[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
dam-l EMG appeal on Skuifraam Dam/LS
The following is from the Cape Town group Environmental Monitoring Group.
Contact details at end.
>FAX TO: MINISTER OF DEAT
> 012 323 5181
>
>CC: MINISTER OF WATER AFFAIRS & FORESTRY
> 012 328 4254
>
>FROM: LIANE GREEFF
> ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING GROUP
> FAX: 021 7622238
> TEL: 021 761 0549
>
>
>APPEAL TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS & TOURISM
>REGARDING THE APPROVAL OF THE SKUIFRAAM DAM AND SKUIFRAAM
>SUPPLEMENT SCHEMES ON THE BERG RIVER IN THE WESTERN CAPE
>
>
>This appeal is being made by the Environmental Monitoring Group of the
>Western Cape, due to the strong belief that the building of Skuifraam Dam
>takes us further down the path of unsustainable futures and is not in the
>best interests of the residents of Greater Cape Town or of the generations
>to come. The appeal has been drafted after discussions with representatives
>of the Cape Metropolitan Council (CMC), representatives of the Consultants,
>Ninham Shand, with Officials from the Department of Water Affairs and
>Forestry, and with a number of regional and national non-governmental
>organisations.
>
>Executive Summary
>
>1. The approval of the Skuifraam Dam flies in the face of government policy
>and legislation over the past five years, and its approval comes despite the
>fact that the Water Act (108 of 1997) requires that alternatives to new dams
>be prioritized before new dams are constructed.
>
>2. Building a new dam to ensure supply is not going to change the inequities
>of water use prevalent in the Western Cape. Instead, it will exacerbate the
>existing inequities by increasing the water tariff of everyone in Cape Town,
>as was experienced by the impact of the Lesotho Highlands Development
>Project on the communities of Alexandra and Soweto in Gauteng. This project
>will be operated along similar off-budget principles where users are
>accountable for the cost of every drop.
>
>3. Whilst the CMC has made a start with regard to demand side management, it
>is our view that this start is not adequate, and that it should look to the
>successes of other local authorities to inform its demand-management
>strategies. The CMC should also introduce a water tariff structure that
>actually reflects the social and ecological cost of the water that runs down
>our drains, as well as provide a basic lifeline supply of water free of
>charge to ensure that basic needs are covered. The five-point scale that has
>recently been introduced in a couple of the municipalities does little in
>the way of providing incentives for water conservation with the most
>expensive water amounting to 10 cents per bucket. We believe it is immoral –
>socially and ecologically – to further exploit South Africa’s scarce water
>resources through capital-intensive projects until existing supplies are
>managed more efficiently.
>
>4. Government has the responsibility of ensuring that the people of the
>Western Cape understand the value of their water, and use it accordingly.
>
>5. The Berg River estuary represents the most biologically diverse wetland
>on the West Coast of Southern Africa. Damming the river will significantly
>undermine these downstream wetlands and compromise the viability of
>downstream coastal fisheries. Further, evidence from numerous dams built in
>Southern Africa, clearly illustrate the unpredictable nature of
>environmental impacts of large dams. The environment and economy work in
>tandem. As long as long term economic needs are factored into the analysis,
>the two are not in conflict. Creating jobs for ongoing development such as
>in the conservation and demand-management of water resources makes more
>sense than creating jobs in a depressed construction industry.
>
>6. We believe that the economic information upon which the decision is based
>is flawed as neither the opportunity costs of the not having the Skuifraam
>Dam or the environmental externalities have been factored into the
>cost-benefit analysis. We therefore propose a true economic analysis of the
>Skuifraam dam project that accounts for all of the economic externalities
>and opportunity costs associated with it.
>
>7. The CMC documentation clearly indicates that the option of recycling
>treated sewage and grey water becomes an economically viable alternative,
>once the environmental costs are incorporated into the cost-benefit
>analysis. This is despite the global evidence of the World Bank which states
>that 70% of the dams that the World Bank has funded since 1960 have had cost
>overruns of 30%. Applying these statistics to the proposed Skuifraam Dam
>indicates an amount of R234 million over and above the R780 million
>suggested by DWAF. Recycling of grey water also has much shorter time frames
>and thus should be seen as the interim solution to water delivery in Greater
>Cape Town.
