476
L. Ferrini et al.
The position of the dam “en tête de bassin” (at the head of the basin) is particularly delicate, and raises questions about the nature of its impacts and the capacities
required to adapt locally and regionally. Economically and socially, changes in the
river’s regime and discharge would demand big changes in agricultural and economic
practices. Artificial control of the river’s natural regime would entail a change in the
relationship between the river and the ecosystems it sustains through seasonal fluctuations (Zwarts et al. 2005). It would also directly impact human activity, depending
on the natural resources of each ecosystem, for example, fishing and rice farming,
which depend on the seasonal flooding of certain areas of the basin. Furthermore,
redirecting the main purpose of the dam from hydropower to river discharge regulation would have a significant influence on financial calculations of the economic
viability of the project (NBA internal document 2018). This means, for example,
that farmers, fishermen, and herders in the Inner Delta would realize impacts. While
some organizations (e.g., Wetlands International and the International Union for the
Conservation of Nature) regularly attempt to voice concerns, the inhabitants of the
Inner Delta are only vaguely aware of the projected impacts of the dam and its implications for their economic activity. A comprehensive understanding of the project’s
impacts is complex for inhabitants close to the project location as well (interviews
with representatives of Wetlands International and NUC Guinea). Participants in
workshops with local community stakeholder representatives in Guinea, particularly
those who are likely to be affected by displacement plans, raise concerns and questions (CRU-BN 2017) that indicate insufficient understanding of the dynamics of
such a project, including individual and group rights, the expected benefits of the
dam as well as the risks and changes it imposes on different groups.
The NUC in Guinea is considered an honest information broker and a trustworthy
moderator of relationships between the local communities and national authorities
(interview with member of NUC Guinea). Mayors and village leaders participate
regularly in meetings and workshops, and their point of view is integrated in discussions and group exercises. But highly varying capacities to access and use technology, communicate effectively, and advocate for strategies mean that these populations have achieved consultation and, at best, placation (levels 4 and 5 according
to Arnstein 1969). An illustration of this comes from the workshop on the kickoff of the dam’s social and environmental impact updated study in 2017, at which
contracted consultants had access to the full list of participants and a ranking of the
issues that were most sensitive for their communities. The workshop was intended
to demonstrate the complexity of the project to stakeholders, and only minimally
affected the consultant’s plans for the study (AECOM workshop report, September
2017; authors’ observation at the workshop). Moreover (interview with NUC Guinea;
report of the 27th Ordinary Session of the NBA Council of Ministers 2018), issues
of displacement had not been communicated in detail to villagers, and many very
basic questions around management and governance of the displacement processes
were not addressed.
Open questions around the Fomi Dam make it difficult to predict its impact on
vulnerability to climate change in the region. In view of the potential impact and the
great number of stakeholders at varying levels of governance, involvement of local
L. Ferrini et al.
The position of the dam “en tête de bassin” (at the head of the basin) is particularly delicate, and raises questions about the nature of its impacts and the capacities
required to adapt locally and regionally. Economically and socially, changes in the
river’s regime and discharge would demand big changes in agricultural and economic
practices. Artificial control of the river’s natural regime would entail a change in the
relationship between the river and the ecosystems it sustains through seasonal fluctuations (Zwarts et al. 2005). It would also directly impact human activity, depending
on the natural resources of each ecosystem, for example, fishing and rice farming,
which depend on the seasonal flooding of certain areas of the basin. Furthermore,
redirecting the main purpose of the dam from hydropower to river discharge regulation would have a significant influence on financial calculations of the economic
viability of the project (NBA internal document 2018). This means, for example,
that farmers, fishermen, and herders in the Inner Delta would realize impacts. While
some organizations (e.g., Wetlands International and the International Union for the
Conservation of Nature) regularly attempt to voice concerns, the inhabitants of the
Inner Delta are only vaguely aware of the projected impacts of the dam and its implications for their economic activity. A comprehensive understanding of the project’s
impacts is complex for inhabitants close to the project location as well (interviews
with representatives of Wetlands International and NUC Guinea). Participants in
workshops with local community stakeholder representatives in Guinea, particularly
those who are likely to be affected by displacement plans, raise concerns and questions (CRU-BN 2017) that indicate insufficient understanding of the dynamics of
such a project, including individual and group rights, the expected benefits of the
dam as well as the risks and changes it imposes on different groups.
The NUC in Guinea is considered an honest information broker and a trustworthy
moderator of relationships between the local communities and national authorities
(interview with member of NUC Guinea). Mayors and village leaders participate
regularly in meetings and workshops, and their point of view is integrated in discussions and group exercises. But highly varying capacities to access and use technology, communicate effectively, and advocate for strategies mean that these populations have achieved consultation and, at best, placation (levels 4 and 5 according
to Arnstein 1969). An illustration of this comes from the workshop on the kickoff of the dam’s social and environmental impact updated study in 2017, at which
contracted consultants had access to the full list of participants and a ranking of the
issues that were most sensitive for their communities. The workshop was intended
to demonstrate the complexity of the project to stakeholders, and only minimally
affected the consultant’s plans for the study (AECOM workshop report, September
2017; authors’ observation at the workshop). Moreover (interview with NUC Guinea;
report of the 27th Ordinary Session of the NBA Council of Ministers 2018), issues
of displacement had not been communicated in detail to villagers, and many very
basic questions around management and governance of the displacement processes
were not addressed.
Open questions around the Fomi Dam make it difficult to predict its impact on
vulnerability to climate change in the region. In view of the potential impact and the
great number of stakeholders at varying levels of governance, involvement of local