World Commission on Dam's Guide

8/9/2019 World Commission on Dam's Guide

1/64

CITIZENS GUIDE

TO THEWORLD COMMISSION

ON DAMS

CITIZENS GUIDE

TO THEWORLD COMMISSION

ON DAMS

By Aviva Imhof, Susanne Wong and Peter Bosshard

Published by International Rivers Network


2/64

Acknowledgements

This guide would not have been possible without the help of many friends andcolleagues and the generous support of the Ford Foundation, the Moriah Fund,the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, the Global Environmental Project Institute

and IRNs members. We would like to thank Patrick McCully, Lori Pottinger andHimanshu Thakkar for writing sections of the guide and providing useful com-ments on an earlier draft. Thanks also to Kate Geary and Liane Greeff for theircontributions on how people can use the WCD report in their campaigns.Shripad Dharmadhikary, Deborah Moore and Juliette Majot provided thoughtfuledits and insights that improved the guide. Lastly but not least of all, we wouldlike to thank the members of the International Committee on Dams, Rivers andPeople for their hard work in monitoring the Commission and our colleagues atIRN for their help and support.

Published by International Rivers Network, Berkeley, CA, USA, 2002

ISBN 0-9662771-9-8

Designed by Jeanette Madden Graphic DesignPrinted by West Coast Print Center

Printed on Recycled Paper

ii


3/64

Table of ContentsFact Sheet on the World Commission on Dams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4Chapter 1 The Creation of the World Commission on Dams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

1.1 Activists Call for Independent Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

1.2 The WCD is Born . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

1.3 The WCDs Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Chapter 2 A Brief Summary of the WCD Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .92.1 Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

2.2 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

Chapter 3 Responses and Follow-up Activities to the WCD Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . .133.1 Slow Going at the World Bank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

3.2 WCD Activities Since the Launch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

Chapter 4 Using the WCD Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .194.1 How You Can Use the WCD Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20

4.2 How is the WCD Relevant for Other Sectors? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

4.3 WCD Supports Reparations for Dam-Affected Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

4.4 Case Studies How Other Groups Have Used the WCD Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24

Chapter 5 Lessons from the WCD Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29

Chapter 6 Key WCD Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .316.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32

6.2 Technical, Financial and Economic Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32

6.3 Environmental Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34

6.4 Social Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35

6.5 Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37

6.6 Decommissioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40

6.7 Political Economy of Dam-building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41

Chapter 7 The WCDs Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .437.1 Five Key Decision Points: The WCD Criteria and Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44

7.2 Dams in the Pipeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45

7.3 Selected Guidelines for Good Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46

7.4 Follow-up Strategies for Specific Sectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47

7.5 The WCDs Strategic Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49

Chapter 8 Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53Abbreviations and Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59

Table of Contents

iii


4/64

Citizens Guide to the World Commission on Dams

iv

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Table 1 Some Official Reactions to the WCD Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

Figure 1 WCD Work Programme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Figure 2 Rights and Risks Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

Figure 3 Rate of Dam Construction Worldwide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31

Figure 4 Cost Overruns of Large Dams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33

Figure 5 Project Schedule Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33

Figure 6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions at Tucurui Reservoir, Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34

Figure 7 Development Assistance for Large Dams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41

Figure 8 Five Key Decision Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44

LIST OF BOXES

Box 1 WCD Commissioners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

Box 2 WCD Case Studies and Thematic Reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Box 3 An NGO Call to Public Financial Institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

Box 4 The Dams and Development Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

Box 5 Evaluating a Project Against WCD Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23

Box 6 How to Organise a Multi-Stakeholder Follow-up Process to the WCD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28

Box 7 Reservoirs Contribute to Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35


5/64


v


6/64

Roadmap to the Citizens Guide to the WCD

1

This Citizens Guide to the World Commission on Dams is intended as a tool for people in theirstruggles for social justice and environmental protection. Heres a quick roadmap, or guide,

to how this book is structured.

s For a very short overview of the WCD, see page 2. A Fact Sheet on the WCDdescribes the WCDsmandate, work programme, findings and recommendations, and includes suggestions on how youcan use the report. We hope you can use and translate this Fact Sheet for outreach in your own region.

s For information on how the WCD was created and details on its work programme, see Chapter 1(page 5).

s For a brief summary of the WCDs major findings and recommendations, including the rightsand risk approach to development, see Chapter 2 (page 9).

s For responses to the WCD report from NGOs, governments, industry and international financialinstitutions, see Chapter 3 (page 13).

s For information on the Dams and Development Project, which was created to organiseWCD follow-up activities, see Chapter 3 (page 17).

s For information on how you can use the WCD report, how it is relevant for other sectors andhow the report can be used in the struggle for reparations, see Chapter 4 (page 19). Casestudies from the Philippines, South Africa, UK and Uganda/US are also provided to give you ideas

on how other groups have used the WCD report in their campaigns.

s For suggestions on how to organise a multi-stakeholder process on the WCD, see page 28.

s For a short summary of lessons learned by NGOs involved in the WCD process, see Chapter 5(page 29).

s For a detailed summary of the WCDs key findings, see Chapter 6 (page 31). Be sure to check outthe sections on greenhouse gas emissions and alternatives.

s

For a detailed summary of the WCDs recommendations, see Chapter 7 (page 43). This includesthe WCDs seven strategic priorities; a proposed process for decision-making for the water andenergy sectors; suggestions relevant for dams planned or under construction; and WCD follow-upstrategies for specific sectors.

s For a list of contacts, publications and other resources to help your campaigns, see Chapter 8(page 53).

ROADMAP TO THE CITIZENS GUIDE TO THE WCD


7/64


8/64

What were the WCDs recommendations?

The Commission provides a new framework for decision-making on water and energy projects based onrecognising the rights of, and assessing the risks to, allstakeholders. Those who would be adversely affectedshould participate in the planning and decision-makingprocess and have a share in project benefits. TheCommissions main recommendations include thefollowing:

s No dam should be built without the demonstrableacceptance of the affected people, and without thefree, prior and informed consent of affected indigenousand tribal peoples.

s Comprehensive and participatory assessments ofpeoples water and energy needs, and different optionsfor meeting these needs, should be developed beforeproceeding with any project.

s Priority should be given to maximising the efficiency ofexisting water and energy systems before building anynew projects.

s Periodic participatory reviews should be done forexisting dams to assess such issues as dam safety, andpossible decommissioning.

s Mechanisms should be developed to provide

reparations, or retroactive compensation, for those whoare suffering from existing dams, and to restoredamaged ecosystems.

Why is the WCD important?

The WCD prepared the first global, independent review oflarge dams. The process was transparent andparticipatory, and extensive research was conducted. TheWCD found that the economic, social and environmentalcosts of large dams are high and often outweigh theirbenefits, and that alternatives for water and energy are

available, viable, and often untested. The WCD putforward a series of recommendations that have relevancenot just for energy and water planning, but fordevelopment planning generally.

As an internationally respected commission, the WCDsfindings and recommendations can carry great weight indam debates worldwide. What the WCD says is matched inimportance by who is saying it. The WCD was co-

sponsored by the World Bank. The commissionersincluded the Chief Executive Officer of engineering

multinational company ABB and an ex-President of theInternational Commission on Large Dams (ICOLD), the leadprofessional association of the global big dam industry.The report was unanimously endorsed by all theCommissioners.

How can you use the report?

NGOs and peoples movements can use the WCD reportto stop or modify destructive development projects, topromote alternatives, to encourage greater accountabilityand performance of development processes, and to push

for new models of decision-making around developmentplanning. Some ideas for how you can use the reportinclude:

s Educate affected communities, NGOs and the generalpublic about the WCDs findings and recommenda-tions. Translate materials into local languages.Organise local, regional and national workshops forNGOs, affected communities, academics, students andgovernment representatives to discuss the report.

s Prepare analyses on whether proposed projects complywith WCD recommendations and distribute them togovernment agencies and funders.

s Advocate for WCD recommendations to be incorporatedinto national laws and policies and pressuregovernment institutions to formally endorse therecommendations.

s Push the World Bank, regional development banks,export credit agencies and bilateral aid agencies toadopt WCD recommendations into their policies andfollow them in practice.

s Use the WCD recommendations to advocate forreparations for communities affected by existing dams.

s Organise community-based processes to identify andpromote non-dam alternatives for water supply,energy and flood control.

