Come sunset, when Africa's primary source of energy, the sun, goes down, and students pack away their books or settle to study beside candlelight, Africa truly does become the 'dark continent'. Overall, the continent contributes less than 5 per cent of global electrification, dominated by a handful of countries such as South Africa, Libya and Egypt.

One third of the 1.6 billion people living without light reside in Africa, surviving on bio-mass, car batteries, paraffin and candles instead. A satellite 'photo' of the earth at night compiled by NASA, using data from meteorological programmes, shows Africa as a continent 'largely void of illuminated cities'.

According to the IMF, less than 25 per cent of sub-Saharan Africa has access to electricity, with nearly two thirds of the region experiencing acute energy shortages, caused by factors ranging from the underdevelopment of renewable energy, conflict, debt, and drought - exacerbated by climate change.

Presently, 60 per cent of Africa is dependent on hydroelectric power (HEP) as the continent's primary source of energy, with countries like Mozambique (91 per cent), the DRC (99 per cent), Uganda (99 per cent), Ghana (80 per cent), and Zambia (96 per cent) drawing electricity almost exclusively from grid-based hydroelectric power.

Since 2007, drought and erratic rainfall has crisscrossed the map, hitting Kenya, Namibia, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda and Ghana amongst others; the ripple effects have caused blackouts, not only in the producing countries but also in Togo and Benin, Ghana's energy client countries. ’When a serious drought strikes, a hydrodependent country also has to cope with water shortages and reduced agricultural production,’ says Lori Pottinger, head of Southern Africa Programmes at International Rivers. ’Most of the Nile states are dangerously dependent on hydropower, including Burundi, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Sudan, Tanzania, and Uganda,’ she adds.

Furthermore, the UN's Food and Agricultural Organisation reports that one in three people in sub-Saharan Africa suffer from chronic hunger, due to the compromised harvest of staple crops caused by increasingly erratic rainfall.

Climate models predict an average 10-20 per cent decline in rainfall, resulting in the rivers of Botswana and Tunisia completely drying up. The high-risk regions include the east-west bands stretching from Senegal to Sudan.

Geologists state that 75 per cent of African countries are at least partially located in unstable zones, i.e. in regions experiencing between 400 and 1,000 millimetres of rainfall and being the most vulnerable to declines.

But development experts do not appear to be listening. From the World Bank-backed Bujagali Dam in Uganda to the Kafue Gorge Lower Dam in Zambia and the 40,000 MW Grand Inga, which has the potential to light up the entire continent for a price tag of US$50-80 billion, the race is on to electrify Africa, harnessing the power of Africa's great rivers. According to Reynold Duncan, energy specialist at the World Bank, Africa has explored just five per cent of the continent's hydroelectric potential; the continent has been classified as "under-dammed" by those development agencies with poverty-reduction mandates.

Duncan urged Africa to consider 'riskier' assets like hydropower. ‘In Zambia, we have the potential of about 6,000 MW, in Angola we have 6,000 MW, and about 12,000MW in Mozambique - we have a lot of megawatts down here before we even go up to the Congo,’ he said.

COST ANALYSIS OF DAMS

But the question remains: Are these mega-dams a necessary catalyst for development? Is development a one-size-fits-all shoe with no room for tailoring to the characteristics of different regions? The benefits of large-scale dams have yet to positively impact the majority of people in the region. Instead, electricity is primarily supplied to mining and agricultural industries, such as is the case of Zambia's Kariba, and Mozambique's Cahora Bassa Dam. Though the latter generates enough electricity to power the country, the bulk is exported to neighbouring regions such as South Africa (1,920MW in 2006) and utilised by industry - some 8,556 of 14,717GWh produced. Less than nine per cent of Mozambicans have access to electricity.

The IEA estimates that just 285GWH is utilised by the government for commercial and public services. ‘This is not surprising,’ states South Africa's Lori Pottinger. ‘Most often, large dams provide electricity for foreign owned industries, water for foreign mining companies, and irrigation for large-scale farms. Small-scale farmers, rural communities, and the poor are the last to benefit, not the first.'

Often overlooked are issues related to distribution of electricity, and the underestimated costs of transmission lines required to electrify countries by the consortiums involved. ‘Distribution lines are the most needed but least cost-effective part of an African grid system. Priority is given to big consumers - cities and industries - over poor households, low-density and rural areas,’ she added.

