The controversial Bujagali dam project began in 1999 when the Ugandan government commissioned AES Nile Power to construct and operate the Bujagali hydropower plant on the Victoria Nile river. The company withdrew before construction began and a new consortium - Sithe Global Power LLC, from the United States, and Industrial Promotion Services, a division of the Aga Khan Fund for Economic Development (AKFED) - were appointed to construct the dam. Construction began 2007 and the dam began delivering electricity in 2012 with a reported capacity of 250 megawatts[1]. Loans came from the World Bank, the European Investment Bank and the African Development Bank. Italian construction company Salini was selected to be lead contractor. Civil society organizations locally and internationally rallied against the project. Chief complaints were that resettlement and compensation of affected communities was inadequate and that people were worse-off than they originally were [2,4]. Related complaints included a lack of consultation and loss of livelihoods. They asserted that economic analysis of the dam and the cost to the Ugandan public was inadequate, supporting other analyses linking the project to a global privatisation trend and involvement of private companies in electricity provision[3], a World Bank pushed reform agenda. The affected people which need to be resettled are 13,760. |
| Name | Bujagali hydropower project, Uganda |
| Country | Uganda |
| Province | Central Region |
| Site | Buikwe District |
| Accuracy of Location | HIGH local level |
| Type of Conflict (1st level) | Water Management |
| Type of Conflict (2nd level) | Water access rights and entitlements Dams and water distribution conflicts |
| Specific Commodities | Electricity |
| Project Details | The claimed capacity of the dam is 250 MW, but civil society organization the National Association of Professional Environmentalists (NAPE) has claimed that only 121MW can be generated, based on river run-offs. NAPE reports that electricity tariffs have continued to hike from six US cents to the current 24 US cents. A government subsidy reduces this to 17 US cents, a figure NAPE says is still unaffordable to most Ugandans. |
| Level of Investment (in USD) | 900000000 |
| Type of Population | Rural |
| Potential Affected Population | 34 million (population of Uganda) |
| Start Date | 1999 |
| Company Names or State Enterprises | Bujagali Energy Limited from Uganda Sithe Global from United States of America AES Nile Power from Uganda Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Ltd. Salini Impregilo from Italy AES Corporation (AES) from United States of America |
| Relevant government actors | Ugandan Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development, National Environmental Management Authority , Electricity Regulatory Authority |
| International and Financial Institutions | The World Bank (WB) from United States of America African Development Bank (AfDB) European Investment Bank (EIB) Agha Khan (AKDN) from Kenya |
| Environmental justice organisations and other supporters | National Association of Professional Environmentalists (NAPE), Uganda Wildlife Society, International Rivers, Save Bujagali Crusade |
| Intensity of Conflict (at highest level) | LATENT (no visible organising at the moment) |
| When did the mobilization begin | PREVENTIVE resistance (precautionary phase) |
| Groups Mobilizing | Indigenous groups or traditional communities International ejos Local ejos |
| Forms of Mobilization | Creation of alternative reports/knowledge Development of a network/collective action Development of alternative proposals Official complaint letters and petitions |
| Environmental Impacts | Visible: Biodiversity loss (wildlife, agro-diversity), Food insecurity (crop damage), Global warming, Loss of landscape/aesthetic degradation, Deforestation and loss of vegetation cover, Large-scale disturbance of hydro and geological systems, Reduced ecological / hydrological connectivity |
| Health Impacts | Potential: Malnutrition |
| Socio-economic Impacts | Visible: Displacement, Loss of livelihood, Specific impacts on women, Land dispossession, Loss of landscape/sense of place |
| Project Status | In operation |
| Pathways for conflict outcome / response | Compensation Migration/displacement |
| Development of Alternatives | Literature on the conflict indicates that the Bujagali appraisal studies did not adequately assess Bujagali against other alternative energy options, like solar and wind power, before determining Bujagali dam as the least-cost and most appropriate option[6]. |
| Do you consider this as a success? | No |
| Why? Explain briefly. | The project went ahead and is now in full operation. It is regarded by scholars of privatisation as a thin edge of the wedge project in attempts by external actors to push a private sector agenda to electricity provision. |
| Legislations |
| ||||||||
| References |
| ||||||||
| Links |
| ||||||||
| Media Links |
|
| Contributor | Patrick Burnett |
| Last update | 18/12/2015 |