[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
dam-l Uganda dam article in Multinational Monitor/LS
The following appears in the June 1999 issue of Multinational Monitor
(eventually, it will be on the magazine's web site:
www.essential.org/monitor/monitor/html). The author lived in Uganda near
the site of the proposed dam. He wrote this while interning at IRN.
Falling for AES's Plan?
Uganda Debates Damming the Nile
by Stephen Linaweaver
Uganda is a lush, land-locked country tucked between the tropical forests
of the Democratic Republic of Congo, and the expansive, dry plains of Kenya
and Tanzania. More than 20 percent of the country's surface is covered in
water. Uganda is home to the world's second largest lake, Lake Victoria, as
well as the source of the world's longest river, the Nile. In its more than
4,000 mile journey to Cairo and the Mediterranean, the Nile drops more than
4,000 feet. Over half of that descent occurs in Uganda, a fact which has
hydropower developers eager to set up shop.
But the dam lobby faces several obstacles in its efforts to convince Uganda
to invest in dam construction -- not the least of which is the fact that
the country appears not to need the new power which the dams would provide.
Uganda's dam debate now centers on a proposal by the U.S.-based AES
corporation, the largest independent power producer in the world, to
construct a $523 million, 290 megawatt (MW) dam near Bujagali Falls on the
Nile. The 22-meter-high dam would be built 10 miles below two other large
dams, the Owens Falls Dam, built in 1954 during British colonial rule, and
the Owens Falls Extension Project, currently being constructed by the
Canadian firm Acres International Limited.
The Ugandan Parliament has repeatedly criticized the Bujagali project, but
with President Musevni strongly supporting the proposal, all eyes have
turned to the National Environmental Management Authority (NEMA), an
autonomous arm of the Ugandan government. AES is currently waiting for
NEMA's approval, or rejection, of the Bujagali proposal.
The delay has frustrated company officials, who had hoped to request formal
funding from the International Finance Corporation, the private lending arm
of the World Bank. Instead, the IFC has pulled back from the project and
undertaken a study of Uganda's energy potential.
THE SAVE BUGAGALI CRUSADE
Leading the charge against the AES dam proposal are more than 1,000 Save
Bujagali Crusaders. Martin Musumba, a former district chairman (equivalent
to a governor in the United States) organized the Save Bujagali Crusade in
July 1998.
The Save Bujagali Crusade (www.uganda.co.ug/bujagali) has carried the
banner for hundreds of people who would be displaced by the project, and
for Bujagali Falls, which would be obliterated by AES's plans.
The Bujagali Falls project would create a 390-hectare reservoir, flooding
the Nile all the way to the base of the existing Owens Falls Dam.
According to AES's environmental impact assessment, the dam would displace
820 people and affect an additional 6,000 people, including by submerging
communal lands, burial sites or portions of their land.
The Jinja District, where the dam would be built, is one of the most
heavily populated non-urban areas in the country, and replacement land for
those who would lose homes or crops is practically non-existent in the
area. Many of the families that would be displaced have been in the area
for generations.
In addition, the reservoir is expected to increase serious water-borne
diseases like malaria and schistosomiasis. Stagnant pools of water are
breeding grounds for malaria-carrying mosquitoes and
schistosomiasis-spreading vector snails.
Bujagali Falls is a spectacular series of cascading rapids which Ugandans
consider a national treasure. The AES project would completely inundate the
falls, "destroy[ing] this first class magnificent treasure of Uganda,"
according to Musumba.
With the true "Source of the Nile" submerged by the Owens Falls Dam in
1954, Bujagali has become a popular site for Ugandans as well as foreign
tourists.
Bujagali is also a cultural and religious site, where the "Spirit of
Bujagali" has had a storied association with the Falls for centuries. The
Spirit is the cultural embodiment of the community, and is believed to
protect the community from harm by performing rituals at the Falls. The
current spirit -- an actual person who lives in a mud hut 100 yards from
the Falls -- is the thirty-ninth.
AES's project environmental assessment dismisses the falls as "attractive
but not exceptional," and states that the Spirit of Bujagali is willing to
move to another site.
Musumba has not been the only voice speaking in opposition to the Bujagali
Project. The National Association of Professional Environmentalists (NAPE),
a group of Ugandan lawyers, commented in a recent statement that "humanity
is waking up to the realities of cultural, ecological, and environmental
disruption by huge hydro-power dam projects."
Oweyagha Afunduula, NAPE's leader, says that NAPE's mission is to "reverse
the degradation of the River Nile system, and support the protection of
local communities and the restoring of the well-being of the people,
cultures and ecosystems."
AES's Christian Wright brushes off local opposition as an inevitable but
manageable feature of large dam proposals. "A project this size will always
have someone taking an issue against it," he says.
But local controversy escalated beyond the norm in December, when the
Uganda Confidential, a Ugandan political monthly, alleged that AES had
bribed the then-Energy Minister, Richard Kaijuka. The Confidential reported
that AES had paid Kaijuka $240,000 to support the Bujagali Falls Hydropower
Project, and that AES had promised Kaijuka a further $260,000 if he could
get a controversial Power Purchase Agreement signed. Although Kaijuka was
fired as Energy Minister soon after the article was printed, no further
investigation of the incident was conducted.
"There was no justification, no proof," says Wright of the allegations.
According to Wafalu Ogutu, the Uganda chapter director for the
international corruption watchdog organization Transparency International,
"Nothing has been said again about [Richard Kaijuka] having got a bribe
from AES Power. … I am not sure whether anybody is investigating the
matter, or whether the man was dropped simply to be saved from a possible
investigation."