>
>
>1. Supply-Side Water Management is Short-Sighted
>
>The National Water Act (36 of 1998) and the Water Services Act (108 of 1997)
>emphasize equitable rights of access to water supply under the banner of
>“some for all forever”. However, half of the water currently used in Cape
>Town homes is used by 20% of the households. Will building a new dam
>substantially change this statistic in favor of equity? We think not. In a
>city where, according to Prof. Asmal, the residents of Upper Constantia
>consume 1750 litres of water per person per day (see speech of 16 July 1996,
>‘A Vision for Water Conservation in Cape Town’), ensuring a constant water
>supply through the construction of yet another large dam fails to teach
>consumers the value of this scarce resource or even-out resource
>distribution. This is especially so where there are acceptable alternative
>methods that could increase the water supply to the area as a whole through
>conservation mechanisms.
>
>How then can we accept the approval of a new dam that will cost taxpayers a
>minimum of R780 million in capital outlays? According to Prof. Asmal in his
>July 1996 speech mentioned above, the resulting cost of water to consumers
>will be 44 cents per kilolitre over a 45 year period (discount rate of 8%).
>Yet, he continued that if the Council followed the recommendations of the
>Act and instituted a catchment-management water conservation programme by
>clearing alien vegetation alone, the water would cost approximately 6 cents
>per kilolitre over the same period at the same discount rate.
>
>A brief review of Cape Metropolitan Council policies shows that the City has
>no water recycling program, no by-laws on the use of grey water, no policy
>on the City’s 400 million litres of treated sewage water (pumped out to
>sea), limited water education programmes, and no restrictions on water use
>at a time when supply is scarce. Furthermore, while in other urban centers
>of South Africa “unaccounted uses” of water amount to as much as 50% of
>water usage, the figure for Cape Town is not known. The Council cannot even
>do a full analysis of how much water can be saved because they do not have
>sufficient water meters. Thus, any decisions made are based on inadequate
>information.
>
>Arguments in favour of job creation from the building of this dam are
>shortsighted. Government should be looking to the development of job skills
>that can be employed in the long term. Growing jobs and teaching skills for
>a depressed construction industry may help in getting the dam built, but
>what happens thereafter when the jobs are gone? The environment and economy
>work in tandem. As long as one looks to long term economic needs the two
>are not in conflict. Would it not be more advisable to allocate more
>resources towards job creation in an area of ongoing development such as in
>the conservation of water resources? When people are trained to remove
>alien vegetation in an area, to repair leakages and maintain and replace
>water systems, these skills are ongoing. They also invest people in the
>ecological importance of a scarce resource and promote the ongoing
>conservation of the resource. The training of “barefoot plumbers” working
>on water conservation projects in league with the “Working for Water”
>programme and fixing pipes and installing re-use systems would have a
>long-term positive impact for the region as a whole.
>
>There is no point in further exploiting South Africa’s scarce water
>resources through capital-intensive projects until existing supplies are
>managed more efficiently. The path to achieving water provision for all
>South Africans must not be compromised by shortsighted acts. Before R780
>million is spent on a new large dam which is only viable in the short-term
>and has many long-term negative effects, demand-management and conservation
>mechanisms should be fully implemented and the resulting savings absorbed.
>
>2. Social Justice and Responsible Resource Management Work Hand-In-Glove
>
>Building a new dam to ensure supply is not going to change the inequities of
>water use prevalent in the Western Cape. Instead, it will exacerbate the
>existing inequities by increasing the water tariff of everyone in Cape Town,
>as was experienced by the impact of the Lesotho Highlands Development
>Project on the communities of Alexandra and Soweto in Gauteng. This project
>will be operated along similar off-budget principles where users are
>accountable for the cost of every drop.
>
>Government needs to ensure that the people of the Western Cape understand
>the value of their water. Water providers must ensure that water
>conservation becomes part of the mindset of water consumers. They must make
>consumers fully aware of the costs of the resource and the effects of
>wastage. They must lead by example – if the provider is looking to solve
>the problem through short term capital intensive projects like dams to
>ensure supply, what motivation do consumers have to conserve the resource?
>They are not even aware that the resource is scarce. It is in the interests
>of all water users to change usage patterns for long-term sustainability and
>water restrictions must be imposed if they are found to be necessary. CMC’s
>own records indicate that the soft law restrictions of 1992 (e.g.
>restricting garden watering to every second day) were highly effective in
>reducing long-term water demand. Such restrictions are based on
>common-sense resource use and could prevent the enforcement of draconian
>measures in the future (such as in Mauritius where the use of sprinklers or
>hose-pipes is punishable by a fine or lengthy jail term).
