Dam the Okavango
Report Back Stockholm meeting – re Okavango 21 to 25 August 2005 By Stuart M Bartman Chairman – People for Wildlife
From the birth of People for Wildlife, a small but dedicated group of individuals have been members in Maun, Botswana. Their activities in terms of formal meetings, etc are mostly limited by the fact that they are never normally in town at the same time. They however do a great deal in the preservation of our wilderness.
Albert Michau, one of our members in Maun, had forwarded an invitation he received from Chaminda Rajapakse, of the Botswana government. The invitation was to a World Water Week meeting held in Stockholm, Sweden. It was called “Flowing upstream and down stream”…..an invitation to join a discussion of high level policy makers from Angola, Namibia and Botswana, on the fate of the river they share – The Okavango.
On speaking to Albert it was clear that the boys in the field were worried about the potential effects any interference with the river could have on the Delta, and he recommended we do our homework. To my knowledge, People for Wildlife is the only environmental NGO with a base in Maun, so we had to take the lead and our first point of departure was to contact other prominent Southern African NGO’s. These included Birdlife SA, EWT, WESSA and BOTSOC. We needed to know if they would be going to Sweden for this event and if so, would they be prepared to represent People for Wildlife. None of them had planned on going but all wished us well in our endeavors. Dr Nick King, CEO of the EWT was particularly helpful and forwarded information and results of studies done on the Okavango, a lot of which was to form the basis of my presentation. Brent Reed from Letaka Safaris gave me study material from Prof Spike McCarthy detailing the water life of the Okavango

Permission to spend some R20 000-00 to attend this meeting in Sweden was granted by the People for Wildlife Executive Committee. They felt that although it was very expensive, we could not equate a price to the value of our natural heritage.

Ase Johannesson, of the IUCN, was particularly pleased to hear of our confirmed attendance, as People for Wildlife would be the only NGO representing the environmental interests of the Delta. True to form British Airways lost my luggage and a week was spent in Sweden with nothing. This set back however served to strengthen my resolve to do well the job I was sent to do, and the meeting was attended a bit creased and unshaven but determined.

OKACOM is formed by SADC and consists of commissioners from Angola, Botswana and Namibia. It is a collaborative and dynamic form of governance amongst the three countries. They are in essence responsible for the decisions that will affect the World’s biggest RAMSAR site. The meeting started with presentations from each of the OKACOM commissioners; -Mr Piet Heyns (Namibia), on creating an enabling environment for the management of the Okavango River. -Mr Isidro Pinheiro (Angola), on A basin wide Strategic Action Plan. -Ms Portia Segomelo (Botswana), on Political Will to facilitate Collective Action and Ownership. -Mr Gabaake Gabaake (Botswana), on Data gathering, Management, Training and Sharing. Mr Monty Montshiwa (ERP project manager), on Community Level Collaboration.

In attendance and doing introductions was Ambassador Ndeutapo Amagulu (Namibia), The Hon. Minister of Minerals, Energy and Water Resources Botswana Mr Charles Tibone and The Hon. Minister of Agriculture, Water and Rural Development Namibia Dr Nickey Iyambo.

All the presentations were well presented and informative. They had clearly put huge efforts and resources into community awareness and upliftment. The collaboration between the three riparian countries was also impressive as although they shared the Okavango, their needs, demands and desires remain worlds apart. The common factor was that the only concern was for the local villages and communities in the region and there was no mention of the environmental impact or effects that interference with the damming or water flow would have on the Delta

A panel discussion ensued and I was given an opportunity to speak. I commended OKACOM on the work they had done but noted that the focus was on hydrological use and the needs of all the rural people from the catchments to the Delta. There was clear concern for the volume of water that flowed, but no mention of the way the water flowed or the devastating effect that upsetting the flow of water would have on the environment. The delicate balance between the geological faults, the siltation that forms blocks and islands with the plants that have salt fixing bacteria to transpire excess salinity to the atmosphere and the islands that combust into peat fires which submerge these islands with the seasonal rains to open the channels again and allow re-directional flow of the waters from the highlands. A cycle which ebbs and flows in about a 150 year cycle, but the reality being that we just do not know enough save to say that the delta is a very unique and delicate eco-system that could do without hydrological interference. I tried to keep the scientific explanations brief and emphasized the principle effects and potential ramifications to the world’s biggest home of African elephants and buffalo and stressed that any dam to the inflow of the Okavango could potentially turn it into another vast Makgadigadi Pan type environment.

