Dams are about people, not power:
The trouble with Gilgel Gibe
5 April, 2010 | By PATRICK GATHARA
In return, the authorities accuse these “do-gooders” of romanticising rural
misery from the comfort of their ivory towers. In between are the people
of the region, whose interests both sides claim to be championing.
Such controversy is not new. The World Commission on Dams, which
reviewed the effectiveness of large dams, seemed to capture both sides of
the issue when it wrote, “There can no longer be any justifiable doubt that
dams have made an important and significant contribution to human
development, and that in too many cases an unacceptable and often
unnecessary price has been paid to secure those benefits, especially in
social and environmental terms, by people displaced, by communities
downstream, by taxpayers and by the natural environment.”
In the case of the Gilgel Gibe dams (there are five in total, two of which
have been completed), the touted benefits to the country and region are
compelling.
Ethiopia, the continent’s second most populous country, has one of the
world’s lowest levels of access to modern energy services.
According to the World Bank, only 12 per cent of Ethiopians have access
to electricity.
Its installed capacity as of 2006 was less than 800 MW, nearly 90 per
cent of which was generated by hydropower.
By contrast, the country has one of Africa’s highest hydropower
potential, estimated at 30,000-45,000 MW.
To tap this potential, nearly 300 sites have been identified for possible
future development.
Surrounding countries are also hungry for that power.
According to Emmanuel Nzabanita of the African Development Bank,
which is considering financing Gibe III, the power systems of East Africa
are still in their infancy, with insufficient installed capacity to satisfy
domestic demand.
Overall electrification rates are miniscule (around 10 per cent on average)
and per capita energy consumption is one of the lowest in the world.
Hydropower from Ethiopia would be half the cost of that from other
plants being built in East Africa; moreover, the planned interconnection
between the Ethiopian and Kenyan systems as well those of Uganda,
Rwanda, Burundi, eastern Congo, Tanzania and Zambia will enable the
development of the huge hydropower resources in Ethiopia at a
considerably lower cost due to the economies of scale thus realised.
For Ethiopia, ranked 171 out of 182 countries on the United Nations
Development Programme’s 2009 Human Development Index, and where
39 per cent of the population lives on less than $1.25 a day, the revenues
to be earned from exporting power are not to be sneezed at.
The World Commission on Dams report noted, “Groups bearing the
social and environmental costs and risks of large dams... are often not the
same groups that receive the water and electricity services, nor the social
and economic benefits from these.”
In the case of the Gilgel Gibe dams, many of these costs will be borne by
the marginalised groups living downstream of the dams and by their
equally neglected compatriots on the other side of the border in
northwestern Kenya.
Scepticism
These communities, comprising nearly half a million people, are entirely
dependent on the Omo River and Lake Turkana, which it feeds.
They face the immediate loss of traditional means of survival, such as
annual floods that bring fertile silts and allow the growing of crops in an
otherwise barren and waterless land.
Though desirous of the benefits of modern amenities, many of which are
powered by electricity, they are sceptical of promises from governments
in faraway capitals that have only been too content to ignore them in the
past.
This fear — arising from past experience — is what needs addressing and
is why preliminary studies, including environmental and social
assessments, are vital.
They are not about stopping or curtailing development but enabling it.
For development is not about dams and electricity, but about people.
Societies should be measured not by the numbers on balance sheets, but
by how those numbers translate to a better life for all their people.
A second advantage of doing proper due diligence is that it stops good
projects from evolving into white elephants.
The World Commission on Dams points out that large dams have a
tendency to come in late and over budget.
Properly done, preliminary studies can help mitigate this; you ignore them
at your peril. The Ethiopian dams have proven to be no exception.
Gibe II, the second in the series, is a case in point.
Inaugurated in January 2010 after shoddy planning had led to a three-year
delay and a total cost of $0.5 billion, it suffered a catastrophic tunnel
collapse barely two weeks later, which will cost another $25 million to
repair.
The Ethiopian embassy in Kenya insists that this collapse was expected
and that the contractors, Salini Constrotturi S.p.A, would bear the cost of
fixing it.
But Salini’s own website ascribes the collapse to “an unforeseen
geological event” and International Rivers, a group opposed to the
construction of Gilgel Gibe III, suggests that “the dubiously negotiated
contract for Gilgel Gibe II exempts Salini from geological risks,” meaning
the Ethiopians will get stuck with the tab.
