Vested interest of the dam industry

The hydropower debate can be divided into two poles; pro-hydropower and anti-hydropower.

This is a artificial division, but it will illustrate how the language in the debate influences development polices and strategies. Both sides have powerful interest behind them, and the debate is characterized by stereotypical descriptions of the actors. The anti-hydropower are

‘against the environment, pro-fossil fuels, and eco-imperialistic’. The pro-hydropower are

‘pro-environment’, with a strong economic interest behind them (McCully:2007). This is clear evidence of how language influences the way we depict social reality.

The construction of dams in the global south has been supported by billions of dollars in low-interest loans from development banks and aid agencies. The reasons are that large dams are particularly attractive investments for aid funds (McCully:2007, Usher:1997). Dams are a clear evidence of technological wonders. In the macroeconomic perspective; the dams are a way of getting ‘underdeveloped’ areas into the global economy. The opportunities for work are one of the reasons for funding dam constructions in developing countries. It is particularly the countries with much experience in hydropower that are likely to give loans for dam building (i.e. Norway, Simensen:2003). It is evident that there is a close link between the consulting companies, construction companies and aid agencies in the dam industry. There is also a close link between the decisions makers of whether or not a dam is feasible, the ones deciding the social and environmental impact, and the people who decide how the foundation of the project will go. These close links can create a tight environment, where a difference in opinion might be difficult to get through (Usher:1997).

92

The dam industry has maintained its momentum because there is powerful political and economic interest vested into it. Also, the processes of planning, promoting and building dams are often isolated from the public. Those who suffer from the dam building, either directly through loss of livelihoods or indirectly through losing the economic subsidies from the government to the project, are rarely able to hold the dam builders accountable. This lack of accountability is clearly worse under regimes where the civil society is weak and the authoritarian power of the regimes is strong. As Scott (1998) states, authoritative regimes have an easier way of getting through with large-scale projects. One example can be the hydropower plans in Ethiopia, where the government uses it’s authoritarian power to get their plans through (Bistandsaktuelt:2011c). Despite South Sudan being a democratic regime, it still has authoritarian traits. The government lacks the opponents that can keep the

government accountable (McCully:2007).

Dam building is a profitable industry, drawing US$20 billion each year on world basis (McCully:2007). A large portion of this sum goes to a relative small numbers of engineering companies, equipment manufactures and construction companies. There is huge money at stake, and this has promoted the pro-dam lobby to initiate public relations strategies, where criticism is met with all the benefits that a dam can provide. The pro-dam lobby includes the whole dam industry, and the consultants which are appointed to find out whether a project is

‘feasible’ or not are often biased towards that it is. These biases are formed by professional training and ideology, which focus solely on the benefits of dams, with limited focus on the social and environmental impacts. There is also a strong interest vested in the project being feasible, the companies given the construction project are often linked to the companies doing the feasibility report. The consulting companies have little incentive to criticize projects, and the possible consequences of a project are borne by the local populations, not the companies (ibid:2007).

Dams have frequently been connected to ideological statements. Stalin’s statement that

‘Water which is allowed to enter the sea is wasted’, is a classic example of this (Joseph Stalin cited in McCully:2007:237).

93

It illustrates a common and widely held belief that water is a commodity, and a source of profit, which should be harvested and productively used. This view is also evident in the treatment of dam opponents as ‘sentimental’ when they oppose a dam construction. Although recognition may be made that livelihoods are often dependent on the river or lake that is dammed, these livelihoods are often viewed as ‘underdeveloped’, and thus the dam construction is seen as the ‘improvement of the human living conditions’ (ibid:2007).

Ann Danaiya Usher (1997) argues that there is a general positive attitude towards hydropower development. She calls the attitude ‘pervasive appraisal optimism’, where the benefits of hydropower project leave out the negative factors. The focus is on economic growth, and the possible ecological and socio-economic consequences are somehow forgotten. The

dominance of this narrative makes it difficult for metanarrative to get acknowledged. The actors involved are often a tight collaboration between government, aid givers and donors.

The representation of the poor is not present, and therefore the ‘needs’ are developed from the donor’s perspective (Robbins:2012).

As with other narratives, the actors involved are powerful in that they influence how the social reality is depicted, and thus how strategies and polices are formulated. In the case of hydropower projects, the consulting companies may have a dual role. On the one hand, they are involved in the feasibility studies and Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) in which they have to focus on the possible consequences of the project. On the other hand, they are also involved in the organization of the project. The EIA and feasibility studies are

independent works from different consulting companies, which are given to consulting companies outside the project. Still, there are often cases of strong links between the consulting companies doing the studies and the ones responsible for the project. These consulting companies often share the same social reality and view, and represent then the same discourse. Since they represent the same discourse, it is difficult to get the perspective of the alternative narratives (Benjaminsen and Svarstad:2010).

94

The narrative of ‘energy leads to development’ also has a symbolic power, because it shows how humans can ‘tame nature’ in anthropocentric favor (Scott:1998). Large scale dams are evidences of how natural forces can be forced under human control, which is a symbolic evidence of human progress. They are also a symbolic evidence of the power of the state who has built them, which makes dam construction a favorite for nation-builders. The dam has a powerful symbolic role, and the potential negative impacts are faced in favor of the economic and technical rational. This ‘taming’ of nature goes back to biblical terms, and gives an anthropocentric view of the ecological system. Nature is in the end a commodity which can be controlled by human for our benefits. The nature does not have a value in itself. It must be culturally and economically transformed (Benjaminsen and Svarstad:2010).

The construction of the High Aswan dam has a similar history as the possible hydropower construction in South Sudan. As Colonel Gamal Abdel Nasser overthrew Egypt’s King Faroyk in July 1952, the idea of a huge dam across the Nile quickly came into force. The objective was to expand irrigation and produce electricity, but the political objective was for the revolutionary government to show what they could be capable of (McCully:2007). The government saw the project as a monument to national pride, and did not allow for criticism of the project. The political motivation behind the construction of the dam was made even more evident by their downplaying the costs of the construction, and the possible social and environmental impacts (ibid:2007).

Though I do not wish to draw parallels from Nasser to the president of South Sudan, Salva Kiir, the regimes do still have similarities. The regimes are both based on recent revolutionary movements, and the dam constructions are also seen as evidence of what South Sudan may be capable of doing. Hopefully, as the government is democratically elected, the opponents of the dam construction and the civil society will be listened to.