The Bujagali Falls dam project is "the least-cost way of bringing power to Uganda’s electricity grid," a World Bank official in Washington, DC told The Monitor.

Ron Brigish, coordinator of the country programs for Tanzania and Uganda, defended the Bujagali project in two interviews. The US$500 million project -- run by AES Corp. of Arlington, Virginia with a loan guarantee from International Finance Corporation, the private lending arm of the Bank -- has come under fire from environmentalists and others. Brigish acknowledged that any alteration of the River Nile would have an environmental impact, but, he said, "If you adopt the attitude that the environment is everything, the country wouldn’t develop."

He added, "NGOs, even the ones who criticize the plan, have not been able to come up with any alternative."

So instead, the Bank has adopted an offset policy to its projects on the Nile. This means that only every other potential site will be developed. "Basically you allow the water to return to the river fully before you develop the next site," Brigish said of the policy.

Kalagala, eight miles upstream from Bujagali, will not be developed. Karuma, in Masindi district, will be, possibly in five years. Murchison, one of the prime tourist destinations in Uganda, will not.

While Murchison will be spared, Bujagali and the rapids that result from the falls are also valuable commodities to the tourist industry. Brigish acknowledges that the falls are beautiful and the rapids provide for exciting whitewater rafting. But he said that Kalagala is even more beautiful. The tour operators who oppose the Bujagali project may not yet know that Kalagala will be offset, Brigish said.

Since these interviews, Bujagali tour operators have begun to embrace the potential for tourism at Kalagala and Itanda. A number of them told Kagoma MP Dr. Frank Nabwiso on Oct. 6 that they will plant trees and hedges along the Nile at Itanda and Kalagala to preserve the falls at those sites.

A number of Ugandan NGOs continue to oppose the project, for reasons ranging from the environmental impact to the forced resettlement of 400 families. Brigish said he has spoken with the NGOs at length. "They still don’t like it," he said. "I don’t understand."

Ugandan officials’ opposition to the project’s critics has come with a sharp anti-West attitude. Maggie Kigozi, the director of Uganda's Investment Authority told The Guardian recently that the environmentalists are "just crazy." She added, "They think that because the West has spoiled its environment, we shouldn’t have power."

Ugandan president Yoweri Museveni said last week that the West’s arrogance causes some of its environmental groups to oppose the dam project. "There are confused groups [in New York]," Museveni said. "They are so confused, they have nothing to do, so they create artificial problems." He added, "These are people who know nothing about the environment. I am tired of these people who are ignorant."

It is Brigish’s impression that the vast majority of people being relocated support the dam project because of the "generous resettlement packages." These packages range as high as 120m shillings. Local residents also stand to benefit, in the short-term, from the construction project, which will infuse many workers and their money into the local economy. The construction is expected to last almost four years.

The fundamental question, to Brigish, is how Uganda will deal with the increase in demand for energy. The country’s current capacity is 380 megawatts, most of it generated at the dam on Jinja Falls. The planned 100-foot-high wall of concrete at Bujagali would provide 200 MW when the river is at full flow, less when it is not.

The project, seven years after its conception, is moving along slowly. In addition to studying the river flow, the inspection panel is reviewing the NGOs’ submission of the project, which raised questions about the environmental impact and the electricity tariffs. Brigish asked for patience. He hopes to go to the World Bank board within six months to get final approval. The dam may be up and running by 2005.

Meanwhile, Uganda’s electricity grid lags behind. Even if the Bujagali Falls project increases capacity, only the approximately 5 percent of Ugandans hooked up to the grid stand to benefit. Brigish said that a simultaneous rural electrification scheme looks to address that problem.

The long-term nature of the project has not kept some Ugandan officials from making plans for how to allocate the new power. Uganda's Minister of State for Energy, Mr Daudi Migereko, said in late August that Uganda would increase its power exports to Kenya from 30 MW to 80 MW, and would export a combined 140 MW to Tanzania and Rwanda. Thus, after completion of the Bujagali Falls project, Uganda would be exporting 220 MW of power. Migereko put the project’s capacity at 250 MW.

Some critics of the project argue that Uganda should begin focusing on renewable energy sources. Brigish said that a World Bank US$30 million project is exploring the potential of renewable energy sources, but that sugar waste and solar energy, while useful in rural areas not hooked into the electricity grid, cannot possibly generate 200 MW of power.

Because the Nile is an international waterway, any project altering its flow may impact many nations. With water such a significant issue for the Nile region, it was imperative for Uganda to consult with nations that may be affected by the project, Brigish said. There was no objection from Egypt, Sudan, Ethiopia, or any other country, he said.