necessary.   An extensive survey of the available literature has been made, especially as regards to the impacts of seismic shooting on marine life – this is more comprehensive than similar reports reviewed by SAIEA in recent years. The EIA is logically constructed incorporating adequate details of the proposed project, as complete as can be expected environmental baseline descriptions, and is supported by two specialist studies on the effects of seismic surveys on important biological communities and fisheries operative in the region. The report is generally well written in language that is easy to understand even for a lay-person, it is well illustrated with maps and photographs and it is well structured. Occasional typo’s (see chapter 8.4.3) and incorrect names (e.g. Caprivi Strip, now renamed Zambezi Region – chapter 6.4.2), whilst not detracting from the validity of the report, need to be corrected.

Dr Peter Tarr Executive Director Southern African Institute for Environmental Assessment

3

Summary appraisal of the EIA report Judgment

(C/A/I) Comments

1. Methodology utilised in compiling the EIA report

A Two surveys have been undertaken within PEL39 (in 2012 and 2014 respectively). The 2014 survey was a multi-client survey undertaken by Spectrum which covered blocks 2913A and 2914B, in addition to a number of other petroleum licence areas. The 2012 survey was conducted by Signet and covered PEL 39 licence area only. There was no scoping process involved in either of the previous EIA studies. They were based on a minimalist EIA process largely based on the SA EMPr process. Stakeholder engagement for the previous studies included a 21 day registration and comment period where a background information document was sent to a list of interested and affected parties who were asked to register/comment. At the same time a public announcement calling I&APs to register/comment was also made in two regional newspapers. No consultations/public meetings where held for either of the previous processes. The ERM process was shorter; however far more rigorous in terms of content and the level of detail contained in the report. A full Impact Assessment and Scoping process was undertaken, new specialist studies were commissioned and the existing baseline was updated. The stakeholder engagement for the EIA process involved the same initial registration process, in addition to a 21 day draft EIA comment period, which was not done previously. Formal consultations were held with key authorities (i.e. MME and MET). Other key stakeholders were consulted informally (i.e. MFMR, Kurt Laufer & David Russel). Given the stage of development (i.e. beginning stages of exploration) this level of detail and consultation is deemed necessary.

2. Description of the project

A The project is well enough described, notably the process of seismic shooting. Given the stage of development of the project this is as complete as can reasonably be expected.

3. Assessment of alternatives to the project

A The only logical alternative to the project is the no-project alternative. Few developing countries would pass up the opportunity to develop their natural resources, especially given the current price of petroleum products.

4. Description of the environment

A The environment is reasonably well described, though the report concedes that certain information is inadequate. The description of the marine environment, fishery and socio-economy aspects are particularly good, in spite of lack of specific data on some aspects of the fishery. There are maps and diagrams throughout the report, illustrating various aspects.

5. Description of impacts

A The impacts are reasonably well described in Chapter 8, with table 8.34 being a useful summary.

6. Consideration of measures to mitigate impacts

A Impact mitigation measures have been carefully considered, though some uncertainties inevitably remain. The report correctly emphasizes avoidance before mitigation. There appears to be a need for more detailed discussions with local fishing operators regarding practical impact avoidance and mitigation measures (closer to the time).

7. Non-technical summary

A Well presented and written in layman terms – accessible to decision makers.

8. General approach A The general approach was standard.

4

The overall report is graded as follows: Excellent: The EIA report contains everything required for decision-making on the project. There are no gaps. Good: The EIA report contains most of the information required as far as it is relevant in the particular circumstances of the project; any gaps are relatively minor. Satisfactory: The information presented is not complete; there are significant omissions but in the context of the proposed project, these are not so great as to prevent a decision being made on whether the project should be allowed to proceed.

Inadequate: Some of the information has been provided, but there are major omissions; in the context of the proposed project these must be addressed before a decision on whether the project should be allowed to proceed can be taken. Poor: The information required has not been provided or is far from complete and, in the context of the proposed project, the omissions must be addressed before a decision on whether the project should be allowed to proceed can be taken.

In your opinion : Yes Don’t know No • Did the EIA process include genuine public participation ? • Were the consultants unduly influenced by the proponent or the Authorities ? • Did the EIA report focus on the 5 most important issues? • Is the EIA report of acceptable quality?

• Will the EIA report help to make a more informed decision about the project?