As Caterina Amicucci of the Italian group CRBM put it, “Gilgel Gibe
demonstrates that cutting corners does not speed up development, but
can rather produce costly disasters.”
It is a lesson that governments and funding agencies are loath to learn.
For example, during her visit to Kenya in November last year, World Bank
vice president for Africa Obiageli Ezekwesili raised concerns about the
manner in which the Ethiopian government was managing the project, in
particular the environmental and social impact assessment (ESIA) which
was not conclusive (a group of scientists calling itself the African
Resources Working Group has completely rubbished it) and the award of
the contract to Salini without competitive bidding.
Three months later, Ken Ohashi, the Bank’s country director for Ethiopia
and Sudan, while confirming that the omission of a competitive tender
meant the Bank couldn’t loan the Ethiopian government money for the
project, nevertheless declared its willingness, “to help mobilise financing
from the private market... by providing a guarantee.”
A document prepared by the Italian embassy in Ethiopia enumerates
another lesson from Gibe II.
“The Project was defined without a comprehensive sector support
strategy,” it says, and lists as possible negative consequences, “limited
scope for supporting best practices for (socio) environmental impacts of
large infrastructures.”
In this regard, the World Bank, the EIB and the AfDB are co-ordinating
their activities on Gibe III.
The three institutions have fielded at least four major missions together in
Ethiopia as part of their due diligence.
Transparency, another feature of successful projects, is missing from
Gibe III.
When the Kenyan government sent a fact-finding delegation to Ethiopia,
they pointedly left out the organisations, such as Friends of Lake
Turkana, who had called for it.
Their finding that the dam poses no threat to the lake, comes as cold
comfort to the communities there.
Within Ethiopia itself, people opposed to the dams are afraid to speak up.
Those interviewed for this report even feared the identification of their
communities.
Not surprising in a country considered only “partly free” by Freedom
House and which in 2006 was ranked 160 out of 168 in the Reporters
Without Borders’ Worldwide Press Freedom Index.
While, for this report, the Ethiopian embassy did provide the opportunity
for a short interview with Yelibu Lijalem, the deputy head of mission, as
well as a statement extolling the virtues of the project, this misses the
point. It is not the press that needs convincing.
Loss of trust
In the end, the controversy over the Gibe dam revolves around trust.
As Terri Hathaway of International Rivers put it, the question is, “How do
the governments demonstrate their political will to provide for their
citizens? If you’ve broken promises in the past or you’re taking actions to
disempower those people, then there’s no trust or belief in what’s going
to go forward.”
For example, according to the 2008 ESIA, authorities managing the dam
would be obliged to release moderate amounts of water to create an
artificial flood as mitigation for the loss of the natural one.
The Ethiopian authorities maintain that the dams are necessary for
controlling natural flooding but ignore the dangers the dams themselves
present.
Thus, when in 2006, heavy rainfall led to serious concerns over the
amount of water in the Gilgel Gibe I dam and there were emergency
releases, these came at the height of the natural flood downstream,
contributing to a deluge that killed over 400 people downstream.
Conversely, while authorities are again obliged to release a minimal flow
during the dry season to maintain life on the river, according to the
activists, they may not do it because they need the water to generate
power.
Over the past century, people living downstream of large dams, especially
indigenous, tribal, and peasant communities, have suffered
disproportionately. Impacts include extreme economic hardship,
community disintegration, waterborne diseases and the loss of natural
resources upon which livelihoods depended.
Unless these people feel that they have been consulted in the conception,
design and management of dams, to require that they happily entrust their
future to them is the very definition of living in an ivory tower.
Courtesy
The trouble with Gilgel Gibe
5 April, 2010 | By PATRICK GATHARA
- The construction of the
Gilgel Gibe III dam on
the Omo river in
Ethiopia has been
condemned by
conservationists and
indigenous rights
campaigners as a white
elephant, a monument to
government myopia,
incompetence and greed.
In return, the authorities accuse these “do-gooders” of romanticising rural
misery from the comfort of their ivory towers. In between are the people
of the region, whose interests both sides claim to be championing.
Such controversy is not new. The World Commission on Dams, which
reviewed the effectiveness of large dams, seemed to capture both sides of
the issue when it wrote, “There can no longer be any justifiable doubt that
dams have made an important and significant contribution to human
development, and that in too many cases an unacceptable and often
unnecessary price has been paid to secure those benefits, especially in
social and environmental terms, by people displaced, by communities
downstream, by taxpayers and by the natural environment.”
