Last month, I had an informative chat with a state minister for the energy sector, in Bahir Dar. As we were just a few kilometres away from the source of the Blue Nile, and with a foreign journalist standing nearby, the minister was wary of what I might ask about the Great Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) – one of the largest political and economic engagements of the nation in centuries.
But, my focus was elsewhere. I asked him: Is there any probability that the Gibe-III dam project could be stalled or reversed?
It sounded such a ridiculous question that he simply dismissed it, saying: “What are you talking about? Even the GERD will go as planned”.
My inquiry was not meant to be an interrogation, rather a genuine inquiry. With all the media and public attention focused on the GERD, I felt that Gibe-III could be targeted by some Western officials, wanting to placate a coalition of environmentalists and rights groups in their constituency.
Indeed, not all of the claims made by environmentalists and rights groups are baseless. Obviously, the allegation thatLake Turkanacould drop 22 metres due to the dam is highly exaggerated. Even more plausible predictions of water level changes are based on unrealistic scenarios, which combine severe drought and irresponsible reservoir water flow management by Ethiopian authorities.
However, it appears likely that the chemical composition of the Lake’s water could be somewhat altered and a tiny part of the lake – calledFerguson’s Gulf – may well be highly impacted.
Indeed, the Dam will regulate the water flow, therefore, it will, as the right groups claim, “permanently modify the annual flood regime upon which the agro-pastoralists of lower Omo depend for their livelihoods”.
The regulation of the flood could be good or bad, depending on what one makes out of the current way of life of the people and what one wishes them to be. The regulation of the flood will enable the people to embark on two new alternative and more sustainable livelihoods; farming and intensive livestock rearing. This is in addition to enabling the expansion of commercial farming and agro-industrial investments, which could benefit the local administration, in terms of revenue and job creation, among other things.
In brief, it will pave the way to modernisation. That seems to be the heart of the government’s plan, as can be discerned from its slowly and separately unveiled projects for theOmoValley.
But, one might see this as a disaster if they are of the belief that the “natural lifestyle” of the locality should be preserved. Indeed, it sounds tempting to sympathise the cause of preserving such lifestyles, until one asks, for whose benefit? It is rare to find a person, with full knowledge of the alternatives, who chooses such a lifestyle.
There are nuanced versions of the criticisms, however. They are not fully opposed to every single facet of ecological impact and changes to livelihoods. Rather, they insist on comprehensive studies and consultations to be exhausted before embarking on such massive projects.
It is difficult to dismiss the wisdom of this advice. And, it would also be dishonest to deny that environmental impact assessments are relegated to an inferior status in the planning phase, more often than not.
Of course, preliminary environmental assessments are conducted prior to each project. But, the comprehensive studies are often scheduled for sometime after the launch of the project.
The reason for this, as the experts at the environmental regulatory body claim, is that, going beyond preliminary assessment, in order to approve the mere project site location, is costly. The potential locations of mega projects are often in remote or undeveloped areas.
Conducting comprehensive assessments require setting up infrastructure and carrying out a range of detailed studies, which would be part of the project anyway. Thus, it is better to conduct the comprehensive assessment side by side with the first phase of the project and incorporate modifications to the project design as is deemed necessary.
I am not sure how this approach fits in to the relevant regulations and guidelines, as well as with the otherwise environmentally conservative leadership of the regulatory agencies. But, to do it the ideal way, I think, they will have to put several mega projects on hold.
The same goes with many other aspects ofEthiopia’s mega projects. More often than not, mega projects are launched while relevant tasks, such as; detailed design studies, building consensus with every single stakeholder, securing finance, planning and execution of auxiliary projects, are still in progress.
In other words, to do it better, we will have to do it slow.
This is not understandable to some of the critics, as one foreigner recently passionately put it, “why can’t you do it; better and slow”? This seems to be an echo of last year’s Human Rights Watch’s (HRW) statement on the same issue, which stated that there is “no shortcut to development”.
Once more, the concept of time appears to be different between Ethiopians and Westerners. But, this time it is the Ethiopians who are racing against it.
The government is determined that the existing plan of action on the multiple mega projects will remain unchanged.Ethiopia’s geo-political leverages, as well as the political voice of the pro-poor movement in the West, which keeps aid flowing without much policy concessions, could dwindle in a decade. The market potential of the mega projects is also time-dependent. On the other hand, generating revenue, at least to the level where we can help the food-needy by ourselves, is a matter of utmost urgency.
No less important is the creation and perpetuation of momentum; not just for the sake of foreign direct investment, but predominantly to alter the nation’s way of thinking. An attitude that can be dubbed “development defeatism” is deeply ingrained in the Ethiopian psyche, as can be observed from my “odd” question forwarded to the state minister.
Indeed, the current frenzy of mega projects may haunt us, looking back after a decade or two, in some ways. But, the overwhelming consensus is that we would not be worse off, compared to where we are now.
Well-meaning Western activists should acknowledge our prerogative to decide on our collective future and also, respect our right to develop.
Leave a Reply