[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
dam-l LHWP Article
>The following article was in the March 19 Business Day.
>
>19 March 1998 Social, environmental impact of second phase of
>highlands project questioned
>
>Before construction resumes on the Lesotho Highlands Water Project,
>the authorities have one last chance to address the concerns of
>environmental and civic groups which have so far been swept under the
>carpet, writes Josey Ballenger
>
>CALLS for a delay in implementing the second phase of the
>multibillion-rand Lesotho Highlands Water Project may be justified in
>order to allow SA to clean up its own backyard concerning water
>wastage and to allow project authorities time to address problems
>associated with another round of construction.
>
>Celebrations in January of the first transfer of water from Lesotho to
>Gauteng concealed lingering unease about the project's social,
>environmental and economic costs. Environmental groups objected to the
>expense and impact of the project since the binational treaty was
>signed 11 years ago. But on the eve of dignitary-studded events to
>celebrate the completion of the initial R9,8bn phase - called 1A -
>earlier this year environmental and civic groups, became more
>vociferous in questioning the governments' resolve to press ahead with
>future phases.
>
>The politicians and officials at the celebrations went to great pains
>to acknowledge the "outstanding" issues, but failed to provide
>detailed rebuttals in most cases. Among the issues was compensation
>and resettlement for about 2 000 people displaced by the Katse and
>Muela dams' construction; environmental prospects for the project's
>next R6,7bn stage (1B) and, perhaps the subject least addressed by
>authorities, water conservation.
>
>Before authorities go ahead with 1B's construction, a coalition of
>nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) from SA, Lesotho and further
>afield have questioned its very need. Coalition members claim the
>project does not meet the World Bank's dam standards. The bank's
>decision on whether to lend 5% of 1B's cost is expected on April 30.
>
>The coalition is concerned about a study showing only two of 93
>sampled households were "completely satisfied" with their dislocation
>compensation. By Lesotho Highlands Development Authority's own
>account, all but 14 of 679 complaints lodged in areas spanning 1A and
>preliminary work in 1B have been settled to the satisfaction of the
>parties concerned. ge van der Merwe said.
>
>The coalition is also calling for an "independent" review of 1B's
>environmental impact assessment. In light of Water Affairs Minister
>Kader Asmal's statement that he "welcomed" and "valued" NGOs'
>contributions, he could pacify the NGOs by granting their request.
>
>Perhaps the most unresolved issue, however, is that of conservation
>efforts among Vaal River users - the very people in SA who will
>benefit from the project's provision of water, and who are also paying
>for it through higher water levies (which will jump another 10% to 15%
>from April).
>
>While market forces will probably discourage consumption by larger
>industrial and agricultural users, and even the average household, the
>NGOs are concerned that water affairs will be slack in providing
>education on the merits of conserving in its haste to recover funding
>for the project.
>
>
>
>Water affairs has promised to implement a tariff structure that would
>punish larger users with incrementally higher levies, but some water
>utility sources are concerned these plans will not come to fruition
>due to "vagueness" in the tabled National Water Bill.
>
>In addition, critics are concerned that local authorities will
>continue to lack the financial means and the incentive to fix
>revenue-draining leaking pipes and inefficient appliances, which are a
>serious problem in certain areas. Soweto, for example, loses an
>estimated 125 megalitres a day - the equivalent of 2 500 residential
>swimming pools, and 50% of potential revenue.
>
>Rand Water, the utility that serves most of Gauteng and the bordering
>provinces, estimates Johannesburg loses 15%, Sandton 12%, Roodepoort
>10% and Randburg 6%. Gauteng as a whole loses 15%, and at the same
>time, 18% of its low-income residents are not serviced with water.
>
>The opposition's bottom-line question is whether more dams will be
>justifiable if conservation, or "demand management", is rigorously
>implemented. Rand Water projections indicate 1B could be delayed by a
>few years with a 10% decrease in consumption, or up to 17 years with a
>40% decrease.
>
>"Rand Water did query the assumptions upon which the projections for
>phase 1B ... were based. It was also our opinion that if we were to be
>successful with regard to water conservation programmes, by applying
>methods found to be successful overseas, this dam might well be
>delayed," Rand Water CE Vincent Bath said.
>
>While water affairs director-general Mike Muller acknowledges there
>are fairly severe water losses in some areas, he says some of the
>water unaccounted for is not actually wasted but is unregistered or
>simply not paid for.
>
>It is local authorities' responsibility to fix pipes, install meters
>and improve payment collections, Muller said. The Water Services Act
>promulgated in December allows central government to help local
>authorities to plan and manage their services, but he predicts it will
>take five years before councils are "fully effective".
>
>Muller believes at least some local authorities are unable or
>reluctant to improve demand management because the cost of fixing
>pipes may be greater than the lost revenue.
>
>On the other hand, it is water affairs' responsibility to "assure bulk
>supply," and Muller says it cannot ignore the projected need for more
>water while waiting for demand management to improve. While the
>department cannot quantify supply projections, Muller says there was
>no surplus water capacity when 1A was finished, therefore it was "the
>right decision".
>
>Water affairs' platform, after all, is one of resource security. "No
>minister would ever take the risk" of a water shortage, Asmal said
>before the launch. But Patrick Bond, a senior lecturer in economic
>policy at Wits University, says that drawing water from Lesotho during
>a drought would "keep expensive Gauteng agriculture going" at the
>expense of the Free State and Northern Cape's Orange River users.
>"That means merely moving the problem around."
>
>Authorities and the World Bank also argue that delaying 1B, even by a
>few years, would make it more costly down the line because of sunken
>fixed costs and loss of human resource capacity. At least part of the
>pre-construction and infrastructure investment would be lost, and
>civil engineering bids for 1B contracts came in R600m below estimates.
>
>Meanwhile, Bond argues that if real interest rates continue to
>decline, government could save as much as R600m per year by postponing
>the project. Rand Water demand manager George Constantinides put that
>figure at R800m.
>
>If the authorities want to convince, or at least appease, the critics
>that they have foreseen and addressed all "outstanding" issues, a good
>first step would be for water affairs and local authorities to step up
>and publicise their conservation efforts. The onus is on project
>authorities to engage in public debate, or else concerns about the
>project will remain.
>
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
Lori Pottinger, Director, Southern Africa Program,
International Rivers Network
1847 Berkeley Way, Berkeley, California 94703, USA
Tel. (510) 848 1155 Fax (510) 848 1008
http://www.irn.org
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*