About Yonge Nawe

Programmes

Resources

Press Information

Membership

Links

Search

Contact Us
 

Article prepared by Yonge Nawe in recognition of the 5th Annual International Day of Action Against Dams and for Rivers, Water and Life.

The 14th of March 2002 is the 5th Annual International Day of Action Against Dams and for Rivers, Water and Life. It is the time to join together in solidarity to protest destructive development. It is the time to fight for social justice and rights of communities over their resources and lives. The theme of this year’s campaign is "communities’ right to information and participation in decisions that affect their lives." 
This article takes a bird’s eye view on the development effectiveness of some selected large dams in southern Africa focusing on social impacts. 

Dams have caused untold suffering, broken promises and losses to communities in southern Africa. Participants attending a Southern African Hearings for Communities Affected by Large Dams held in Cape Town from 11-12 November 1999 made a statement on social costs of large dams in southern Africa. In their statement they lamented on the following losses; 

• Our land where we grew food was taken from us and not replaced 
• Our homes were demolished or drowned 
• Our livestock were taken from us 
• We lost control of our natural resources 
• Our wildlife has disappeared 
• Our cultural values, functions and roots have been destroyed 
• Our ancestors’ graves have been buried under deep water, and the 
• Lives of some of our community and family members were violently taken from us (Maphala: 1999). 

In both countries, the Tonga were neither well informed nor consulted. Another blow they suffered was separation from their relatives especially after the federation broke up. It has been argued that there are a few things, which they benefited from the project such as access to roads, schools and medical facilities. However, most villages are still without electricity. 

The WCD adds that compensation packages offered to displaced people varied between the countries of Zimbabwe and Zambia. The Zambians were provided with cash compensation paid to each individual as well as funds for some development programmes in the new areas of settlement. On the other hand, the Zimbabweans did not receive any cash payments to individuals and there was little provision for development programmes in the new areas of settlement. It argues that the Zambians were also not happy with the compensation they got, as it was inadequate. Its now 43 years after the commissioning of the project yet the people resettled from both countries still need help. It has been suggested that part of the project revenues should have been invested in these people.  Nevertheless there have been some recent initiatives by the Zambezi River Authority and the Zambian government to redress grievances surrounding dam-related evictions. 

On 19 November 2001 more than 2000 affected Lesotho communities converged on both Katse and Mohale Dams, while 300 more marched at Muela Dam (International Rivers Network: 2001). They were protesting against the lack of fair compensation for property lost to the dams, and unfulfilled promises of development. They demanded to receive a ten-percent share of royalties generated from the dams and a commission of inquiry into the project's impacts on local people. 

The Lesotho Highlands Water Project (LHWP) is one of the most massive infrastructure projects funded by the World Bank in sub-Sahara Africa (Ibid). The project is designed to divert water from Lesotho to the urban and industrial Gauteng region in South Africa through a series of dams and tunnels blasted through the Maloti Mountains. The first three major dams in the six-dam scheme affected 27,000 people. Approximately 2000 of them were resettled (Ibid). 

It has been argued that discontent stemming from the large involuntary resettlement and compensation program has plagued the project since its inception. Local communities, who depended on subsistence farming prior to the project, have been left bereft of land and struggle to survive on annual compensation deliveries. The communities have been pressing for greater voice in decision-making and a more equitable distribution of project benefits through community meetings and petitions. 

The once remote mountain communities of the Lesotho Highlands is said to have dramatically changed as a result of the project. The project has seen about 20,000 people moving into the area to work (Ibid). This has resulted in the mushrooming of squatter camps, alcoholism, prostitution and spreading of Aids. Besides the changes brought by the influx of outsiders, the new reservoir is itself a physical disruption to community life. Individual families and even whole villages have been disrupted and whole livelihoods have evaporated, while communities that used to share social ties are now cut off from each other by the reservoir (Ibid.). 

Botswana communities who live in the Okavango Delta wrote an open letter to the governments of Angola, Namibia, Botswana and OKACOM protesting against the proposed dam on the Okavango. Looses they highlighted include among others, access to water, fisheries, wildlife, cattle, housing material, tourism and their entire livelihood base. 

According to the International Rivers Network (2001), the government of Namibia was in the past two years studying the feasibility of a 30-megawatt (MW) hydropower dam on the Okavango River at Popa Falls, less than 50 kilometres upstream from Okavango delta in Botswana. The project was said to impact significantly on the delta and Popa Falls. In addition, this project was going to affect tourism including one run by a community of indigenous Barakwena people, and bring scarce income to this undeveloped corner of the country. The most alarming threat posed by the dam was the likely impacts on the downstream Okavango Delta where nearly 100,000 people live in and around the delta, and the spectacular mosaic of wetlands, pools and dry land forests supports world-renowned wildlife populations and a $350 million per year tourism industry (Ibid) 

There are many lessons that can be drawn from the above discussion. Designing an appropriate compensation package for people displaced by a dam is a complex and difficult exercise, and that dam developers need to be creative and to go beyond the provision of cash handouts (WCD: 2000). Compensation needs to be aimed at providing the displaced people with an opportunity to achieve a sustained improvement in their livelihoods. Compensation is best given in a form that provides opportunity to the displaced people to become economically self-reliant and must be consistent with the noble aspirations of the community (Ibid). In the Kariba Dam project, the compensation that was offered to the displaced people, in Zambia, was on a pari parsu basis (ie, a hut for a hut). This approach misses the opportunity to develop a compensation profile that enables the displaced people a chance to participate in economic benefits arising from the transformation of their land resources (Ibid). 

According to the United Nations principles on habitat, "whatever the original conditions of the displaced community habitat amenities, the new homes must meet the basic needs of comfort, health and dignity" (ibid.). The Kariba and Lesotho cases also shows that compensation alone does not suffice in many cases to guarantee improved livelihood conditions in a sustainable way. 

In many instances local communities’ voices are not heard as the Kariba and Lesotho cases have shown. However, it is important that local communities are involved in making decision that affects their lives. According to the Dams and Development: A New Framework for Decision-Making Report, no project should proceed without the agreement of affected people. It states that, "Demonstrable public acceptance of all key decisions is achieved through agreements negotiated in an open and transparent process conducted in good faith with the informed participation of all stakeholders." 

Information and knowledge is power. As we celebrate this day it is important to think about the role of information and participation of communities in making decisions that affects their lives. By depriving information and knowledge to communities, you are depriving their fundamental right to make informed decisions and therefore you are contributing to their suffering. 

References: 

Maphalala, B.1999. Social Costs of Large Dams in Southern Africa: Voices of Affected Communities. Submission presented at the WCD Regional Consultation, Cairo, Egypt, 8-9 December 1999. 

World Commission on Dams. 2000. Kariba Dam-Zambezi River Basin (Case study): Final Paper - Executive Summary 

 "Lesotho Campaign" IN International Rivers Network Website URL: www.irn.org/programs/lesotho/ 

"Huge Protest Over Large Dams in Lesotho: Police Attempt to Disrupt Demonstrations, Injuring Three" IN International Rivers Network Website URL: www.irn.org/programs/lesotho/index.asp?id=011127.protest.html 

Maguga Dam Development Network. 2001. EIA prepared for the Maguga Dam Development Project. Mbabane 

International Rivers Network. 2001. Destructive Dam Considered for Okavango 

Rothert, S. "Okavango Delta Communities Speak Out Against Pipeline. IN. World 
Rivers Review, Volume 12, Number 6 / December 1997. 

Maletsky, C. 1999. Think twice before you pump water from Delta, says Chief In the Namibian, 6 October 1999.