The Namibian Cabinet has approved the signing of the implementation agreement with Angola for the Baynes power project. This decision mandates the Ministry of Energy to formalize the agreement on behalf of the government, paving the way for the joint development, construction, and operation of the Baynes hydropower plant. The project involves a dam with a hydroelectric power plant on the Kunene River, which forms the border between Namibia and Angola. The governments of both countries have announced plans to generate up to 881 MW from the facility, with the intention to integrate Angola into the Southern African Development Community (SADC) electricity grid.
What I've also heard is that the government is keen to push forward quickly. The agreement is expected to be signed by the end of this year, with financing slated to be secured in 2025. Both countries, Namibia and Angola, are expected to take action, and construction is set to begin in 2026.
Indigenous communities, particularly the Himba, are voicing concerns about the potential hiring of workers from outside the area, fearing that they may not leave after the construction phase, further complicating the community’s relationship with the land.
So, what further actions might we take? The issue remains largely unknown to many Namibians, and awareness and advocacy could play a crucial role in pushing for an inclusive process.
The Namibian government's handling of the Baynes Dam project starkly exposes a troubling disregard for international norms and declarations meant to protect Indigenous rights. Despite its post-colonial identity, Namibia's actions reflect a contradictory narrative one where state-led development agendas consistently overshadow the well-being of Indigenous communities, perpetuating cycles of exploitation and dispossession. This contradiction becomes particularly evident in the government's failure to address the concerns of Indigenous communities, including the unresolved issues surrounding the OvaHerero and Nama genocide reparations.
Although Namibia has committed to international frameworks such as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and the African Union’s 2003 Report on Indigenous Peoples, it continues to neglect the foundational principle of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC). These principles go beyond being mere procedural protocols; they are moral imperatives that affirm the sovereignty, autonomy, and dignity of Indigenous peoples. The government's persistent disregard for these principles highlights a broader pattern of marginalization, particularly against the indigenous communities the practical example is the OvaHerero and Nama communities, whose calls for justice and reparations for the early 20th-century genocide remain unmet. The exclusion of Indigenous voices from meaningful consultation on the Baynes Dam project is another practical examples on how the Namiban Swapo led government deepens this systemic disenfranchisement.
From a Pan-African perspective, these actions represent a betrayal of the very ideals of African unity and liberation. Pan-African leaders such as Kwame Nkrumah and Julius Nyerere envisioned a continent where development was not an imposition from the state, but an emancipatory process guided by the needs and voices of the people. However, in Namibia, development is often used as a tool to silence the very communities that are the heart of African heritage and resilience. The Kunene River, vital to the Himba, Ovazemba, and OvaHerero peoples, is not merely a geographical feature; it is a spiritual and cultural lifeline. These communities should be recognized as stewards of their ancestral lands, not as victims of state-driven infrastructure projects that disregard their needs and heritage.
The question now is whether Namibia will embrace a vision of development that places the rights and cultures of its people at the forefront or continue along a path of exploitation and exclusion reminiscent of colonial practices. The direction Namibia chooses will profoundly impact its legacy in the ongoing fight for Indigenous people rights to self-determination. "Which birthed the slogan "Nothing about us without us" emphasizes the principle that marginalized and Indigenous communities must have a say in decisions that affect their rights, land, and resources, as outlined in international frameworks like the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and ILO Convention No. 169. These frameworks demand free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) and participation, ensuring Indigenous peoples' agency in matters impacting their culture, environment, and self-determination".
Promoted as a vital project to enhance regional energy capacity and integrate Namibia and Angola into the Southern African Development Community (SADC) grid, the Baynes Dam has met with fierce resistance from Indigenous communities, traditional leaders, and human rights organizations. The project threatens sacred cultural sites, undermines Indigenous rights, and endangers the livelihoods of local populations.
This article delves into the multifaceted challenges associated with the Baynes Dam, analyzing its legal, cultural, and developmental ramifications. It draws on international precedents and philosophical insights to offer actionable recommendations for a more inclusive and ethically grounded approach to development in Namibia.
Furthermore, the government's actions regarding the OvaHerero people further highlight its disregard for community consent. The recent proposal to inaugurate the Hosea Kutako Shrine, bypassing the chiefs chosen by the community in favor of a government-appointed representative, is emblematic of the broader state efforts to marginalize the OvaHerero. This exclusionary act, which overlooks the community’s historical trauma and cultural losses, exacerbates the growing rift between the government and its Indigenous peoples. It is a clear sign of the government's tendency to prioritize development projects over the preservation of Indigenous cultural identities and histories.
In this broader context, the Baynes Dam emerges as more than just a local development issue. It reflects a legacy of state-driven development that disregards the rights, dignity, and cultural integrity of Indigenous peoples. Moving forward, Namibia must reassess its development priorities and place people, cultural preservation, and ecological sustainability at the heart of its strategies—values that align with Pan-African ideals of justice, self-determination, and respect for Indigenous knowledge and heritage.
Contextual Background
The Baynes Dam project, designed to generate 881 MW of power, is situated along the Kunene River, an area of immense ecological and cultural sensitivity. Specifically, it threatens sacred mountains Yorukoro and Tjirambo in Angola and burial grounds in Orokaue, Namibia. These are not just geographical landmarks; they are central to the spiritual and cultural practices of the indigenous Himba and Herero peoples, who regard these spaces as sacred repositories of identity and tradition. The government's approach to this project highlights an alarming trend of marginalizing Indigenous communities while prioritizing development initiatives, often under the guise of progress. This practice reflects neo-colonial dynamics, where the state acts as an agent of dispossession under the pretense of economic development.
