LET US TALK ABOUT DAMS (Part III)

GILGEL GIBE III—NUISIANCE OR BENEFICIAL?

AMANUEL DAGIM

We come now to the crux of the matter. Is Gilgel Gibe III a nuisance and an ecological disaster as its detractors claim or is it beneficial both to Ethiopia and Kenya?  The dice is cast, the pros and cons are many and we need to distinguish between the grain and the chaff, between the emotion and hard facts.

Gilgel Gibe III has been roundly condemned by Survival International, Kenyan environmental groups and some Northern Kenya MPs like Joseph Lekuton (Laisamis), Ekwee Ethuro (Turkana Central), Chachu Ganya (North Horr) and Peter Kenneth ( (Gatanga). The main argument presented against the construction of the dam that it would dry up Lake Turkana, lead to the displacement of thousands of people on both sides of the border, affect the ecological balance of the whole region and deprives the people of their livelihood. Irate Kenyans have demonstrated in front of the Chinese embassy in Nairobi to express their anger at China which is said to be one of the fund givers for the project being done by the Italian construction firm Salini Costruttori.  Let uis present the Survival critic in full here below:

“ A massive hydroelectric dam project on Ethiopia’s Omo River will devastate at least 200,000 tribal people, Survival said today.

Survival is launching an urgent campaign calling on the Ethiopian government to halt the dam (known as Gibe III), and urging potential international funders, including the Africa Development Bank, the European Investment Bank, the World Bank and the Italian government not to support the project.

Italian company Salini Costruttori, has been contracted to build the dam. The same company built the smaller Gibe II dam, part of which collapsed 10 days after it was opened in January.

The dam will end the Omo’s natural flood, which deposits fertile silt on the river banks, where the tribes cultivate crops when the waters recede. In a region where drought is commonplace, this will have devastating consequences for the tribes’ food supplies.

The tiny hunter-gatherer Kwegu tribe, for example, will be pushed to the brink as fish stocks will be reduced. Six Kwegu, including two children, recently died of hunger because the rains and flood failed.

The Ethiopian government plans to lease huge tracts of tribal land in the Omo Valley to foreign companies and governments for large-scale production of crops, including biofuels, which will be fed by water from the dam.
Most of the tribal people who will be affected by the dam know nothing about the project. The Ethiopian government is clamping down on tribal organizations, and last year closed down 41 local ‘community associations’, making it impossible for communities to hold meetings about the dam.

The Omo River is the primary source of Kenya’s famous Lake Turkana, which supports the lives of 300,000 people who pasture their cattle on its banks and fish there. The dam will threaten their survival too. Both the Lower Omo Valley and Lake Turkana are UNESCO World Heritage sites.

Survival’s director, Stephen Corry, said today, ‘The Gibe III dam will be a disaster of cataclysmic proportions for the tribes of the Omo valley. Their land and livelihoods will be destroyed, yet few have any idea what lies ahead. The government has violated Ethiopia’s constitution and international law in the procurement process. No respectable outside body should be funding this atrocious project.’

Survival together with the the Campaign for the Reform of the World Bank, Counter Balance coalition, Friends of Lake Turkana and International Rivers have launched a petition to stop the dam”.

As expected these assertions have been rejected by those favoring the project and refuted by the constructors of the dam. But, first the facts.

• The dam is being constructed on the Omo river cascade and will be finished by 2013.

• The total cost of the dam will be 1.55 billion Euros.

• More than 2760 Ethiopians and 125 foreigners are working at the project.

• The dam when completed will provide 1870 megawatts of electricity. Compare with Gilgel  Gibe II at 420 MW and Tana Beles at 460MW.

• The basin produced by the dam is approximately 14 billion cubic metres and not 216 billion cubic metres as dramatically reported by some quarters.

There is evidently a disagreement on the number of people that may be displaced by the dam project. Survival and  others talk of at least 200,000 lives being affected. Here is how the other side presents the issue:

“The projected affected persons (PAPs) in terms of loss of assets and property are a total of 355 households, about 188.94 hectares of land, of which 138.7 is farmland, 47 residential units, and 71,852 perennial crops and other trees…Although the Gilgel Gibe III project is one of the largest hydroelectric projects ever undertaken in the country, the impact from the reservoir in terms of population displacement is very small. This is because the impounded water will be confined within the gorge of the river far from large population settlement areas”.

Concern has also been tabled alleging that the dam would replace the natural Omo river flood cycle and 200,000 people depending on flood recession cultivation and pastoral grazing would be facing economic hardships they cannot overcome. True enough, the dam will replace the Omo river’s natural flood which normally fluctuates due to variable rainfall, climate change and even degradation in the watershed. This is what the dam would change as it would store the excess flood and assure a regulated flow. This is how the explanation goes:

“The large storage capacity of the dam also enables the flexible operation of the plant. To maintain the natural cycle, artificial flood will be released through the middle outlets to maintain the recession agriculture. This release will be stimulated wit the natural flood so that people can get the best benefit out of it. The availability of continuous flow in the river course will enable the breading of fishes in the lower Omo region, secure the continuation of the cultural recession agriculture practices in the area, secure the revival of grass lands for the pastoralists, and more importantly, protect the area from the frequent floods causing destructive effects on human and animal lives, private assets and public infrastructure particularly in the river delta”.

Actually, the experts argue that the reduction of water in Lake Turkana will not surpass more than 50cm per year for three years, a negligible reduction for a Lake that is known to experience reduction of one meter due to seasonal variations of the rainfall. And, again according to these experts, the 20,000 or so families engaged in flood recession and cropping in the delta (that is to say the Dasenech, Karo, Hamer, Mursi, Murle, Mugugi and Nyangatom ethnic groups using 12,000 plus hectares) will benefit from the constant water flow and small scale irrigation schemes that are planned would improve the agricultural produce in the area. Important to note that uncontrolled floods have dome damage to humans and property (as in 2006) and water scarcity has often been the cause of inter ethnic conflicts. The dam, say the constructors, will permanently eliminate the water shortage during the dry season due to the regulation of the water flow. They go to explain in the following terms:

• Will the project cause drought? No. The dam will not block the flow of water to the river indefinitely but merely redistribute it during the course of the year.

• Will the Salinity of Lake Turkana change? Absolutely not. Its “drinkability” and therefore its rich marine biodiversity will remain exactly the same. This means the activities connected to the local fishing trade will stay unaffected both for the Ethiopians and the Kenyans.

• Will the water level of Lake Turkana decrease? Not at all.

• Will the dam exacerbate tribal conflicts? The opposite is true. Even when the dam was not built inter tribal conflicts were present due to water scarcity and overall poverty that can now be reduced and removed by the benefits of the dam.

• Will humid areas suffer? No. The creation of artificial floods will enable the reproduction of the surrounding habitat.

• Will agriculture development suffer? On the contrary, the constant flow of water throughout the year can enable rich harvests and the use of modern farming techniques making the people (now depending on external aid for 60% of their food and water) self sufficient.

• Will the change drastically and negatively affect the local people? The changes will occur gradually. Overflow of water will not occur and attempts have been made to mitigate and prepare for any negative effects, if any. Loss of crop land and properties will also be “adequately compensated”.

There is still an ongoing controversy on how much the people have been consulted. Some dispute the claim that a series of consultations have been made since 2006. The Kenyans side affirms that these consultations have not included them at all. The fact remains that the project needs to convince both sides of the border as to its beneficial promises which are still being contested on the Kenyan side of the border. The problematic of development and guarding traditional way of life, reliance on hydroelectric power and availability of other alternative means at reasonable cost, cross border cooperation and many other issues continue to rear their heads.

To be continued…………………..