Additional Information

 Paper on Bujagali Dam (Part I) Released
02–17–99

Paper presented at the World Commission on Dams (WCD) Regional Consultation on "large dams and their alternatives in Africa and the Middle East: Experience and Lessons Learned" under the theme "Large Dams and Water Resource Management: Reviewing Alternate Options" held in Cairo, Egypt, from the 8th to 9th December, 1999

There is political and economic lunacy for infrastructure privatization in Africa today. In the area of energy development, private power infrastructure development has become fashionable.

Recently, however, the World Bank and other international organizations have become jittery about the benefits of infrastructure privatization under the globally driven structural adjustment programmes (SAPs). Costs appear to be outstripping benefits.

According to the Financial Times of 27^th July 1999, a World Bank official who heads its Asia–Pacific region admitted that privatization has turned into a horror story in the wake of the Asian economic crisis. The problem is the aggressive push by international organizations, principally the World Bank, for privately financed infrastructure without proper regulatory and legal frameworks. The World Bank has shown unregulated love in the past for huge hydropower projects in the poor regions of the world. This love, however, has been blind to the accompanying politico–corporate crime committed jointly by top political leaders and some individuals in the Bank itself or the private energy developers. This marriage of convenience has not only made the concepts of "the criminal state" and "the criminal enterprise" real, but has fueled the foreign debt spiral as the poor countries are defrauded of billions of dollars. This way, the state and the corporations, instead of being agents of development, are but Lords of Poverty.

Perhaps nowhere in Africa has politico–corporate crime caused civilian and legislative concern as in Uganda in recent times. Here, Government has ignored all environmental wisdom and reason and public displeasure at its non–business behaviour of jealously protecting a dubious company –– AES Nile Power – from international competition and applying excessive political and executive pressure to silence Bujagali Falls for hydropower, ostensibly for export to Kenya and Tanzania. However, Kenya, which in the 1980s undertook to build a number of huge hydropower dams but has also taken steps to develop its solar, wind, biogas and geothermal resources, recently announced that she is to build a US 800m dollar dam (East African, 15^th Nov. 1999). This makes nonsense of an energy plan strongly pursued based on export of electricity to a presumed neighbouring market.

Ugandans are yet to know whether the other natural users of the Nile –– Egypt and Sudan –– have been sufficiently consulted since unwise and selfish use of water resources has, in human history, been the cause of numerous water conflicts.

Bujagali is only one of six falls or extensive rapids targeted by the executive for development of a cascade of huge dams in what is being called "a national hydropower development network". The others are: Kalagala, Kamdini (Karuma), Ayago South, Ayago North and Murchison Falls.

Table 1: Planned Hydropower Development Sites in Uganda (Source: Uganda Investment Authority, 1998; Musumba, 1999)

To justify the executive's wish, the preferred private hydropower developer has pedaled the reasoning that less than 5% of the Ugandan population have access to electricity leaving the rest to rely on the quick diminishing resources of charcoal and woodfuel for energy. Yet the real issue is the demand for hydropower; not access to it.

Uganda's energy development plan shows clearly the unreasonableness of forecasts made in an unstable and insecure socio–political environment. The estimation of the demand for electricity was made based on the 1983 consumption patterns and on the assumption that the 1971 level of industrial consumption was to be reached by 1993 (Musumba, 1998). The electricity was to be supplied from huge dam hydropower installations (see above) since these are the only ones that can receive macrofinancing from the World Bank. Small dams and alternative energy sources were considered unreasonable in global economic terms although, locally, at least elsewhere, they have proved more realistic avenues to rural electrification; socio–culturally and socio–politically acceptable; environmentally friendly (Oweyegha–Afunaduula, 1999); and easy to integrate in sound water resource management.

Over 65% of the Ugandan (human) population live below the poverty line. 20% of the population, mainly middle class, are just surviving and are increasingly finding it difficult to afford the overpriced electricity. This means that only 15% of the Ugandan population can afford electricity. The demand for electricity is thus very low, not high, as the Government's preferred energy developer and some government officials are arguing.

