China accused over plans to fund Uganda hydro plant

Image via crossed-flag-pins.com
BY PROF. DR. WOLFGANG H. THOME, ETN AFRICA CORRESPONDENT | JUN 27, 2014
Uganda's key rafting and travel adventure companies doing business
along the upper Nile valley are up in arms over plans to build another
dam on the Nile. This dam could effectively wipe out rafting, a
lucrative adventure activity for tourists, which Uganda has become
known for over the past two decades, should the preferred high dam be
constructed.
When the Bujagali hydro-electric power plant and dam was constructed,
financed in part with World Bank money, the Ugandan government gave a
binding undertaking on certain offset measures to be taken which
included the integrity of Mabira Forest as much as keeping certain
clearly-mapped-out downstream sections of the river free of any
further dams which could impact on local communities and the tourism
industry which has become a major employer and revenue source for the
area.
The agreement, seen in full by this correspondent, was signed on July
18, 2007 between the International Development Association and the
government of Uganda and reads in key parts: "The obligations of
Uganda under this Indemnity Agreement are irrevocable, absolute and
unconditional," binding the country to refrain from any action which
could impact on the river section in question, something the proposed
new Isimba power plant now appears to ignore.
The "Save Adventure Tourism in Uganda" team has now written to the
World Bank to once again reiterate the need for Uganda's commitment to
respect the offset agreement as well as pointing out the downside of
the dam project, should indeed, as has been suggested to this
correspondent by several sources, the option of the highest possible
dam version put up.
Start quote:
We understand that you are the representatives for the World Bank in
Uganda, and felt there was an issue that would be of interest to you,
we have also sent a similar email to Somin Mukheriji, who we believe
to be the task team leader for the Bujagali Hydropower Project. Please
allow us to explain, and accept our apologies if some of it you are
already aware of.
As a mitigation measure from the Bujagali Hydro Project in Uganda the
Kalagala Offset Agreement between the World Bank and the Government of
Uganda was formed to protect the remaining sections of river in the
region. The Isimba Hydropower project now threatens that region, with
the planned reservoir inundating a significant portion of the
protected area.
As a group of concerned citizens, investors and business people we
hold this section of river very dearly in our hearts. As well as being
an overwhelmingly beautiful environment, it also provides a unique and
very special resource that has allowed a whole tourism industry to
build in the region, creating many local jobs and sustaining the
regions tourism.
Members of Save Adventure Tourism in Uganda (S.A.T.U.) recently met
with the Ugandan Electricity Generation Company LTD (U.E.G.C.L.),
Ugandan Electricity Transmission Company Ltd (U.E.T.C.L.) and the
Ministry of Energy and Mineral development (M.E.M.D.).
One of the key issues that came up was the Kalagala Offset Agreement.
It was explained at the meeting by a member of the Ministry for Energy
dept. that members of the World Bank have been in discussions with the
Government of Uganda about what to do about the fact that Isimba
breaks the Kalagala Offset Agreement. It was noted by members of the
M.E.M.D. that a number of options were being considered by the World
Bank as to how to deal with the issue. It was explained that one of
the possible solutions involved moving the offset area to a different
section of river.
As local people who live in the offset area, as business owners and
stakeholders in the Kalagala Offset Agreement, we wish to be involved
in discussions regarding the Offset Agreement and provide the world
bank with what we believe to be relevant information to the decision
making process.
The argument was raised by the M.E.M.D. that only a 'small part' of
the conservation area will be flooded so it isn't a big deal. Apart
from the obvious argument that you either break an agreement, or you
don't, there are also missing several vital points that we would like
to raise to the World Bank for consideration:
- The most important part of the offset area is the river and the
river banks, this is obvious, since the offset area was created as a
mitigation measure to compensate for the flooding of an upper section
of river. To flood the river and its banks and say that that only
makes up a small part of the conservation area is overlooking the fact
that the river and its banks are the primary thing that makes this
area unique!
- If you look at the attachment you will see that the map marks an
area in red, the river banks which will ultimately be underwater. This
area is labeled 'area affected by reservoir', which is noted to be
only 8.2% of the K.O.A. A figure that keeps being quoted to us when we
mention the K.O.A. and no doubt is a figure that has been used in
discussion with the World bank. However, there is a pretty clear
oversight here. The river, not just the river bank, should also be
part of the 'area affected by the reservoir'. The islands, flows,
rapids and ecosystems that the river is made up of are also effected,
they will be lake, not whitewater when the reservoir is complete. So
this area is bigger than the area noted, and of greater significance.