5

1. METHODOLOGY Relevant?

Yes/No Judgment

(C/A/I) Comments

1.1 Does the report clearly explain the methodology used and how these helped to reach the conclusions of the study?

Yes A Methodology is well described in chapter 4 and illustrated in figure 4.1. Methods used to arrive at “significance” ratings are clear. The overall EIA process and the sequence of steps undertaken, is illustrated in figure 1.1

1.2 Does the report indicate what data are inadequate or absent?

Yes A The report notes in a number of places that more data would be useful for assessing impacts – this is probably the case for every EIA conducted in Namibia and all other African countries. However, the implications of insufficient information cannot be regarded as a “show stopper” in this case.

1.3 Did the EIA process include genuine stakeholder consultation ?

Yes A A decision on the level of stakeholder engagement was taken by the consultants and the proponent based on the stage of development, the predicted overall impact of the project (from scoping), and an in depth stakeholder analysis process that was undertaken by ERM on behalf of the client. Taking these factors into account it was decided that the level of stakeholder engagement undertaken was adequate for this project. More rigorous levels of stakeholder engagement will be undertaken should the project ever progress into subsequent stages of development (i.e. exploration drilling).

1.4 If so, were the general public and/or affected communities included in the consultation?

Yes A The stakeholders contacted electronically included all relevant sectors of society, including the general public. Also, newspaper adverts were placed, alerting ‘unknown’ stakeholders to the process.

1.5 Have the views of stakeholders been meaningfully incorporated into the findings of the EIA?

Yes Not yet Stakeholder input was still awaited at the time of the review

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT

Land requirements Relevant? Yes/No

Judgment (C/A/I)

Comments

2.1 Has the land required for the project and any associated services, been described and clearly shown on a scaled map?

Yes A The marine component is well described and illustrated on a map.

2.2 For a linear project, has the land corridor and need for earthworks been described and shown on a scaled map?

No N/A N/A

2.3 Has the re-instatement after No N/A No land-take envisaged

6

use of temporary landtake been described?

Waste and emissions

2.4 Have the types and quantities of waste generated during construction and operation been estimated?

Yes A Waste streams from ship operations have been described and where possible, volumes estimated (see chapter 2.4.3). These are not expected to vary from 'standard' shipping values and are therefore not considered to be environmentally significant (given adherence to conventions such as Marpol etc).

2.5 Have the ways in which these wastes will be handled or treated prior to disposal been explained?

Yes A Waste generated on board the seismic and support vessels will be no different from that generated on board any other vessel of a similar size. The EMP requires the operator to initially retain waste on-board, then bring it to shore where a licensed waste disposal contractor will dispose of it at an approved waste landfill site (either Walvis Bay or Luderitz) and complete a waste log. In addition to this, detailed waste management measures and procedures are contained in the EMP for how waste generated on-board the vessels needs to be collected, handled, treated, stored and disposed of during operations. These requirements are in accordance with relevant international conventions and industry best practice, namely the London Dumping Convention, ÒGP Waste Management Guidelines (No2 58/196, 1993), International Convention for the Protection of Pollution from Ships MARPOL 73/78, Environmental Management Act (Act 7 of 2007) and UNCLOS, 1982 Article 210.

2.6 Has the receiving environment where such waste will be disposed, been identified and described?

Yes A See above. The report states that a waste management service provider will be contracted to manage this. Such contractors are available in Namibia. Chapter 2.4.1 of the report states that “depending on the type of vessel contracted for the survey, certain types of non-hazardous waste may be incinerated on board as is common on many larger vessels”

Project inputs

2.7 Are the nature and quantities of materials needed during construction and operation, clearly indicated?

Yes A The report indicates that virtually all materials needed on the boats and rigs will be brought in with them. These units are generally well equipped and self contained. It notes that some supplies will be sourced from towns along the coast.

2.8 Are the sites where these materials will be sourced from, identified and assessed in terms of impacts, in the EIA report?

Yes A See above

7

2.9 Have the impacts of workers and visitors entering the project site during construction and operation been assessed?

Yes A The report correctly points out that the skills needed to operate the equipment required for seismic shooting are highly specialized and will likely not be sourced locally.

2.10 Have the means of transporting materials, products, workers and visitors to and from the site during construction and operation, been explained?