AES's Wright has a simple explanation for Kaijuka's firing: "The cabinet
was rotated as a result of frustration on the part of the executive that
the AES project was not progressing fast enough."
AES's POWER: WHO NEEDS IT?
The standard debates about the costs of dam building -- displacement of
communities, environmental harm, destruction of tourist attractions --
versus the benefits of energy provision may obscure special features of the
Uganda case. Notably, the country does not appear to need most of the new
power that would be generated by the dam, and it has cheaper alternatives
available.
The industry publication Hydropower and Dams estimates Uganda's energy
demand will be 320 MW by 2000. With the 180 MW Owens Falls Dam and the 200
MW Owens Falls Extension (to be up and running in 18 months), Uganda
appears to have a surplus of power.
Moreover, with only 5 percent of Ugandans currently connected to the
national power grid, large hydro is not likely to bring power to Ugandans
now without power, due to the expense of extending the national grid to
remote areas.
Given the present surplus, the limited reach of the grid and the insolvency
of Uganda's ailing electricity parastatal, the Uganda Electricity Board
(UEB), AES is worried that there may be no one to buy the power it is so
eager to produce for Uganda.
The company has sought a binding guarantee from the Parliament that the
Uganda government will purchase the power directly in the event UEB fails
to do so.
Parliamentarians, however, are nervous about making such a guarantee, and
they are not the only Ugandans who are skeptical.
"There is no reason the country of Uganda should be subsidizing a major
multinational corporation like AES," Musumba concludes.
Such a government commitment would constitute a real burden on generations
to come, says Musumba. AES power may cost as much as 12 cents per kilowatt
-- about twice the cost in the United States -- in a country where two
thirds of the population lives in severe poverty.
A sounder investment than a blank check to AES, say critics, would be
modest expenditures to fix the poor transmission lines responsible for an
annual average loss of 30 percent of the power produced by the Owens Falls
Dam.
If more energy is needed nonetheless, Save Bujagali Crusaders prefer a
different power plan, a 200 MW, $350 million hydropower project at Karuma
Falls in Northern Uganda by the Norwegian firm Norpak. Instead of a dam and
reservoir, Norpak has proposed an underground sluice. According to Norpak,
and the Save Bujagali Crusade agrees, the Karuma project would be cheaper,
more flexible and less environmentally destructive than the Bujagali Falls
dam. The Karuma Falls area is far less populated than the area surrounding
Bujagali.
The recurring difficulties faced by AES have encouraged Norpak to move
ahead quickly with plans for its project. Norpak has completed its
environmental impact assessment, and the new Minister of Energy, Syda
Bumba, has officially endorsed the Norwegian project.
Christian Wright remains confident the AES project will proceed, however,
saying, "The general feeling is that both projects will be needed."
Whether both projects do in fact proceed may turn in large part on whether
Uganda can secure power purchase commitments from neighboring Kenya.
THE BANK HESITATES
Although Museveni and his cabinet appear to remain firmly committed to
building both Karuma and Bujagali, Uganda will face an uphill fight to get
funding for both projects.
With questions regarding demand and transmission arising, and clashes
between anti-dam campaigners and hydro-developers increasing, the World
Bank's International Finance Corporation has been forced to take a step
back from the Bujagali Project, which it was eagerly pursuing in the early
stages, and instead review all potential energy supply projects for
Uganda's energy sector. While AES has not formally asked IFC for funding,
it is expected to make a request soon.
Ron Anderson, principal environmental specialist for the Environment
Division of the IFC, is openly reserved about moving forward quickly in
Uganda. "The issues in Uganda are very complicated," Anderson says, "A
project on the Nile may require both a sectoral environmental assessment,
looking at economic issues, as well as a regional environmental assessment,
looking at the power demand in East Africa. Big hydropower on the Nile may
not win out."
The IFC has commissioned a review of various options for meeting
electricity demand in Uganda, with a final report expected in October 1999.
The review, commissioned in March 1999, is being carried out by Canada's
Acres International with Kagga and Partners Limited, a Ugandan consulting
firm. While the study will reportedly not prioritize projects, Anderson
says, "it will consist of a list of projects which are possibilities in the
eyes of the IFC." It remains to be seen whether a dam consulting firm will
provide a fair assessment of options other than hydro.
AES desperately wants its project to be on the IFC list, and may be
counting on its past strong relationship with the IFC to get it there. The
IFC is currently working with AES in three other countries, and has worked
with the company several times in the past.
THE SOLAR ALTERNATIVE
In Uganda, the potential for alternatives to large hydro is strong. A 1996
World Bank/ UN Development Program study rates Uganda's solar conditions as
favorable, and the U.S. Department of Energy lists Uganda's solar potential
between 4 and 6 kilowatt-hours per square meter. A critical benefit of
solar in a country such as Uganda is that it does not require connection to
the national grid, negating the need for huge capital investments to make
electricity available to the rural population.
Photovoltaic solar systems have already proved successful in the region. In
neighboring Kenya, more households get their electricity from the sun than
from the national grids, according to the Economist, and South Africa is
currently installing solar panels on 30,000 homes currently without power.
Poor countries do not have unlimited resources to make capital investments
in imported technologies and services. A commitment to big hydropower now
-- especially if accompanied by promises to buy any excessenergy in the
future -- may preclude Uganda from instead traveling down the solar path.
END
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Lori Pottinger, Director, Southern Africa Program,
and Editor, World Rivers Review
International Rivers Network
1847 Berkeley Way, Berkeley, California 94703, USA
Tel. (510) 848 1155 Fax (510) 848 1008
http://www.irn.org
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::