Gilgel Gibe III’s detractors continue their campaign

Feb 26, 2011

(MoFA, Febc 26, 2010)- Ethiopia sometimes appears to be a magnet for criticism. It’s not just the all-too-often occasions when self-styled human rights activists feel like a bit of Ethiopia-bashing, but it even happens when it is involved in highly productive development projects that will impact positively on the lives of millions of people. The government’s decision to lease out millions of hectares of inaccessible uncultivated land to foreign investors is characterized as a conspiracy against its own people; hydroelectric dams become attacks on the traditional way of life.

The Gilgel Gibe III hydroelectric dam, under construction on the Omo River, in south west Ethiopia is apparently one such, and has been the target of such an attack. Previously a series of documentaries aired on the BBC and other international media outlets painted lurid tales of potentially serious catastrophes in the making with claims that the project threatened the environment as well as the livelihood and the lives of local populations. The stories and the conclusions drawn were alarmist at best and at worst were apparently aimed to scuttle Ethiopia's development efforts. There were repeated references to unnamed ‘experts in the field’ to try to lend scientific credibility to the claim that the Gilgel Gibe III project lacked an appropriate environmental assessment study or that the Economic Impact Assessment Report by the Ethiopian Government was unacceptable. One of the leaders of the campaign in Kenya, Mr. Richard Leakey, even brought together a group of experts calling itself the African Resources Working Group (ARWG) to produce a hastily prepared report. The group wasn’t even prepared to disclose names: “because of the political sensitivities involved in conducting professional work within the region, members of ARWG have chosen to withhold their identities". The campaign went some way towards dissuading potential financiers from commitment to the project, but despite the concerted campaign the project went ahead as scheduled.

Now, another attempt is being made by the so-called ‘Friends of Lake Turkana’ and International Rivers. Conspicuously missing this time is the AWRG and Mr. Leaky, though there is every reason to believe that the ‘Friends of Lake Turkana’ is to all intents and purposes, the handiwork of Mr. Leakey. This latest chapter in the anti-Gilgel Gibe III saga began with a demonstration in Nairobi organized by the ‘Friends of Lake Turkana’. The usual allegations, that that the dam was a conspiracy against Lake Turkana and its fishing community, was highlighted to show how destructive the dam was. According to representatives of the demonstrators, “if built, the dam would destroy the fragile ecosystems of the Lower Omo Valley” and the Lake Turkana region. The demonstrators added that “all government agencies, banks and companies must respect and uphold basic human rights and environmental standards in the projects they pursue.” They referred to the project changing “the traditional ways of life” of local communities” within Ethiopia. Wolfgang Thome of International Rivers even went so far as to warn the Ethiopian government that going ahead with the Gibe III project would risk creating “further hotspots of discontent to those they already have”, a not too-subtle threat about what the campaigners might be prepared to do if their campaign falls through.

Ethiopia, in fact, has a government that takes its obligations to its peoples very seriously. It is a government that is prepared to do anything to see that the socio-economic problems that have beset its peoples for centuries should be addressed, and in rapid and sustainable manner. For projects such as Gilgel Gibe III, the only consideration is not the generation of income or of power. Even more important is the potential impact on the environment and on the people of the area. The Ethiopian Government considers these aspects, not because it has to adhere to some ecological or scientific fad, but because it takes the protection of the environment very seriously. In this particular case, what is under construction is not just a diversion of the river, or an irrigation project. As Prime Minister Meles defined it, apart from the potential of the project in terms of generating power and foreign currency, "it [also] enables us to store water and regulate the flooding downstream in the Omo River."

The government of Ethiopia and the government of Kenya have consistently been open and forthright about the environmental implications of the project. There has been no significant difference over the anticipated usefulness of the project. In fact, what appears to have irked the lobbyists behind this campaign is that the government of Kenya is fully on board not because it is involved in a conspiracy with the Ethiopian government as the campaigners suggest, but because the project has far-reaching significance for the two countries’ efforts to produce economic development for their peoples. As one Kenyan minister aptly put it, “Gilgel Gibe will brighten, not threaten” the future of the two countries.

The latest article by the International Rivers group actually suggests what the real motives behind the campaign might be. It claims that environmentalists and conservationists alike have criticised the plan: “the Turkana area is also home to archaeological digs undertaken by the Leakey family with finds of early mankind”. Similarly, it points out that not only will some local communities within Ethiopia be displaced, but their “the traditional way of life” will also be taken away. This is apparently the real problem – the traditional way of life will be destroyed. In fact, whatever benefits the project might have, it should not be allowed to change the life styles of the people in the region. Or to put it another way perhaps, those people living so precariously on the edge should continue to do so, in order that ‘scholars’ with an interest in exotic cultures can continue to write their esoteric studies. Nothing, in fact, could be more insulting to the people in whose name this campaign is being waged. It would be overly cynical to suggest that this is all there is to the campaign, and the fact that coverage of the recent demonstration in Nairobi was decidedly ideological might even suggest more sinister motives at work. The one thing that is certain, however, is that the campaign has nothing to do with the interests of the peoples living in the Omo valley or around Lake Turkana, or indeed of the peoples of Ethiopia and Kenya more generally.