For more information, go to the WCDs website atwww.dams.org and International Rivers Networkswebsite at www.irn.org.

Fact Sheet World Commission on Dams

3


9/64

4

IntroductionThere is good news for people worldwide who are com-mitted to caring for their rivers, who believe in finding

the best ways to produce and distribute electricity, whounderstand that access to water is a basic human right,and who know that respect for human rights must be acore principle guiding development. That news comesin a big package the 400-page report of the WorldCommission on Dams (WCD for short). The report isformally titled Dams and Development: A NewFramework for Decision Making, but is commonlyreferred to as "the WCD Report."

The report boils down to this: worldwide, large damshavent provided the benefits that their promoters had

predicted. At the same time, the negative impacts oflarge dams have been far greater than imagined. Thereport finds that the status quo is unacceptable; thatoutstanding social and environmental problems asso-ciated with existing dams need to be addressed; andthat the rights of all people, particularly indigenouspeoples, must be respected.

Continuing to plan and build dams as they have alwaysbeen planned and built, the WCD says, is unaccept-able. Instead, the WCD recommends a new approachto decision-making based on the principles of equity,efficiency, participatory decision-making, sustainabili-ty and accountability. The WCD's guidelines and rec-ommendations are extraordinarily useful to acade-mics, activists, professionals and government officialswho are interested in promoting a new model for mak-ing decisions about development.

You may think that such a report is unremarkable.This would be true if the report had been produced byInternational Rivers Network or one of hundreds oforganisations worldwide opposing big dams. What isremarkable about the WCD report is who put ittogether: namely, a Commission of 11 members from

diverse backgrounds, including representatives fromthe dam-building industry, as well as from govern-ments, NGOs and people's organisations .

The problem with all this good news is that the pack-age that it comes in is difficult to unwrap, and so wedlike to help. Hence we offer this Citizens' Guide to theWCD. So that you can appreciate the legitimacy andusefulness of the reports findings, we provide its his-

tory, from the WCD's conception through to publica-tion of the report. So that you can supplement your

own knowledge of the actual performance of damsworldwide, we highlight the reports key findings. Tohelp you understand the WCD's alternative decision-making approaches, we highlight the reports guide-lines and recommendations. To help you in your cam-paigns, we offer suggestions on how you can use thereport to stop destructive development projects andpromote alternatives.

This particular guide is the first of two that we plan toproduce, targeted at different audiences. We hope thatthis one will be particularly helpful to those individuals

and organisations that work to inform and influencepolicy-makers locally, regionally and internationally.While this includes many people directly affected bylarge dams, another guide will be written specificallyfor and with much greater participation of project-affected people.

Weve tried to put together a guide that's both usefuland easy to read. We havent always succeeded. Theworld of development policy is filled with overly com-plex language to describe relatively simple ideas. Wewill learn a lot of lessons about how to communicatemore clearly as we translate this guide into many lan-guages. For readers of the English edition, we urgeyou to read behind the jargon, and if you have any sug-gestions for how we can better deal with it ourselves,please share them with us.

The goal of this guide is to ensure that the WCD rec-ommendations and guidelines are more likely to befollowed than not. If they are not respected, butinstead are dismissed, ignored and left to collect dust,progress toward stopping destructive projects will not

just be stunted, but perhaps reversed, and the WCDexperiment, only half done, will be deemed a failure.

If the findings are respected, however, and the guide-lines and recommendations put to use, the work of theCommission and the hundreds of people who con-tributed to it will help put an end to the days ofdestructive development projects.

Juliette Majot

International Rivers Network


10/64

5

1The Creation of theWorld Commission on Dams

1.1 ACTIVISTS CALL FORINDEPENDENT REVIEW

The origins of the WCD lie in the many struggleswaged by dam-affected communities and NGOsaround the world, in particular those targeting WorldBank-funded projects. In June 1994, to coincide with

the 50th anniversary of the World Bank, more than2,000 organisations signed the Manibeli Declaration,calling for the World Bank to establish an indepen-dent comprehensive review of all Bank-funded largedam projects. Anti-dam activists believed that anindependent review of the projected and actual per-formance and impacts of dams would confirm many oftheir arguments if carried out in an honest and rigor-ous manner, and would help to promote more appro-priate investments.

At the end of 1994, the World Banks OperationsEvaluation Department (OED) announced that itwould undertake a review of large dams the Bank hadfunded. The review was completed in 1996, but never

publicly released.1 Although it contains some criti-cisms of the World Banks record, on the whole itsided with the Bank and the dam industry, concludingthat overall, most large dams were justified. NGOsprepared a critique of a leaked copy of the review,arguing that the OED had exaggerated the benefits ofthe dams under review, underplayed their impacts anddisplayed a deep ignorance of the social and ecologicaleffects of dams.2

Critics then stepped up pressure on the Bank to com-mission a truly independent dam review. In March1997, participants at the first international conferenceof dam-affected people, held in Curitiba, Brazil, calledfor an immediate moratorium on all dam-buildinguntil a number of conditions were met. One of theseconditions was that an international, independentcommission be established to conduct a comprehen-sive review of all large dams financed or otherwisesupported by international aid and credit agencies,

and its policy conclusions implemented.


11/64

1.2 THE WCD IS BORN

Shortly after the Curitiba conference, the World Bankand IUCN invited around 40 representatives from thedam industry, governments, academia, NGOs and

dam-affected peoples movements to a workshop inGland, Switzerland, to discuss a second phase of theOEDs 50-dam review. At the workshop, participantsagreed on the need for an independent commission toreview large dams in general, and not just those fund-ed by the World Bank. The commission would lookboth backward at the development effectiveness ofexisting dams, and forward to how water and energyprojects should be planned and built in the future.

Some representatives of the dam industry agreedbecause they thought it would confirm their strongly

held beliefs about the great benefits of dams. Othersrealised that their industry was in crisis and believed thatthey needed to learn from past mistakes if they wantedto win public acceptance and funds for future dams.

The Gland workshop mandated the World Bank andIUCN to oversee the establishment of the WorldCommission on Dams, in close consultation with thosepresent in Gland. The process was highly contentiousand several times both NGOs, the World Bank, andindustry representatives came close to withdrawingfrom the negotiations. The main disagreement was in

the selection of commissioners, in particular becauseof the reluctance of the World Bank and IUCN toappoint representatives of dam-affected peoplesmovements.

Agreement was reached on the mandate and compo-sition of the WCD in February 1998. The mandate isoutlined on page 2 of this guide. Professor KaderAsmal, formerly South Africas Minister for WaterAffairs and an expert on international human rightslaw, was selected to chair the commission. LakshmiChand Jain, a diplomat and economist from India, wasto serve as the vice-chair. The other members repre-sented a broad spectrum of those with an interest inlarge dams, rivers and energy governments and damoperators, corporations and industry associations, riverbasin authorities and academics, NGOs and grassrootsmovements (see Box 1). All members served in theirindividual capacity and not as representatives of theirinstitutions or constituencies.

The group that had overseen the Commissions estab-lishment was enlarged to serve as a consultative bodyand named the WCD Forum. The 68-member Forummet three times between 1998 and 2001 to provideinput into the work of the Commission. Twenty affect-ed peoples groups and NGOs were represented in theForum.


6

Professor Kader Asmal (Chair),Minister of Education and formerMinister of Water Affairs andForestry, South Africa

Lakshmi Chand Jain (Vice-Chair),Industrial Development Services,India

Donald J. Blackmore, Chief

Executive of the Murray-DarlingBasin Commission, Australia

Joji Carino, Tebtebba Foundation,Philippines/UK

Jos Goldemberg, Professor atUniversity of So Paulo, Brazil andformer Secretary of Science andTechnology, Brazil

Judy Henderson,former Chair ofOxfam International, Australia

Gran Lindahl, former Presidentand CEO of ABB Ltd., Switzerland

Deborah Moore,former SeniorScientist with EnvironmentalDefense Fund, US

Medha Patkar,founder of theNarmada Bachao Andolan (Struggleto Save the Narmada River), India

Thayer Scudder, Professor ofAnthropology at the CaliforniaInstitute of Technology, US

Jan Veltrop, past President of theInternational Commission on Large

Dams and engineer retired fromHarza Engineering Company, US

Box 1 WCD COMMISSIONERS


12/64

1.3 THE WCDS WORK

During mid-1998 a secretariat was established for theWCD in Cape Town, South Africa. The secretariatdeveloped a 30-month work plan which included a

range of studies to be carried out by consultants inconsultation with stakeholders. Public input wassolicited through submissions and regional public con-sultations. The final report was then based on theinformation in this knowledge base (see Figure 1and Box 2).

