Metsi Consultants - DWA Home Page

Report No 678-F-001
METSI CONSULTANTS: SUMMARY OF MAIN FINDINGS FOR PHASE 1 DEVELOPMENT
Any compensation programmes aimed at the areas downstream of the LHWP structures would assumedly form
part of the overall LHWP-compensation programmes, which are presently all concerned with items upstream of
the LHWP structures and are embodied in the respective Phase 1A and 1B Environmental Action Plans. The
current plans make no provision for downstream compensation, although they do address monitoring of
downstream impacts on a long-term basis.
A key feature of the LHWP compensation programme as implemented upstream is that compensation-in-kind has
dominated the transactions. Lost production from land has been replaced by maize and pulses delivered to
communities; and livestock fodder was initially offered as a replacement for range forage. Social forestry
programmes have attempted to provide replacement trees for lost timber and fuel resources. Where communities
have accepted cash as a compensation measure, it has been directed to specific affected households. Virtually
all lost community assets such as communal land resources have been replaced by resources other than cash.
11.4. POTENTIAL MITIGATION AND COMPENSATION APPROACHES
The following is a brief review of potential mitigation and compensation approaches for downstream river
reaches. More detailed analyses will be presented in future separate reports under Contract 678.
11.4.1 Fisheries
Cash compensation for lost fish harvests would not be workable in the case of downstream communities because
of a lack of supply outlets for any fish or fish substitutes. The present fishery programme in Phase 1A is directed
at the utilisation of the abundant fish populations in Katse Dam. The programme seeks to provide training to
communities in fishing techniques and in methods of regulating harvests for long-term sustainability. Reservoir
fish populations available for such harvesting are a natural product of reservoir formation and were not
established specifically for utilisation purposes. The biological situation downstream is quite different - fish
populations and associated harvests would be limited by stream flows and lack of available wetted habitats.
Supplementation of fish populations for harvesting by local communities is theoretically possible through the
establishment and operation of hatcheries and fish rearing facilities, but releasing fish into water-depleted rivers
would be a largely pointless exercise. Fishery enhancement thus seems potentially more feasible in river reaches
that are distant from the LHWP structures, which receive flows from tributaries not affected by flow regulation,
and that have the advantage of accessibility from existing roads.
Local people utilise fish primarily as a food resource, and the aesthetics of fishing are secondary and likely a
minor concern. An alternative form of compensation would therefore be one that supplements the food quantity
and quality available to downstream communities. These are mentioned further below.
11.4.2 Medicinal Plants
Estimated losses for the medicinal plant resources are comparatively low (about M83,000 annually for the Treaty
Scenario) but overall biomass and cash values are not the only important parameters for medicinal plants -
diversity and availability are also significant. Cash compensation is not a ready substitute for the lost resource
because of the biological diversity, strong local beliefs in the efficacy of herbal medicines, and a lack of locally
available substitutes.
In determining compensation approaches to medicinal plants, it is important to identify the main target of the
compensation - the source or the users. Plants used for medical purposes are in great demand in the upstream
63