The World Bank and Ugandan government have both said they remain committed to developing the Bujagali project; they [are now?] meeting behind closed doors to
discuss this project, which has important implications for Uganda’s energy future. We believe Ugandans would be better served by a more public debate about this hydropower dam, and alternatives to it for bringing electricity to Ugandan citizens.

As a group which has demonstrated its keen interest in helping our nation choose the best energy development project, we believe the ongoing discussions about the future of Bujagali and other energy projects in Uganda will be more productive if NGOs’ and citizens’ concerns are addressed as an integral part of the process. Toward that end, below are some of the key outstanding issues we believe need to be addressed in an open,
transparent way.

PROJECT ECONOMICS:
The economic and financial viability of the Bujagali project have been called into question by a number of independent parties, and this latest reversal only adds to those earlier concerns. As highlighted in the World Bank Inspection Panel’s report, the inadequacy of the Bank’s assessment of project costs, energy demand and projections of the project’s
affordability call into question the economic and financial viability of the Bujagali project as currently designed. Following the release of the Power Purchase Agreement in November 2002, independent analyses of the contract raised further serious concerns about the project’s cost which the World Bank Group has not yet addressed. We believe that many of these problems can be avoided if the public is made a partner in the process, and an open dialogue is held on the project’s economic and financial viability, in comparison to other options.

OPTIONS ASSESSMENT:
Now that Bujagali is without a backer, and given the concerns about the project’s economic and financial viability, there is a window of opportunity to launch a full options assessment for Uganda – one that would fairly evaluate opportunities for geothermal energy, other sites for hydropower projects, bagasse, demand-side management and other options. An open and transparent process to evaluate Uganda’s various energy options – as detailed in the recommendations of the World Commission on Dams – will clarify what is the best way forward to meet Uganda’s energy needs.

OUSTANDING RESETTLEMENT AND COMPENSATION ISSUES:
AES failed to complete the resettlement and compensation process for all affected people. With their withdrawal, it is unclear who is responsible for this situation. We call for a transparent, independent assessment of the situation on the ground, to provide a clear picture of the situation.

SUPPORT FOR BUJAGALI COMMUNITIES:
The Bujagali Falls area has been in limbo for years because of AES’s proposal to dam the site. We recommend a plan of investments and other forms of support for the Jinja area and surrounding communities to help them make the best use of the natural wonders of the river.

COMPREHENSIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE NILE:
We a urge governments and the World bank to develop a comprehensive management plan for the Nile before such mega projects are undertaken as recommended by the Inspection Panel. In conclusion, we make these recommendations with the hopes that, in the event that more large hydropower projects are put forth as solutions to our energy needs, that we do not repeat the mistakes of the recent past. A vibrant democracy depends upon open, transparent processes, and Uganda will be better off for a public debate about the options for our energy future.

Signed:
Muramuzi Frank
President National Association of Professional Environmentalists- NAPE