Yes A Helicopters and supply vessels should operate mainly out of Luderitz (see chapter 2.6.4), but obviously more detailed planning will be done by the operator once the vessel has been contracted. Facilities for supporting this operation are well established in Namibia.

3. ALTERNATIVES Relevant?

Yes/No Judgment

(C/A/I) Comments

Alternatives

3.1 Were alternatives to the project (including the “no-project” alternative) considered in the EIA?

Yes A The only alternative is “no go”, so its obvious that this is not under consideration unless the EIA finds a fatal flaw.

3.2 If alternatives were considered, are the reasons for selecting the proposed project adequately described?

Yes A see above

3.3 Does the EIA assess various “within-project” alternatives (e.g. design, location)

Yes A Most of the mitigation chapter deals with within-project alternatives. As in all mining operations, the location of the project is dictated by the ore-body (in this case, assumed gas/petroleum reserves). The report considers many options for reducing impacts (e.g. soft-starts to seismic shooting, marine mammal observers on-board, etc.). The report also notes that a key strategy for avoiding/reducing conflicts with the fishing industry is choosing a survey period that is least conflicting with peak fishing periods. It is clear that the “window” in this regard is limited as it seems technically unfeasible to conduct seismic surveying during the winter months (due to adverse weather and sea conditions). Chapter 2.1.2 explains that the proposed timing of the survey was influenced by

• Availability of a seismic vessel • Seasonal peak fishery activity • Climate and sea state conditions, and • Peak migration period of whales.

4. DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT

Relevant? Yes/No

Judgment (C/A/I)

Comments

4.1 Have the areas expected to be significantly affected by the various aspects of the project been indicated with the aid of

Yes A Various maps are presented and the affected area is clearly indicated.

8

suitable maps? 4.2 Have the land uses on the

project site(s) and in the surrounding areas been described and their use and non-use values adequately assessed?

Yes A Fishing and maritime traffic are the only commercial activities in the project area, and they are well enough described.

4.3 Have the ecological components of the environment likely to be affected by the project been identified and described sufficiently for the prediction of impacts?

Yes A Chapter 5 is a well written, nicely illustrated, succinct and extensively referenced chapter on the biophysical environment. The description of seamounts is of particular interest given the ecological importance of these areas, and the relative proximity of the Tripp Seamount to the project area.

4.4 Have the social components (including archaeological and historical) of the environment likely to be affected by the project been identified and described sufficiently for the prediction of impacts?

(Yes) A The socio-economic chapter (6) is similarly well put together. The only fault I could find is the reference to NGOs (6.2.3). The only NGO that is really active along the coast is the Coastal Environmental Trust of Namibia (CETN) – not mentioned. None of the others are active (though may be present), whilst IRDNC, NDT and CCF have zero coastal involvement.

4.5 Has the EIA adequately consulted the latest literature and/or unpublished reports and/or data relevant to the study?

Yes A The key relevant/topical literature in the various categories appears to have been reviewed. Also, specialist studies on fisheries and marine ecology were commissioned as part of the EIA to provide updated information.

4.6 Have local, regional and national plans and policies been reviewed in order to place the project into context?

Yes A Laws and policies regulating and guiding offshore hydrocarbon resource development are elaborated in chapter 3 of the report – to a level adequate for the purposes of this EIA.

5. DESCRIPTION OF IMPACTS Relevant?

Yes/No Judgment

(C/A/I) Comments

Impact Identification

5.1 Have direct and indirect/ secondary impacts of constructing, operating and, where relevant, after use or decommissioning of the project been clearly explained (including both positive and negative effects)?

Yes A The narrative descriptions are generally adequate and the criteria central to impact assessment, as set out in chapter 4.5, are clear and systematically applied for each defined impact.

The introductory chapter points out that previous seismic survey work had been done in the same area a few years ago, and that this work was preceded by two EIAs (2011 and 2013), following which clearance was obtained. Apparently a seismic survey was completed ‘without incident’ in 2012.

9

The EIA points out that impacts on the fishing industry, and marine life (notable fish and cetaceans), are the key concerns, together with possible inconvenience to maritime traffic. According to chapter 8.4.2, the survey area overlaps with less than 0.1% of hake-directed fishing grounds, and the timing of the survey is planned to coincide with the closed period for this sector. Positive impacts are not elaborated upon in the EIA report (though indicated in table 0.1), but they are in any case rather self-evident.

