Mphanda Nkuwa : The World Commission On Dams And Eskom's Double Standard

MPHANDA NKUWA, THE WORLD COMMISSION ON DAMS AND ESKOM’S DOUBLE STANDARD Large dams have for a long time occupied an important place in national and individual psyches. The shear scale of their construction, and the degree to which they provide reliable sources of both water and electricity mean that they represent great symbols of human ingenuity. As such they have been constructed by governments in the name of development. In this form dams represent the capacity of modern nation states to deliver high standards of living to their citizens. Despite such symbolism, however, large dams have also proved exceptionally problematic. For while their scale makes them powerful symbols of development it is this same scale of construction that generates dramatic impacts on riverine ecosystems and thereby the people, plants and animals that rely on them. Ironically, because of their damaging impacts many large dams have ended up decreasing aggregate welfare, rather than bringing development as had been hoped. As a result there has been a general sway away from viewing large dams as a developmental panacea. Instead they have come to be viewed as potentially important forms of infrastructure, capable of providing those crucial elements of development : water and electricity; but at the same time capable of causing great hardship which in many ways retarded both local and national development.

The result of this dual nature of dams was the convening of the World Commission on Dams (WCD) by the World Bank in 1997. The commission, chaired by Kader Asmal, found that in order to build dams which benefitted everyone and actually lead to development, a different ethos needed to be brought to their construction. The trickle down effects from the provision of energy and water could not be expected to make up for the harm that would be felt amongst those communities negatively affected by the dams. Rather dams needed to

be constructed in ways which ensured the protection of people and ecosystems, so that there could be no losers in the process. The recommendations of the commission were rapidly taken up by South Africa where any new dam now has to be constructed to meet those conditions stipulated in by the WCD. The Mpanda Nkuwa Dam in Mozambique is one of the many controversial large dams proposed for imminent construction. For while its location on the lower Zambezi river creates the potential for generating hydroelectric power, the impacts of the dam will also be significant. Located about 70km downstream of the existing Caborra Bassa Dam, the dam’s reservoir will inundate an area currently inhabited by about 1300 households. As a result of changes in river flow it will also have major impacts on the 250 000, predominantly subsistence, livelihoods of the people living downstream. For these communities their major means of subsistence, fishing and recession agriculture, will be severely undermined in a case where recession agriculture may well become almost impossible. The dam also poses a significant seismic risk due to it’s location near a fault line. The dam’s large size means that its construction may lead to future earthquakes, potentially large enough in size to destroy the dam wall itself which would cause the Mozambican floods of 2000 to pale in comparison.

In Mozambique debate over the dam continues. Proponents argue that the dam will generate both electricity and, through the international sale thereof, foreign revenue. Both of these, it is argued, are desperately needed for Mozambique to develop. Detractors of the dam on the other hand point out that its large impacts will negate its developmental potential. They also point out that the power from the dam, instead of going to rural families who so dearly need development; will instead go to large businesses such as energyhungry aluminium smelters and to other countries in Southern Africa.

They point out that while the dam might generate foreign revenue this

money will, at best, end up providing benefits to the capital in Maputo, and at worst in the pockets of high powered politicians. While this is going on those poor rural families at, and downstream of, the dam site will suffer the impoverishing effects of reduced fishing and farming.

They will also be exposed to potentially catastrophic seismically induced dam wall failure. Most concretely the dam’s detractors point out that the dam does not meet the standards set out by the WCD, and thus they argue that the current plans for construction are simply unacceptable. Dam proponents in response argue that to follow the WCD guidelines would make the project too expensive.

I have been involved with the Mphanda Nkuwa project for some time now. My position is that of a citizen concerned with the welfare of those most likely to lose out in the dam’s construction. I fear that the dam will only further impoverish those at, and downstream of, the dam site while enriching those in already powerful groups located in the capital. Understandably, as a South African who has lived amongst the communities at the proposed dam site, I was hopeful about the prospects of Eskom (as the likely major consumer of electricity to be produced by the dam) ensuring, as it would in South Africa, that the guidelines of the WCD be rigorously adhered to.

My optimism turned to concern when I heard that the World Bank had refused to fund the project given that it did not meet those specifications set out in the WCD, and as such the Import-Export Bank of China had potentially agreed to fund the dam. Concerned about these rumours I decided to contact Eskom and question them about the degree to which they would be willing to purchase power from a dam, the construction of which would not be sanctioned in South Africa. My requests did not yield a great deal. Initial emails received no response and I was eventually told that information on the involvement of Eskom in the construction of Mphanda Nkuwa was sensitive and that no information could be released – not even whether Eskom would

behave responsibly by insisting on the meeting of the WCD guidelines.

After following this up, through South Africa’s Access to Information Act,

I

was

eventually

granted

access

to

some

of

Eskom’s

documentation although not before ‘sensitive information’ had been severed from the documents.

Having failed as a South African citizen to get a statement from Eskom about where my future energy might come from and what burden this energy might put on the poor rural farmers of Mozambique I decided to pursue parliamentary channels. As such I contacted a parliamentary MP with a request that he formally enquire with the Minister of Public Enterprises as to whether Eskom was likely to buy power from Mphnda Nkuwa, and if so would they insist that the WCD guidelines be rigorously adhered to in the construction of the dam.

Eskom continued to skirt the issue mentioning nothing about the standards to which the dam should be built, saying only that a memorandum of understanding had yet to be finalised between South Africa and Mozambique.

Not only did my experience with Eskom highlight how difficult it is to be a citizen engaged with the ethical issues which will in the end affect me every time I turn the lights on my house, but also it made clear to me the devious manner in which Eskom has been operating.

For it should surely be unthinkable to, having taken steps to protect the poor from exploitation in ones own country to seek to exploit the poor in another country.

It was with tragic alarm then that I read on the BBC website that Eskom wishes not only to buy power from Mphanda Nkuwa, but also to help in its construction. And all this without reference to ensuring the safe operation of the dam and the protection of those who stand to be impacted by its construction. South Africa, through its historical use of coal, has enjoyed access to some of the cheapest electricity in the world. It now appears that, in the face of rolling blackouts, we are

willing to forgo our moral high ground and exploit the poor in Mozambique while remaining behind the veneer of progressive legislation in South Africa.

It is not my intention here to argue that the potential impacts of large dams should altogether rule out decisions regarding their construction. Rather I appreciate that dams can, when built to high safety standards and with adequate compensation for those directly and indirectly affected, improve the welfare of the great majority of citizens. Eskom, as the largest electricity buyer in the region, has the potential to insist on the adherence to those regulations which will cause the benefits of international trade in energy to be felt most widely. Unfortunately however it seems that they are currently willing to

simply

ship

constitutional

ethical

processes

problems are not

beyond

our

so accessible

borders,

where

and where

the

democratic processes is less developed, for the sake of cheaper electricity.

South Africa’s history of cheap energy and the current crisis produced by rolling blackouts should be no reason for arguing the precedent of keeping electricity cheap by dodging the guidelines contained in the WCD. For if the WCD guidelines ensure that the construction of a dam prevents the impoverishment of those people near the dam site, then these guidelines do not make electricity too expensive, rather they give it an accurate price. For there is another word which describes the act for taking that which belongs to another without providing fair and due compensation and that word is theft.

James Morrissey