THE Lesotho Highlands Development Authority (LHDA) a fortnight ago launched the Phase II of the Lesotho Highlands Water Project (LHWP) in Malingoaneng, Mokhotlong. The colourful ceremony was led by His Majesty King Letsie III and South African President Cyril Ramaphosa. The duo applauded the project for not only going to solve the water problems of Lesotho and South Africa but also bringing development to Lesotho.
In their speeches, both heads of state said that they were convinced that the communities affected by the construction of the Polihali Dam had been fully compensated. However, there was a short-lived demonstration by community members who said they had not been compensated for their land acquired to build the project. They demanded that they be fully and equitably compensated.
The Lesotho Times (LT) recently caught up with the LHDA Public Relations Manager, Mpho Brown, to try and address some of these issues in much greater detail.
LT: The LHWP has been in the news quite a lot recently. Can you give us a quick overview of some top-of-mind issues relating to the Polihali project in recent months and weeks?
Brown: Thank you Ntate. Indeed, the project is now in the exciting part of its life where, major construction works for Phase II of the project are about to begin. Needless to say, there is a lot of activity within the project components, in and around the project areas. And so, it is anticipated that we will be hearing a lot more about the LHWP from here going forward.
Just last week we were in Malingoaneng where His Majesty King Letsie III, as well as President Ramaphosa of South Africa marked the official beginning of the construction works for Polihali Dam, Polihali Tunnel as well as the Senqu Bridge.
Whilst all of this is happening, there have also been discourse on some of the areas of the LHDA’s work in implementing the Lesotho Highlands Water Project. These being the areas of compensation, labour and recruitment, as well as public health. These are areas that are core to what we do as a development entity for the country and are also issues of huge national importance and priority.
We have been a little concerned with the way in which some of the discussions have been framed through various platforms, and so we strongly believe that it is crucial for us to ramp up all efforts to ensure that Basotho have the right information about this project, which in its entirety, is designed for their benefit and to benefit the economy of Lesotho.
LT: Speaking of compensation, there seems to be a lot of buzz lately about this topic, with allegations that you have short-changed poor people displaced by the project. What can you tell us about this whole compensation process?
Brown: One of the most critical things to explain when discussing compensation relating to the LHWP is that there is some difference between compensation payment processes and related issues that fall under Phase I of the Project, and those that fall under Phase II of the project. It is also important to clarify recent misinformation that the LHDA does not consult affected individuals and households sufficiently on compensation issues. Before any movement on compensation, extensive consultations occur with those affected both at household level and at community level. Any insinuation that it doesn’t happen is factually incorrect.
Secondly it is crucial to explain that households have the freedom to select between cash based and in-kind (grain) compensation for their assets, and for cash compensation they have the option to select up front lump sum payments for all assets, or annual payments for their assets for a period of 50 years. Grain compensation is paid annually. The misconception here has been that the LHDA decides what kind of compensation to pay households and for how much, which is not correct. Compensation rates are gazetted as part of an extensive library of documents that govern the Lesotho Highlands Water Project, and those were developed with consultations and guidance from the relevant government authorities, expert bodies, and communities impacted by the project.
LT: One of the common assertions has been that compensation payments take too long to process, and that people whose assets have been affected by the project have not received their due compensation. How accurate is that?
Brown: This is another area where it becomes very crucial to differentiate matters between Phase I and Phase II in terms of progress of compensation payments. One of the areas we are thankful for as a project is that we were able to extract extremely valuable insights and learnings from Phase I’s shortfalls and apply them to correct processes in Phase II. It is important that we acknowledge Phase I compensation challenges and delays that occurred and that we continue to resolve even today. Some of the most common culprits and causes of delays were – implementation of an electronic compensation payments system a while ago which, whilst intended to increase efficiency, came with teething challenges that ended up creating a backlog of payments to process. Secondly, the level of due diligence that needs to go into ensuring that the right people are compensated for the right burdens, can slow things down when – there isn’t necessary identification (IDs) to authenticate ownership of assets by the beneficiaries, some beneficiaries passing away and estate/inheritance transfers delaying the process; changes in beneficiaries names relative to names recorded with LHDA, migration of beneficiaries posing challenges to identification of the correct beneficiaries; and the list is endless. Under Phase I, there is a substantive backlog of payments to clear which the LHDA has prioritized and teams are working around the clock to achieve that. We continue to thank Basotho who are due for compensation from Phase I for their patience through that process.
