[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
dam-l LWHP treaty review, NGO speech/LS
The following is a speech made at recent meeting in Lesotho as part of the
Treaty Review process for the Lesotho Highlands Water Project. The speech
was by the Transformation Resource Centre, on behalf of the Lesotho Council
of NGOs.
Lesotho Council of Non-Governmental Organisations (LCN) Presentation to the
Review of the Lesotho Highlands Water Project (LHWP) Treaty on the 21-22
October, 1999
Presented by Ms. Motseoa Senyane
We at the Transformation Resource Centre thank the Minister of Natural
Resources for the opportunity to contribute to this Lesotho Highlands Water
Project treaty review process. Consultation with concerned citizenry is a
mark of a responsive and responsible democracy and the Government of
Lesotho should be applauded for holding this exercise. It is our sincere
hope that the process does not begin and end here in this room, but instead
becomes an exercise that every Mosotho feels they can participate in.
Could we not have dialogues such as this one in the heart of our country;
from Ha Lejone to Mount Moorosi; from Mokhotlong to Mohaleís Hoek? The
LHWP is intended to benefit all Basotho, so all Basotho should have the
opportunity to contribute to the document that undergirds it.
Yes, we are all the intended beneficiaries of the LHWP, but some of us
undoubtedly have a more significant stake in the project than others. Some
of us face the prospect of losing our fields, our pastures, and even our
homes. For these people, the document that we will discuss today and
tomorrow will have life-changing impact. So, why are there not more than a
handful of us sitting here who are facing those high stakes? Should we not
be sitting at pitso in Koma-Koma, Ha Chebane, Sankoela, and Ha Qoane
hearing the views, suggestions, and concerns of the people who will
sacrifice the most if Mashai Dam becomes a reality. Compared to these
people, we personally stand to lose very little indeed. We ask that we
keep that thought in our minds over the next two days.
As Basotho, dialogue and consultation is part of who we are. The pitso is
our model for hearing what it is that we as a group, village, and nation
think and feel. We have a unique opportunity today to initiate a process
of far-reaching and representative dialogue that will make the world take
notice. We as a nation, not just a privileged few, could contribute to a
decision that will affect not only ourselves, but our children and our
childrenís children. Let us make that a reality.
Now for the specifics that we at TRC believe should be provided for in the
renegotiated Treaty.
The first concerns the Treaty's commitment to LHWP-affected people. The
Treaty at the moment guarantees only that affected communities 'will be
enabled to maintain a standard of living not inferior to that obtaining at
the time of first disturbance'. We feel this to be inadequate. We should
be able to do better than this. A project of the magnitude of the LHWP has
far-reaching social and environmental impacts which pose enormous risks to
the communities that are directly affected by them. Communities directly
affected by the LHWP (which means people living in dam catchment areas as
well as those living downstream of the dams) must be left better off as a
result of the project. As this is not only a Lesotho government project,
the Treaty must specify that the responsibility for improvement of affected
communitiesíquality of life should be with Lesotho and the Republic of
South Africa. The Treaty should also stipulate that affected communities
are to participate in defining quality of life criteria upon which the
social development success of the project will be judged.
The second aspect that needs to be seriously accounted for within the
Treaty is that of affected communitiesíparticipation in decision-making.
The governments of Lesotho and South Africa committed themselves to the
principle of participation when they signed the United Nations Conference
on the Environment and Development (UNCED) Action Plan of 1992. Paragraph
18.19 of this document states that water projects must be 'based on an
approach of full public participation . . . in water management
policy-making and decision-making'. Affected communities must be genuinely
involved at all levels and in all relevant policy areas (e.g. compensation,
community development, etc) of decision-making concerning future project
phases.
Thirdly, the Treaty must ensure that enough water is reserved in the Senqu
River and its LHWP-affected tributaries to guarantee the health of the
eco-system and the people depending on it. This is an idea that is
provided for in South African law and should thereby be provided for in the
LHWP Treaty as well. The National Water Act of the Republic of South
Africa describes 'the reserveî as ìthe quantity and quality of water
required to satisfy basic human needs for people who are now or who will,
in the reasonably near future, be relying upon; taking water from; or being
supplied from a given river; and to protect aquatic ecosystems in order to
secure ecologically sustainable development and use of the given river'.
Fourthly, the Treaty must stipulate that Lesotho has the right to use water
from LHWP reservoirs if drought or development efforts necessitate it. The
recent dry spell illustrates the importance of this point. Many of us
living in Maseru went without water for three days this week. Meanwhile,
water from Lesotho continued to flow to Gauteng. Studies of global water
trends indicate that Lesotho will soon be considered a ìwater-scarce'
country. Knowing this, can we send vast amounts of this precious resource
to South Africa without the guarantee that we can access it if we need it?
Our final contribution to this process concerns resettlement. Recognising
that 'land for cash' resettlement programmes throughout the world have
never succeeded in effectively restoring livelihoods, the Treaty must
guarantee that all LHWP-related resettlement is on a 'land for land' basis.
As we all know, there is no longer arable land available in Lesotho for
resettlement purposes. But if Mashai Dam were to be built, it would
inundate approximately 12,000 hectares of Lesothoís land. It seems only
fair, that this land be returned to Lesotho by South Africa in the form of
annexed lands for resettlement sites. These sites could be located along
the Caledon River border as was examined by LHDA-commissioned consultants
in a study carried out during planning for Mohale Dam resettlement.
In conclusion, it is our belief that these changes to the LHWP Treaty will
bring us closer to an equitable relationship between not only the nations
of Lesotho and South Africa, but between the people affected by the LHWP
and the projectís implementers.
On behalf of TRC, I thank you all for your attention and your consideration
of these points.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Lori Pottinger, Director, Southern Africa Program,
and Editor, World Rivers Review
International Rivers Network
1847 Berkeley Way, Berkeley, California 94703, USA
Tel. (510) 848 1155 Fax (510) 848 1008
http://www.irn.org
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::