The hall was silent. I could hear myself breathing deeply. I sat down. An American Gentleman seated next to me leaned towards me and whispered, “This was never reported to us, I will now withhold funding”

The meeting was being chaired by Ms Tabeth Matiza – Chiuta, from South Africa and she asked if the panel would respond to the claims made by People for Wildlife. There was no response from the panel and the room remained quiet. The Chair then asked for further questions or comment from the floor to give the commissioners’ time to respond. Again she asked the commission to respond to People for Wildlife, again a silence ensued! Voices from the back of the room alerted The Chair to the presence of a Professor from the University of Botswana. Tabeth asked the Prof. to comment and he further elaborated on the processes of flow, salt and silt as well as the ecological value of the Delta. The silence was broken by The Hon. Minister Dr Nickey Iyambo of Namibia, whom assured the delegates that Namibia would not continue with any Okavango developments until a due diligence on these claims were done. Mr Isidro Pinheiro from Angola agreed, he then thanked the delegates and declared the meeting closed. The room burst into a cacophony of debate.

Currently, Botswana’s benefit from the Okavango is by far the largest; the eco-tourism revenue into the countries coffers being one of the mainstays of the economy, yet Botswana represents only 18% of the Okavango basin area. The two main tributaries to the Okavango originate in the BIE Plateau in Angola which experiences a mean average rainfall of 1300mm. The Okavango River then forms the border between Namibia and Angola for about 400km before crossing the Caprivi into Botswana. The Gumare fault then fans the water into the Okavango Delta where over 80 percent of the 11 cubic kilometers of water is lost to evaporation and transpiration. It takes almost six months for the water to reach another geological fault, The Thamalakane, which holts the spread of the water and channels it towards the Boteti River. The evapotranspiration is accumulating salt in the delta at a rate of 450 000 tons per year and the reason this has not killed the delta ages ago is because the swamp trees quarantine it. Not only is the delta unique because its endoreic (a river system that flows inland and not into the sea), but when it is wet its dry and when it is dry it’s wet. In other words, during the rainy season the delta is at its lowest and covers about 6000 square kilometers and during the dry season the flood waters expand the delta to about 16 000 square kilometers.

Moving up the panhandle into Namibia and the Popa Falls brings a local jealousy of the Botswana local eco-tourism income as they too have a right to this shared resource. They represent some 37 percent of this basin area, and presently use very little water from the Okavango. However, the Eastern National Water Carrier (ENWC) has plans to extract water from the Okavango (or Kavanogo as it is called in Namibia) at Rundu and pipeline it to Grootfontein and beyond. My understanding is that this system is almost completely constructed already. Namibia argues that this scheme will not affect the ecology of the delta. NAMPOWER too have plans for a hydro-electric scheme at the Popa Falls and the future of these remains uncertain.

Moving due north brings us into the Angolan part of the Okavango basin, comprising of 45 percent of the total basin area, and this portion contributing about 95 percent of the total water run off into the Okavango. The civil war in Angola displaced most communities in this UNITA controlled area and rendered any development of this catchment impossible. But….Now that the war is over resettlement of this area with the ensuing agriculture and industrial development is imminent. The population growth will lead to mining, hydro-power, urbanization and industrialization all of which will bring pollution and a reduced flow.

Naturally all parties are cautious with regards to agreements on water sharing that could limit its own future economic development. Angola is yet to sign the RAMSAR agreement

I feel that the total Okavango basin area is of importance to all the people of the world and that they (we) should take ownership of its future. This however cannot be done at the expense of Angola, Namibia or Botswana and they must be assisted by the people of the world to reach their individual water, power and economic potential without affecting the natural environment in which they live. A big ask, I know! But imagine the catastrophic consequence of the alternative.