It is worth noting that, to manage this process, there has been a robust complaints management system implemented that enables us to track all complaints from communities relating to the project all the way from reporting to resolution, and this has been an instrumental mechanism as well in addressing Phase I compensation and other challenges.
Under Phase II – consultations with affected households on compensation options have largely been completed. Compensation for those affected does not happen at the same time and all at once. It occurs based on the stage at which the work under the project is occurring, and those who are due for compensation at that time are the ones whose payments are prioritized. This early and rigorous consultation process for all communities and households that will eventually be affected, may be giving the impression that all payments are due to be paid all together at the same time. That is not the case. The LHDA has gone through great lengths to help communities understand when they are likely to be directly impacted, and that their specific compensations will be handled at those requisite times.
The LHDA has implemented alternative strategies to address compensation delays which were a major pain point under Phase I caused by various issues. One of the strategies is a phased handover of the construction sites to contractors, where assets that are required by contractors for preliminary works are acquired first, and only handed over to contractors after they have been paid.
It must be noted that in cases where the project needs to access people’s properties before payment has been issued, the LHDA consults the specific owners of the affected properties and an agreement is reached with them allowing the LHDA access to the land whilst payment is being expedited. This has been a crucial part of misinformation in recent reports where allegations claim that the project confiscates community assets without payment or regard for the owners’ consent. That is factually incorrect.
Households affected by the LHWP II are compensated for various asset types such as arable land (fields), gardens, residential plots and houses, business plots and structures, fruit trees, medicinal plant, kraals, sheds, and thickets.
LT: How does communal compensation differ from individual or household compensation payments?
Brown: Communities get communal compensation for rangelands and useful natural resources. Compensation for community assets is calculated based on the size of the loss and the number of affected households.
Communal compensation for entire communities, is handled differently than individual household compensation. Once the amount of community assets and the value of those assets is agreed upon between the project and the affected community, and relevant authorities, the community is required to decide for themselves what kind of development project they would like to invest that money on, that will benefit the whole community. These developments can include, building of roads, electrification projects, bulk water supply/access projects, and other developments that the communities deem fit for their context. Once such agreement is reached, the LHDA is notified through community leadership and only then the LHDA can mobilize the money due to that community to pay the developers of those community improvement projects.
In the past, the LHDA had agreed with communities that each community would elect a representative committee that would be the one to receive the monies for communal compensation, and then manage the investment of that money into the community’s developmental needs. This approach was not effective as frequently these committees could not satisfactorily account for the expenditure of those monies, and in turn lead to community outcries against the LHDA. This is why the new approach to pay directly the developers of those community development projects from the LHDA was adopted, and it has been an effective way to manage communal compensation. What can lead to delays in this process is when the community itself cannot reach agreement through its leadership, on the priority projects that the community should invest the money in. For communities that require relocation, these developmental project negotiations also include negotiations with the host communities that they will be relocated to, to ensure that the communal compensation can also benefit the host communities. That process can take some time to get the communities to agree on the same developmental projects they require.
It is important to note that compensation is an ongoing process and does not happen simultaneously for all affected households overnight. And so, we acknowledge the responsibility to ensure that all assets that are due for compensatory payment at any given point, are paid off before they are impacted. And we further commit to ensure that adequate consultations and agreements are in place where that condition is not met.
LT: Let’s talk about another issue that you mentioned in the beginning regarding issues of recruitment under Phase II of the project. Many Basotho still seem to believe that the processes are not transparent, and that Basotho do not stand to gain from the project in terms of jobs and contracts. What is your take on that?
Brown: Well, this is yet another priority area for us as LHDA as the very essence of the Lesotho Highlands Water Project is to create value and benefit for the people of Lesotho. The confusion seems to arise when we also mention that the project is intended to benefit South Africans as well. And the explanation for that is a simple one that both governments have invested money into this project, and it would therefore follow that they should both gain value from it.