>
>The decision to build Skuifraam Dam was previously put on hold by then
>Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry, Prof. Kader Asmal, on the basis that
>the CMC had no effective water demand-side management programme in place,
>and that the rich were using water wastefully and being subsidised in their
>practices by the poor. While we agree with Professor Asmal that the era of
>supply-side tunnel vision is over, it is not clear how this has been
>translated into action in the Western Cape. In fact, according to sources at
>the CMC, leakage is the driving force behind the dam.
>
>All the dams supplying Cape Town water are already paid off. Once Skuifraam
>is built, water prices will have to rise to compensate for the cost of the
>dam. But, according to the CMC’s own figures, the dam only meets supply
>needs for the next five years . Today, water costs R1 per kilolitre, but
>water from Skuifraam Dam will cost R7 per kilolitre. If the CMC’s own
>projections are followed, then this dam is only the beginning of a series of
>large infrastructural developments to meet the increasing water demand.
>Further investments will have to be made five years hence, requiring further
>price increases as the costs spiral.
>
>The supply-side emphasis of the CMC is further illustrated by its strongly
>skewed human resource allocation. For every person employed to work on
>demand-management, one hundred are working on supply-side management of
>water affairs in the Western Cape. In the economic realm, the same is true.
>The CMC has committed to spend R780 million on the new dam at the same time
>as it has only allocated R14 million for demand-management. This is despite
>the R50 million already saved by the delay in the approval of the Skuifraam
>decision. While the few working on demand-management at the CMC are to be
>applauded for the work they have done to date, they must be given the budget
>and person-power required to significantly expand efforts in this area and
>comply with the law before a new dam is built.
>
>CMC have officially adopted a goal of achieving a 10% reduction in the
>projected metropolitan water demand by the year 2010 – measures being
>implemented actually target a 20% reduction by that date. Yet an Advisory
>Memorandum acknowledges that the results of steps taken to date by the CMC
>are “not yet clearly evident in the records of water consumption and the
>Department should continue to exercise its influence to promote and
>encourage steps taken thus far.” The Memorandum also acknowledges that
>“more rigorous water demand management” could “significantly influence
>demand patterns” and alter the timing of the construction of the dam. This
>is as much as saying that the building of the dam could be delayed should
>rigorous demand-management be enforced. Is it not logical, then, that
>demand-management measures should be implemented before spending R780
>million on a project that could potentially negatively affect a precious
>ecological resource?
>
>The CMC should look to the successes of local authorities like Hermanus
>which has introduced a 12-point water demand management programme including
>usage-based tariffs and concerted consumer education through informative
>billing, and achieved over 30% reductions in peak water demands. Or Durban,
>which has undertaken to maintain domestic and industrial water consumption
>at 1997 levels as part of their demand management scheme by balancing annual
>increases in demand with corresponding reductions in water loss through
>aging infrastructure. Or Windhoek, which has undertaken a rigorous water
>demand management programme including sliding tariff charges to cut demand,
>water use restrictions, water recycling, the installation of water-efficient
>equipment in all new buildings, and water metering for residential blocks.
>According to Saliem Fakir, Windhoek’s demand-management practices have
>reduced water consumption by between 30-50% since 1992 .
>
>Alternatively, the CMC could introduce a water tariff that actually reflects
>the social and ecological cost of the water that runs down our drains. It
>could introduce sliding scale tariffs starting with life-line tariffs that
>reflect the real price of water and ensure that those consumers driving
>demand pay an equitable share of the costs of their actions
>
>The CMC should work at:
>? Implementing a municipal water recycling programmes as a priority focus;
>? Develop by-laws to promote water conservation through incentives;
>? Increased clearing of alien vegetation in catchment areas;
>? Implementing water restrictions incorporating industry, agriculture and
>excessive household users together with incentive-based water reduction
>systems;
>? Hold an aggressive and comprehensive water awareness campaign;
>? Enforce annual water audits on industry and agriculture;
>? Constantly reassess new and alternative technologies (such as wind and
>solar power) that allow for use of unconventional water sources;
>
>Present water resources for urban usage in the Western Cape provide for 364
>million cubic metres per year, while it is projected that by 2020,
>approximately 584 million cubic metres per year will be needed. However,
>these figures are based on peak-usage periods and thus do not reflect a real
>accounting of the water required. They also ignore the possible savings
>that could be achieved through conservation and demand management measures.
>We strongly recommend a true economic analysis that accounts for economic
>externalities and opportunity costs, as well as a continual review by an
>economist with credentials accepted by all concerned parties.