’Long-range, high-voltage transmission lines are meant to connect two endpoints, requiring costly substations to reduce the voltage and distribute along the way. These lines end up passing over thousands of villages.’

Both Cahora Bassa-the largest hydroelectric dam in Southern Africa-and Kariba draw from the 1,600-mile Zambezi, the fourth-longest and largest flood-plain river in Africa. It supports a population of 40 million from 30 ethnic groups which are dependent on fisheries and agriculture. Thirty dams clog the 1,390,000 km basin of the Zambezi, with Kariba controlling 40 per cent of the total run-off. The regulation of the river has resulted in the drastic reduction of vital wetlands ecosystems downstream with riverine resources such as prawns experiencing a 60 per cent reduction.

According to a UN report produced in the 1980s on the state of the Zambezi's riverine resources and ecosystem: ‘Cahora Bassa has the dubious distinction of being the least environmentally acceptable dam project in Africa.’

This was known prior to construction. In 1999, Dr Bryan Davies, a river ecologist, forewarned the architects fast-tracking the project of the serious consequences ranging from ‘reduced artisanal and fisheries productivity, salt water intrusion, soil salinisation, severe coastal erosion,’ to ‘disrupted reproductive patterns for riverine and wildlife species and reduced silt deposition and nutrient availability.’

Terri Hathaway of International Rivers says, ‘The Kariba Dam in Zimbabwe and Zambia was built 50 years ago to power industries in Southern Rhodesia and the copper mines of northern Rhodesia. In DRC, the Inga 1 and Inga 2 dams were built to attract and power new industries, several of which were major white elephants that went bust.’

‘Today, much of their electricity is transmitted 1,700km away to the copper belt; only six per cent of DRC's 60 million people have access to electricity. In Mozambique, most of Cahora Bas-sa's electricity is sold to South Africa rather than supporting local electricity needs,’ concludes Hathaway.

During the construction phase of Cahora Bassa, 42,000 Mozambicans were involuntarily resettled, while 57,000 were resettled for Kariba. Fifty years later, the majority still lack access to electricity - a persistent pattern, replicated across the board, concerning development-induced displacement in Africa, estimated to affect 400,000 people.

The regulation of the Zambezi's natural flows has irreversibly disrupted ecosystems such as estuaries, the habitat for 80 per cent of the world's fish catch. Guinea's proposed Fomi Dam and its effect on downstream populations is calculated by NGOs at €35 million per annum in 'indirect' losses related to fisheries, livestock and agriculture. Yet ecological degradation is not taken into account - the by-products of dams are often marginalised as externalities.

FRIENDS IN HIGH PLACES

’There is nothing sustainable about large dams at all,’ states Professor Thayer Scudder, the world's leading expert on dams and development, formerly the World Bank's principal resettlement consultant, and one of 12 commissioners on the WCD. ‘There are millions of people in Africa that depend on the rivers for sustenance - they are the losers. The World Bank ignores the impacts.’

During an interview with African Business, Professor Scudder, who has written ‘The Future of Large Dams’, says: ‘Each year, silt is held behind the dam at a rate of one per cent per year - especially in Africa. The only justification for this type of development is in the short and medium term. This development is driven by hydropolitics - the multinationals, the African governments, the development banks. The rural people who need electricity do not benefit; distribution is controlled by the political elites.’

The push for multibillion-dollar mega-dams has been justified by multinationals, commercial and development banks, export credit agencies (ECAs), governments, and intergovernmental agencies such as the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), as necessary measures required to develop Africa and combat carbon emissions.

Professor Scudder adds: ‘The World Bank wants to stay in the game; the companies want to build and the governments are more than happy to comply. It's a way for the political elites, banks, ECAs and corporations to make billions. It is not often reported in the media, but this development process is driven by the BOOT model - Build, Own, Operate and Transfer. The corporations own these dams for a period of maybe 20-25 years because these countries are indebted.’

Bruce Rich, author of Mortgaging the Earth and a former consultant to the World Bank, agrees. ‘ECAs exist in relatively insulated enclaves within their governments. They usually report to only one agency, typically Trade or Economic Development, and operate without effective oversight by the rest of the government, including legislature. They thus enjoy the benefit of taxpayer support without the accountability that should go with it,’ he says

Competing alongside the expected actors from the US, UK and EU is Beijing, the new kid on the block. ‘While China is certainly bringing many good things to Africa, it is also building “dirty” dams such as Merowe in Sudan, Tekeze in Ethiopia, Mambila in Nigeria and Bui in Ghana, and many more plans are on the books.’