Before I speak specifically about recruitment, it is important to clarify that – the Lesotho Highlands Water Project was an agreement between the two governments of Lesotho and South Africa to try and find the most cost-effective way to harness the water that was originating in the mountains of Lesotho and flowing into South Africa already. South Africa needed a water delivery system to serve its industrial and household water demands and it needed to harness the water regardless, whether it was to be done once the water had crossed over into South Africa, or before. Setting up the water delivery scheme in Lesotho had a double-barrelled benefit in that, it was going to also allow Lesotho to generate much needed electricity for Basotho, and to create other development offshoots for the country, as well as generate royalty revenue for the government of Lesotho, whilst assisting the neighbour to address her water demand needs. The alternative to the LHWP, would have been the Orange-Vaal Transfer Scheme, which would have addressed South Africa’s needs, but at twice the cost and with zero benefit to Lesotho.
And so, when we discuss the benefits of the LHWP to Lesotho and Basotho, it is important to have this backdrop so that we are fully conversant with the context of this project.
LT: That is a very helpful context to have. So how does the project handle recruitment under Phase II and ensure that the project benefits Basotho in terms of work and business opportunities?
Brown: Under labour and recruitment issues, learnings from Phase I of the project inspired the LHDA to double down on contractor compliance, and equity clauses within our contracts with contractors, which would ensure that all workers within the project are treated fairly, compensated adequately, and all those with interest to participate in the project given sufficient opportunity to do so.
The first line of defence in governing the labour and recruitment processes of the LHWP, is the laws of the Kingdom of Lesotho. Any breach of the Constitution of Lesotho, the Labour Code of Lesotho, and any other related acts within the law, is an intolerable offence to the project.
In addition to the laws of the country, the LHDA has established Labour Recruitment Guidelines which clearly stipulate procedures to be followed in the employment of unskilled labour, (a category that is now entirely reserved for Basotho) and other labour categories, in line with Article 7(17) of the Treaty and Article 11 of the Agreement on Phase II of the Lesotho Highlands Water Project between the Government of the Kingdom of Lesotho and the Government of the Republic of South Africa.
In addition, the project has established what is known as the Project Labour Recruitment Desk (PLRD), whose sole purpose in the project is to ensure transparent, fair and equitable employment of Basotho within the project, both within project areas and nationwide. The PLRD is an independent 3rd part organization that liaises with the Area Liaison Committees (ALCs), Chiefs, Community Councils and all relevant parties to facilitate recruitment of labour for the project to respond to the labour requirements of contractors. The PLRD also meet with the ALCs of the community structures at agreed times to report on the progress made in recruitment of labour and to disclose any pertinent information on recruitment of labour; convening employment and industrial relations forums to address any issues related to recruitment within the project. This has been an extremely effective mechanism for the project to ensure equitable and transparent recruitment opportunities for Basotho within the project.
LT: So, in all of this, what is the role of the LHDA in ensuring fair, equitable and smooth industrial relations between contractors and their employees?
Brown: The recruitment guidelines that underpin the work of the PLRD are based on the need for a transparent and auditable recruitment process and a fair distribution of opportunities. An independent consultant manages the Labour Recruitment Desk and works closely with community structures to compile lists of unskilled workers from the villages/electoral divisions around the project area seeking work on the Project. Unskilled labour is drawn from these lists upon requests from the contractors.
The LHDA plays an oversight role in the employment process to ensure compliance with the Phase II Labour Recruitment Guidelines. As an overseer and project manager, the LHDA facilitates for contractual disputes between employees and their employers to be resolved speedily within the law and where needed, with the requisite guidance and support from the department of labour.
Over and above these, LHDA includes clauses in our contracts with contractors that ensure specific levels of minimum participation of Basotho and South African consultants and contractors in the key awarded contracts under Phase II.
Awareness campaigns on these and other messages relating to labour recruitment and opportunities were done well ahead of the beginning of work and continue to go on today. They play a key role in the decreasing incidents of industrial action and labour-related community complaints. The LHDA continues to work with communities and other stakeholders to increase knowledge of the Phase II labour recruitment guidelines, as well as hold regular forums with the business community to ensure that information is available of how best to participate in the project.
National registration of unskilled labour and the randomization process were successfully undertaken in 2022.
On the employment of unskilled labour by contractors, to ensure maximum employment opportunities for a greater segment of the population, rotation of staff is mandated, so that those who are employed, are employed for periods of between 12 and 18 months, based on the project duration and location, and upon rotation may provide opportunities for other Basotho to partake in the opportunities.
