WCD report -- response to a misreading

Among the more popular myths circulated about the WCD report is that the commission has completely rejected large dams in favour of other options. The WCD report does not suggest that any given set of options be preferred over any other. Instead it advocates an inclusive process in decision making that brings to the table all those whose rights are involved and who bear the risks associated with various options for water and energy resources development. Such a process provides conditions for a positive resolution of competing interests and conflicts. IN THE August 14 article in The Hindu (Open Page), the author described the World Commission on Dams (WCD) final report as a framework for `underdevelopment'. Elsewhere, the WCD is also accused of several other manners of bias -- against dams, development, developing countries, the poverty stricken people in these countries, of being a misinformed, misguided group of non-experts and nothing less than an international conspiracy of eco-terrorists. What did the WCD do to earn such antagonism?

For the better part of the last century dam building took place at a frenetic rate in most parts of the world. Widespread faith in the beneficial nature of dam projects providing for multiple needs -- primarily irrigation, power, water supply and flood control -- earned great support from governments and multilateral financial institutions. In the early days very little consideration was given to the adverse implication of large dams. With the growing strength of environmental movements and better organisation of dam-affected groups, the enormous, often irreversible, losses faced by communities and the environment and their unsuccessful mitigation were increasingly brought to public attention. Since benefits from dams, considered self-evident, were not measured after project completion, it was not long before the existence and the validity of the very benefits were questioned. This heated debate about the pros and cons of dams occurred in a context where groups concerned increasingly contested new dam projects. The highly polarised parties, equally confident either about the merits or demerits of dams, waged bitter battles at local, national and international levels. It was evident that a constructive solution could emerge only by discarding entrenched positions and mutual distrust. The way forward was possible if common understanding could be gained through informed dialogue between the contenders. To aid this process, the World Commission on Dams was created.

As an independent body the commission aimed to break the polarisation in the dams debate by doing an independent, open, participatory assessment of performance and development effectiveness of dams and options. Governments, international financial institutions, industries, NGOs and affected people's groups, professionals were involved in the creation of the WCD. A 68-member WCD Forum representing all stakeholders continuously monitored and commented on the work of the Commission throughout its life. Fifty-seven parties representing the stakeholders concerned provided financial support to the commission.

Contention unfounded

In the highly charged atmosphere of the large dams debate, it was imperative that the WCD process be independent, impartial and balanced in its perspectives. The selection of the WCD chair, vice-chair and commission members was agreed upon keeping in mind fair representation of all the stakeholders in the dams debate. The selection of Prof. Kader Asmal as chairman of the WCD, with impeccable credentials as a leader in the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa and as post-apartheid South Africa's Minister for Water Affairs (currently Education Minister), was crucial to getting the process under way. After extensive consultations with governments, international dam building organisations, NGOs, affected people's groups and other stakeholders, the chair invited 12 eminent persons to serve as commissioners (including Goran Lindhal, CEO and President of ABB, Jan Veltrop, Hon. President of ICOLD, Medha Patkar of NBA, L.C. Jain, Planner and Economist). They were widely regarded as having integrity, representative of the perspectives of governments, public and private sectors, affected regions and communities and with considerable experience and expertise in their respective areas. In the article mentioned earlier, an argument was made that both the commissioners from India represented `opposing' stakeholder group. We find this contention unfounded. First, the commissioners were not to officially represent any stakeholder group or country but act in their individual capacities. Second, the composition of the commission was such that it was impossible for any one member to influence creation of the knowledge base -- facilitated by a professional secretariat located in Cape Town, South Africa, functioning directly under the supervision of the Chairman and Secretary General --and conclusions and recommendations arising from it.

Intensive negotiations by all stakeholders, representing a diversity of interests, perspectives and regions, followed by mutual agreement was the pre-condition for each stage of the commission's progress --from its composition, to its mandate, to the work programme and the review process. In the next two years, 1998-2000, the WCD embarked on an ambitious process of a review of the global experience with large dams. It was a uniquely designed transparent process in which the stakeholders of all perspectives had constant access and opportunity to contribute and actively debate and negotiate on issues. There is no basis therefore for the contention that the commission was anti-dam in its persuasion. In fact, Prof. Asmal and several other members were involved in facilitating construction of dams as Minister, heads of river basin authority or senior member of companies involved in dam building activities.

Representative picture

With no less than 45,000 large dams around the world the task facing the WCD was immense. It was known from the beginning that individual examination of each dam would not be possible. However the work programme was painstakingly created to include every possible combination of aspect, period and context to obtain a broad, representative and global picture of large dams. The WCD knowledge base is an impressive collection of information, testimonies, rigorous research and analysis -- consisting of 17 thematic reviews on critical issues in dams-debate through global assessment of existing work; 10 case studies of selected dams and their river basins; focused cross check survey of 125 dams of all regions of the world; presentations of 1,400 individuals, organisations, governments from 59 countries in regional consultations; and 947 submissions from all stakeholders from over 80 countries. The WCD work programme effectively covered over 1,200 dams that were representative not only through their regional spread, but also reflective of other parameters such as size, age, location, institutional context and best practice examples in social and environmental performance. Taken together, the dams in the knowledge base adequately represent the dam population currently existing in the world. The final report draws heavily on the rich knowledge base WCD developed and is the distilled and negotiated output of the commission saying all that it had strong evidence to say. This does not imply that the WCD has `disowned' the knowledge base.

