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% 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% 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% of Africa is dependent on hydroelectric power (HEP) as the continent’s primary source of energy, with countries like Mozambique (91%), the DRC (99%), Uganda (99%), Ghana (80%), and Zambia (96%) 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, among 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% 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% of African countries are at least partially located in unstable zones, ie, 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 000MW Grand Inga, which has the potential to light up the entire continent for a price tag of $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 5% of the continent’s hydroelectric potential and 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 000MW, in Angola we have 6 000MW, 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 effect 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 9% 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 000km basin of the Zambezi, with Kariba controlling 40% 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% 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 6% of DRC’s 60-million people have access to electricity. In Mozambique, most of Cahora Bassa’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% 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 1% 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 $2,3-billion for the Mphanda Nkuwa Dam proposed for the already strained Lower Zambezi River in Mozambique’s Tete province; $1,1-billion for construction and $1,2-billion 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.”
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%) compiled valid and relevant information.
Scudder’s study of 50 dams — including 13 African dams — revealed that:
- 79% of displaced communities depend on agricultural production as a primary or vital secondary economic activity for external markets
- Living standards improved in only 7% of cases
- The resettlement process was completed in just 18% of cases
- A positive outcome was achieved in one case. Political will on the part of the government was inadequate in 54% of cases
- Scudder reveals that one official stated the displaced should be sterilised
- Lack of opportunity characterised 88% of cases
- Landlessness or lack of arable land affected 86% of cases
- Joblessness affected 80% of people
- Lack of food security impacted heavily on 79% of people
- 89% of planners were adversely unaware of the importance of common property, such as fertile land, and access to surface water
- 92% were negatively effected by economic, social, environmental and other factors of resettlement
- 43% were unable to compete with immigrants and 32% with host communities
- 100% were marginalised
© AB
Khadija ,interesting article. more power to you
problem with rural electrification is houses are scattered about and it costs a lot to drag electricity from house to house.Botswana has done it by abandoning the model of houses along the road to houses built by the govt all grouped together to form a village so only one transformer is used per village and distance to drag wires is minimal.
To solve this problem I have always thought it cant be difficult to make all roofing material(including gutters) solar power generating.(the whole roof not just part of the roof)This would make a roof a more active participant in making people comfortable. The technology is there and battery life can surely improve.
Simply means every house built has its own supply of electricity.
To avert the problem of destruction of ecosystems in dams maybe nuclear energy may be a solution.you can then have as many prawn cocktails as you wish and if there is a water shortage you can always desalinize the sea . Nuclear energy is very cheap few moving parts , not reliant on rain and a town the size of say Sandton with reactors can supply all of Africa with its electricity needs.
In any case what ever happened to the hydrogen car.? Nuclear energy can easily produce hydrogen from water and put it into your tank and produce water as we drive.No carbon emissions here!
Fear of anything nuclear will stop all this- sad
Warnings for water shortages in Africa have been around for decades.
We still keep washing cars and drive ways on a daily basis.
Have you ever bothered reading reports from the Un in the 60s?
Or do you like being forty (fifty) years out of date?
http://iahs.info/redbooks/a145/iahs_145_0499.pdf
http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/005/AC876B/AC876B08.htm
(As examples, though not actual;ly from the UN or the 60s, but you get the point about being decades out of date.)
Another excellent article. Big dams are a disaster in many ways, not least of which is their contribution to irreversible species loss.
Trust the Chinese to come up with: colonisation of foreign resources with zero accountability for governance.
This is how it works:
- make friends with a person who has aspirations of leadership in his native country.
- make this person very rich and give him all the support he needs to become a leader, i.e. weapons, training, etc.
- once leader is established, acquire your gratuity in the form of mining rights.
- put in place the infrastructure your mining and other concerns are going to need, disguised as development aid.
- proceed to milk the natives by selling them the finished goods in the form of electronics, clothes, etc. Obviously don’t waste money on educating any natives in refining and production methods.
- repeat process once country is depleted of resources.
Neat huh! No-one ever the wiser that you just colonised and decimated an African country. Wasn’t it chinese weapons that Cosatu stopped from going to Zimbabwe? Hmmm… Very rich in resources, Zim.
Trouble is, dams are so cheap, buildable with mass labour, and produce electricity without additional input.
Plus, most African cities are running out of water.
I hate to say it, but I don’t think we can survive without building more dams.
Africa was actually called “the dark continent” because it was left blank on maps (on parchment, not white paper, in those days) until the mid 19th century, when the European explorers first started exploring the interior. Until then they only knew the coastline.