The persistent feelings that not enough is being done in this regard are well noted by the LHDA and we continue to strive for improvement in making information available to all Basotho of the opportunities the LHWP holds for them.
LT: Another issue you have mentioned above as top of mind for you is the public health outcomes of populations that live in and around project areas. What can you tell us about that?
Brown: It is imperative to note that the wellbeing of communities that the Lesotho Highlands Water Project is present in is the topmost priority of the project. Secondly, that when it comes to issues of Public Health, Community Health, and especially those of adolescent Girls and young Women, we are especially sensitive to how we approach them, and what mitigations we facilitate to address them. Unfortunately, some of the allegations that have been levelled against the LHWP on this issue have not been entirely substantiated by any evidence.
Perhaps before we delve deeper into that, it is important to state that, the LHWP Phase II planning process entailed extensive environmental and social impact assessment studies. These included a Public Health Baseline Study (PHBS) that determined the baseline health status of the would-be affected communities and the level of existing health services in the project area. Furthermore, a Health Impact Assessment (HIA) which provided data on the prevailing health outcomes of the population before commencement of the project was conducted between 2018 and 2019. The HIA revealed that the district of Mokhotlong was already experiencing a high rate of school dropout rate, early/childhood marriage, teenage pregnancies as high as the national average (24 percent) and an HIV/AIDS prevalence rate that is 3 percent higher than the national average. These worrisome public health and social outcomes are a chronic ailment of Lesotho as a whole, and I only highlight them here to show that, even before there was presence of LHWP construction workers in the district to any substantive degree, concerning trends were already present in the district.
More important to this, however, is for all of us to acknowledge that, population movements and migration patterns, and numbers can have an impact on the socio-economic outcomes of any region, and that is precisely why the HIA was conducted, and it birthed the Public Health Action Plan (PHAP), which is an integral part of the Phase II implementation of the project. The plan entails extensive programs that the project is supporting and will support, through the guidance and help of the Ministry of Health, to amplify the ministry’s existing interventions in the district.
LT: What has been done so far under the PHAP as part of the implementation matrix?
Brown: To this end, there is a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed between LHDA and MOH, clearly stating the mandate and the extent of involvement of each organisation in the project area. Based on the MOU, LHDA inputs will support and strengthen the existing health services provision in the project catchment areas in partnership with the MOH. The purpose of collaboration is for ultimate sustainability of the LHDA inputs under Phase II of the LHWP. The LHDA, through the MoU, takes part in the MOH National Steering Committee as well as the District Steering Committee.
So far, the LHDA is already taking part in the Ministry of Health’s activities which are also the core areas of priority under the MOU, these include: Monthly Outreach Programme, School Health Programme, Water and Sanitation Programme, Livelihood Restoration Measures, Support for Capacity Building activities for Village Health Workers, Surveillance and Monitoring, Health Education, Infrastructure Development for the ministry; and with focus on Sexually Transmitted Infections including HIV/AIDS; Trauma and Injuries; Maternal and Child Health, Adolescent health, Health of the elderly and the infirm, Non-Communicable Diseases, Human trafficking, Health Management Information System as well as others.
LT: What is the LHDA’s role in curbing some of these negative public health outcomes that are claimed to be observed in the district then?
Brown: It is extremely important to note that, with the issues relating specifically to teenage pregnancies, and inter-generational relationships between older men working/living in the project area and adolescent girls and young women (AGYW), there are several dynamics at play, which are not specific to Mokhotlong and plague the entire country. Socio-economic vulnerability for young women can create the dependency vulnerability in AGYW that influences their behaviours in ways that are opposite to their own and communities desired health outcomes. And once these behaviours begin, behavioural change is an intricate and complex process that requires intervention at individual level through education and engagement, at inter-personal level to nudge and inform their peers and families about certain behavioural patterns to look out for and discourage, at community level to ensure that support is available from the right community leadership structures and stigma towards poverty, orphanhood and other issues that affect self esteem can be managed, at societal and structural level to ensure that the right health services and products are available for those who need them, and at policy level to ensure that interventions are supported within the legal framework. It is not an ailment for Mokhotlong alone, it is not an ailment for the LHWP alone, it is a national ailment that all who participate in the socioeconomics of Lesotho must address.
