“Big is beautiful again: in spite of their abysmal track record, Big Dams are back in style at the World Bank.”

—Peter Bosshard, Policy Director, International Rivers Network

Stop World Bank Funding for Bujagali Dam / Uganda - Archived

The World Bank should know better. Its own reports show that after 50 years its top-down development schemes - aimed at alleviating poverty - have left the people of Africa poorer. In Uganda, a lush land that lies between the tropical forests of the Democratic Republic of Congo and the dry plains of Kenya and Tanzania, the average annual income is barely $300, and 95 percent of the population lacks electricity.

So the World Bank and the Ugandan government come up with the outdated solution of building a big dam. They claim the project will double electrical output, stimulate industrial development and bring electricity to Uganda's poor. Never mind that the Bank's own study shows that only 7 percent of Uganda's population would be able to afford electricity from the high-cost ($530 million) Bujagali project.

In addition, the dam would destroy Uganda's “national treasure,” the beautiful Bujagali Falls at the source of the Nile. Whitewater rafting on the spectacular series of cascading rapids just 8 km from Lake Victoria generates $60 million a year in tourist revenues, with great potential for growth if the falls remain wild.

Bujagali Falls Photo credit credit Steve Elliott
(Select the picture to display a larger picture in its own window.)

There are so many environmental and economic problems with the Bujagali Dam that the US Overseas Private Investment Corporation and development banks in Germany, France, Sweden and England have all dropped out. Corporate sponsor AES Corp abandoned the project in August, citing financial woes (AES had been the target of a Global Response/International Rivers Network email campaign). But the World Bank Group, which approved $215 million for Bujagali in loans and guarantees, is still looking for a new corporate partner to build the dam.

In Uganda, a coalition of organizations called the Save Bujagali Crusade and the National Association of Professional Environmentalists are urging government and Bank officials to put the Bujagali Professional Environmentalists to put the Bujagali project on hold in order to study alternatives. To bring the benefits of electricity to the rural poor, the coalition favors development of Uganda's geothermal, solar and micro-hydro resources, as well as better management of the national grid which currently leaks over a quarter of energy produced. An alternate hydro-electric project site at Karuma is also preferred because its location would favor the underdeveloped northern region, and environmental and social impacts would be minimized.

Uganda is blessed with geothermal potential estimated at 450 megawatts - twice as much power as the Bujagali dam is expected to generate. Whereas power from the dam would surge into the grid all at once (providing more electricity than Uganda would be able to utilize), geothermal power can be brought online incrementally, as demand increases. Clean, renewable and economical, geothermal can provide power in rural areas where it is too costly to extend the national grid. Neighboring Kenya already produces 67 MW from geothermal resources and expects to produce 576 MW by 2019.

A 1996 study by the World Bank and the United Nations Development Program also found “favorable conditions” for solar development in Uganda. Again, Kenya provides a model: more rural Kenyan households get power from solar than from the grid.

The World Bank's stubborn promotion of the Bujagali dam prevents serious consideration of efficiency and renewable energy alternatives that could fuel rural development and help the poor.

More information about this issue.

Make a donation for this campaign.

Write a letter for this campaign.

Campaign partner(s) and credits.