5.2 Is the investigation of each type of impact appropriate to its importance for the decision, avoiding unnecessary information and concentrating mainly on the 5 key issues?

Yes A The focus of the EIA is correctly on the major direct and indirect socio-economic issues (e.g. commercial fishing), the direct effects on important habitats in the project area and associated biological communities and key species.

5.3 Are cumulative impacts considered?

Yes A Chapter 8.8 deals with cumulative impacts, and points out that the seismic surveying, commercial shipping and fishing boats all ply the same waters, thus the noise from their engines would obviously combine to increase noise levels in the ocean. There are no background data on this issue, but once the survey is over, there is one less noise contributor in the area. The report also suggests that species sensitive to noise generally move away during the times when noise is at its worst. No other significant cumulative impacts are noted.

5.4 Are transboundary impacts considered?

Yes A Trans-boundary effects are not mentioned specifically, but it stands to reason that the cumulative impacts noted above will to some extent be transboundary, though not significant in this phase of the project.

5.5 Has consideration been given to impacts which might arise from non-standard operating conditions, (i.e. equipment failure or unusual environmental conditions such as flooding), accidents and emergencies? (i.e. risk assessment)

Yes A Chapter 8.6.1 in the report addresses this issue. The chapter rightly emphasizes that accidental oil spills or discharges are rare events in seismic survey operations. The chapter also lists the receptors sensitive to oil spills.

Magnitude and significance of Impacts

5.6 Has the timescale over which the effects will occur been predicted such that it is clear whether impacts are short, medium or long term,

Yes A In all cases, the timescale that impacts are likely to be felt, has been indicated.

10

temporary or permanent, reversible or irreversible?

5.7 Does the EIA give a clear indication of which impacts may be significant and which may not?

Yes A For each impact, significance is estimated in both pre-and post-mitigation scenarios. The impacts are clearly presented in narrative and tabular form, and nicely summarized in table 8.1.

5.8 Have the magnitude, location and duration of the impact been discussed in the context of the value, sensitivity and rarity of the resource or environment?

Yes A As above. Important to note is that the Area of Influence (AOI) is defined as not only the survey area, but also the survey vessel mobilization routes from the ports of Walvis Bay and Luderitz (see chapter 4.3)

6. MITIGATION Relevant?

Yes/No Judgment

(C/A/I) Comments

Description of mitigation measures

6.1 Has the mitigation of negative impacts been considered and, where feasible, have specific measures been proposed to address each impact?

Yes A Each negative impact rated as medium significance or higher has associated mitigation measures. Where no practical mitigation is possible in terms of normal operations the EIA recommends avoidance. This is sufficiently cautious. The EIA shows that the literature is not conclusive in its knowledge about the response of marine life to seismic surveying. Chapter 2.5.1 of the report states that Shell will follow the 2010 UK Joint Nature Conservation Guidelines for the operation of Seismic Surveys as well as the 2013 New Zealand code of conduct for seismic surveys. The report also suggests (chapter 3.6) that the contractor must be required to be a member of the International Association of Geophysical Contractors (IAGC), which sets stringent professional standards. These are all excellent benchmarks, and Shell must ensure adherence to these in its operation.

6.2 Is it clear to what extent the mitigation methods are likely to be effective?

Yes A Most of the mitigation is aimed at avoiding the impact, e.g. surveying in the October-November window to reduce clashes with the fishing industry and to avoid peak cetacean migration periods. In almost all other mitigation measures, there is some comment on the likely effectiveness of the measures – e.g. soft starts, chasing away mammals in the area, etc. are reasonably common during seismic operations. The issue of mitigating social impacts requires continuous consultations with affected

11

communities (fishermen and maritime officials) closer to the time so that there can be agreement on measures to be implemented.

6.3 Has the EIA report clearly explained what the costs of mitigation are likely to be, and compared these to the benefits (including the costs of non-mitigation)?

Yes I There is no such cost/benefit analysis, but it is very unusual in EIAs to have this. The absence of such an analysis has no bearing on the extent to which the EIA informs decision making. Moreover, cost/benefit analysis of the proposed mitigations measures would not be applicable to this type of activity. The measures proposed are in some cases required under regulation and in others industry standards that Shell has chosen to adopt. The cost is considered in the overall project cost and Shell is committed to implementing them.

