Kader Asmal and Mike Muller
The content and the cloak-and-dagger presentation of the article “Damn dams, look in your own backyard” (Monitor, April 30 to May 7), alleging powerful opposition to the Lesotho Highlands Project by unnamed Alexandra individuals, need to be tested and placed in context.
Much of what is said in the name of “residents of Alexandra township” reflects the line, indeed the phrasing, of international groups opposed to the World Bank, its policies in general, its policies in the water-resource sector and its funding of dams. To be effective, and to gain formal audience, they must have local allies.
Yet almost all Lesotho NGOs have withdrawn their criticisms of the Lesotho project. So did the South African civics, including Alexandra, after visiting and discussing with the people affected, and not “intimidation”, which is claimed in the article.
We have sympathy for the difficulty some international critics face, particularly now as World Bank executive directors were about to visit South Africa to review, among other things, the Lesotho project.
We suggest the real authors stand up and put their case in person. Your readers may as well escape being given the impression – complete with editor’s note that “identities are known to the Mail & Guardian” – that we live in the Stoffel Botha days, when blank spaces and withheld names were the only way to tell the story.
There are, of course, substantive matters of debate around the Lesotho Highlands Project and its possible future phases. These large dam projects are essentially insurance against the risk of drought. Had the predicted El Nio- induced drought materialised as it did elsewhere, Gauteng and surrounding provinces would have faced a choice between severe water restrictions and the dam.
At current levels of development, our experience is that, in a severe drought, the restrictions go beyond what is achievable through domestic conservation, however well-run our national conservation programme is – and we appreciate the back-handed compliment for this programme in the anonymous article.
The hardship of drought falls on economic activity as well as on householders and imposes huge costs on the economy. So we believe the majority of residents would have opted for the first dam, Katse, and the assurance it provides. Phase 1A was ready just in time to avert the risk of economic shutdown. We face similar choices over Phase 1B, which is now under way and is not reversible without massive cost.
Planning is an imprecise science, particularly during the sort of political and economic transition South Africa is traversing. We would be irresponsible to plan for a stagnant economy, with no growth in incomes and jobs. We have rather chosen to plan for a better South Africa, specifically for a growing and prosperous regional economy.
We accept the responsibility to help to ensure that unacceptable environmental degradation and social disruption do not result from this project, which is constantly under review. It has been made more environment-friendly and people-friendly. Although the treaty ensures people should not be worse off after construction, we are committed to ensuring they are better off.
We agree the Phase 1B project could have been delayed for a year or two. That would have lost the effective “continuity bonus” (worth at least R600-million) that we have gained by using capacity established for Phase 1A. In taking this decision, we are also guided by the policy consensus that it is helpful to the regional economy during the present phase to maintain current levels of domestic fixed investment.
Water tariffs to consumers and management of distribution networks in Alexandra and in the Johannesburg area generally are the responsibility of Johannesburg’s local government. So we hope the critics will take the debate into the forums that have the power to act. Specifically, we would like to know whether they are using the opportunities opened to them by the Water Services Act to intervene at local level.
To our knowledge, this is not happening in any structured way. In terms, for instance, of our policy of promoting block tariffs, Alexandra residents without full household services or making relatively low use of water should not have to pay the marginal cost of new water supplies. If they are being asked to do so, it is at local government level that inquiries should be directed, and we would be happy to help them to do this.
Neither the national department nor Rand Water has the power to compel any local authority to use water made available by the Lesotho scheme. What we expect is that the high cost of “new water” will provide new incentives for local government to reduce “unaccounted-for water”. The department and Rand Water have initiated schemes to help them do this.
We invite your readers to join us in the difficult but exciting task of implementing a new water policy that will build a fair society and allow South Africa to thrive in the coming century.