HOW much is an ancestral homeland worth? More than a few water holes and some
clinics say Namibia鈥檚 Himba tribespeople. This is what they were offered in
January by officials from the country鈥檚 electricity generating company, which
wants to dam the Cunene River on the border with Angola. One angry local pointed
out that the Himba could be given access to drinking water and modern medicine
for a fraction of the money that would be saved by calling off the project. But
the Namibian government is hellbent on becoming self-sufficient in energy
production and sees the beautiful Epupa Falls as an ideal location for a new
hydroelectric scheme.
Namibia is a rapidly developing country with a powerful streak of
independence鈥攖he legacy of three decades fighting with occupying forces
from neighbouring South Africa. Although the war ended seven years ago, Namibia
still relies heavily on South Africa for much of the 240 megawatts of energy it
uses every year, and the government predicts this dependence will increase over
the next few years unless it can find a way to tap local resources. But
Namibia鈥檚 mad dash for independent power production concerns environmentalists.
They fear that the people who make the decisions will be blinded to the
environmental cost of their actions. Now a local environment group called Power
to Namibia has come up with alternative ways of generating power that could save
the Epupa Falls and the surrounding Himba homeland. But persuading the
government is proving difficult.
As Namibian officials see it, they have two alternatives to imported
electricity鈥攅ither they develop the massive Kudu gas reserves or build a
hydroelectric station at Epupa Falls. The gas reserves, 150 kilometres offshore
from Oranjemund in southern Namibia, could easily meet any projected energy need
at home and even supply energy for export. But the investment needed to develop
them is dauntingly huge and there is currently more than enough energy in
southern Africa.
Advertisement
Hydroelectric power seems a more attractive option on the face of it. For a
start, Namibia already has some experience with this technology鈥攖here is a
hydroelectric plant at Ruacana Falls about 150 kilometres upstream from Epupa.
Another project would provide much needed jobs for the country鈥檚 construction
industry as well as a lasting monument to its rulers. The government is
convinced more hydroelectric power is right for Namibia.
With this in mind, a consortium of companies from Norway, Sweden, Angola and
Namibia began a feasibility study at Epupa last May. As well as scrutinising
technical details, the planners are looking at social and economic issues and
carrying out an environmental impact assessment (EIA). At a public meeting last
year, the technical director of SWAWEK, Namibia鈥檚 national electricity
generating company, pledged: 鈥淚f the EIA shows that something very valuable will
be destroyed, the scheme is unlikely to go ahead.鈥� But environmentalists are not
convinced. The electricity company鈥檚 senior management has already come down
heavily in favour of a hydroelectric station at Epupa and so has Namibia鈥檚
president, Sam Nujoma. Environmentalists fear that SWAWEK may dismiss the
recommendations or even authorise construction before the feasibility study is
completed in 1997. This is exactly what happened three years ago at the Pangani
Falls hydroelectric project in Tanzania.
Troubled waters
There was a time when hydroelectric projects were seen as a clean and
victimless means of generating power. But analysis of their impact has revealed
major drawbacks. For a start, they tend to increase the incidence of water-borne
diseases such as malaria and bilharzia, both of which are carried by animals
that spend part of their life cycle in still water. And surrounding farmland is
often damaged as increased irrigation leaches salt up into the topsoil. In
addition, silt tends to collect behind the dam and can eventually block the
reservoir completely. Huge reservoirs may also increase seismic instability and
the risk of earthquakes. Add to that the fact that hydroelectric schemes rarely
pay for themselves, leaving developing countries in debt to their financiers,
and it is hardly surprising that hydropower has fallen out of favour.
Campaigners against a dam at Epupa Falls are particularly concerned about its
effects on the wetlands around the mouth of the Cunene River, which is home to
72 species of birds, 14 of which are listed as endangered. This remote region
has received little scientific attention, but according to Rob Simmons, an
ornithologist with Namibia鈥檚 Ministry of Environment who visited the site in
1991, the area鈥檚 amazing diversity depends on the river鈥檚 annual ebb and flow.
鈥淥n average there is an eleven-fold difference between the peak flow in April
and the low flow in October,鈥� he says. Some fish depend on rising flood waters
to trigger spawning. Simmons notes that the change in flow since the 1970s, when
water was diverted for the Ruacana hydroelectric station, has drastically
reduced three fish populations.
