International Finance Co-operation
2121 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
ROM F 5K – 292
Washington, DC 20433, USA
E – mail: Cao-compliance@ifc.org
Fax: 202-5227400

RE: COMPLAINT ABOUT THE BUJAGALI HYDROPOWER PROJECT

Dear Madam, We, the National Association of Professional Environmentalists (NAPE) and the Save Bujagali Crusade Ugandan (SBC) based non-governmental Organizations, would like to lodge a complaint concerning the Bujagali Hydro electric project, now being considered by the IFC and World Bank for funding. The Bujagali project is located 8 km down stream of the existing Owen Falls power station and at 2.5 km down stream of Bujagali falls. The project is estimated to cost 520 million US Dollars. AES Nile Power, a US-Based company, will construct it. This complaint is made on behalf of members of NAPE and members of the Save Bujagali Crusade. These members from both institutions Come from various parts of Uganda and Bujagali Area inclusive. The basis of the complaint is as follows:

1. We had lodged a complaint to CAO’s office last year (Nov. 2000), but in your letter dated 15th December, 2000, you said that you would not accept our complaint by then because the Bujagali EIA report had not been released into the World Bank infoshop, and that the role of IFC in the project, was at that time, not yet established. You further said that is when the complaint would fall within the mandate of Ombudsman’s role, if still warranted. The EIA reports are now in public domain, the role of IFC has been determined and our complaint remains outstanding.

2. On realizing the potential damage of having a cascade of dams along the Nile River, the WBG /IFC considered an adjacent potential dam site at Kalagala as “off-set” mitigation measure for negative impacts at Bujagali falls once the dam is built. However, these two sites (Kalagala and Bujagali) have existed mutually and have unique scenic, cultural/spiritual and socio-economic significance and cannot be used as off-set (compensation) for each other.

3. Todate, the Power Purchase Agreement between AESNP and Uganda government continues to be a guarded secrete and yet its content will directly affect the ordinary Ugandan. Why is the public being denied access to it? What is there to hide from the Ugandan population?

4. Studies on alternative energy sources (solar, wind, small-scale hydro dams and biomas) in Uganda have indicated that these energy sources are possible at small scale and are especially suitable for rural communities that cannot afford electricity from (are not connected to) the National grid-based electricity. But the EIA report, which apparently has been accepted by WBG /IFC, downplays these alternatives.

5. i. There is no comprehensive study on the cumulative impact of a cascade of dams along the Nile. On what basis is Bujagali dam project being assessed?

ii. The Bujagali documents give an impression of an exhaustive and wide spread public consultation and support for the project. But there serious flaws in the participation process. AESNP asserts 96% of NGO support and 85% national support for the project. However, in reality this is not the case. Only 50% respondents (including government institutions with vested interests) were polled out of over 3000 NGOs in Uganda, which makes it about 1.6% of NGO community. This is not realistic sample.

iii. Commencement of compensation and resettlement of project affected people before the Bujagali project is approved is erroneous, trickister, and pre-emptive in decision making of WBG /IFC and NEMA / Government of Uganda.

iv. Reports of corruption and bribery are rife in local and international press/media. On this basis alone it is sufficient for the project to be discredited.

6. Uganda government has approved the project under controversial circumstances.