The Lesotho Highlands Water Project: a development failure?
On December 9th, Water and Sanitation Minister, Senzo Mchunu, met with Natural Resources Minister, Mohlomi Moleko, to discuss the advancement of the Lesotho Highlands Water Project (LHWP) Phase 2. There was optimism for progress.
The LHWP is one of the largest dam engineering schemes in the world. The idea behind the LHWP arose back in the 1950s, but it was only formally accepted in 1986, under apartheid, with the signing of the Treaty.
In a nutshell, it consists in the building of tunnels and dams to create artificial lakes and divert water from the Orange-Senqu River (in the highlands) to South Africa. It provides a water delivery system to hydroelectrically power Lesotho and addresses the water crisis issue in South Africa.
Phase 1 was completed with the Katse Dam (tallest in Africa!), the Matsoku Weir, and the Mohale Dam.
Phase two, is expected to be completed in 2028 and would increase water transfer by 490 million m3 per year from the existing 780 million m3 to 1260 million m3 via the Integrated Vaal River system (IVRS).
The project is driven by a number of goals.
For Lesotho, a small and resource-poor country, the LHWP brings royalties in return to the provision of water. Additionally, it promotes the creation of jobs (e.g., 4000 temporary jobs for construction of Katse Dam) and stimulates development in rural areas, important given that 71% of the population lives there. Around the pipes, the roads and infrastructure have been upgraded, which means that villages now have better communication.
Concerning South Africa, the project intends to address water scarcity for a growing population, and to enhance sanitation as well. In fact, water infrastructures are inadequate and insufficient as they were designed for a minority under Apartheid.
These mutual advantages play a significant role in fostering interdependence among the two nations, which in turn ensures bilateral cooperation. Lesotho being a landlocked country surrounded by South Africa, strong ties and trade are even more important.
However, there are drawbacks.
Critics have highlighted the harmful environmental repercussions, population displacement and corruption within the administration in charge of the implementation of the project.
The dam's construction exacerbates soil erosion and deforestation, which results in more floods and hence the devastation of wetlands and arable areas vital to rural populations' livelihoods. The project endangers wildlife by reducing river flow, putting particular species at risk (ex: Maluti Minnow). All of these adverse repercussions can lead to an "ecocide," with long-term consequences for the population and the ecosystem. When the environment is no longer viable, ecocide can force migration.
Furthermore, if the first phase enhanced Lesotho’s economic opportunities, it did not improve the lives of the poor. Large quantities of money vanished as a result of corruption and benefits did not trickle down to the rural communities.
Phase 1A took away the houses, land and resources of 20,000 people, phase 1B affected another 7000. Compensation has been set up for those whose houses or crops have been inundated. However, given the project's influence on their lives, it remains unsatisfying.
In South Africa, water is still predominantly directed toward wealthier communities and mining and industry.
Nearly every dam project in the globe is met with opposition.
It is now up for debate as to whether or not these complaints qualify as "reasonable" negative externalities. Do they outweigh the advantages, and may they justify the project's cancellation?
Perhaps the project itself should not be abandoned considering the development prospects and cooperation it brings to both nations. That is not to say that the criticisms should be minimised or overlooked. Respect of human rights, equity and protection of the environment are fundamental. Instead, these issues should transform the way in which the project is carried out.
Comments
Post a Comment