Mike Muller
right to reply
The Mail & Guardian’s articles about the recent floods in Mozambique and the role of the dams on the Zambezi river were disturbing for a number of reasons.
Against the evidence, the articles (“Waiting for a watery Hiroshima”, March 9 to 15; “Floods a ‘predictable disaster'”, March 16 to 22) alleged that dams were a major cause of the recent floods. Although loss of life was clearly minimised by good planning and fast reactions, the management competence of the Mozambican authorities was questioned. More seriously, the articles betrayed a lack of understanding of Southern Africa’s needs and challenges. They insinuated that dams are superfluous if not positively harmful. Such one-sided discourse mindsets so at odds with our realities could strangle the region’s social and economic development. These strong comments need explanation. Our reply to the M&G about the Zambezi floods (which was not printed although apparently shown to critics) said: “It would be inappropriate for the South African government to comment on the details of the management of the dams on the Zambezi river since we are not involved in the institutions concerned. We are, however, concerned about the negative reports about the way in which Mozambique and its neighbours have managed the current flood threat. These seem to derive more from a generic criticism by environmentalists of dams, wherever they may be, than about the specific situation on the Zambezi. “Dams commonly serve a number of purposes. They may store water, produce hydroelectricity or help to reduce the impact of floods. To provide security against drought, dams are kept full as is also the case for the generation of power. To protect against floods, they are kept empty. Clearly to do both, a compromise must be sought. “The calculation of the ‘operating rules’ is a complicated technical exercise that uses historical records and balances the risk of drought and flood with the need to meet the objectives of the dam. From widely available media reports it appears that the Mozambican operating authorities did apply a structured operating rule at Cahora Bassa. It was stated that well after the beginning of the current flood, the reservoir was only 85% full. This means that a volume of 7?800-million cubic metres (nearly four times the total volume of South Africa’s Vaal dam) had been made available to store flood waters. This obviously helped to reduce the peak flood. It is perhaps for this reason that the impact of the flood has not been as severe as first feared.
“More important than dam management, flood management must focus on people living in flood-affected areas of which the Zambezi flood-plain is an obvious example. It would appear from media reports that careful dam management combined with vigilant flood plain monitoring and intervention have been applied in this case and contributed to a mitigation of what might have been a serious disaster.”
Some natural events floods, earthquakes and hurricanes are beyond human capacity to manage and a little humility is advised. But water management is about far more than floods. South Africa’s major urban centres (where, ironically, most local critics live) only survive because we store water in the rainy season for the dry months and years. Without our dams, perhaps 80% of current economic activity and social services would stop. Even if we build more dams, we will not be able to continue to provide additional water for our use. This is why the National Water Act enables changes in water use to reflect changing social priorities including provision for environmental protection balanced against the society’s development needs. Our Southern African neighbours use a far lower proportion of their water resources than we do. But already, because of climatic variability and the location of major rivers, they need major investments in water management if their societies are to grow. This necessary development is threatened by often inaccurate (sometimes deliberately so) opinions promoted by the critics.
It is true that, internationally, many dams and roads, industries, airports and mines have been built for wrong reasons in wrong places at huge social environmental cost. Where large projects involve a great deal of money, alternatives may be overlooked, and special interests served. The history of road’s victory over rail is a well-known international example. This is why all large projects should be subject to effective and objective planning, which (transparently) considers the interests of all parties. That is a challenge to our political processes for all large projects, not just dams.
Yes, dams, like other large projects, have an impact on the environment which must be mitigated. But we cannot halt development in the poor world to meet conservation demands of critics from rich societies that have degraded their natural environments and, through climate change, are damaging ours. Each society must make its own decisions about the balance between environmental protection and justifiable economic and social development as provided for in our Constitution and environmental legislation. In this, South Africa’s post-1994 record, in Phase 1B of the Lesotho Highlands Water Project or in proposals to secure Cape Town’s water supply, stands up well to scrutiny. Anti-dam campaigns have many roots; in the United States, pork-barrel budget politicking produced some quite unjustifiable dams (now being knocked down); the Mid-East dam campaigns are, in part, tactical skirmishes in larger human rights and political battles; as are challenges to organisations like the World Bank.
We should understand the underlying political issues. If a hydro-electricity project displaces 100?000 people without compensation to benefit an elite elsewhere, the problem is more the political system than the project itself. Loans for water projects are handy weapons with which to challenge the international development finance system.
Our policy debates and development decisions must be driven by our needs and our realities, the reality that our climate is arid and variable, our society deeply fractured and unequal. Radical mechanisms have been put in place to ensure that, as a society, South Africa can grow, develop and meet the needs of our people sustainably, with the water we have. Local energies should focus on the local challenge of making our system work to achieve that “better life for all” we all strive for.
Mike Muller is director general of the Department of Water Affairs