The controversies surrounding large dams played outthroughout the WCD process. Both pro- and anti-damgroups were critical of various aspects of the WCDswork. The fiercest criticism came from Indias dam-building establishment, which in 1998 forced the

Commission to cancel its planned South Asia publicconsultation in Bhopal.

Among dam opponents criticisms were the secretari-ats selection of consultants who had close ties with thedam industry. The lack of a strong consultation strate-gy meant that groups and individuals who did notspeak English or were not familiar with the jargon ofthe dam industry found it very difficult to bring their

experiences into the process. Background documentswere not translated into local languages.

NGOs and peoples movements from around theworld followed the WCDs work closely. They sent in

submissions, gave presentations at regional consulta-tions, participated in meetings on the detailed casestudies and commented on drafts of the thematicreviews. IRN coordinated an informal network ofaround 20 NGOs and peoples movements under thename of the International Committee on Dams,Rivers and People which provided input into theWCD and encouraged other NGOs and movementsto get involved.

Finally, the hard work, the commitment of the WCDCommissioners and staff together with the evidenceaccumulated through the shared knowledge base, theconsultations and the field trips allowed Commis-sioners to overcome their different backgrounds andperspectives and to agree on a report at the end of theprocess. The report, Dams and Development: A NewFramework for Decision-Making, was launched byNelson Mandela at a ceremony in London on 16November 2000. The report was signed unanimously,with an additional comment from Medha Patkar.

Chapter 1 The Creation of the World Commission on Dams

7

WCD KNOWLEDGE BASE

11 Case Studiesin 5 Regions

17 ThematicReviews on

social,environmentaland economicimpacts andother issues

Cross-CheckSurvey of 125Dams in 56Countries

4 RegionalConsultations

in Africa/MiddleEast, East and

Southeast Asia,Latin America

and South Asia

950 Submissions

from 79Countries

Input from WCD Forum

70OrganisationsRepresented

WCD COMMISSIONERS' KNOWLEDGE, EXPERIENCE AND DELIBERATIONS

WCD FINAL REPORT

Figure 1 WCD WORK PROGRAMME


13/64


8

The following studies are available online atwww.dams.org or by contacting the Dams andDevelopment Project (see Chapter 8).

WCD CASE STUDIESThe WCD examined eight dams in detail and also com-missioned studies to examine the overall experiencewith dam-building in China, India and Russia.

Aslantas Dam, Ceyhan River Basin, TurkeyKariba Dam, Zambezi River, Zambia/ZimbabweGariep/Vanderkloof Dams, Orange River Basin, SouthAfrica (pilot study)Grand Coulee Dam, Columbia River, US/CanadaGlomma-Laagen Basin, NorwayPak Mun Dam, Mun-Mekong River Basin, Thailand

Tucuru Dam, Tocantins River, BrazilTarbela Dam, Indus River Basin, Pakistan

WCD THEMATIC REVIEWSThe WCD commissioned 17 thematic reviews to informthe final report. These papers were classified underfive broad categories: social and distributional issues,environmental issues, economic and financial issues,options assessment and governance and institutionalprocesses. The reviews were supported by over 100commissioned contributing papers.

Social and Distributional Issues Social impacts of large dams: equity and

distributional issues

Dams, indigenous people and vulnerable ethnicminorities

Displacement, resettlement, rehabilitation, reparationand development

Environmental Issues Dams, ecosystem functions and environmental

restoration Dams and global change

Economic and Financial Issues Economic, financial and distributional analysis International trends in project financing

Options Assessment Electricity supply and demand management options Irrigation options Water supply options Flood control and management options Operation, monitoring and decommissioning of dams

Governance and Institutional Processes Planning approaches Environmental and social assessment for large dams River basins institutional frameworks and

management options Regulation, compliance and implementation

Participation, negotiation and conflict management

Box 2 WCD CASE STUDIES AND THEMATIC REVIEWS

FOOTNOTES

1 World Bank Operations Evaluation D epartment, The World Banks Experience with L arge Dams: A Preliminary Reviewof Impacts, Washington DC, August 1996. A sanitised 4-page Prcis is the only publicly available version of the 67-page review.

2 P. McCully, A Critique ofThe World Banks Experience with Large Dams: A Preliminary Review of Impacts, International RiversNetwork, Berkeley, CA, April 1997. www.irn.org/programs/finance/critique.shtml


14/64

The WCD report is the product ofnumerous political negotiations andcompromises. While there are plentyof inclusions, omissions and compro-mises in the report for NGOs andaffected people to criticise, Damsand Development is on the whole astrongly worded and coherent report.In the reports Executive Summary,the WCD states:

We believe there can no longer beany justifiable doubt about the following:

Dams have made an important and significant con-tribution to human development, and the benefitsderived from them have been considerable.

In too many cases an unacceptable and often unnec-essary price has been paid to secure those benefits,especially in social and environmental terms, bypeople displaced, by communities downstream, bytaxpayers and by the natural environment.

Lack of equity in the distribution of benefits hascalled into question the value of many dams inmeeting water and energy development needs whencompared with the alternatives.

By bringing to the table all thosewhose rights are involved and whobear the risks associated with dif-ferent options for water and energyresources development, the condi-tions for a positive resolution ofcompeting interests and conflictsare created.

Negotiating outcomes will greatlyimprove the development effec-tiveness of water and energy pro-

jects by eliminating unfavourableprojects at an early stage, and by offering as a choiceonly those options that key stakeholders agree repre-sent the best ones to meet the needs in question.

This section contains a brief summary of the WCDreport. A more complete summary of WCD findingsand recommendations is contained in Chapters 6 and7 of this guide.

9

2A Brief Summary of the WCD Report

The WCD found that

40-80 million people

have been resettled for

dams. Applied to todays

population, this means

that approximately one

out of every hundred

people now living

on earth would have

been displaced bya large dam.


15/64

2.1 FINDINGS

Social costs of dams aredevastating and largely ignoredThe WCD found that 40-80 million

people have been resettled for dams.Applied to todays population, thismeans that approximately one out ofevery hundred people now living onearth would have been displaced by alarge dam. Indigenous people andwomen have suffered disproportion-ately from the impacts of dams whileoften being excluded from the bene-fits. Resettlement has causedextreme economic hardship, commu-nity disintegration and an increase in

mental and physical health problems. Millions of peo-ple living downstream of dams have also suffered dev-astating impacts as a result of disease, altered riverflow and loss of natural resources such as fisheries andfloodplain agriculture.

The benefits of dams have largely gone to the richwhile the poor bear the costs. Further, the WCDfound that these costs were frequently neitheraddressed nor accounted for.

Environmental costs of dams are huge,unanticipated and hard to mitigateThe WCD found that large dams have had profoundand irreversible environmental impacts includingextinction of species, loss of forest, wetlands and farm-land. An estimated 60 percent of the worlds largerivers are fragmented by dams and diversions. TheWCD states that large dams have led to the loss ofaquatic biodiversity, upstream and downstream fish-eries and the services of downstream floodplains, wet-lands and riverine estuarine and adjacent marineecosystems. Negative environmental impacts werenot predicted and efforts to mitigate these impactshave failed.

The WCD found that 20 percent of the earths landwhich is irrigated by large dams is lost to salinisationand waterlogging, and that 5 percent of the worldsfreshwater evaporates from reservoirs.

Dams emit greenhouse gasesGreenhouse gases are responsiblefor changing the earths climate.Reservoirs emit greenhouse gasesdue to the rotting of flooded vegeta-

tion and soils and of organic matterflowing into the reservoir from itscatchment. The WCD estimates thatperhaps between 1 to 28 percent ofglobal greenhouse gas emissionscomes from reservoirs. In some casesemissions from a reservoir can beequal to or greater than those from acoal or gas-fired power station.Emissions are highest in shallow,tropical reservoirs.