- It is also worth noting (anyone who knows this area well will
confirm the same) that the primary areas in the K.O.A. that remain as
untouched natural habitat are the river itself and the immediate river
banks. In most places, once you are over a 100m from the river bank
you enter farm land, rather than unique and environmentally sensitive
rapids and river banks. So, the '8%' of the offset area that they will
be flooding, is a good portion of the most historic, environmentally
valuable and important part of the K.O.A.
Whilst we can't imagine the World Bank approving the plan to simply
move the conservation area away from the area that is being destroyed,
we would like to raise significant objections to this idea in case it
is under real consideration:
- We believe it to be against the basic fundamental idea of a
conservation agreement to simply move the area because someone wants
to destroy part of the conservation area.
- Also, it should be noted that no other area can be substituted for a
completely unique section of river and rapids. The section that will
be inundated by the reservoir is a truly unique section of whitewater
that attracts tens of thousands of tourists from around the world per
annum, and it is the only of its kind in the world that is accessible
year round. The whitewater that is left, will not have the same draw
to the country and region, and there are no other rapids to
substitute. On completion of the Bujagali Dam river activities moved
to a different section of whitewater, the one now protected by the
K.O.A., this will not be an option if the largest version of the
Isimba Dam goes ahead, as there will be very little whitewater left on
this section of the Nile and no other rapids that the operations can
move too.
As stakeholders in the K.O.A., as people who have grown up next to the
river and a group of people with in-depth knowledge of the river banks
that are under discussion we are requesting to be involved in
discussions concerning any alterations of the K.O.A.
We are also requesting any information you can supply us with
regarding Isimba HPP and its encroachment into the K.O.A.
It should also be mentioned that this is not the plight of only a few
concerned people. Over fifteen thousand people, including twelve
thousand Ugandans, as well as people from over 65 countries have
voiced their concern via a petition about the breaching of the K.O.A.
and the largest form of the Isimba Dam, we are happy to supply you
with copies of this petition if you believe it will help conserve the
conservation area. Many thousands of people genuinely care about this
section of river and the local people who live around it.
Thank you for creating the K.O.A. and for all your efforts so far on
helping conserve this beautiful area. We appreciate your support and
any information you can give.
Yours Sincerely,
The Save Adventure Tourism in Uganda Team.
End quote
Having been part of the protracted consultations the World Bank
initiated for the Bujagali power plant, when it was initially proposed
by AES, this correspondent still recalls the circumstances and
understanding why the offset agreement was put into place and any
change of heart by the World Bank would amount to a fundamental breach
of confidence and trust between the Bank and Uganda's tourism
fraternity. Following the launch of Bujagali have the rafting
companies already moved further downstream, at very substantial
expense, after the main Bujagali rapids were all flooded and became
useless for rafting and kayaking as a new mini lake emerged behind the
dam wall.
Should the World Bank go ahead with the option to move the offset site
it would without doubt trigger major law suits not just from Ugandan
companies but also international organizations like the International
River Network. 13 years ago they were all part of the negotiations and
discussions which saw AES' attempts rejected to ride roughshod over
the then nascent adventure tourism sector in Uganda by using
grotesquely low tourism revenue figures in their estimates and
projections, which of course by now are all proved to be totally false
and exposed as the smokescreen put up by self-serving consultants
employed by AES at the time.
The adventure companies in Jinja have availed the summary of a report
they commissioned last year, outlining the impact the high dam wall
option would pose to their businesses which makes interesting reading:
Start quote:
Independent Tourism and Economic Impact Assessment of the proposed
Isimba Hydropower Project
Nile River, Uganda
Prepared by: E&D Consulting Services in association with Imani Development
December 2013
Summary of Key Findings
As part of the strategy to address the significant power supply
shortages Uganda experiences, the Government of Uganda developed a
Hydropower Master Plan to identify feasible hydropower projects. One
of the projects identified in the Master Plan is the proposed Isimba
Hydropower Project. Out of the potential large hydropower projects
identified this project generates the least amount of power. Through
various media and website announcements the construction of the Isimba
Dam is apparently scheduled to commence shortly.
Tourism operators in Jinja have only been briefly consulted and
believe that the full impacts of the proposed project have not been
fully considered and, thus, requested this independent tourism and
economic assessment to provide decision-makers with additional
information for consideration.
This section of the Nile River was found to be quite unique in that it
caters for all skill levels from beginner kayakers and rafting
tourists, right up to the world's most extreme world-class kayakers.