In the case of the Gilgel Gibe dams (there are five in total, two of which
have been completed), the touted benefits to the country and region are
compelling.
Ethiopia, the continent’s second most populous country, has one of the
world’s lowest levels of access to modern energy services.
According to the World Bank, only 12 per cent of Ethiopians have access
to electricity.
Its installed capacity as of 2006 was less than 800 MW, nearly 90 per
cent of which was generated by hydropower.
By contrast, the country has one of Africa’s highest hydropower
potential, estimated at 30,000-45,000 MW.
To tap this potential, nearly 300 sites have been identified for possible
future development.
Surrounding countries are also hungry for that power.
According to Emmanuel Nzabanita of the African Development Bank,
which is considering financing Gibe III, the power systems of East Africa
are still in their infancy, with insufficient installed capacity to satisfy
domestic demand.
Overall electrification rates are miniscule (around 10 per cent on average)
and per capita energy consumption is one of the lowest in the world.
Hydropower from Ethiopia would be half the cost of that from other
plants being built in East Africa; moreover, the planned interconnection
between the Ethiopian and Kenyan systems as well those of Uganda,
Rwanda, Burundi, eastern Congo, Tanzania and Zambia will enable the
development of the huge hydropower resources in Ethiopia at a
considerably lower cost due to the economies of scale thus realised.
For Ethiopia, ranked 171 out of 182 countries on the United Nations
Development Programme’s 2009 Human Development Index, and where
39 per cent of the population lives on less than $1.25 a day, the revenues
to be earned from exporting power are not to be sneezed at.
The World Commission on Dams report noted, “Groups bearing the
social and environmental costs and risks of large dams... are often not the
same groups that receive the water and electricity services, nor the social
and economic benefits from these.”
In the case of the Gilgel Gibe dams, many of these costs will be borne by
the marginalised groups living downstream of the dams and by their
equally neglected compatriots on the other side of the border in
northwestern Kenya.
Scepticism
These communities, comprising nearly half a million people, are entirely
dependent on the Omo River and Lake Turkana, which it feeds.
They face the immediate loss of traditional means of survival, such as
annual floods that bring fertile silts and allow the growing of crops in an
otherwise barren and waterless land.
Though desirous of the benefits of modern amenities, many of which are
powered by electricity, they are sceptical of promises from governments
in faraway capitals that have only been too content to ignore them in the
past.
This fear — arising from past experience — is what needs addressing and
is why preliminary studies, including environmental and social
assessments, are vital.
They are not about stopping or curtailing development but enabling it.
For development is not about dams and electricity, but about people.
Societies should be measured not by the numbers on balance sheets, but
by how those numbers translate to a better life for all their people.
A second advantage of doing proper due diligence is that it stops good
projects from evolving into white elephants.
The World Commission on Dams points out that large dams have a
tendency to come in late and over budget.
Properly done, preliminary studies can help mitigate this; you ignore them
at your peril. The Ethiopian dams have proven to be no exception.
Gibe II, the second in the series, is a case in point.
Inaugurated in January 2010 after shoddy planning had led to a three-year
delay and a total cost of $0.5 billion, it suffered a catastrophic tunnel
collapse barely two weeks later, which will cost another $25 million to
repair.
The Ethiopian embassy in Kenya insists that this collapse was expected
and that the contractors, Salini Constrotturi S.p.A, would bear the cost of
fixing it.
But Salini’s own website ascribes the collapse to “an unforeseen
geological event” and International Rivers, a group opposed to the
construction of Gilgel Gibe III, suggests that “the dubiously negotiated
contract for Gilgel Gibe II exempts Salini from geological risks,” meaning
the Ethiopians will get stuck with the tab.
As Caterina Amicucci of the Italian group CRBM put it, “Gilgel Gibe
demonstrates that cutting corners does not speed up development, but
can rather produce costly disasters.”
It is a lesson that governments and funding agencies are loath to learn.
For example, during her visit to Kenya in November last year, World Bank
vice president for Africa Obiageli Ezekwesili raised concerns about the
manner in which the Ethiopian government was managing the project, in
particular the environmental and social impact assessment (ESIA) which
was not conclusive (a group of scientists calling itself the African
Resources Working Group has completely rubbished it) and the award of
the contract to Salini without competitive bidding.
Three months later, Ken Ohashi, the Bank’s country director for Ethiopia
and Sudan, while confirming that the omission of a competitive tender
meant the Bank couldn’t loan the Ethiopian government money for the
project, nevertheless declared its willingness, “to help mobilise financing
from the private market... by providing a guarantee.”
