Bujagali Dam, Uganda / Articles

Who could be against a project that provides energy to Uganda – a country with one of the lowest rates of electrification in the world and one of the highest poverty rates? A country where blackouts are part of the fabric of life?

The following are our key concerns over the Bujagali Dam project in Uganda.

The Bujagali Dam project is now being revived by the Ugandan government, in partnership with the Aga Khan’s Industrial Promotion Services, which recently signed a "power purchase agreement" on the project. This advisory, by the Ugandan NGO National Association of Professional Environmentalits, describes why this project should not go forward as is.

The Government of Uganda is reviving the construction of Bujagali dam, which up to now has been mired in controversies. The controversies, among others, include corruption, over–pricing of both the dam and electricity to be generated, questionable technical design, engineered hydrological data, inappropriate environmental impact assessment and lack of transparency and accountability.

An Interview with NAPE by Terri Hathaway, International Rivers

Background

In several recent publications, including his recently published book The World’s Banker and an article in Foreign Policy entitled "NGOs: Fighting Poverty, Hurting the Poor," author Sebastian Mallaby identified the Ugandan NGO, National Association of Professional Environmentalists (NAPE), as an example of NGOs that do more harm than good for development. NAPE was instrumental in halting the proposed Bujagali Dam, Uganda, a project found to be an economically poor deal for the government, as well as having social and environmental costs.

Sebastian Mallaby, a columnist with the Washington Post, recently published a new book on the World Bank (The World’s Banker, Penguin Press, September 2004). In his book and in separate articles that appeared in Foreign Policy, the Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times, Mallaby disparages non–governmental organizations such as International Rivers, and independent bodies such as the World Commission on Dams. Below is a preliminary response from International Rivers:

Presented at the WCD Launch in Uganda

I work with International Rivers Network, and was invited today to observe this gathering here in Uganda. International Rivers has been working for 20 years with NGOs and dam affected communities in the South to amplify the voices of those who bear the true cost of dams. International Rivers is not out to stop development. Rather, we work with local groups to ensure that development planning includes the voices of civil society and affected communities, which results in more sustainable, better–planned projects that share risks and benefits across society. International Rivers’s work has revealed that dams are often presented as a solution without having asked the right questions. International Rivers followed the WCD process closely, and we believe that the WCD recommendations provide a clear path to ensuring that the best development decisions for water and energy needs are made.

Thank you. I would like to thank NAPE for inviting me to attend today’s meeting. I work with International Rivers Network (IRN), and was invited today to observe this gathering here in Uganda. IRN has been working for 20 years with NGOs and dam affected communities in the South to amplify the voices of those who bear the true cost of dams. IRN is not out to stop development. Rather, we work with local groups to ensure that development planning includes the voices of civil society and affected communities, which results in more sustainable, better–planned projects that share risks and benefits across society. IRN’s work has revealed that dams are often presented as a solution without having asked the right questions. IRN followed the WCD process closely, and we believe that the WCD recommendations provide a clear path to ensuring that the best development decisions for water and energy needs are made.

Bujagali Project Torpedoes Options Assessment for Uganda

Local and international groups have been lobbying for a full and fair review of the various energy options available to Uganda ever since the Bujagali Dam site was first granted to the US–based AES Corporation in the mid–1990s. However, extensive efforts by NGOs to promote further analysis of energy alternatives have for years fallen on deaf ears at the World Bank Group, the project’s main backer. In fact, the Bank has actually subverted efforts to analyze non–hydropower options: it manipulated data to justify Bujagali as the "least–cost" option for Uganda after its consultants pointed to other projects as cheaper; hired a dam–building firm to produce an "energy alternatives" report that analyzed only hydropower projects, and has consistently dismissed (without justification) the promising option of geothermal power.

World Bank’s Unflagging Favoritism for Overpriced Bujagali Project Has Helped Put the Brakes on Uganda’s Energy Development.