A lucrative hydropower scheme proposed for the Congo River has become
Africa's next great scramble. Led by the World Energy Council, major
industries, banks, and governments met in London this week to seek
their piece of the US$80 billion Grand Inga project - the world's
largest hydropower installation. The scheme is being promoted as a
development venture to electrify the African continent, where two in
every three people now lack access to electricity. Nearly a hundred
officials and big money interests discussed how to profit from one of
Congo's great natural resources, but Congolese officials disappeared
shortly after the meeting commenced with no explanation to organizers.
Worse, organizers had refused to invite Congolese civil society and
area communities, leaving no voice to defend the country's interest.
The Council refused to
invite Africans monitoring the Inga project, subjecting them - unlike
any other participants - to government authorization. Yet the Council
invited these same individuals - a small delegation from affected
communities and public interest groups - to the last Inga forum. The
local peoples' presence at that meeting provided an essential reality
check after one official stated that Grand Inga required no
resettlement. In fact, at least 8,000 villagers, possibly more, face
displacement. Yet the Council and other project backers are now
steadfastly refusing to include African civil society in discussions.
If Inga is meant to light up Africa, then why are its backers keeping
Africans in the dark over project planning?
For starters, Africa's unelectrified communities aren't really Inga's
intended client base. The project's huge price tag covers only the cost
of the hydropower plant and long-distance transmission lines to
Africa's mining and industrial heartlands, and urban centers in South
Africa, Egypt and other distant countries. Local distribution lines
will not be included, meaning the project's electricity won't reach
even a fraction of the continent's half billion people not yet
connected to the grid. Building a distribution network that would
actually "light up Africa" would increase the project's cost
exponentially. Instead of direct access to Inga's energy, the project's
social development plan is based on trickle-down economics, a model
notorious for its elusive benefits and poor record in Africa's fight
against poverty.
Exploiting Inga could also further fuel Africa's "resource curse". The
project's enormous budget and bountiful contracts could devolve Inga
into a corruption-riddled white elephant. Trying to stop such a fate
would require unwavering scrutiny in the tamest of political
environments, and is impossible, some argue, in today's Congo. By
design, Inga would centralize a vast store of the region's electric and
financial power, a development model that can foster tensions and civil
wars. More decentralized energy development would spread wealth and
electricity more evenly within the country, helping Congo move away
from its conflictive past.
No
stranger to the hydro curse that has afflicted so many African nations,
Congo (then Zaire) built two dams at Inga in the 1970s and '80s, which
degraded local living standards despite promises to the contrary. The
dams also produced a crushing debt burden for the country rather than a
sustainable industrial base. Inga I and Inga II exemplify the history
of large dams, which have left a trail of sorrows for affected people
and disproportionately small gains for Africa's poor. One of the many
critical lessons learned from past dams is the need for open and
inclusive planning from the beginning. While participation alone can't
guarantee success, it is key for improving development outcomes.
Today, thousands of villagers living near the Inga rapids anxiously
await information about the project's potential impacts on their lives,
wondering if their rights and needs will again be ignored. Fifty
million Congolese, and hundreds of millions more Africans, wonder how
long until their communities will be electrified, and if Grand Inga
could speed up or slow down that wait. Citizens from Congo to South
Africa are wondering who may profit from this $80bn investment and if
it is at the expense, rather than the benefit, of Africans. These are
Inga's most vulnerable stakeholders who are barred from participating
in the Council's April forum.
The World Energy Council's claims that the Inga project will benefit
Africa's poor are undermined by its actions to exclude them from
planning. If the Council and other project proponents truly want to
develop energy that responds to the needs of Africa's people, while
protecting those at risk, they must bring African civil society players
to the table. Without such openness, Grand Inga could be a grand
failure at bringing Africa's neglected majority into the light.
[This editorial was revised after the April 21-22, 2008, meeting and appeared in several African and international publications. The original editorial was written prior to April 21 and posted on this page until May 30, 2008. You may still view the original version here.]
