文章 Articles

Dam shame on African rivers

Huge barrages are meant to create energy and clean water on the continent, but the poorest communities are the losers in the race for the rewards. Korinna Horta and Lori Pottinger report.

Article image

Ten years ago, the small mountain kingdom of Lesotho in southern Africa became a water-exporting country -- even though it does not have nearly enough water for its own needs, suffers from recurrent droughts and a majority of its population has no access to clean water. Indeed, the United Nations in 2007 called for Lesotho to be given emergency relief aid, including water for people and livestock, to address a growing humanitarian crisis.

The country became a water exporter when the Katse dam -- Africa's highest dam and the first in the massive Lesotho Highlands water project -- began sending water through miles of mountain tunnels to South Africa's industrial heartland. The theory behind this World Bank-sponsored project was that a country with a lot of water can earn money for poverty-fighting programmes by exporting to a water-strapped neighbour. While the bank's financial support was critical in getting the project off the ground, other institutions -- including the British government's Export Credits Guarantee Department (ECGD) -- participated in raising the US$3.5 billion for the first phase of this massive project.

However, the promised development benefits for Lesotho have proved elusive. In fact, the country has suffered as its fragile mountain environment has been degraded and native fish and plant species have been pushed towards extinction. At least 27,000 people in the highlands have lost their homes, fields and other vital resources as a result of the project. A further 150,000 people downstream have had their drinking water, farming and fishing affected by reduced river flows.

Income from water exports was to be paid into a development fund that would "share the wealth", but the fund found itself caught in a crippling mix of politics and patronage, and was closed in 2003.

Despite a clause in contracts that people should not be made poorer as a result of the project, compensation programmes have been largely ineffective and lost livelihoods have not been restored. An impoverished population, traumatised by pending resettlement, also was highly vulnerable to HIV-Aids brought in by thousands of migrant workers building the dams -- resulting in a growing population of orphans fending for themselves.

"They promised that our lives would be improved, but instead our dignity has been destroyed," says a member of the local Survivors of Lesotho Dams (SOLD) group.

As with many large infrastructure projects, corruption was widespread and several prominent companies were found to have bribed project officials to secure lucrative contracts. Unlike most cases of corruption, however, this one took a David and Goliath turn when the Lesotho courts convicted several international consulting and engineering companies for their part in the bribery. But the western backers of the project appear complacent about their own nationals implicated in corruption. [In November 2008, the United Kingdom’s Serious Fraud Office dropped an investigation into a British company over alleged corruption in Lesotho.]  

Africa's history of large dams is filled with tragedy. Many have caused indebtedness, political inequities and widespread environmental degradation, and have sapped resources from more appropriate, smaller-scale development projects. Now more mega-dams are planned for countries around the world, with support from western donors and, increasingly, from Chinese, Brazilian and Indian investors.

The World Bank's private sector arm, the International Finance Corporation (IFC), and the European Union's European Investment Bank (EIB) are supporting the controversial US$800 million Bujagali dam, now being built at the site of a beautiful cascade on the Nile river in Uganda. As well as impacts on endangered fisheries and local communities, critics question the dam's ability to provide affordable energy. "The high cost of the project will further limit funds for rural electrification," says Frank Muramuzi, of the National Association of Professional Environmentalists (NAPE), in Uganda’s capital, Kampala. "Uganda already has the most expensive power in the region, and tariffs have more than doubled recently, pushing more people out of the already limited market for electricity."

Studies indicate that global warming could reduce outflows from Lake Victoria, affecting hydropower from Bujagali and making the project even less viable.

In Mozambique, China and Brazil may cooperate to build a new dam on the Zambezi river, undermining a plan to restore the Zambezi delta and its rich fisheries, wildlife areas and farmlands by allowing more natural flows out of existing dams.

But the jewel in the crown that companies from around the globe are eagerly eyeing is the Grand Inga, the world's biggest dam project, proposed for the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). At an estimated cost of US$80 billion, Grand Inga will be a magnet for corruption in one of Africa's least stable regions. Its price tag does not include distribution networks needed to supply energy to the long-suffering people of that country. Mining, timber and other industries will be the main beneficiaries, while poor farmers and fishers who depend on the river's flow of the water and nutrient-rich sediments will be the losers.

Affordable energy and clean water are critical if poverty is to be reduced, but there is no indication that mega-dams fill these central needs. Sadly, the current situation means that the poor are largely sidelined by the competition for a share in the global dam-building business.

 

Korinna Horta is an economist with the US non-profit organisation Environmental Defense. Lori Pottinger is director of the Africa programme with the International Rivers campaign group.

Homepage photo by henribergieus


http://environment.guardian.co.uk/

Copyright Guardian News & Media Ltd 2008

 

Now more than ever…

chinadialogue is at the heart of the battle for truth on climate change and its challenges at this critical time.

