Okavango River
Introduction
Discussion
The Okavango River begins in Angola, South Africa and flows south to Botswana, flowing along the border of Angola and Namibia. The river is land locked and culminates in the branching out of channels which make up the Okavango Delta, a freshwater delta covering around 15,000 Km2 (Furniss,P. 2003a). The grass lands and swamps of the Okavango Delta make it an area rich in biodiversity and also home to some endangered species. Tens of thousands of people living in the area are dependant on the river Okavango to make their living, some from the growing ecotourism market (Furniss,P. 2003b)
During the 1980s there was a proposition put forward by the Department of Water Affairs (DWA) of the Botswana Government to dredge one of the channels of the Okavango Delta and construct three dams to store collected water, this project was called 'Southern Okavango Integrated Water Development Project' (SOIWDP). Each of the three resevoirs created by the dams would have its own intended use, one to provide the expanding village of Maun with a water supply , the second to provide water for use in agriculture and the third to supply the nearby diamond mine.
In the early stages the local people were for the scheme as improvements in the water supply were required The Kalahari Conservation Society (KCS), a group concerned with environmental issues in Botswana did have some initial concern over the scheme but few details of the project were known at the time. The Okavango Water Development Committee (OWDC) was established and was mainly made up of Botswana government departments, including the DWA along with the engineering company who were responsible for the design of the project and the KCS. There were some meetings between the local people and the OWDC but not all of the information had been put forward and the locals were under the impression that this was going to be a small scale 'improvement scheme' (Furniss,P. 2003c), as it was refered to by the OWDC. The OWDC group was by no means representative of all the parties concerned, and vital information on the dredging of the delta channels was withheld during consultation with the local people.
Once work began and the dredging equipment was brought in local people realised the scale of the project and began to organise themselves into the action group against the project Tshomerolo Okavango Conservation Trust (TOCT). Greenpeace International became involved and met with the Botswana government to ask them to make the Okavango Delta a world heritage site and as a result of action from TOCT and Greenpeace the Botswana government eventually commissioned an independent report on the scheme by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) who are an organisation who bring together the various parties involved where conflict may arise between development and the environment to try and bring about a workable solution.
From the very outset of the consultation process the power seemed to be with the OWDC, which was made up of Botswana government departments, including the DWA, the engineering company who designed the project and the KCS. The Botswana government believed that the SOIWDP would be beneficial to the economy by increasing agricultural output and also benefit the diamond mine, which was:
"a vital part of the Botswana economy" (Furniss, P. 2003d)
The engineering company who designed the project were also in a position to make financial gains if the project went ahead and the KCS who's role was conservation of the Kalahari region:
"did not take an active role in the opposition campaign; they believed it might damage their credibility with government if they publicly opposed official policy" (Furniss, P. 2003e)
The Botswana government and the engineering company responsible for the design of the project were clearly driven by economic discourse and also had ultimate power over the going ahead of the project; the KCS, who had initially expressed concern over dredging, remained neutral when the action group was formed, it is not clear why but could have possibly meant loss of funding from government or putting other projects into jeopardy. The villagers valued the river instrumentally as a means of earning a living through agriculture and also the associated ecotourism industry which was reliant on the flow of the river, if the flow of water into the delta was reduced this would have an impact on the biodiversity of the area and ultimately have a detrimental impact on the tourist industry. At first the local people seemed to welcome the scheme because they would benefit by having access to a reliable water source, but once the scale of the project was realised the local people were opposed to the scheme.
During the consultation process between the OWDC and the local people information put forward by the OWDC on the project could be taken as misleading, the local people were not told that dredging would take place and the term 'river improvement' (Furniss, P. 2003f)used by the OWDC implied that this was only a small scale improvement. The OWDC were obviously withholding information in order to ease the implementation of the project and therefore benefit economically. When the real scale of the project was realised the local people;
"felt powerless. They were not included as stakeholders in the process" (Furniss, P. 2003g)
It appeared to the local villagers that they had been overlooked in the decision making process and the consultations were held just to appear to be going through the process. It had been mentioned that:
"there was no need to discuss projects like this because everything was already discussed, finalized and decided upon in [the capital] Gaborone" (Furniss, P. 2003h)
Although the local villagers felt powerless they went ahead and formed the action group Tshomerolo Okavango Conservation Trust (TOCT). TOCT managed to get Greenpeace International involved, Greenpeace have an international following and were able to access the media in order to generate publicity. Greenpeace had threatened to launch an international boycott of Botswana diamonds, if such a boycott had occurred there would have been an impact on the diamond mines profitability and also on the Botswana economy. The diamond mine company withdrew their backing of the project, possibly due to pressure applied by Greenpeacewith the threat of a boycott. The diamond mine had access to other water sources and did not really need the project to go ahead, if a boycott had gone ahead the company would have suffered financially.