A very interesting article even if it is old news. I think that many of Africa’s prpblems today are the result of applying Northerm Hemisphere solutions to Southerm Hemisphere problems. We need to recognisethat the environment and climate is very different and ever changing albeit slowly and that it always has been this way. Building enormous dams across rivers to generate electricity inevitable affects people and wildlife and climatic conditions as well. I think back to my childhood holidays where there were two seagoing rivers close together. Bridges were built across those rivers not far to the point that they are almost closed by sand. Of course farmers also built weirs and dams across them as well much further up stream. Perhaps we should look at obtasining power from the natural world – the sun and the wind and also the rain which falls. Every home should have grey water disposal, solar panels and water tanks to harvest the rain water which falls intermittently. At the coast we could use wind and wave power for the generation of extra electricity. It is essential that we approach our problems with a view to doing least harm to our own and our descendents envirobnent. It is equally important that we look at population control in Africa because of the limited natural resources essntial to life available to all of us. Poverty and starvation are directly related to resources in terms of land and water and climate changes.
Khadija, an excellent article, well researched and insightful. Too few journalists take the time, preferring to take shortcuts, resulting in shrieking and exageration for effect. However, I’m somewhat confused by the thrust of your argument. As you rightly point out fewer than 25% of Sub-Saharan Africans have access to electricity (and of those an even smaller percentage with reliable sources), and 60% of these countries rely on hydro-electricity as a source of power. But you then go on to write that even though only 5% of the available hydro-electric resources have actually been exploited, these are “clogging” access to or availability of water. As far as I know hydroelectric dams, although there might be some additional evaporation and seepage, only withdraw the water to extract the energy available, before releasing it back into the water system. Only in the case where such dams are used for irrigation purposes, is the water permanently withdrawn and even then some of the water ends up back in the system due to runoff. You then go onto argue that too many electrical utilities are built to satisfy the interests of industry, with not enough being provided to satisfy and grow the needs of locals. Fair enough, but the obvious answer is that much of these facilities would not have been built had it not been for industrial needs, and that as part of the planning governments should ensure that at least part of the development should be dedicated to locals.
Well said. Here in Malawi only about 6% have access to electricity and no significant investment in generation has happened for decades. We are virtually 100% reliant on one river fed from Lake Malawi which had a head of water over the outflow of about 600mm in 1997/8 and almost dried up (which it did in the early 1900′s). The answer – connect to Cahora Bassa. I have tried to get info from the Met Dept and ESCOM about the long term climate projections for the Zambezi Valley of which Lake Malawi is part. Seems like if we dry up they all dry up. The totalpopulation grows at 2.8% per year and urban populations at 6% yet adequate plans or innovative solutions are completely absent or are completely opaque! What did someone say about sterilisation!!! But, seriously, how do we get out of this impasse. Any plans for nuclear will only have an effect in say 15-20 years time. Uranium is also not a renewable resource and we are exporting our new-found deposits. In that time, according to my rough calculations, our population will have increased from 13.1 in 2008 to 20-23 million. In the meantime more will have been left behind and lack of electricity will prevent meaningful industrial development for the urban dwellers. The rural dwellers will continue to farm in the old way – more people on an exhausted land. Technology quick-fix needed.
Like all thing with most human beings we react far too late. Hindsight and sorry mistakes were made are the name of the game.
You read my mind. I was thinking just the other day we had not had a good article on big dams for a while. Good one.
@Yusuf Magombo
Blind faith in all technology is dangerous.
Malawi needs appropriate technology like low input sustainable agriculture (LISA) or agro-ecological farming. Plenty of research available on this, just search the web. As living standards increase birth rates naturally decrease, end of population problem.
Nuclear energy is harmful to human health and the environment and extrememly expensive.
Read – ‘THE CODE KILLERS: AN EXPOSE ‘
Alternate title: Nuclear Power, Nuclear Weapons, Corrupt Government, Corporate Greed, Mass Hysteria, General Ignorance, and Your DNA: A Dangerous Mix? A look at the Data
by Ace Hoffman
First published: 2008
Available free from:
http://www.acehoffman.org
The future in energy lies in renewable energy. Worldwide wind capacity is now over 121 GW, with over 27 GW added in 2008, creating 440 000 jobs and worth over €40 billion. Solar PV totals more than 16 GW (70% growth in 2008), with all RE generation over 280GW, excluding solar heating of over 145GW.
The question is whether it is always necessary to build expensive dams with a large ecological impact in order to generate enough electricity. Years ago I understood from electrical/electronic engineers that the Congo river is perennial and fast-flowing enough to power low-head turbines which are lowered into the stream at suitable positions. At the time such a scheme was politically not feasible, but the present might be a good time to re-investigate such options.
I don’t think Grand Inga would be part of a big dam system. Inga is at the rapids. Part of the river flow can be diverted to turbines, if I’m not mistaken. If the entire project is feasible, Grand Inga would obviate the need for dozens of new big dams elsewhere in Africa.