Moreover, a rural electrification programme dependent on huge hydropower projects has, in the past, been shelved by government because potential financiers have always considered it uneconomical. This is why the current demand is put at an estimated 230 MW with only 5% of the population having access to electricity. The Uganda Government, therefore, faces a dilemma; give in to forced hydropower development or face the reality of alternatives.

The truth is that the rest of the population has no choice but to continue using woodfuel and charcoal. This is the dilemma. The high cost of power combined with financial poverty has ensured that these energy resources are and will, for a long time, remain the poor man's energy resources. Sadly, this fact is not reflected in Uganda's energy plan: no commitment to fuel wood renewal.

No doubt participants at the 3^rd Regional Consultation of the World Commission of Dams (WCD) are aware of the struggle by the two civic organizations in Uganda –– Save Bujagali Crusade (SBC) and National Association of Professional Environmentalists (NAPE) to save Bujagali Falls. This is a struggle for social and environmental justice in Uganda. It is driven by the conviction that truth–telling should be integral to energy plans innovated "to develop the poor", and to proper water resource management in face of renewed environmental penetration of Uganda by foreign capital.

We have rejected the silencing of Bujagali Falls not only on economic but also social, cultural, ethical, spiritual, ecological and environmental grounds.

On economic grounds, we have argued that Bujagali is the highest cost dam of all the dams desired by government, as a study by Kennedy and Donkin, with support from IDA World Bank, revealed in its "Uganda Hydropower Development Master Plan" (for unknown reasons, Acres International Limited, Sir Alexander Gibb and Partners recommended Bujagali as the least cost site for hydropower development).

Since electricity in Uganda is overwhelmingly for lighting, cheaper, more socio–culturally and socio–politically acceptable, non–polluting energy sources such as biogas, windpower and solar power have great potential for development and protection of river ecosystems in the country. Perhaps the best alternative to hydropower in Uganda at present is windpower which is proving to be more economical and fastest growing energy industry globally compared to other energy sources. However, a rational combination of those sources and small dam hydropower schemes is the only hope for rural electrification.

Moreover, the gross economic cost of a Dam at Bujagali site was ignored. The cost referred to was only the price of constructing a dam. This always keeps rising during the life of a dam project. Indian Express of 11 November, 1999 quotes AES saying that power tariffs may go up three times in India. Press reports in Uganda said Owen Falls Dam would now not be commissioned in January but June, 2000. This means more cost. For Bujagali Dam, the parameters considered were the timing of the hydropower project, capital cost of the project and the discount rate. The opportunity cost of the project was not considered at all including:

(i) cost in terms of revenue from tourism that would be foregone;

(ii) Kalagala was considered the least cost dam, but it was omitted;

(iii) environmental losses were totally ignored or underplayed;

(iv) regional economic development goals were not considered;

(v) electricity demand was overestimated;

(vi) the option of small dams was not considered at all;

(vii) the possibility of earthquakes due to the effects of three dams close together was ignored; and

(viii) cost–benefit analysis of the Bujagali project and alternative small dams was considered inconsequential to hydropower planning.

Lastly, we have rejected the dam because Bujagali Falls is not only a social, cultural and spiritual stabilizer for the indigenous community of Basoga but is also an ecological and environmental stabilizer whose loss can have dire consequences. We were spurred on by the announcement by the World Bank early 1999 that it would no longer finance projects with the potential to greatly disrupt cultures and environments of indigenous people.

We have instead been called self–seekers. We have been blackmailed and attempts to isolate us as antidevelopment zealots have been made. However, the struggle continues and many victories have been worn because it is a just struggle for social and environmental justice. We are fighting impoverishment and discrimination by way of huge dam projects.

We think that hydropower development via the strategy of super or huge dams is outmoded because it is driven by the myth of conquest of nature. It is not only an avenue for the globalization of poverty in the name of development, but a crude form of environmental racism that has in the past proved very effective in the erosion of the environmental foundations of survival, political security and peace in all their various dimensions. This way it has contributed to the sustenance of the vicious circle of violence in our African environment.

Continued...

Authors and Bibliography...

• For further information, please contact:

Lori Pottinger
E–mail: lori@internationalrivers.org' 
Phone: +1 510–848–1155