The Baynes Dam project has a contentious history dating back to the early 1990s, marked by steadfast resistance from Indigenous leaders and communities. Chief Hikuminue Kapika of the Ombuku Traditional Authority emerged as a prominent figure opposing the project, citing the threats it posed to sacred sites, traditional livelihoods, and cultural identity. He rejected the project unequivocally, warning of its irrevocable harm to his people and their environment.
However, as years passed and Chief Kapika entered his later 90s, the government’s efforts to engage him and his community shifted the dynamics. On February 19, 2015, when communities learned that Chief Hikuminue Kapika authorized the government to construct the dam, the 570 community members selected Mutaambanda Kapika, Chief Kapika’s younger brother, as their preferred representative. This selection reflected the community’s dissatisfaction with Chief Kapika’s leadership on the matter, given his perceived alignment with the government’s interests over time. Despite this, the government has continued to prioritize consultations with Chief Kapika while sidelining Mutaambanda Kapika and disregarding broader community concerns.
This divergence has deepened tensions within the Ombuku community, where opposition to the dam remains strong. Over 1,000 community members signed a petition rejecting the project outright, reflecting widespread disapproval of the consultation process and the perceived marginalization of their chosen representative, Mutaambanda Kapika.
This historical context underscores the ongoing struggle between the state’s development priorities and the rights of Indigenous communities. It highlights the pressing need for transparent and inclusive consultation processes that genuinely reflect the will of the affected communities, rather than selectively engaging leaders who align with state-driven agendas.
Lessons for Bayness Dam
Namibia risks facing similar outcomes if the Baynes Dam project proceeds without genuinely inclusive consultations and respect for Indigenous peoples’ rights. The Ovazemba and Ovahimba communities in Ruacana offer a stark local example. Despite living near a hydroelectric power facility, these communities have gained no meaningful benefits from the project. Electricity and water, critical resources for improving living conditions, are channeled to other regions while these Indigenous populations remain in deprivation. This glaring inequity exposes the government’s repeated failure to integrate Indigenous communities into the benefits of state-led development initiatives.
The Baynes Dam project threatens to replicate this pattern, offering little to no tangible benefits for the affected communities while imposing significant risks. Instead of fostering empowerment, it may exacerbate marginalization and further deprive Indigenous populations of their natural resources and cultural heritage.
In conclusion, to ensure that the Baynes Dam project respects international laws and Indigenous rights, it is essential that the governments of Namibia and Angola prioritize the Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) of the affected Indigenous communities, particularly the Himba, Ovazemba, and OvaHerero peoples. This can be achieved by establishing an inclusive consultation process where Indigenous voices are central in decision-making, empowering them to guide the project in ways that honor their cultural and spiritual connections to the Kunene River. It is also crucial to consult Indigenous knowledge experts and researchers as interested parties, ensuring that their expertise informs the planning and implementation of the project. Engaging independent third-party mediators to facilitate the consultation and ensure ongoing monitoring can help hold both governments accountable. Additionally, any development impacting sacred sites should be met with fair compensation and mitigation efforts, while the long-term benefits, such as employment and infrastructure, must directly support Indigenous communities. Drawing lessons from the Ogiek case, it is crucial that the governments not only respect the legal rights of Indigenous peoples but also provide effective remedy and redress where their rights have been violated, ensuring a fair and just process for all involved.
Other governments have similarly respected FPIC in such projects. For example, in 2004, the government of the Philippines followed FPIC principles in the Chico River Dam project, which involved extensive consultations with the Kalinga Indigenous peoples. This consultation process included community assemblies, where the local communities were informed of the project's potential impacts. The Kalinga peoples were given time to consider the proposal and provide feedback, ensuring that their voices and concerns were integrated into the final decision. The consultation also involved the use of traditional leaders, local council members, and community-based organizations to facilitate communication, ensuring that the process was culturally appropriate and that Indigenous knowledge systems were respected. Ultimately, the Kalinga peoples gave their consent for the project, but this was conditional on significant changes to the development plan, including measures to protect sacred sites and ensure adequate compensation for any land that was displaced.
Similarly, in Canada, the Nisga’a Nation’s involvement in consultations for the 1998 Nisga’a Treaty provides a model of successful FPIC implementation. The Nisga’a Nation, whose traditional territory spans the northern part of British Columbia, engaged in extensive negotiations with the Canadian government that took place over several years. These consultations involved not only the Nisga’a leadership but also community members, including elders, youth, and women, ensuring broad-based participation. The Nisga’a Nation was consulted on land and resource management, including logging, mining, and fishing rights. The negotiations included formal and informal dialogue, community meetings, and regional forums that allowed the Nisga’a to express their concerns, preferences, and priorities. The successful outcome of this process was the 1998 Nisga’a Treaty, which resulted in the Nisga’a Nation receiving land rights, governance powers, and compensation. This treaty model is a clear example of FPIC in action, as the consent of the Nisga’a people was obtained through a transparent, inclusive, and consultative process that respected their sovereignty and traditions.
By following these principles, the governments of Namibia and Angola can create a development model that is ethically grounded, respectful of local cultures, and beneficial for all parties involved. These cases demonstrate that with genuine engagement, proper consultation, and respect for Indigenous rights, large-scale projects can proceed in a manner that benefits all stakeholders while safeguarding Indigenous communities’ cultural integrity and well-being.
Thinking Out Loud
Alphons K Koruhama
Computer Scientist and Indigenous Knowledge Researcher.
https://naturaljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/OvaHerero-BCP_English-2024.pdf.
Comments
Post a Comment