D+C Development and Cooperation (No. 2, March/April 2001,
p. 9-12)

"Planning a dam? Fighting a dam? Read this first.” This is how the World Commission on Dams (WCD) promotes its landmark final report, 'Dams and Development: A New Framework for Decision-Making', which it presented in London last November. The report - prepared in a two-year process - will help to calm down the often emotional and ideological debates on the pros and cons of large dams.

“The problem is not the dams. It is the hunger. It is the thirst. It is the darkness in a township.” With these plain words, former South African President Nelson Mandela summed up the WCD’s motives in a speech at the presentation praising its work. His position is similar to that of the many other representatives of the South who were present: he demands a right to development. But Ms Medha Patkar, of India, a WCD Commission member and founder of the Struggle to Save the Narmada River (Narmada Bachao Andolan) anti-dam movement, takes a contrary view. “The problems of the dams are only a symptom of the larger failure of the unjust and destructive dominant development model,” she says. We need to challenge “ the forces that lead to the marginalisation of a majority through the imposition of unjust technologies like large dams.”

Stagnation
in dam building

The WCD is a unique experiment in reaching consensus. It began in April 1997 when with the support of the World Bank and the World Conservation Union (IUCN), 39 representatives of diverse interests met at a workshop in Gland, Switzerland. At this point the various positions of the participants from governments, the private sector, international financial institutions, civil society organisations and affected people were cast in stone. The Manibeli Declaration in June 1994 of 326 activist groups from 44 countries had called for an immediate moratorium on World Bank funded large dams until a comprehensive, independent review of all Bank funded projects had been conducted. International financial institutions were actually no longer able to fund further large dams in the face of public criticism. Enervated by steadily growing protests despite continual tightening of social and environmental standards, the institutions’ representatives wearily likened the dispute to a football match in which somebody kept moving the goalposts. But one proposal to emerge from the meeting in Gland was for all parties to work together in establishing the World Commission on Dams.

The WCD began its work in May 1998 under the chairmanship of Prof. Kader Asmal, then South Africa’s Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry. Its 12 members were chosen to reflect regional diversity, expertise and stakeholder perspectives. But the Commission ran the risk of failure right from the start due to their confrontational attitudes. The members, who spent 2,5 years jointly organising hearings, consultations and case studies and analysing more than 100 existing large dams, could not be more disparate. The Indian environmental activist Medha Patkar, who risked her life in the fight against large dams, sat at the same table with American dam planner Jan Veltrop, of the International Commission on Large Dams (ICOLD). And the Swede Göran Lindahl, President and CEO of the ABB industrial group, sought consensus with the spokesperson for indigenous peoples, Ms Joji Cariño, of the Tebtebba Foundation in the Philippines.

Unique approach

By founding the WCD, the various stakeholders opted for a new way out of the controversy. Instead of going for an international conference with hundreds of delegates, they decided to form a commission of only a dozen recognised representatives of the interest groups. Supported by a secretariat in Cape Town, the WCD sought common ground and to establish facts free of politics and polemics. The unique project did not fail: all members jointly worked out the report and signed it.

The advantage of this approach is obvious. A commission is more rational, more efficient, faster, and minimises political manoeuvring. It leads to objectivity in the dam debate, which to date has been polemical. Its disadvantage is that lacking an official mandate it cannot issue any internationally binding regulations, and its findings have only a recommendatory character. Only the backing of the Commission’s members in their respective stakeholder groups can ensure that its recommendations will be implemented.

The current situation

According to ICOLD, a large dam is a dam with the height of 15m or more from the foundation. If dams are 5-15 metres high and have a reservoir volume of more than three million cubic metres, they are also classified as large dams. Using this definition, there are more than 45,000 large dams around the world, almost half of them in China. They were built in the 20th century to meet the constantly growing demand for water and electricity. On a global scale, hydropower dams account for about 20 per cent of electricity generated, and in 24 countries, including Brazil, Democratic Republic of Congo, Zambia and Norway, hydropower covers more than 90 per cent of national electricity supply needs. Half the world’s large dams were built solely or mainly for irrigation. Between 12 per cent and 16 per cent of world food production is based on dams, and as reservoirs they provide protection against floods.

Unfortunately, this impressive balance is counteracted by comparably significant problems. Construction of large dams is a major intervention in the ecosystem of rivers and the lives of many people. The WCD estimates that some 40-80 million people, mostly indigenous peoples, have been displaced by reservoirs worldwide and robbed of their livelihoods from fishing or farming. Serious conflicts are simmering between neighbouring countries because dams have turned off the water supply for downstream states.

The late Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru once said: “Dams are India’s new temples.” Right up to the 1970s, large dams were seen as the synonym for development and economic progress. Dam-building reached its peak between 1970 and 1980, when an average of two to three new large dams per day were commissioned. But a considerable number of the dams analysed by the WCD have fallen short of their technical and economic objectives. Construction cost overruns averaged 56 per cent. Many dams have had negative ecological impacts, and the disadvantages for people living downstream were mostly not taken into account. The planning of dams did not examine sufficiently possible alternatives for meeting power and water needs. There were hardly any retrospective evaluations of dam projects.

