Big Dams: Bulldozers and Sustainable Development 101

The debate for me isn’t electricity or no electricity for the Gilgel Gibe III Dam in Ethiopia, recently highlighted on the BBC’s Crossing Continents. It is about electricity with appropriate study of the impacts or electricity that makes the same mistakes as similar projects. The key question is: What’s appropriate? Might it be slower? Yes. More costly? In the short-run, for sure; but in the long-run, how can anyone possibly know?

Are these appropriate studies? I have no idea at first glance, but it serves as a very current course/case study. Here’s an advocacy side from International Rivers. I was really curious to see that Facebook also has a flurry of activity on this topic.

And this allows us to consider public consultation, but the radio show clearly highlights that a lot of people don’t feel like they have been heard.

This is a complex story, but very worth exploring. Unfortunately, the key actor, the Italian contractor, isn’t interviewed on the radio program. The report mentions that the World Bank isn’t funding this, but one might ask where the money is coming from.

Anyone who has additional information? Please share!

China vs. West in Africa

So my heading is a bit over dramatic. This is an interesting development. Being interested in sustainable development, I don’t think it is important to worry about the nationality of the investment. But I do worry about how responsible it is.

I was please to read this article today, “As Chinese Investment in Africa Drops, Hope Sinks” (also a bit over dramatic). While I don’t find lost hope something to celebrate, the article pleases me since it shows that natural resource extraction won’t be simply a race to the bottom when it comes to environmental and social development. There are glimmers that exploitation, regardless of nationality, will be rejected by Guinea.

Hamidou Condé works bare-chested under the relentless sun, digging a hole for the foundation of a new hospital being built by a Chinese company, yet another symbol of Chinese-Guinean friendship.

Mr. Condé, 35, who has two wives and four children, said that he had been digging in the hard rock with a shovel, pick and ax for two months, but that he had yet to receive any pay from his Chinese taskmasters.

“We work like slaves,” Mr. Condé said. “And like slaves we are not paid. The Chinese bring nothing good to Guinea.”

I would venture to say many African countries don’t “still need the the West’s help after all”, they need responsible investment. For Mr. Condé’s sake, I hope the drop in commodity prices is a good reminder that process matters, especially in a downturn when investors are tightening their belts.

A Brave (and Responsible) Company

Very pleased to receive a link to this story on the Mine Web site regarding Newmont’s review of its community relations policy and practice. One part that most interested me:

Community relations cannot be an isolated function. “All employees must regard the implementation of the company’s community relations priorities as an essential part of their jobs. …Finally, there must be strategic planning at both the corporate and the mine-site levels.”

Great to see a company sharing less-than-best practice with the aim, hopefully, of making the industry better.

Here’s the Newmont press release.

P.S. – Here’s the full report.

More WRI Resources on Engagement

The World Resources Institute has recently published a report called “Breaking Ground: Engaging Communities in Extractive and Infrastructure Projects”. The report is a well-referenced follow on from a previous report, “Development Without Conflict: The Business Case for Community Consent”, and is the first good practice document I have seen that makes a note of the fact that there is an economic crisis upon us. (Also good to see WRI using video – see video of author, Kirk Herbertson, giving the executive summary himself.) The report, importantly, acknowledges a crucial, if somewhat obvious point: “Despite the abundance of existing reports and manuals that provide guidance on community engagement, much of the publicly available information on how project proponents engage communities reveals great difficulty in applying guidance effectively”.

Alas, the devil is in the details.

The report is useful on many levels and, even if I can’t agree with all its points or even the full framework, I think it is a very good starting point for getting into devilish details.

As an element of praise, I think the report clearly highlights the importance of preparing communities before engaging, the first principle of the framework. This is a crucial step that often gets overlooked and often not from malice, but just from the difficulty of trying to see a project from different points of view. The fourth principle on including traditionally excluded stakeholders also speaks to a key theme.

But I thought the report focused a bit too much on indigenous communities, which is in no way saying that issues related to indigenous peoples are not a crucial topic in extractive industry projects. I simply kept thinking there was a danger of people thinking these issues are only related to indigenous peoples in less developed countries when in fact they are just as important to non-indigenous communities in high income countries. I also don’t think the term Free, Prior and Informed Consent is the best way to make the business case. Language and translation plays such a key role in extractive projects. The word “consent” makes it seem like everyone has to agree, even if the report states this isn’t the case. I think stakeholders still interpret it this way.

I would welcome other opinions on the document (or even disagreements with mine, which are much more interesting).