A document prepared by the Italian embassy in Ethiopia enumerates
another lesson from Gibe II.
“The Project was defined without a comprehensive sector support
strategy,” it says, and lists as possible negative consequences, “limited
scope for supporting best practices for (socio) environmental impacts of
large infrastructures.”
In this regard, the World Bank, the EIB and the AfDB are co-ordinating
their activities on Gibe III.
The three institutions have fielded at least four major missions together in
Ethiopia as part of their due diligence.
Transparency, another feature of successful projects, is missing from
Gibe III.
When the Kenyan government sent a fact-finding delegation to Ethiopia,
they pointedly left out the organisations, such as Friends of Lake
Turkana, who had called for it.
Their finding that the dam poses no threat to the lake, comes as cold
comfort to the communities there.
Within Ethiopia itself, people opposed to the dams are afraid to speak up.
Those interviewed for this report even feared the identification of their
communities.
Not surprising in a country considered only “partly free” by Freedom
House and which in 2006 was ranked 160 out of 168 in the Reporters
Without Borders’ Worldwide Press Freedom Index.
While, for this report, the Ethiopian embassy did provide the opportunity
for a short interview with Yelibu Lijalem, the deputy head of mission, as
well as a statement extolling the virtues of the project, this misses the
point. It is not the press that needs convincing.
Loss of trust
In the end, the controversy over the Gibe dam revolves around trust.
As Terri Hathaway of International Rivers put it, the question is, “How do
the governments demonstrate their political will to provide for their
citizens? If you’ve broken promises in the past or you’re taking actions to
disempower those people, then there’s no trust or belief in what’s going
to go forward.”
For example, according to the 2008 ESIA, authorities managing the dam
would be obliged to release moderate amounts of water to create an
artificial flood as mitigation for the loss of the natural one.
The Ethiopian authorities maintain that the dams are necessary for
controlling natural flooding but ignore the dangers the dams themselves
present.
Thus, when in 2006, heavy rainfall led to serious concerns over the
amount of water in the Gilgel Gibe I dam and there were emergency
releases, these came at the height of the natural flood downstream,
contributing to a deluge that killed over 400 people downstream.
Conversely, while authorities are again obliged to release a minimal flow
during the dry season to maintain life on the river, according to the
activists, they may not do it because they need the water to generate
power.
Over the past century, people living downstream of large dams, especially
indigenous, tribal, and peasant communities, have suffered
disproportionately. Impacts include extreme economic hardship,
community disintegration, waterborne diseases and the loss of natural
resources upon which livelihoods depended.
Unless these people feel that they have been consulted in the conception,
design and management of dams, to require that they happily entrust their
future to them is the very definition of living in an ivory tower.
Courtesy
| All rights reserved. |
| Ethio Quest News Together We Can Make It! |
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
| Ethio Quest News: For latest Ethiopian News, views, Reviews and More |
| Biggest Dam in Ethiopia Near Completion " Four 75 - megawatts generators and four turbines beneath the dam will begin service soon, according to the coordinators. ( VOA ) |
| LET THERE BE LIGHT! THE GILGEL GIBE SAGA, The BOND & DILEMMA OF ETHIOPIAN DIASPORA By Genet Mersha Is Ethiopia's Economic Growth Sustainable? (Genet Mersha ) " I am optimistic Ethiopia would be able to focus on its economic growth and national development, moving far away from the collusion course between those called upon to....More |
| MARKET TURNS & TWISTS AFFIRM IMPORTANCE OF NEW APPROACHES TO BEAT POVERTY & BACKWARDNESS By Genet Mersha |
| Ethiopia dam will not displace 200,000: builder By Barry Malone Giant dam to devastate 200,000 tribal people in Ethiopia Survival International Ethiopia's Hydro Plans Get Stuck in the Mud International Rivers Ethiopia opens 300 MW dam, starts producing 80 MW Barry Malone Among the cons of the Tekeze Dam? By Zeinobia Uneasy Choice: Where do we stand on Gibe III Dam? By Tsegaye Mulushoa |
| Ethiopia: Dam Critics Won't Go Away 6 February, 2010 | IPS Correspondent ADDIS ABABA, Feb 6 (IPS) - Ethiopia is building a 240-metre high dam on the Omo River that is intended to end the country's electricity shortage and supply power to neighbouring countries. Not everyone's happy....More |