Dams often fail to provide projected benefitsWhile it is agreed that dams can be beneficial, actualbenefits are often lower than the projected benefits onwhich decisions to build a dam are based. Specifically,the WCD found the following disadvantages:

Power more than half the hydropower damsreviewed generated less power than projected.

Water supply 70 percent did not reach targets.

Irr igation almost half have under-performed.

Flood control dams have increased human vulner-

ability to floods. Multi-purpose dams particularly fell short of targets.

Dams have had poor economic performanceThe WCD found that on average, large dams havebeen at best only marginally economically viable. Theaverage cost overrun of dams is 56 percent. Thismeans that when a dam is predicted to cost $1 billion,it ends up costing $1.56 billion. Half of the dams sur-veyed had a construction delay of one year or more. Ifthese factors had been taken into account at the timeof decision-making, many alternatives would have

been more economically viable.Alternatives are available but nottreated as equal contendersThe WCD found that many different options formeeting energy, water and food needs currently exist.One set of options includes reducing demand forwater and energy (demand-side management) and


10

The WCD says thatno dam should bebuilt without thedemonstrableacceptance of

affected people, andwithout the free, priorand informed consent

of indigenous andtribal peoples.


16/64

improving efficiency in use and in production. Thereare also many alternative supply options. Alternativesto dams do exist, and are often more sustainable andcheaper. The WCD recommended that alternatives tolarge dams be treated with equal emphasis in the plan-

ning process.Bias towards large damsThe WCD found that large dams have been a long-time favourite of politicians, government officials,dam-building companies and development banks.They have provided opportunities for corruption andfavouritism and have skewed decision-making awayfrom cheaper and more effective options.

2.2 RECOMMENDATIONS

In addition to reviewing the past record of dams andassessing alternatives, the WCD makes recommenda-tions for the future. These recommendations establish

a framework for decision-making not just on dams buton energy and water planning in general. Beyondenergy and water, the recommendations have implica-tions for the ways that all types of development pro-

jects are planned and implemented.

A NEW WAY FORWARD BASED ONRIGHTS AND RISKS APPROACH

The WCD proposes a new approach to decision-mak-ing based on recognising the rights of, and assessing

the risks to, all stakeholders. This means that all stake-holders whose rights might be affected, and all stake-holders who have risks imposed upon them involun-tarily, should be included in decision-making on devel-opment. The WCD believes that this approach offersan effective way to determine who has a legitimateplace at the negotiation table and what issues need tobe included on the agenda. The WCD developedseven strategic priorities for this new approach todevelopment.

1. Gaining public acceptance

The WCD says that no dam should be built withoutthe demonstrable acceptance of the affected people,and without the free, prior and informed consent ofaffected indigenous and tribal peoples. This should beachieved through negotiated agreements that arelegally binding.

2. Comprehensive options assessmentBefore deciding whether to build a dam, there shouldbe a transparent and participatory assessment of needsfor water, food and energy. All options for meetingthese needs should be considered. First priority shouldbe given to making existing water, irrigation and ener-gy systems more effective and sustainable. Social andenvironmental concerns should be given the sameweight as technical and economic concerns during theoptions assessment process and throughout the projectplanning, construction and operation phases.

Chapter 2 A Brief Summary of the WCD Report

11

Recognising rights andassessing risks is thebasis for identifying

stakeholders

No consensus

Independentreview andmediation

Successfulmediation

and/orarbitration

Rights Risks

Forum established forneeds and options

assessment and projectplanning

Specific agreementsare negotiated and

become part ofproject compliance

framework

Specific agreementsare negotiated and

become part ofproject compliance

framework

No agreement leadsto selection of an

alternative projectoption, arbitrationor judicial review

Figure 2 RIGHTS & RISKS APPROACH


17/64

3. Addressing existing damsOpportunities should be taken to rehabilitate andupgrade existing dams to maximise benefits.Reparations, or retroactive compensation, should bemade to communities impacted by existing dams.

Dam operations should be modified to mitigate envi-ronmental impacts. All dams should have time-boundlicence periods. Relicensing processes should provideopportunities for participatory reviews of project per-formance and impacts which may lead to changes inproject operation, or dam decommissioning.

4. Sustaining rivers and livelihoodsOptions assessment and decision-making around riverdevelopment should try to avoid impacts, followed bythe minimisation and mitigation of harm to the riversystem. Before making a decision to build a dam, goodbaseline information and scientific knowledge ofecosystems, social and health issues should be gath-ered and analysed, taking into account the cumulativeimpacts of dams and other development projects onecosystems. Dams should release environmentalflows to help maintain ecosystems and livelihoods.

5. Recognising entitlements and sharingbenefitsAdversely affected people should be the first to bene-fit from a project. This includes those displaced, thoseliving upstream and downstream of the dam, those liv-ing around the reservoir, and those whose lands are

impacted by resettlement sites. They should partici-pate in the identification, selection, distribution anddelivery of benefits. Negotiations with affected peopleshould result in mutually agreed and legally enforce-able mitigation and development provisions.

6. Ensuring complianceFinancial institutions and project promoters mustadopt a clear set of criteria and guidelines for devel-oping water and energy resources. Before a projectbegins, a plan for complying with all project-related

obligations must be developed including both incen-tives and sanctions. Steps should be taken to end cor-rupt practices.

7. Sharing rivers for peace, developmentand securityMeasures should be developed for countr ies to resolvedisputes and cooperate over issues concerning trans-boundary rivers. States should have the ability to stopprojects on shared rivers using independent panelsand other forms of dispute resolution. WCD princi-ples should be incorporated into national water poli-cies to help resolve disputes and promote cooperationover shared river basins.


12


18/64

The WCDs findings have generated a broad array ofreactions and official responses, some encouraging,some disappointing. Many NGOs and some interna-tional organisations welcomed the report and calledfor its adoption and implementation by dam propo-nents. Other organisations, governments and compa-nies have rejected the report.

When the report was released, it was warmly wel-comed by the coalition of activists and affected peoplemonitoring the WCD. The report vindicates much ofwhat dam critics have long argued. I f the builders andfunders of dams follow the recommendations ofthe WCD, the era of destructive dams should come toan end, the groups said in a statement. A Call toPublic Financial Institutions endorsed by 109 NGOsfrom 39 countries was released at the report launch(see Box 3).

Other institutions also welcomed the report at the

London launch. IUCN described the report as a land-mark in the history of the development and operationof large dams. The United Nations Environment

Programme (UNEP) supported the report, and theWorld Health Organisation expressed its strongendorsement. Skanska, a Swedish dam buildingcompany, immediately endorsed the WCDs recom-mendations.

Since this time, the report has generated a range ofresponses from different actors (see Table 1). TheWCD has certainly made an impact, and its circle ofinfluence is ever widening. But it is clear that morework needs to be done to encourage industry, fundersand governments to adopt its recommendations. SeeChapter 4 for more information on how you can usethe report to do this.

13

3Responses and Follow-up Activitiesto the WCD Report

CAMPAIGN TIP!

Use the Fact Sheet on the WCD on

p. 2 of this Citizens Guide as a handoutto distribute at workshops, seminars,protests and other events. Translate it into

local languages and distribute tocommunities, affected people and

other interested people.


19/64

INSTITUTION POSITION COMMENTS

Governments

China Rejects China initially supported the WCD but later refused permission for theWCD to study any of its dams. A senior official from Chinas Ministry ofWater Resources was selected as a Commission member but withdrew,supposedly for health reasons. She was not replaced by the Chinesegovernment.

Germany Supports Has committed to promoting dialogues between government agencies,NGOs and the private sector on how best to respond to the report. Willpromote the implementation of WCD recommendations by German aidagencies and at the World Bank.

India Mixed The Federal government denied the WCD permission to choose an Indiandam as one of its case studies and refused to allow the WCD to hold itsSouth Asia consultation in India. The Federal Ministry of Water Resourceshas rejected the report, although it is a member of the WCD Forum. Other

central government bodies and individuals have shown more opennessto the WCD. A series of regional multi-stakeholder workshops has shownthat there is some support among state government officials.