6.4 Have details of how the mitigation will be implemented and function over the time span for which they are necessary, been presented?

Yes A Mostly contained in the EMP, but with seismic surveying the vessel operator usually has Standard Operating Procedures which are much more detailed. The information contained in the EMP is sufficient for decision making.

Monitoring Proposals

6.5 Has the EIA proposed practical monitoring arrangements to check the environmental impacts resulting from the implementation of the project and their conformity with the predictions made?

Yes A Monitoring is proposed and elaborated. Shell has committed to insist that the contractor develop an even more detailed monitoring plan prior to commencement of work.

6.6 Has the EIA proposed Limits of Acceptable Change that the developer can use to track impacts and trigger management intervention?

Yes A Outside of regulations such as Marpol 73/78 no such 'disturbance' limits are specified. In general these can only be specified if there is adequate baseline information and the range of natural variation is precisely known (which it is not in most marine environments), or there is specific information on effect thresholds (also rarely known for non-water or sediment quality variables). In marine environments, there is no baseline for background noise. Therefore, Limits of Acceptable Change is not a relevant concept for noise. Norms and standards for other environmental criteria such as waste at sea, air quality, etc. have not been defined in Namibia for the marine environment.

Environmental Effects of Mitigation

6.7 Have any adverse environmental effects of mitigation measures been investigated and described?

Yes A There is no consideration of this, but this is not a serious weakness. None of the mitigation measures proposed are regarded as environmentally risky. Therefore, it is not recommended that this be addressed in a revised EIA report.

12

For the large majority the proposed mitigation measure are intended to avoid impacts by planning activities around sensitive time periods and away from sensitive areas. For timing, project planning considered other environmental risks associated with the selected time period (such as worker safety and effects on other resources) and these were deemed to be insignificant i.e., the adverse effects of the mitigation measures are insignificant. This is captured in Section 10 (see Table 10.1). In terms of spatial planning, the survey is targeting a specific area of geographic interest and thus the options are limited. The mitigation approach is intended to minimise footprint and this would not have a noticeable adverse environmental effect.

7. NON-TECHNICAL SUMMARY Relevant?

Yes/No Judgment

(C/A/I) Comments

7.1 Does the EIA contain a brief but concise non-technical summary that clearly explains the project and the environment, the main issues and mitigation measures to be undertaken, and any remaining or residual impacts?

Yes C The non-technical summary is excellent, providing the reader with a clear picture about the project. This makes the document accessible to most stakeholders.

7.2 Does the summary include a brief explanation of the overall approach to the assessment?

Yes C The summary provides a good overview of what was done and the methodology used.

7.3 Does the summary provide an indication of the confidence which can be placed in the results?

Yes A The summary indicates that some data are insufficient and that consequently, some of the results of the study may not be conclusive. This is normal for most EIAs, especially those dealing with the marine environment, which is highly complex and less studies than terrestrial ecosystems.

7.4 Does the summary indicate whether the project is or is not environmentally acceptable

Yes A The summary is generally optimistic that most impacts can be mitigated – probably with sufficient justification. This seems to be a logical conclusion.

8. GENERAL APPROACH Relevant?

Yes/No Judgment

(C/A/I) Comments

Organisation of the information

8.1 Is the information logically arranged in chapters?

Y C The report is well structured and the chapters follow logically in sequence

8.2 Is the location of the information identified in an index or table of contents?

Y C Table of contents is standard

13

8.3 When information from external sources has been introduced, has a full reference to the source been included?

Y C References are cited as required

Presentation of the information

8.4 Has information and analysis been offered to support all conclusions drawn?

Y C The report has relied extensively on literature and some specialist studies, which appear to be comprehensive.

8.5 Has information and analysis been presented so as to be comprehensible to the non-specialist, using maps, tables and graphical material as appropriate?

Y C The report is very well illustrated, using maps and other graphic representation.

8.6 Has superfluous information (i.e. information not needed for the decision) been avoided?

Y C The report has focused on the main issues.

8.7 Have prominence and emphasis been given to severe adverse impacts, to substantial environmental benefits, and to controversial issues?

Y A The EIA has adequately covered the key environmental issues, the most critical of which have been subjected to a specialist study.

8.8 Is the information objective? Y C There is no evidence to suggest that the consultants have been biased in any way.