Due to the level of opposition and the fact that the diamond mine had withdrawn from the scheme the government called for a review by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). The IUCN had the power of knowledge and were driven by an environmental discourse, they concluded that the scheme would be damaging economically and environmentally.
Conflict could have possibly been avoided if an Environmental Impact assessment (EIA) had been carried out at the outset of the plans by the IUCN for example or some other independent body, but the EIA should not only take into account the environmental issues on endangered species for example but also the social and economic impacts of the proposed scheme on the livelihoods of the local inhabitants. I do not believe that this one measure would have guaranteed the success of the project in this instance, but at least it would have given the local people a better understanding of the scheme. Involving the locals in the planning and evaluating process from the very beginning and making all of the facts available to them instead of misleading and withholding information would have made the villagers feel that their opinions were valued. If this had been the case the project may have gone ahead but on a smaller scale, maybe with only one or two of the dams being built, especially as it was not crucial for the diamond mining company to have their water source. A compromise from both OWDC and TOCT with a smaller scale project, may have still had an environmental impact on the delta but this could possibly have been managed by regulating the water flow to the delta, again this may not have been feasible but at least OWDC, TOCT and the local people would have all been involved in and working together to find a solution to any problems which arose rather than being in conflict.
There are some who believe that giving financial incentives to the local residents for example shares in the diamond mining company as a form of compensation for losses which they may experience in other areas can help to keep local opinion on side These financial compensation schemes can also be viewed as a form of bribary to buy people off, looking at what the local inhabitants had to potentially lose, namely the Okavango Delta what price can be put on the loss of an area such as this and all the biodiversity which it supports? There would also be an impact on the tourist industry if the delta were to be lost which would mean loss of livelihood; could compensation ever replace all this? I do not believe the local people would have given up the delta in return for compensation in this case, although compensation can help if, for example, a building is being erected close to your home which is going to be a blight on the landscape, I do not believe people will change their values and lose what could be their livelihood in return for a small compensation.
Conclusion
Projects such as the SOIWDP must be planned sensitively with all parties which have a stake in the propositions being fairley involved in the consultative process. Independent reports on the environmental, social and economic impacts must be carried out and their recommendations followed. Most importantly everybody must have access to all of the facts and have an input on the project. if appropriate, financial incentives by way of compensation can be put in place to be paid to local who have incurred instrumental or intrinsic losses.
Furniss, P. (2003a), 'Troubled Waters' in Bingham, N., Blowers, A. and Belshaw, C. 'Contested Environments',
John Wiley & Sons / The Open University. P149
Furniss, P. (2003b), 'Troubled Waters' in Bingham, N., Blowers, A. and Belshaw, C. 'Contested Environments',
John Wiley & Sons / The Open University. P150
Furniss, P. (2003c), 'Troubled Waters' in Bingham, N., Blowers, A. and Belshaw, C. 'Contested Environments',
John Wiley & Sons / The Open University. P151
Furniss, P. (2003d), 'Troubled Waters' in Bingham, N., Blowers, A. and Belshaw, C. 'Contested Environments',
John Wiley & Sons / The Open University. P150
Furniss, P. (2003e), 'Troubled Waters' in Bingham, N., Blowers, A. and Belshaw, C. 'Contested Environments',
John Wiley & Sons / The Open University. P152
Furniss, P. (2003f), 'Troubled Waters' in Bingham, N., Blowers, A. and Belshaw, C. 'Contested Environments',
John Wiley & Sons / The Open University. P151
Furniss, P. (2003g), 'Troubled Waters' in Bingham, N., Blowers, A. and Belshaw, C. 'Contested Environments',
John Wiley & Sons / The Open University. P154
Furniss, P. (2003h), 'Troubled Waters' in Bingham, N., Blowers, A. and Belshaw, C. 'Contested Environments',
John Wiley & Sons / The Open University. P154