Norway Mixed The Ministry of Foreign Affairs coordinated a review of the WCD reportamong various government agencies. The review said the report wasextremely interesting and useful but made no commitments to changegovernment policies. The section on development cooperation statesthat Norway agrees with the main principles set out in theCommissions report on public participation in and transparency relat-ing to planning processes. However it criticises the WCD for proposingto weaken the rights of national governments to take decisions on nat-ural resources.

South Africa Supports A joint symposium was hosted by the South African government, indus-try and NGOs in July 2001 where there was overall support for the WCD.An ongoing multi-stakeholder process was launched to investigate howthe WCD findings can be contextualised in South Africa.

Sweden Supports The Swedish International Development Agency (SIDA) has promised tosupport Southern governments efforts to implement the WCDs findings,and to help disseminate the report. SIDA has stated it will use the reportin future decision-making around dam projects. However, it says it willnot make policy changes, as it believes its current policies are close tothose recommended by the WCD.

Turkey Rejects The Turkish General Directorate of State Hydraulic Works alleges that theWCD was a conspiracy by the nuclear and thermal power industries.

Turkey refused to allow the WCD to study the huge Atatrk Dam insoutheastern Anatolia.

United Kingdom Supports Established a cross-departmental group to review the WCD report andassess its implications for UK support of dams overseas. The Departmentfor International Development (DFID) has offered support to developingcountries wanting to implement the Commissions report. DFID is sup-porting a dialogue on the report involving UK government agencies,NGOs, unions and companies.


14

Table 1 SOME OFFICIAL REACTIONS TO THE WCD REPORT


20/64

INSTITUTION POSITION COMMENTS

United States Mixed The federal agencies that have built most of the big dams in the US

have not officially responded to the WCD. The US export credit agencies,Ex-Im and OPIC, have welcomed the report and committed to incorpo-rating parts of the WCDs recommendations into their policies.

Industry

International Rejects ICOLD, ICID and IHA have all been lobbying governments, the WorldCommission on Bank and others to reject the WCDs report. But there are vigorous dis-Large Dams (ICOLD) agreements within each of these organisations and there are chapters

and individuals within them that support the WCD report.

International Rejects See above.Commission onIrrigation and

Drainage (ICID)International Critical of See above. At time of writing had not yet decided whether to remainHydropower report engaged with WCD follow-up processes.Association (IHA)

Hydro Equipment Uncertain Established in 2001 by Alstom Power, Voith Siemens and VA Tech withAssociation (HEA) goal of representing hydropower interests in post-WCD processes.

International Financial Institutions

African Supports Welcomed the report as a major milestone in the assessment ofDevelopment Bank large dams. The Bank says it plans to incorporate the criteria and

guidelines during the development of Banks technical guidelines to

support our recently completed policy on Integrated Water ResourcesManagement.

Asian Supports In a draft response issued in August 2001, the ADB says that itDevelopment Bank supports the Commissions guidelines and intends to consider them in

all future projects. However, it also states that key WCD recommenda-tions such as those requiring negotiated agreements with affected peo-ple are the responsibility of governments and that the ADB will notadopt them. The ADB hosted a multi-stakeholder meeting on the WCD inthe Philippines in May 2001 and has said it will facilitate other nationalworkshops on the WCD in 2002, in Vietnam, India, Bhutan and Nepal.

World Bank Mixed See Section 3.1

Export Credit Mixed G8 environment ministers in March 2001 called for export credit agencies

Agencies to adopt common measures to increase the transparency of their deci-sion-making process including consideration of relevant elements ofthe recommendations of the World Commission on Dams. But overallprogress among the ECAs in adopting common standards has beenextremely slow.

For more information on responses to the WCD report, go to www.unep-dams.org.

Chapter 3 Responses and Follow-up Activities to the WCD Report

15

Table 1 SOME OFFICIAL REACTIONS TO THE WCD REPORT


21/64

3.1 SLOW GOING AT THE WORLD BANK

The World Banks response to the report has been dis-appointing. The Bank says that it will use the reportas a valuable reference to inform its decision-makingprocess, yet has so far refused to adopt any of theWCD recommendations into its binding policies.

The Bank was one of the two sponsors of the WCD.During the establishment phase and the Commissionsdeliberations it frequently highlighted its role in theprocess to show that it was willing to listen to its crit-ics and to be an honest broker between the interests ofgovernment, the private sector and NGOs. At thelaunch ceremony, Bank President James Wolfensohnsaid the report showed that there is common groundthat can be found among people of good faith comingfrom very diverse starting points.

It was therefore anticipated that the Bank wouldincorporate the WCDs recommendations into its poli-cies and practices and encourage others to do so. Whathas followed instead has been a battle between somestaff members who are opposed to incorporatingWCD recommendations into Bank policy, and otherstaff members, Executive Directors and members ofcivil society who believe that the Bank has an obliga-tion to implement the recommendations.

In January 2002, the World Bank released its officialposition on the WCD report. In it, the Bank says thatit shares the WCD core values and concurs with theneed to promote the seven strategic priorities.However, the Bank will not adopt the WCDs recom-mendations into its official policies, instead making acommitment to work with the government and

developer on applying the relevant guidelines in apractical, efficient and timely manner in the contextof specific projects.

The official position also states that the Bank has initi-ated a Dams Planning and Management ActionPlan. The plan contains vague commitments toundertake activities which fall under six headingsincluding working with borrowers to move upstreamin decision-making (in other words to focus more onassessing different alternatives to achieve develop-ment objectives rather than assuming that a dam is the

best option); effectively implement the World Banksexisting safeguard policies and continue to supportborrowers in improving the performance of existingdams. These activities are in themselves commend-able and are actions which critics have long been urg-ing the Bank to undertake.

There is still no sign, however, as to how this actionplan will be turned into reality. In a departure from


16

London, 16 November 2000

Given the role of financial institutions in funding large

dams and in the WCD process, and based on the WCDreports recommendations, we call on all public finan-cial institutions, including the World Bank, the regionaldevelopment banks, the export credit agencies andbilateral aid agencies, to take the following actions:

s All public financial institutions should immediatelyand comprehensively adopt the recommendations ofthe World Commission on Dams, and should inte-grate them into their relevant policies, in particularthose on water and energy development, environ-mental impact assessment, resettlement and publicparticipation.

s All public financial institutions should immediatelyestablish independent, transparent and participatoryreviews of all their planned and ongoing dam pro-

jects. While such reviews are taking place, projectpreparation and construction should be halted. Suchreviews should establish whether the respective damscomply, as a minimum, with the recommendations ofthe WCD. If they do not, projects should be modifiedaccordingly or stopped altogether.

s All institutions which share in the responsibility forthe unresolved negative impacts of dams shouldimmediately initiate a process to establish and fundmechanisms to provide reparations to affected com-munities that have suffered social, cultural and eco-nomic harm as a result of dam projects.

s All public financial institutions should place a mora-torium on funding the planning or construction ofnew dams until they can demonstrate that they have

complied with the above measures.

Endorsed by 109 NGOs from 39 countries

Box 3 AN NGO CALL TO PUBLIC FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS


22/64

usual Bank procedure, Bank staff state that this actionplan is a demand-driven operation and that the Bankwill not impose on countries. Given that the Bankrarely hesitates in advising on national policies andeven transforming entire sectors to better suit the pri-

vate sector, this seems to be nothing more than anexcuse for its non-implementation.

In addition, the Bank is in the process of developing aWater Resources Sector Strategy that is expected to bethe main vehicle for implementing WCD recommen-dations. It remains to be seen whether this strategywill be meaningful and enforceable, and result inchanges to operational policies. At this writing, a firstdraft was expected to be released for public commentaround March 2002.

One promising sign has come from donor countrieswho, in negotiations for replenishing funds for theInternational Development Association (IDA),recently asked that IDA take into account the core

values and strategic priorities suggested by the WCDfor preparing and evaluating dam projects. ID A is thearm of the World Bank that supports the poorestnations.

For more information, see the World BanksWater Resource Management website at

www.worldbank.org/water.

