SADC’S INFRASTRUCTURE: A REGIONAL PERSPECTIVE stagnation, six SAPP countries (Namibia, Zambia, Malawi, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Mozambique, and Zimbabwe) would need to spend over 5 percent of their GDP for a decade to meet their power sector needs, which is an extremely tall order. In the most extreme case, Zimbabwe would need to spend over 25 percent of its GDP to satisfy power demand.

Under trade expansion, the pattern of spending shifts markedly for some countries. Zimbabwe under trade expansion would also have to spend around a quarter of its GDP—a large part on interconnectors. Other countries such as Botswana, Namibia, and Malawi would have to spend significantly less than that under the trade stagnation scenario to meet power sector needs. Only the Democratic Republic of Congo would have to spend almost 15 percent of its GDP under trade stagnation and Mozambique less. The expenditure burden for the Democratic Republic of Congo would rise dramatically from around 5 percent of its GDP under trade stagnation to 15 percent of its GDP under trade expansion, reflecting the critical role that the Democratic Republic of Congo would play as an exporter of cheap hydropower for the region.

As of 2005, power trade flows in the SAPP were the largest of all power pools. Exports amounted to 25.8 TWh and imports to 22.7 TWh in total. Several countries participated in trade. The main flows involved Tanzania, Zambia, Swaziland, Namibia, Botswana, and Zimbabwe, all of which import power from South Africa and

**Table 3.4 Additional infrastructure requirements for trade expansion (MW)**

|MW|Interconnectors|Additional<br>hydropower<br>capacity|
|---|---|---|
|**SAPP**|**23,839**|**8,912**|
|Angola|2,120|0|
|Botswana|2,141|0|
|Congo, Dem. Rep.<br>of|5,984|7,640|
|Lesotho|0|0|
|Madagascar|0|0|
|Malawi|227|0|
|Mozambique|1,400|900|
|Namibia|556|0|
|South Africa|547|0|
|Swaziland|—|—|
|Tanzania|266|279|
|Zambia|7,526|0|
|Zimbabwe|3,072|93|

_Source:_ Rosnes and Vennemo 2009. _Note:_ MW = megawatt.

Mozambique and a minimal amount from the Democratic Republic of Congo (figure 3.3a).

Under trade stagnation, future trade volumes would increase to 46 TWh per year up to 2015, and the pattern of trade would shift somewhat. With trade stagnation, the Democratic Republic of Congo’s exports are reduced from 52 TWh per year to 2.3 TWh per year. Reduced import possibilities in South Africa and Botswana are replaced by more coal-fired power plants. In Botswana the expansion of the Morupule plant becomes relevant. Gas-fired power plants and hydropower are built in Angola and Namibia to meet domestic demand in the trade stagnation scenario (figures 3.3b, 3.4). Under trade stagnation, north-south power flows are replaced by more power exchange—that is, power would flow in different directions in peak and off-peak hours. For instance, in off-peak hours South Africa exports to Mozambique, Namibia, and Zimbabwe.

Under trade expansion, the volume of power traded in the SAPP could increase substantially to 146 TWh by 2015. The key change under trade expansion is that the Democratic Republic of Congo would fully develop its hydropower potential and become the major power exporter of the region, sending 60 TWh annually into neighboring countries and exporting more than 350 percent of its domestic consumption (figure 3.3b, 3.4). Mozambique would also increase its power exports, although on a scale significantly smaller than the Democratic Republic of Congo. As a result Angola, Botswana, Namibia, 42