The warm climate coupled with the fact that the water level remains
constant all year round, make this section of the Nile a white water
destination with possibly no equal in the world. These features
attract in the region of at least 19,000 water-sport related tourists
each year and make a significant contribution to Uganda's overall
tourism product and ability to compete as a destination against its
regional neighbors, namely Rwanda and Kenya. One of the rapids, the
Nile Special, is regarded as one of the top freestyle kayaking rapids
in the world and in E&D's opinion is arguably Uganda's top natural
resource in terms of tourism revenue generated per square meter. If it
were to be promoted to its full potential Uganda could possibly earn
an estimated US$4.8 million dollars in foreign exchange from this 150
m section of river, coupled with significant international media
attention.
The highest proposed Isimba Dam will leave only five rapids remaining
but more critically because of the nature and distance between them,
it will not leave Jinja or Uganda with a marketable rafting
experience. The kayaking tourists would also cease to be interested in
Uganda. The middle level Isimba Dam alternative will still leave a
rafting product although a diminished one that is unlikely to further
increase or attract numbers and will certainly result in the number of
kayakers decreasing.
The lowest Isimba Dam alternative will have little real impact or
change upon the current rafting and kayaking activities and it may
even promote the development of new tourism and water based activities
further down the river beyond the current one-day section. In addition
only this lowest alternative will not have any impact upon the
Kalagala Off-set area and Uganda's indemnity agreement with the
IDA/World Bank.
The Isimba Hydropower Project is one of a number of large and small
power generation project alternatives available to Uganda, yet the
highest dam level which is being recommended as the preferred option
carries significant risks for tourism, one of Uganda's other major
sectors and sources of foreign exchange.
In terms of an achieving an optimum overall development strategy, E&D
recommends that only the lowest Isimba alternative should be
considered along with the development of other generation
alternatives. This alternative, whilst still increasing Uganda's
overall power generation capacity, will avoid the loss of a unique
natural resource which currently and will increasingly into the future
make a significant contribution to Uganda's GDP through tourism.
End quote
This again shows the tendency of project promoters and willing
financiers lacking the ethical and moral backbone of global
institutions, which are accountable to the civilized world, to ignore
stakeholders and brush their objections and input aside, if it does
not fit their own scheme of things.
Uganda's own record vis-a-vis the offset agreement is also quite
checkered as attempts were made several times to carve out a quarter
of the Mabira Forest, or some 7,000 hectares of prime medium altitude
rain forest, to turn it into sugar cane fields, notably for one of the
country's least efficient sugar producers, which had plenty of other
commercial options to increase their acreage under cultivation but
rather tried to get their hands on a free gift. Following widespread
protests and bloody demonstrations in Kampala, however, these plans
were eventually shelved and will hopefully not ever be revived again.
There, Uganda was apparently either in a state of forgetfulness over
the agreements signed in 2007 or else deliberately trying to break the
offset agreement, giving rise to suspicion that the same attitude may
prevail over the Isimba hydro-power project and the height of the dam.
Local, regional, and international conservationists are, however,
watching with hawk eyes that the letter and spirit of the offset
agreement are being adhered to, and to the fullest extent, in order to
protect the environment, the biodiversity of the upper Nile valley,
community interests, and the interest of the adventure tourism
fraternity.
http://www.google.ca/gwt/x?gl=CA&source=s&u=http://www.eturbonews.com/47380/china-accused-over-plans-fund-uganda-hydro-plant&hl=en-CA&ei=rtKtU6fjHqadsgfKp4HYCA&wsc=yh
--
SIBOMANA Jean Bosco
Google+: https://plus.google.com/110493390983174363421/posts
YouTube Channel: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9B4024D0AE764F3D
http://www.youtube.com/user/sibomanaxyz999
***Online Time:15H30-20H30, heure de Montréal.***Fuseau horaire domestique:
heure normale de la côte Est des Etats-Unis et Canada (GMT-05:00)***
Posted by: Jean Bosco Sibomana <sibomanaxyz999@gmail.com>
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (1) |
.To post a message: RwandaLibre@yahoogroups.com; .To join: RwandaLibre-subscribe@yahoogroups.com; .To unsubscribe from this group,send an email to:
RwandaLibre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
_____________________________________________________
More news: http://www.amakurunamateka.com ; http://www.ikangurambaga.com ; http://rwandalibre.blogspot.co.uk
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-SVP, considérer environnement avant toute impression de cet e-mail ou les pièces jointes.
======
-Please consider the environment before printing this email or any attachments.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments
Post a Comment