If dam building goes ahead at Epupa, a period of no flow鈥攚hile the
reservoir fills鈥攚ould be followed by regular discharge throughout the
year. This would lead to an influx of seawater, increasing salinity and lowering
temperatures near the river mouth. And it鈥檚 not only the fragile wetland
ecosystem that is under threat. At present, a plume of warm, nutrient-rich
Cunene River water spreads out into the Atlantic, covering an area of 100 square
kilometres. If the river flow is reduced, this unique aquatic habitat, which is
home to several endemic species, could also be lost.
Shaky economics
A far more visible threat, though, is the one to the seminomadic Himba tribe.
The Himba people have survived the war with South Africa and ethnic cleansing by
an occupying German regime early this century. Now they face the total
destruction of their grazing land. 鈥淧reviously productive land will be lost
along the 75 kilometres of river that will flood,鈥� says Lucy Quacinella, a human
rights worker and lawyer with the firm Legal Services of Northern
California.
Quacinella argues that Namibia鈥檚 constitution makes it illegal to force
tribespeople from their land. And she is not the only one looking for
international support for the plight of the Himba. 鈥淏ecause of this project,鈥�
says Aidan Rankin, from Survival International, 鈥渢he Himba face the prospect of
displacement, poverty and鈥攖hrough the thousand-strong workforce鈥攖he
introduction of new diseases, including AIDS.鈥� And Quacinella points out that
even if the Himba are compensated for their land it is impossible to put a price
on an ancient culture. 鈥淭here is the issue of loss of ancestral burial sites and
sacred fire sites. These are not easily factored into an economic based
argument,鈥� she says.
In fact, the economics of the whole project look increasingly shaky. A
spokesperson from the Norwegian government鈥檚 Water Resources and Energy
Administration, which was involved in the pre-feasibility study, questions the
Namibian government鈥檚 assumption that the demand for power will increase. 鈥淚f
the mining industry, which represents 50 per cent of the total consumption,
experiences a major recession, the basis for the project鈥檚 realisation will be
gone,鈥� he says. The pre-feasibility study assumed that the mining industry鈥檚
consumption of power would remain constant, but it is falling. The world鈥檚
largest open-pit uranium mine at Rossing, for example, has been hard hit by
plummeting uranium prices and has slashed its output in the past six years.
Indeed, tourism is the fastest growing sector of Namibia鈥檚 economy and its power
needs could easily be met by small localised production plants, say
environmentalists. They also point out that the industry would not be well
served by wrecking one of the country鈥檚 natural wonders.
The environmentalists seem to have a good case but it has done nothing to
persuade officials. 鈥淭he truth of the matter,鈥� says Leake Hangala, managing
director of SWAWEK, 鈥渋s that Namibia needs a new source of electricity
soon . . . All the preliminary studies of the Epupa scheme indicate that it
should be a very economical proposition.鈥� Although it could cost as much as
$800 million to build the government is convinced that the project will
get financial backing. However, some external agencies appear to be developing
cold feet. One is SIDA from Sweden which is partly funding the feasibility study.
鈥淥ur conclusion is that, taking all of the factors together, it is very unlikely
that any support would be given to the construction of this project,鈥� says Magnus
Liljestrom, an agency spokesperson.
Such views do not calm the fears of local environmentalists, however. 鈥淚t is
very unlikely that the government will easily change its plans to build Epupa,鈥�
says one member of Power to Namibia, who adds that the decision has already been
taken and the main purpose of the feasibility study is to persuade donors to
part with their money, and to silence critics. But the members of Power to
Namibia have other ideas and they will not be silenced. 鈥淚t is imperative to
actively promote alternative solutions to Epupa rather than just opposing it,鈥�
says one of the environmentalists.
For a start, the group has re-examined the possibility of opening up the Kudu
gas field. They have talked to Shell and the South African company Engen, who
recently renewed exploration of the reserves. 鈥淒evelopment of the gas could be
economically viable,鈥� says Ger Kegge, managing director of Shell (Namibia).
Shell鈥檚 test drills gave high quality gas at very high pressure. But the exact
size of the reserves remains unknown with estimates ranging between 2 and 55
trillion cubic feet鈥攁t least as big as a good-sized North Sea field.