3.2 WCD ACTIVITIES SINCE THE LAUNCH

The Commission itself was disbanded with thereport's publication, but a small secretariat remaineduntil September 2001 to promote and disseminate thereport. So far, the secretariat has distributed around4,600 hard copies of the report and more than 15,000copies of a CD-ROM that includes the report andthousands of pages of background materials. Theentire report has been translated into Spanish and canbe downloaded at www.dams.org. Negotiations are

Chapter 3 Responses and Follow-up Activities to the WCD Report

17

In February 2001, the 80 participants in the final meetingof the WCD Forum agreed that a new organisation wasneeded to disseminate the WCD report and promotedialogue on how its recommendations could be put intopractice. As a result, the Dams and Development Project

(DDP) was created under the auspices of UNEP, theUnited Nations Environment Programme.

The four main aims of the DDP are to:s support the widespread dissemination of the WCD

report and related information, including the trans-lation of WCD materials into different languages;

s support country-level, regional and global dialogueson the report and the issues it addresses;

s strengthen interaction and networking among par-ticipants in the dams debate with the aim of engag-ing all stakeholders in the dialogue; and

s facilitate the flow of information and advice con-

cerning initiatives relevant to the WCD report.

The mandate of the DDP excludes it from takingpositions or making judgments on individual projectsor associated practices.

The Dams and Development Project is based in CapeTown, South Africa, and has a two-year mandate start-ing from November 2001. It is being financed mainly bythe governments of Sweden, Switzerland, Germany, UKand the Netherlands.

A diverse 14-member international steering commit-tee will guide the DDPs work. The committee includesrepresentatives from the Philippines-based IndigenousPeoples International Centre for Policy Research andEducation (Tebtebba Foundation), the Save theNarmada Movement and International Rivers Network,as well as the World Bank, IUCN, governments andthe private sector.

DDP staff and consultants will attend relevant meet-ings and conferences around the world to give presen-tations on the WCD and disseminate materials. The DDPwill also facilitate multistakeholder dialogues on the

WCD at the national or international level through pro-viding funds, resource people, information materialsand experience from similar processes elsewhere.Information on WCD follow-up initiatives and reactionsto the Commissions report will be posted on the DDPsweb site at www.unep-dams.org.

Box 4 THE DAMS AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECT


23/64

underway to publish it in Chinese and French. Anoverview of the report is available in eight languagesand can also be downloaded at www.dams.org.

In February 2001, the 80 participants in the final

meeting of the WCD Forum agreed that a new organ-isation was needed to disseminate the WCD reportand promote dialogue on how its recommendationscould be put into practice. As a result, the Dams andDevelopment Project (DDP) was created under theauspices of UNEP in November 2001 (www.unep-dams.org). The DDP has a mandate to disseminatethe report, coordinate translations and support dia-logues on the WCD's findings between governments,companies, NGOs and other stakeholders (see Box 3).

Since the launch of the WCD report, the formerCommissioners and secretariat staff have presentedthe report at meetings in some 25 countr ies. NGOs inmany parts of the world have organised workshops tobring the findings to a local, regional or national level.

Individual groups working on specific dams havebegun to use the WCD recommendations to bolstertheir campaigns against destructive projects (seeChapter 4).


18


24/64

The WCD was an internationallyrespected commission, composed ofrepresentatives from all sides of thedams debate , and as such its findingsand recommendations can carry great weight in damcampaigns worldwide.

The WCD report creates a model of participatorydecision-making which is relevant far beyond theenergy and water sectors. It can be used to supportNGOs, peoples movements and sympathetic profes-sionals in the quest for transparency and democracy indecision-making processes, for community controlover local resources, for social justice, environmentalprotection and the equitable and sustainable manage-ment of scarce resources.

But theres a catch. The WCDs guidelines do not con-stitute international law, and its recommendations arenot binding on any institution. It is up to NGOs and

peoples movements to pressure governments, compa-nies and funding institutions to comply with the WCDrecommendations.

We need to educate ourselves, ourcommunities and our governmentsabout the report and the tools that itoffers as we strive for equitable and

ecologically sustainable development. We need topressure governments and funding institutions toadopt and implement WCD recommendations. Weneed to show how individual projects fail to complywith WCD recommendations, and whether they canbe brought into compliance. We need to promotealternatives to dams. We need to use the WCDsrecommendations to push for reparations, or retroac-tive compensation, for communities affected by exist-ing dams.

This section offers some ideas for how you can use theWCD report to stop destructive development projectsand promote aternatives. Also included are someexamples of follow-up activities that have been organ-ised by other NGOs and peoples organisations.

19

4Using the WCD Report

We have told ourstory. What happensnext is up to you.

WCD Report.


25/64

4.1 HOW YOU CAN USE THE WCD REPORT

The WCD presents a valuable tool for NGOs andaffected communities. Some ideas for how to use thereport include:

Educate communities and NGOs Translate this Citizens Guide into local languages

and circulate to project-affected communities andNGOs.

Translate parts of the WCD report into local lan-guages and circulate widely throughout the country.Approach the Dams and Development Project forfunding for these translations.

Organise local, regional and national workshops foraffected communities and NGOs to educate them

about the WCD. Use this as an opportunity toestablish a local, regional or national network ondams. Invite a former WCD Commissioner or sec-retariat staff member to present the WCD report atthe workshop (see p. 24 for examples from Indiaand the Philippines).

Organise a briefing or workshop for the media todiscuss the WCDs findings and its implications foryour region. Invite local experts, if possible, to dis-cuss specific projects impacts.

Challenge proposed projects

Prepare your own analysis of how a proposed pro-ject complies with WCD recommendations and dis-tribute this to government agencies and funders(see Box 5 for an example). The WCD report has aspecial section on dams in the pipeline which givesspecific recommendations for dams at various stagesof planning and development (see p. 45).

Set up an independent team to review a proposedprojects compliance with WCD recommendations,or pressure the government or funding agency toappoint such a team. Call upon local and interna-tional experts from academic, industry and research

institutions as needed. The views of independentexperts can often have more credibility with govern-ments or funding agencies than analyses done byNGOs. The use of independent review panels is rec-ommended by the WCD (see Guideline 22 of theWCDs Guidelines for Good Practice).

Influence government policies Advocate for WCD recommendations to be incor-

porated into national laws and policies and pressuregovernment institutions to formally endorse the rec-ommendations. Such institutions include energy

and water ministries; licensing authorities for ener-gy, flood regulation, irrigation or water supply projects; operators such as state electricity boards orriver basin authorities; and public infrastructure anddevelopment finance institutions.

Start a local campaign to pressure your countrysexport credit agency and bilateral aid agency toadopt WCD recommendations. Educate and lobbyyour elected representatives to push for account-ability of these agencies.

Set up national multi-stakeholder forums to discussand implement the WCD recommendations.Approach the Dams and Development Project forfunding to support these activities. See Box 6 fortips on how to organise a multi-stakeholder process.

Participate in national workshops organised by theDams and Development Project, multilateral insti-tutions such as the Asian Development Bank andother official forums.

Push for a National Commission on Dams to beestablished using a process and methodology similarto the World Commission on D ams.

Push international financial institutionsto adopt WCD recommendations Start or part icipate in national, regional and interna-

tional campaigns to pressure the World Bank,regional development banks, export credit agenciesand bilateral aid agencies to adopt WCD recom-mendations.

Pressure your finance ministries to encourage theWorld Bank and other institutions to adopt andimplement WCD recommendations. Try to get yourCongress or Parliament to enact legislation requir-ing your government to push for reforms at theWorld Bank and other international financial insti-tutions. This is especially effective for donor coun-tries, which can make contributions to the WorldBank and other institutions conditional upon specif-ic reforms.


20


26/64

Call for reparations Use the WCD recommendations to advocate for

reparations for communities affected by existingdams.

Push your government to establish an independent,

multi-stakeholder committee to address the unre-solved legacy of past dams (recommended by WCD,Chapter 10.2).

Promote alternatives The WCD identifies a range of alternatives to dams

for meeting energy, water and flood control needs.Use the WCD recommendations to encourage gov-ernments to undertake participatory needs andoptions assessments.

Organise your own community-based processes toidentify development needs and goals.

Enlist the help of experts from academia, industryand research institutions to assess a range of optionsand recommend the best option on social, environ-mental and economic grounds. Promote this optionwith government and funders. Develop your ownproject and use this as a model.