To create the knowledge base, the WCD did not depend on any single source of information of a particular persuasion or perspective. The WCD information sources include data and documents from government agencies across the world, the World Bank, Asian Development Bank, Inter-American Development Bank, bilateral agencies, the International Commission on Large Dams (ICOLD), the International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage (ICID) and International Hydropower Association (IHA) and other international agencies, institutions and consultancies engaged in water and energy resources development and management. Much of the data on performance and development effectiveness of large dams came from the sources listed above. In addition, information available with people, international NGOs and networks was also accessed. Some of the best institutions and experts from around the world with considerable experience, expertise and reflecting a diversity of perspectives conducted the studies. This was in addition to the expertise of the commissioners, secretariat staff and members of the forum group. Put together the institutions, experts, commissioners, forum members and secretariat staff have worked in several thousand contemporary dams projects across the world. The allegation of WCD being a forum of `non-experts' is fallacious.

Irrational

In the article mentioned earlier, the WCD has been accused of being insensitive to the needs of developing countries like India. This opinion is especially regrettable since both the findings of the global review and the suggested guidelines for the future are of considerable relevance for India. For example, the fact that large dams have long gestation period, need large financial investment, have marked tendency towards schedule delays and significant cost overruns. The WCD recommendations are aimed at dealing with all such problems. Loss of natural resources and unsuccessful mitigation of adverse environmental impacts are things to be worried about even in developing countries where for millions these are the principal means of subsistence. In such a context the argument of need fulfilment being possible only at the cost of destroying ecological wealth is irrational. It is far more difficult for developing countries to recover lost diversity and resources critical to the economy and the future of its people.

That India, like several other countries in developing and developed world, has a poor record of compliance with its own social and environmental regulations is a reality and the WCD cannot be accused of imagining it. And there is no doubt as to the finding that the highest risks from dams were borne by society's most vulnerable groups -- indigenous and tribal people, pastoral communities, fisher people and floodplain agriculturists. It is insensitive to quibble about the number of people adversely affected in a situation where many displaced and affected by dam projects were never enumerated or accounted for and faced irreparable losses in pain and suffering. If anything the WCD estimate is likely to be on the lower side. It is time that we moved out of the denial syndrome and made concerted efforts to deal with the issue.

Among the more popular myths circulated about the WCD report is that the commission has completely rejected large dams in favour of other options. The WCD report does not suggest that any given set of options be preferred over any other. It certainly does not dictate to countries about whether they should build dams or anything else. Instead it advocates an inclusive process in decision making that brings to the table all those whose rights are involved and who bear the risks associated with various options for water and energy resources development. Such a process provides conditions for a positive resolution of competing interests and conflicts. The commission found evidence that negotiating outcomes greatly improved the development effectiveness of water and energy projects by eliminating unfavourable projects at an early stage, and by offering as a choice only those options that key stakeholders agree represent the best ones to meet the needs in question.

Through such a process, if dam emerges as the most beneficial and viable option, the commission has proposed criteria and guidelines to address social, environmental, economic and technical aspects in design, construction, operation, monitoring and decommissioning stages. The WCD decision-making framework will enable those options that use time and cost efficiently, meet energy, irrigation and water needs of the people in a sustainable manner and are selected with public acceptance. Therefore the perception that WCD guidelines are cumbersome and lengthy and therefore incompatible with the urgent needs of the developing countries is not valid.

Flexible guidelines

The WCD guidelines are only what they say they are -- flexible guidelines of an advisory nature and not impositions by a statutory body. However, the WCD report remains as the best opportunity to address longstanding conflicts around water resources and energy development projects. By vilifying the commission, we will only succeed in eliminating that opportunity. In contrast to the arguments of those opposing the report, meeting food production, enhancing food security and eliminating poverty are the core concerns of the report. In an era where globalisation is compromising capacity of the people and governments to deal with their development needs, the WCD report is talking about globalisation from below fully consistent with India's constitutional norms. There is much to gain from this global report in restoring people's right to development. Certainly, this report deserves a better deal.

Full report, summary in several languages, and entire knowledge base created by the commission are available at the commission's website: www.dams.org

Prof. S. PARASURAMAN

(The author was Senior Advisor to the World Commission on Dams)

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Features
Previous : Top priority needed for eradicating illiteracy
Next     : Where quitters are welcome