鈥淎lthough no firm agreements on the sale of gas have yet been reached,鈥� says
Kegge, 鈥渢he initial indications are sufficiently encouraging to warrant further
drilling and production testing.鈥�
Year-round energy
Power to Namibia argues that gas would provide a reliable year-round source
of energy, unlike Epupa which is subject to the vagaries of rainfall. Gas would
be cheap, they say, and help boost Namibian industry. And while the government
worries about gas exports, the environmentalists can see advantages in having
such a huge energy reserve. Power to Namibia has proposed several schemes to use
up excess power. These including desalinisation plants鈥擭amibia is very
arid and a shortage of fresh water is limiting the growth of industry and the
agricultural sector. Another suggestion is a sophisticated petrochemicals
industry to add value to surplus hydrocarbons.
Namibian environmentalists are also considering renewable energy as another
option. Details of this option have been put together by Solar Age, a company
specialising in solar energy technology. Solar Age accepts that there is a
looming energy crisis but argues that localised, small-scale power generation is
the best option for this vast, arid country with its tiny scattered population.
Solar Age鈥檚 plans include a variety of generating schemes that could raise power
production by almost a half to 350 megawatts by the year 2000.
The company has identified several Atlantic coast sites it believes would be
suitable for wind farms. These, it says, could be connected up to the national
grid within two years. But SWAWEK鈥檚 technical director dismisses the idea.
鈥淣amibia is not a windy country,鈥� he says. Solar thermal electricity鈥攗sing
energy from the Sun to generate steam to turn turbines鈥攊s another option
being considered by Solar Age. Generators in the Namib desert in the southwest
of the country could produce a massive 150 megawatts. And photovoltaic cells
placed at strategic points on the grid could boost the supply by between 25
megawatts and 50 megawatts while minimising energy lost in transit and reducing
wear and tear on the distribution system. Parts of the country are so isolated
they are unlikely to be connected to the grid for at least 20 years, but they
could be supplied by stand-alone solar systems鈥攁ccounting for perhaps 5
per cent of the total capacity.
Solar Age also points out that at present the Ruacana hydroelectric station
is only running at about 25 per cent of its capacity because two dams that hold
back reservoir waters across the border in Angola were damaged during the civil
war there. Repairing these could increase the station鈥檚 output from 60 megawatts
to 240 megawatts, giving plenty of extra capacity to meet daily peaks in energy
demand. The evening peak, however, could be cut if Namibia鈥檚 people switched
from electric to gas canister stoves. Educating people about energy use and
conservation is as important as building new sustainable power sources.
Power to Namibia is promoting the advantages of this renewable energy option.
First it looks good for security in a country that still feels vulnerable after
occupation by its neighbour. With many widely dispersed generators, the power
supply system would be less vulnerable to attack than it is at present. Then
there鈥檚 the issue of funding. The World Bank has already had its fingers burned
from involvement with large-scale dam projects and is wary of putting money into
Epupa, according to Hassan Iman, senior economist of the bank鈥檚 Namibian
section. Small-scale projects, particularly ones that can be funded in
instalments, are much more attractive to organisations such as the World
Bank.
Engineering change
Although dam building would generate jobs, these are likely to be unskilled
and temporary. Solar Age鈥檚 plans, by contrast, would provide engineering jobs
locally and eventually lead to the establishment of a new skills base. In time,
Namibia could become Africa鈥檚 expert in renewable energy technology.
鈥淭he proposal to dam the Cunene River at Epupa Falls is patently absurd for
economic, ecological and social reasons,鈥� says Conrad von Reugen from Earthlife
Namibia. But officials seem deaf to all these arguments. 鈥淭he government is
going to build the dam come hell or high water,鈥� says Peter Tyldsley, director
of the Namibian Nature Foundation (NNF). Civil servants have been warned they
will lose their jobs if they discuss the proposals. And in February, President
Nujoma, talking about the plans for Epupa, said Namibia will not allow
foreigners to interfere with its development.
Namibia has the choice. It can generate its own power without destroying its
natural environment. But in the end politics may prove a stronger motivator than
common sense. 鈥淔ollowing recent statements from the president, NNF has become
convinced that any decision taken concerning the fate of the Falls will be
purely political,鈥� says Tyldsley. The irony is that the environmentalist鈥檚 case
is supported by Namibia鈥檚 constitution, which is just six years old. Article 95
aims to ensure that 鈥渆cosystems, essential ecological processes and biological
diversity are maintained and living natural resources are utilised on a
sustainable basis for the benefit of all Namibians, both present and
蹿耻迟耻谤别鈥�.