‘Many of the dams being built by China in Africa are being undertaken to open up doors for China to get lucrative mining contracts, agricultural land, logging rights and other deals. So in that respect, the China dam boom is very much like previous generations of colonialism, and just as unsustainable in terms of growing a healthy and just economy,’ says International Rivers' Hathaway.

China's ECA, China Export-Import Bank, recently guaranteed a total package of US$2.3 billion for the Mphanda Nkuwa Dam proposed for the already strained Lower Zambezi River in Mozambique's Tete province; US$1.1bn for construction and $1.2bn for transmission lines. In 2006, the contract was awarded to China's Sinohydro Corporation, the entity that constructed China's Three Gorges Dam.

The project, in addition to 13 other dam projects, is being actively promoted by Africa's New Partnership for African Development (Nepad). The project has been slated as 'for export', with South Africa's Eskom as one primary client, and others include Chinese companies. This move is in line with China's policy of 'development sustainability' as opposed to the West's policy of 'debt sustainability'.

’The dams are going to be built - there is no doubt about that. We have no choice in the matter. But what we can do is try to reduce the environmental impact, adequately compensate downstream communities and include the host communities and the displaced in the resettlement process,' says Rich.

’China is now on to the right path,’ said Professor Thayer Scudder, ‘they have the best resettlement policy but they apparently have no interest in applying this to Africa. What they are interested in here is access to Africa's resources, with terrible consequences. They are pushing for dams - whether people have access to sustainable sources of energy is not of interest to them.’

‘But dams are going to be built,’ argues Scudder, ‘so if it is inevitable - and it usually is - the solution must be to ensure that the dam is multipurpose - integrating the needs of the population, specifically concerning the displaced and downstream communities. Other solutions include developing small tributary dams, with minimal impact on downstream communities. Obviously, they have to be strategically placed - too many and you dam up the circulatory system.’

Such examples already exist, for instance, Kenya's cheap and sustainable Tungu-Kabri pico hydropower scheme, financed by the UNDP. The initiative benefits 212 households (1,000 people) in the Mbuiru village. Small dams could be used to target communities missed altogether by transmission lines

‘I used to believe in big dams,’ said Scudder, ‘I was part of the resettlement policy when Kariba was just getting started. But I have seen what dams do. There are many positive benefits, no question. But in the long run, they are not sustainable.’

RELATED ARTICLE: DAMS – FOR BETTER OR WORSE 


In an attempt to analyse the impact of dams as tools of development and the consequences of resettlement on displaced communities, Professor Thayer Scudder assessed - where information was available - the outcomes of involuntary displacement.

This was not easy. Even the World Commission on Dams (WCD) had difficulty assessing data, due to the fact that only 12 of 150 cases (18 per cent) compiled valid and relevant information.

Scudder's study of 50 dams – including 13 African dams – revealed that:

- 79 per cent of displaced communities depend on agricultural production as a primary or vital secondary economic activity for external markets
- Living standards improved in only seven per cent of cases
- The resettlement process was completed in just 18 per cent of cases
- A positive outcome was achieved in one case. Political will on the part of the government was inadequate in 54 per cent of cases
- Scudder reveals that one official stated the displaced should be sterilised
- Lack of opportunity characterised 88 per cent of cases
- Landlessness or lack of arable land affected 86 per cent of cases
- Joblessness affected 80 per cent of people
- Lack of food security impacted heavily on 79 per cent of people
- 89 per cent of planners were adversely unaware of the importance of common property, such as fertile land, and access to surface water
- 92 per cent were negatively impacted by economic, social, environmental and other factors of resettlement
- 43 per cent were unable to compete with immigrants and 32 per cent with host communities
- 100 per cent were marginalised.

BROUGHT TO YOU BY PAMBAZUKA NEWS

* This article first appeared in African Business.
* Khadija Sharife is a journalist and visiting scholar at the Centre for Civil Society (CCS). She is based in South Africa.
* Please send comments to [email protected] or comment online at Pambazuka News.