4.2 HOW IS THE WCD RELEVANTFOR OTHER SECTORS?

The WCDs recommendations propose a newapproach to development based on generally acceptedcore values and international conventions. Therefore,many of its strategic priorities and guidelines should beapplied to infrastructure and development planninggenerally. The WCD calls for free, prior and informedconsent of indigenous peoples affected by a project,comprehensive assessment of options before deciding

to build a project and decision-making based on socialand environmental as well as economic factors.

The following are examples of how WCD recommen-dations can be applied to other sectors:

The principles of demonstrable public acceptanceand prior informed consent should be incorporatedin national energy and water policies, national landacquisition acts, and policies governing the trans-port, mining and land development sectors. Theyshould also be incorporated into the policies ofinternational financial institutions.

The principles of participatory needs and optionsassessments should be extended to other sectors,such as the transport, extractive industries, industri-al and telecommunications sectors, and integrated

into respective laws and policies. The principle of providing reparations for the unre-

solved problems of past projects should also beapplied to mining, forestry, urban renewal, transportor other projects which have a legacy of unresolvedsocial and environmental impacts.

4.3 WCD SUPPORTS REPARATIONS FORDAM-AFFECTED COMMUNITIES

NGOs can use the WCD report to support claims for

reparations, or retroactive compensation, for commu-nities affected by dams. The WCD recommends thatOutstanding social problems associated with existinglarge dams are identified and assessed; processes andmechanisms are developed with affected communitiesto redress them. The WCD states that reparationsshould be made to affected communities before fund-ing new dam projects in that particular location orriver basin.

Reparations processThe report sets out a process for assessing claims and

making reparations. The WCD states that responsibil-ity for initiating the process of reparations rests withthe government, but that multiple actors may beinvolved, including financial institutions, internationalorganisations and private corporations.

Chapter 4 Using the WCD Report

21

CAMPAIGN TIP!

The Dams and Development Project can

be a resource for NGOs. NGOs interested inorganising or attending workshops on theWCD report, translating WCD materials orinviting a resource person to explain the

WCD process at a meeting or conference cancontact the DDP at [email protected].


27/64


22

The WCD recommends that governments appoint anindependent committee which includes legal experts,the dam owner, affected people and other stakehold-ers to do the following:

develop criteria for assessing claims; identify individuals, families and communities

which are eligible to make claims; and

facilitate negotiations with affected people fordeveloping mutually agreed and legally enforceablereparations provisions.

Affected people should receive legal, professional andfinancial support to participate in the assessment,negotiation and implementation of reparations.

Assessing damages

Damage should be assessed on a watershed or catch-ment basis, to include not only those resettled by theproject, but also those affected upstream and down-stream. Assessments should include non-monetarylosses, and reparations should be developed based onthe communities priorities and needs. Throughchanges in dam operations or decommissioning, repa-rations can take the form of allocations of resourcessuch as land, water, fish and access to sacred sites.

An independent committee should be established tocollect, manage and award reparations. Such commit-tees should include legal representatives selected bygovernment and affected communities. Accountabilityof the parties responsible for reparations should beensured through contracts and legal recourse.

Funding reparationsThe Commission states that reparations can befinanced with funds from national, provincial, and/orlocal government budgets; a percentage of loans andgrants to dam development projects; or a percentage

of current income from energy and water projects.

The WCD also recommends that bilateral aid agen-cies and multilateral development banks review theportfolio of past projects to identify those that mayhave under-performed or present unresolved issuesand share in addressing the financial burden of suchprojects for borrower countries. This may include, forexample, cancelling the outstanding debt related tothem, converting debt repayment into developmentassistance targeting affected areas, or providing newsupport to help borrower countries address unre-solved economic, social and environmental problems.

Such funds could be allocated to a trust fund to bene-fit affected communities over the long term. Otherpossibilities include a percentage of donations fromorganisations and industries who profited in planningand facilitating dam projects and resettlement of com-munities. Funds could also come from a reparationstax levied on all future dam-related contracts (includ-ing for maintenance, upgrading and refurbishment ofexisting dams).

For more information, see Reparations and the

Right to Remedy by Barbara Johnston, a Briefing

Paper prepared for the WCD, available at

www.dams.org or on the W CD CD-ROM.

CAMPAIGN TIP!

Organise an action on March 14th, theInternational Day of Action Against Dams

and for Rivers, Water and Life, demandingthat your government implement WCD

recommendations. In 2001, people from 25countries participated in the International

Day of Action. Contact IRN for more details.


28/64

23

The following is IRNs analysis of the proposed Nam Theun 2 Damin Laos, reviewed in light of the WCDs recommendations. Thisanalysis was prepared and released at the time of the WCD reportlaunch in London in November 2000. A more detailed analysis ofNam Theun 2s compliance with WCD guidelines is available atwww.irn.org/programs/mekong. Other IRN analyses of proposedprojects are available at www.irn.org/wcd. You can use these

resources to get ideas on how to conduct your own evaluations.

BackgroundThe 50-meter-high Nam Theun 2 Dam, planned for the fourth largest

tributary of the Mekong, is the largest and most controversial hydro-

power project planned for Laos. The $1.2 billion build-own-transfer

scheme is being developed by Electricit de France and two Thai com-

panies in association with the Lao government. Almost all of the dams

1,060 MW of generating capacity would be exported to Thailand. The

project is currently stalled awaiting a power purchase agreement with

the Thai electricity utility, a concession agreement with the Lao govern-

ment, and a decision from the World Bank on whether to grant guaran-

tees and other financial assistance to the project.

If built, the project would forcibly displace 4,500 indigenous people

from their ancestral lands, deprive tens of thousands more people of

their fishing and farming livelihoods, and flood 450 square kilometres of

the Nakai Plateau, an area of rich biological diversity. Proposed to gen-

erate electricity for export to Thailand, the economic viability of the pro-ject is in doubt due to Thailands oversupply of power and its changing

power market.

While publicly stating that it is not committed either way on the pro-

ject, the World Bank has been heavily promoting Nam Theun 2 since it

financed its feasibility study in 1989. Due to the perceived risks of

investing in Laos, the developers are unable to attract financing unless

the World Bank offers guarantees and other concessionary financial

assistance.

COMPREHENSIVE OPTIONS ASSESSMENT

GAINING PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE

ADDRESSING EXISTING DAMS

RISK

WCD Recommendation: A multi-criteria assessment was

used to screen and select preferred options from the full

range of identified alternatives. The screening of optionscovered all policy, program and project alternatives.

Reality: The World Bank has promoted the dam as an income generator for Laos,

yet no comprehensive assessment of alternatives for generating foreign exchange

has ever been completed. There has never been any analysis of how the resourcesof the area could be managed to balance watershed protection and enhance liveli-

hoods while avoiding the serious negative impacts expected from Nam Theun 2 .

WCD Recommendation: Stakeholders participate in the

project design and the negotiation of outcomes that affect

them. Indigenous and tribal peoples gave their free, prior,

and informed consent. Effective participation in a stake-

holder forum must be facilitated through timely access to

information and legal and other necessary support.

Reality: Project proponents point to a 1997 public participation program in Laos as

proof that Nam Theun 2 has gained public acceptance. However, in a submission

to the WCD, Shalmali Guttal from FOCUS on the Global South states that the deci-

sion to construct the dam had been taken well before this process. Substantive

input of affected communities and the public at large was solicited primarily within

the parameters of developing resettlement options and mitigation measures, which

came in the later part of the project development process. Information was not

accessible to directly affected communities or even government officials because of

a tremendous knowledge gap between the foreign experts on the one hand, and

the local people on the other. There were almost no authentic opportunities in theconsultations for the Lao public to challenge the information presented or question

the overall viability of the project.

WCD Recommendation: Risk must be fairly analysed and

publicly discussed. [Risks] must be identified, articulated

and addressed explicitly. Most important, involuntary risk

bearers must be provided with the legal right to engage

with risk takers in a transparent process to ensure that

risks and benefits are negotiated on a more equitable

basis. It goes on, Determining what is an acceptable level

of risk should be undertaken through a collective political

process.

Reality: The risks for the thousands of people who are expected to lose their fish-

eries and other livelihoods has never been assessed as part of the projects risk

assessment. These involuntary risk takers have been provided no opportunity to

participate in decisions affecting their lives.

