The report, by India-based Prayas Energy Group, follows a 12 November 2002 ruling by the Uganda High Court that the terms of the PPA must be made public.

In its report Praya says that the capital cost of the Bujagali project is excessively high – twice that of India’s Sri Maheshwar project, said to be similar in scope and capacity.

The report goes on to examine the Bujagali PPA, which it says contains a number of ‘unusual requirements which are detrimental to Uganda’. Along with questions over the date of financial closure and the way capital is returned, Praya says yearly payments could be as much as US$132M, not US$111M as claimed by the PPA and the World Bank. It says a more-common type of PPA would save Uganda an average US$20M per year over the lifetime of the project.

In response to the report, the International Rivers Network said under the terms of the contract Uganda could and should cancel the project and consider using geothermal power. It said the African Development Bank’s proposed Uganda Alternative Energy Resource Assessment and Utilization Study should proceed without further delay.

Meanwhile, moves to allow the Bujagali project to claim ‘additionality’ and therefore to benefit from the Kyoto Clean Development Mechanism have also been opposed. NGOs say the project would go ahead even without CDM qualification