>
>Further to the above, the water demand projections put forward in the Cape
>Metropolitan documentation, according to CMC staff, do not include the
>possible impacts of HIV, or the effectiveness of the Working for Water
>Programme. National statistics clearly indicate the horrifying extent of the
>HIV pandemic, and it is unprofessional and short-sighted to plan any large
>infrastructural development without taking due account of the potential
>impacts of HIV. Evidence from elsewhere in the country indicates that large
>developments have already been revised as a result of the changes in
>projections regarding population demographics. Furthermore, it is our tenet
>that it is precisely the diversion of public funds into large developments
>that will divert vital investment away from reducing the spread of this
>disease.
>
>
>3. Big Dams Despoil Ecological Resources
>
>According to page 7 of the Western Cape System Analysis of 1996, the
>‘relative cost’ index of a project is “what water from the scheme would cost
>when it is compared to the cost of water from Palmiet Phase I which is being
>implemented at the moment. If, for example, the relative cost is given as
>4, this means that water from the scheme will cost 4 times what water from
>the Palmiet Phase I scheme would cost.” If the Skuifraam Dam is built and
>water releases are made to accord with ecological purposes, the relative
>cost of the dam increases along the index from 2.4 to 5.5 and falls close to
>the 6.3 cost for sewage effluent exchange that was not shortlisted because
>of high economic cost. Yet nowhere is this extra cost factored into the
>analysis of the project. And the ecological resources associated with the
>Berg River and its environs are significant in terms of ecotourism and
>conservation.
>
>The fact that big dams create limited forms of ecotourism detracts from the
>fact that the rivers and ecosystems that surround them could create even
>larger benefits in this area if the dams did not exist there at all
>
>In looking to ecotourism and conservation issues, it is key to note that the
>wetlands of the Berg River Estuary system represent the most biologically
>diverse wetland on the West Coast of Southern Africa south of Northern
>Angola. It has more bird species than either St. Lucia or the Langebaan
>Lagoon, which are both regarded as Ramsar sites of international
>significance. The Berg River estuary is reputedly the only estuary between
>Angola and St Lucia that still functions as a major sea fisheries nursery.
>
>Damming the river would severely undermine these downstream wetlands and
>compromise the viability of downstream coastal fisheries. According to
>Professor Bryan Davies of the University of Cape Town’s Department of
>Freshwater Ecology, the Berg River cannot afford more water diversions. It
>is already under stress, and recent studies have shown that in every one out
>of four years, the river is lower than in previously recorded history.
>
>Rather than looking at building this dam, Government should be actively
>working on drafting a Scenic Rivers Act to prevent the shortsighted
>development of areas of national and international environmental interest.
>It should also be working on legislation similar to the US Freedom of
>Information Act to provide open information from government to the public on
>matters of public interest. Existing CMC documents are not being given to
>interested and affected parties.
>
>Go ahead for Skuifraam is particularly untimely while the World Commission
>on Dams (WCD) is deliberating on the impacts of large dams and assessing the
>alternatives to their construction. South Africa is the host country for the
>WCD and Prof. Asmal its Chairperson. Government should be indicating its
>support of the Commission by instituting a moratorium on the construction of
>new dams until the findings of the WCD are finalised. Thematic Reviews
>dealing with water supply, demand-side management, and the economics of
>large dams could provide insight for future government activities. These
>recommendations are due to be released in June 2000 with the purpose of
>guiding future dam planning and construction. It would be sensible and
>appropriate for government to put all local dam decisions on hold until that
>time so as to benefit from the global lessons that will be learned.
>
>
>Conclusion
>
>Globally, countries are moving away from the building of large dams as the
>panacea for water supply problems. It is in our long-term interest to
>develop and implement strategies that conserve this resource for all South
>Africans at the same time as they promote skills and job creation
>appropriate for the new millenium. It thus makes sense for government to
>shelve the implementation of this project until the CMC has conformed with
>the demand-side management requirements of South African Law, thereby giving
>the consumers of the Western Cape the opportunity to fully appreciate the
>scarcity and value of their water resources. It would also provide a gap
>for required demand-side action to be taken while waiting for the findings
>of the World Commission on Dams to be finalised and then used to inform
>future policy. Such a course of action is economically viable, ecologically
>sensible and socially responsible.
>
>We therefore call upon the Cape Metropolitan Council and the Department of
>Water Affairs and Forestry to retract from their decision to go ahead with
>the building of the Skuifraam Dam and instigate a full demand-management
>programme, with sufficient funds and personnel, for Greater Cape Town.
>
>*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
>Liane Greeff
>Environmental Monitoring Group,
>PO Box 18977 Wynberg, South Africa, 7824
>E: liane@kingsley.co.za Tel: +27 +21 7610549/788 2473 Fax: 762 2238
>*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
>