Our readers are valued by us and now, for the first time, we are asking for your support to help maintain the rigorous, honest reporting and analysis on climate change that you value in a 'post-truth' era.

Support chinadialogue

发表评论 Post a comment

评论通过管理员审核后翻译成中文或英文。 最大字符 1200。

Comments are translated into either Chinese or English after being moderated. Maximum characters 1200.

评论 comments

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

水电为谁开发

水电到底应该开发还是不开发,为什么要开发,为谁开发,地区局部利益与整体利益,投资者对利润的苛求,地方政府的税收,国家稳定发展的大局。没有人能够为那些当地的穷人着想。如果水电的开发能够尊重当地民众的意愿,能够实实在在地提升当地最为贫困的人们的生活水平,就应该开发。否则就应该停止。这才是最为基础的标准。肚子都吃不饱,其它什么都不要谈。

Whose interest does the hydropower development serve?

Whether should the hydropower be exploited? what's the thoery behind it? Whose interest does it serve? The local or the broad public, the investors who is avid for interest, the local government who wants more taxation, or the country who needs development and stability? Few would be considerate towards the poor. If the hydropower development reflects the will of the local people and could improve the life of the poorest, it should be approved. Otherwise, it should be stopped. This is the basic standard of judgement. If the problem of the food is not solved, it's meaningless to discuss other problems.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

请讲出事实

这纯粹是宣传,来自一个为了实现美国目标而有目的的说谎的组织。莱索托“没有足够的水自用”每年有大量的水流过莱索托,这个国家缺乏存水以及将水运送到需求地的基础设施。“大部分民众得不到清洁的水”因为他们没有钱来建造提供清洁水的设施。莱索托高原调水工程的收入现用于“下游那些饮用水、耕种和捕鱼都受到减少的水量影响的人们”这种对河流水量的控制使人们免于干旱。现在下游的木柴和活计都比过去多了。乌干达“电力是本地区最贵的”这是因为抗议者拖延了项目,乌干达人需要用柴油发电机来发电,这些昂贵的柴油是通过公路从肯尼亚运来的。在莫桑比克,电力削减将导致数千个工作岗位消失。新水电站流出的水将随着现有大坝的水流,它们并不会毁坏赞比西河三角洲而是保护数千居民免遭洪水。谎言还在继续,不要理它。

The truth, please!

This is pure propaganda from an organisation that systematically lies to achieve US goals.

So:

Lesotho "does not have nearly enough water for its own needs"

In fact, huge quantities of water flow from Lesotho every year. The country does not have infrastructure to capture and transport the water to where it can be used.

"The majority of its population has no access to clean water" because they have no funds for infrastructure to supply clean water. Income from the Lesotho Highlands project is now used for that.

"People downstream have had their drinking water, farming and fishing affected by reduced river flows"

The regulation of flows in the river protects people from droughts. There is now more firewood and more livelihoods downstream than before

Uganda "has the most expensive electricity in the region" because campaigners delayed the dam project so Ugandans had to use generators which burn expensive diesel carried by road from Kenya. Thousands of jobs were lost in Mozambique because of electricity cuts.

Flow from the new hydropower dam will follow existing dam flow that has not damaged the delta but protected thousands from floods.

The lies go on. Ignore them.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

中国的海外水电站项目

我十分同意本文的观点。但我还想说,中国在海外建设的水电站项目同样没有可信的环评,而且很可能造成当地居民对中国以及中国货的排斥。东道国可能负担不起这些水电站,使得它们负债累累(这增加了中国的优势)——这些免除利息的贷款非常昂贵的。而且,这些项目的设计和施工质量也值得质疑。由于中国不断出现经济泡沫,国内可能不再需要这些通过与海外国家的“友谊”得到的原材料了。它们已经成了多余的累赘么?

China's hydro-electric projects overseas

I whole-heartedly agree with this article.

I would add however that the hydroelectic projects which China is building overseas likewise do not have credible EIAs and will probably alienate the local population against China and Chinese goods. The host countries are unlikely to be able to afford them – getting them seriously in debt (increasing China’s leverage) - interest free loans are expensive.

Further, questions should be asked about the design and quality of construction of these projects.

Given the bursting of its economic bubble, China might no longer need the raw materials which its "friendship" with these overseas countries sought to facilitate. "White elephants"?

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

人口控制

全世界都应该严格执行计划生育,以便在50年后将人口总量降下来。否则,与环境的冲突不可能从根本上解决。

Population Control

The whole world should strictly administer a birth control policy, so that in 50 years time, human population would decrease. If not, it would be impossible to solve the fundamental clash with the enviroment.
Translated by Edwin