WCD Recommendation: The report states, Outstanding

social and environmental issues associated with existing

large dams are identified and assessed; processes and

mechanisms are developed with affected communities to

remedy them. It also states that cumulative impacts of

projects should be analysed, and environmental impacts

from past projects should be evaluated and incorporated

into the needs assessment.

Reality: Theun-Hinboun Dam, 50 km downstream of the proposed site of the Nam

Theun 2, was funded by the Asian Development Bank and completed in 1998.

Theun-Hinboun has had a severe impact on the livelihoods of more than 25,000

people living downstream and upstream of the dam, including reduced fish catches,

the destruction of vegetable gardens and dry-season drinking water sources, loss

of fish nets and increased difficulties with transportation. Despite sustained lobbying

by NGOs and numerous promises from the ADB, adequate compensation has still

not been provided to affected communities.

B0x 5 EVALUATING A PROJECT AGAINST WCD RECOMMENDATIONS


29/64

4.4 CASE STUDIES - HOW OTHER GROUPSHAVE USED THE WCD REPORT

CASE STUDY 1 Workshops Used to EngageRegional Governments in India

The South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers and People(SANDRP) organised a series of WCD workshops inIndia during 2001. The main objectives were to dis-seminate the WCD report to people and organisationsconcerned about dams and to discuss possibilities forimplementation in India. All stakeholders that agreedto these objectives were invited to attend the meet-ings. Thus, government officials, political representa-tives, academics, independent experts, journalists,non-government organisations, movements andaffected people participated in various meetings.

SANDRP, in collaboration with local organisations,organised meetings in several cities, includingHyderabad, Shillong, Ranchi, Indore, Bangalore andKhedi-Balwadi (a village affected by the Man Dam inthe Narmada Valley). In addition to the SANDRPworkshops, a two-day national consultation and a one-day meeting organised by the WCD and IndiaInternational Centre were held in Delhi in May 2001.A meeting in Pune was organised by the WCD andGomukh Trust.

Prior to the meetings, SANDRP published a Hindi

translation of the WCD India country study. TheWCD overview report was also translated into Hindiand provided a useful resource. The full WCD reportand WCD CD-ROMs in English were also circulated.

In addition to discussing the WCD report, the meet-ings provided an excellent networking and learningopportunity for all stakeholders. Informationexchange and advocacy on issues of concern were asecondary goal for the meetings. Media coverage ofthe meetings helped to publicise the WCD report, itsprocess and message to a wider audience.

Government responsesThe meetings provided an opportunity to hear the dif-ferent responses of government agencies to the WCDreport. At the Delhi meeting organised by the WCD,a member of the Planning Commission spoke highlyof the WCD report, while some officials of the

Ministry of Water Resources tried to highlight theproblems with the report.

Several state officials spoke highly of the WCD andstressed the need for India to implement its recom-mendations. As a result of the meeting in Mumbai, theChief Secretary of Maharashtra invited the WCD topresent the report and its findings to concerned offi-cials and ministers in the Maharashtra Government. Asimilar possibility opened in Andhra Pradesh followingthe H yderabad meeting.

At the Bangalore meeting, a working group was estab-lished to implement the recommendations. BarhMukti Abhiyaan, the local organiser of the Ranchimeeting, offered to organise meetings in all the dis-tricts of Bihar and Jharkhand. The Shillong meetingdecided to organise a Northeast-wide follow-up meet-

ing on dams.

Meeting with affected peopleAmong all the meetings, the one at Khedi Balwadi wasunique as it was held in a tribal village in the NarmadaValley that was slated for submergence at the time ofthe meeting. Affected people and activists from atleast five dams of the Narmada Valley participated inthe meeting, shared their experiences and comparedthem with the recommendations of the WorldCommission on Dams. That comparison presentedby affected people themselves showed, more than

anything else, how far India is from incorporatingWCD guidelines into its planning for water and ener-gy projects, and how challenging our struggle is tobring people and reason into the decision-makingprocesses around large dams.

Himanshu Thakkar

South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers and People


24


30/64

CASE STUDY 2 Philippines Workshop leads toCreation of National Network on Dams

The Cordillera Peoples Alliance convened a NationalWorkshop on Dams in March 2001 in Baguio City.

The Workshop provided a venue for dam-affectedpeople, advocates and concerned NGOs to discussdam projects in the Philippines, the WCD report,legal issues related to dams and alternative develop-ment options.

The three-day workshop was attended by 48 repre-sentatives of NGOs and dam-affected communitiesfrom around the country. The gathering resulted inthe formation of a national network with a generalframework for common action among dam-affectedcommunities and NGO advocates.

Through the exchange of information and sharing ofcommunity struggles, participants built a deeper aware-ness of the impacts of different dam projects through-out the country. The reports of the dam-affected com-munity representatives highlighted common issues: vio-lation of the rights of affected people, circumvention ofnational laws, questionable economic benefits, emptypromises by project proponents, the added financialburden brought about by huge foreign loans for theprojects and the question of the appropriateness of thegovernments energy development program.

Workshop participants developed an action plan forthe network, which includes the translation of theWCD report into various local languages; research ondams and reviews of environmental impact assess-ments; and launching of common actions on EarthDay, World Environment Day, Indigenous PeoplesWeek, and the International Day of Action AgainstDams. A steering committee for the network wasformed, composed of representatives from all theregions in the country.

The workshop concluded with a commitment by the48 participants, which was expressed in a Peoples

Declaration Against Large Dams. The Declarationasserts: The state of our life has made it clear thatlarge dams are not development effective and havenot addressed the need to sustain life and facilitatedevelopment. It calls for a stop to all ongoing damprojects, a moratorium on the construction of newdams, full compensation and provision of sustainablelivelihoods to affected communities, and the immedi-ate rehabilitation of damaged ecosystems around the

area of existing dams. The declaration further calledon the government of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to respect and uphold the r ights of dam-affect-ed peasants and indigenous peoples, and to developefficient, equitable and sustainable options for water

and energy development.Cordillera Peoples Alliance

CASE STUDY 3 Ugandan NGOs Use WCDto Highlight Problems With Bujagali Dam

Uganda is one of the worlds poorest countries. About95% of the population does not have access to elec-tricity, and most could not afford it even if they wereoffered connections to the national grid. In 1996, theUS-based AES corporation, the worlds largest inde-

pendent power producer, was granted a concession bythe Ugandan government to construct a $530-millionhydroelectric dam at Bujagali Falls. The project hasfaced stiff opposition from local environmental andhuman rights groups, the local whitewater raftingindustry and international organisations.

The groups identified some of the ways in which theBujagali project clearly failed to meet WCD recom-mendations. The project was moving forward withouta number of important background studies that theWCD recommends before a decision for a specificdam project is taken. For example, there was no

needs assessment to determine the most pressingenergy needs of Ugandas citizens; no comprehensiveoptions assessment to identify the best ways to meetthose needs; no analysis of the projects cumulativeimpacts (the dam would be the third in a short stretchof the Nile); and no public accounting of the projectsrisks to citizens.

After writing letters to potent ial funders, including theWorld Bank, about the projects problems and its non-compliance with various WCD recommendations,Ugandan groups filed a claim with the ombudsmans

office of the IFC (the private-sector lending arm ofthe World Bank, and a major Bujagali funder). Thisclaim stated: We are calling for the project to be inde-pendently reviewed against the newly released reportof the World Commission on Dams, and then listedthe ways in which the project failed to meet the rec-ommendations. One of the key items identified byNGOs was the risk to involuntary risk bearers. Theyused WCD language to push for a public release of the

Chapter 4 Using the WCD Report

25


31/64

project contract (called a Power Purchase Agreementor PPA), which outlines how various parties bear spe-cific economic risks (for example, who bears the costsif the project fails to produce as much energy as pre-dicted). This document is rumoured to lay much of

the projects risks onto Uganda.The IF Cs ombudsmans office agreed that the projectis seen as a benchmark in light of the WCD report,and that it is difficult if not impossible to have a use-ful discussion regarding the economic implications ofBujagali without access to the PPA. The ombuds-mans report backed many of the concerns raised byNGOs. However, Bank management issued a briefreply that dismissed most of the concerns, and refusedto release the PPA.

In December 2001, the World Bank released a short

report on how the pro

World Commission on Dam's Guide

Documents

Transcript of World Commission on Dam's Guide