A new framework
for decision-making?

Despite this sobering stocktaking, the WCD arrives at an astonishingly simple finding: dams are primarily a means to an end. Their task is to improve the well-being of the people on a sustainable basis. This improvement should be economically acceptable, socially just and environmentally sound. If this goal can be achieved by a dam, its construction should be supported. Where alternative options offer a better solution they should be the preferred choice.

The Commission based its work on a set of five core values for future decision-making: equity, efficiency, participatory decision-making, sustainability, and accountability. With regard to legal aspects and the extent of the potential risks for those involved, the WCD proposes development of an approach based on recognising rights and assessing risks. All risk-bearers should have a place at the negotiating table.

The WCD also recommends seven strategic priorities for decision-making: gaining public acceptance; comprehensive options assessment; reviewing existing dams; sustaining rivers and livelihoods; recognising entitlements and sharing benefits; ensuring compliance; and sharing rivers for peace, development and security. These priorities are reinforced by 23 practical criteria and guidelines which can be adopted, adapted and applied by all actors involved in the dam controversy. For instance, the WCD suggests analysing points at issue together with the people affected by existing dams and developing joint proposals for solutions. People affected by new dam projects should be among their favoured beneficiaries, and their claims should be made legally binding.

The report offers a comprehensive compilation of knowledge, which previously was limited to individual case studies or a narrow specialist context, on the social, economic, technological and ecological problems and impacts of large dams. That makes the report a central reference which helps greatly in bringing objectivity into the debate. Provision of an analytical framework and strategic options is certainly an important step. But with regard to its task of developing internationally valid criteria and guidelines for the planning, design, appraisal, building, operation, monitoring and shutdown of dams, the report remains very general. What will be decisive here will be to practise with the relevant actors the method and content of the suggested mediation process on the basis of specific cases.

Deeds must
follow words

The WCD’s work must now be made useable for the private sector, civil society and development cooperation. What is required is a discussion process involving all major actors. The objective of this process must be the development of practical and effective guidelines in addition to the current standards. To kick-off this process in Germany, Federal Development Minister Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul invited all actors to a two-day dialogue forum in Berlin last January.

The WCD calls on bilateral development organisations and multilateral development banks to support only dam projects that have resulted from an open process of examining various options. The parties should observe the WCD guidelines. Measures to save water and power should be examined and, if applicable, be promoted.

Private sector companies should publish guidelines on corporate behaviour and acknowledge the WCD principles, criteria and guidelines. Further, the private sector should draw up and implement voluntary codes of conduct, management systems and certification procedures, such as the internationally recognised standard for environmental management (ISO 14001). The OECD’s Anti-Corruption Agreement should be observed, and declarations of honesty incorporated in contracts. Business associations should develop processes to monitor compliance with the WCD guidelines.

NGOs should primarily check compliance with agreements and assist aggrieved parties to seek compensation. They should also assist in identifying relevant stakeholders for dam projects, using the rights and risks approach. Finally, the NGOs should build up support networks and partnerships between them.

Importance
of information

But do these noble proposals provide the whole answer? The WCD process is based on the opportunities for personal development of every individual in an open society. But it is not enough to build on the negotiating abilities of the potentially affected alone because only specialists can anticipate the complex impacts of dams. Therefore participation presupposes that the mediation process contains a substantial informative component.

Relying solely on a mediation process is also not sufficient in providing for social impacts. There is no generally recognised method to determine the value of ‘goods’ in a subsistence economy. Without objective criteria, the moral demands on both sides are extremely high. Strategically-motivated behaviour will then not be prevented even if all participants agree readily that the subjective standard of living of people affected by a dam should be improved or at least maintained.

Mediation processes make sense only if agreements are observed. According to the WCD analyses, lack of compliance with agreements is the main cause of the negative social impacts of dams. In the case of dam projects co-financed by international donors, disbursements of funding instalments could depend upon independent evaluations that confirmed compliance. Ensuring compliance is much more difficult in the case of projects financed by the private sector. Because there is no independent institution that could assume the role of arbitrator, it must be in the business world’s own interests to act responsibly in ecological and social terms. To be credible, it must provide transparency and independent certifiers.

Due to the opposing interests involved, no-one should expect reaching consensus to be easy. But the example set by the WCD is not the only reason for hope. Taking a closer look at it, the model offers significant advantages for all participants. Partner countries and development organisations wish to continue to use the potential for development which dams will also offer in the future. The private sector will also continue to build and operate dams, and for that they need planning certainty. The advantages for NGOs and the people affected are also obvious. As a local representative of a Brazilian displaced people’s movement put it: “We have nothing against dams; we merely want a piece of the cake.”