citizens’ guide to the world commission on dams · this citizens’ guide to the world commission...

CITIZENS’ GUIDE TO THE

WORLD COMMISSION ON DAMS

CITIZENS’ GUIDE TO THE

WORLD COMMISSION ON DAMS

By Aviva Imhof, Susanne Wong and Peter Bosshard

Published by International Rivers Network

Acknowledgements

This guide would not have been possible without the help of many friends and colleagues and the generous support of the Ford Foundation, the Moriah Fund,the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, the Global Environmental Project Instituteand IRN’s 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

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

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

Chapter 1 The Creation of the World Commission on Dams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51.1 Activists Call for Independent Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

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

1.3 The WCD’s 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 WCD’s 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 WCD’s Strategic Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49

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

Table of Contents

iii

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

Citizen’s Guide to the World Commission on Dams

v

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. Here’s a quick “roadmap,” or guide, to how this book is structured.

■ For a very short overview of the WCD, see page 2. A Fact Sheet on the WCD describes the WCD’smandate, 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

■ For a detailed summary of the WCD’s recommendations, see Chapter 7 (page 43). This includesthe WCD’s 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.

■ 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

What was the World Commission on Dams?

The World Commission on Dams (WCD) was established bythe World Bank and IUCN – The World Conservation Unionin May 1998 in response to the growing opposition tolarge dams. Its mandate was to:

■ review the development effectiveness of large damsand assess alternatives for water resources and energydevelopment; and

■ develop internationally acceptable criteria, guidelinesand standards for the planning, design, appraisal,construction, operation, monitoring anddecommissioning of dams.

The 12 Commission members came from a variety ofbackgrounds, representing a broad spectrum of interestsin large dams – including governments andnongovernmental organisations (NGOs), dam operatorsand grassroots people’s movements, corporations andacademics, industry associations and consultants.

What did the WCD do?

The WCD relied on extensive public consultation andcommissioned a large volume of research. An associatedForum with 68 members from 36 countries representing across-section of interests, views and institutions wasconsulted during the Commission’s work. The $10 millionnecessary to fund the Commission came from more than50 governments, international agencies, privatecorporations (including many of the main dam industrymultinationals), private charitable foundations and NGOs.

To conduct the most comprehensive and independentreview of the world’s dams to date, and base itsconclusions on a solid foundation, the WCD commissionedand assessed:

■ in-depth case studies of eight large dams on fivecontinents, and papers assessing the overall dam-building records of China, India and Russia;

■ 17 thematic reviews on social, environmental, economicand financial issues; alternatives to dams; differentplanning approaches and environmental impactassessments;

■ brief reviews of 125 large dams in 56 countries;

■ four public hearings in different regions; and

■ 950 submissions by interested individuals, groups andinstitutions.

The Commission’s final report, Dams and Development: A New Framework for Decision-Making, was released in November 2000.

What were the WCD’s main findings?

The WCD found that while “dams have made an importantand significant contribution to human development, andbenefits derived from them have been considerable … intoo many cases an unacceptable and often unnecessaryprice has been paid to secure those benefits, especially insocial and environmental terms, by people displaced, bycommunities downstream, by taxpayers and by thenatural environment.” Applying a “balance-sheet”approach to assess the costs and benefits of large damsthat trades off one group’s loss with another’s gain is seenas unacceptable, particularly given existing commitmentsto human rights and sustainable development.

The WCD’s final report provides ample evidence that largedams have failed to produce as much electricity, provideas much water, or control as much flood damage as theirsupporters originally predicted. In addition, theseprojects regularly suffer major cost overruns and timedelays. Furthermore, the report found that:

■ Large dams have forced 40-80 million people from theirhomes and lands, with impacts including extremeeconomic hardship, community disintegration, and anincrease in mental and physical health problems.Indigenous, tribal, and peasant communities havesuffered disproportionately. People living downstreamof dams have also suffered from water-borne diseasesand the loss of natural resources upon which theirlivelihoods depended.

■ Large dams cause great environmental damage,including the extinction of many fish and other aquaticspecies, huge losses of forest, wetlands and farmland.

■ The benefits of large dams have largely gone to the richwhile the poor have borne the costs.

2

Fact SheetWorld Commission on Dams

What were the WCD’s 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. TheCommission’s main recommendations include thefollowing:

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

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

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

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

■ Mechanisms should be developed to providereparations, 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 areavailable, 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 WCD’sfindings 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 engineeringmultinational 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 people’s movements can use the WCD report to stop or modify destructive development projects, topromote alternatives, to encourage greater accountabilityand performance of development processes, and to pushfor new models of decision-making around developmentplanning. Some ideas for how you can use the reportinclude:

■ Educate affected communities, NGOs and the generalpublic about the WCD’s 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.

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

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

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

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

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

For more information, go to the WCD’s website atwww.dams.org and International Rivers Network’swebsite at www.irn.org.

Fact Sheet — World Commission on Dams

3

4

IntroductionThere is good news for people worldwide who are com-mitted to caring for their rivers, who believe in findingthe 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 damshaven’t provided the benefits that their promoters hadpredicted. 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 fromdiverse 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 we’dlike to help. Hence we offer this Citizens' Guide to theWCD. So that you can appreciate the legitimacy andusefulness of the report’s findings, we provide its his-

tory, from the WCD's conception through to publica-tion of the report. So that you can supplement yourown knowledge of the actual performance of damsworldwide, we highlight the report’s key findings. Tohelp you understand the WCD's alternative decision-making approaches, we highlight the report’s 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 individualsand 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.

We’ve tried to put together a guide that's both usefuland easy to read. We haven’t 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 notjust 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 MajotInternational Rivers Network

5

1The Creation of the World Commission on Dams

1.1 ACTIVISTS CALL FOR INDEPENDENT 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 withthe 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 Bank’s 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 Bank’s 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.”

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 anddam-affected people’s movements to a workshop inGland, Switzerland, to discuss a second phase of theOED’s 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 stronglyheld 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 people’smovements.

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 Africa’s 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 Commission’s 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 people’s 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, ChiefExecutive of the Murray-DarlingBasin Commission, Australia

Joji Carino, Tebtebba Foundation,Philippines/UK

José Goldemberg, Professor atUniversity of São Paulo, Brazil andformer Secretary of Science andTechnology, Brazil

Judy Henderson, former Chair ofOxfam International, Australia

Göran 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 LargeDams and engineer retired fromHarza Engineering Company, US

Box 1 – WCD COMMISSIONERS

1.3 THE WCD’S WORK

During mid-1998 a secretariat was established for theWCD in Cape Town, South Africa. The secretariatdeveloped a 30-month work plan which included arange 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 WCD’swork. The fiercest criticism came from India’s dam-building establishment, which in 1998 forced theCommission to cancel its planned South Asia publicconsultation in Bhopal.

Among dam opponents’ criticisms were the secretari-at’s 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 people’s movements from around theworld followed the WCD’s work closely. They sent insubmissions, 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 people’s 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 Studies in 5 Regions

17 Thematic Reviews on

social, environmental and economic impacts and other issues

Cross-Check Survey of 125 Dams in 56 Countries

4 Regional Consultations H

in Africa/Middle East, East and

Southeast Asia, Latin America and South Asia

950 HSubmissions

from 79 CountriesH

H

Input from HWCD Forum H

– 70 Organisations Represented H

H

WCD COMMISSIONERS' KNOWLEDGE, EXPERIENCE AND DELIBERATIONS

WCD FINAL REPORT

H

Figure 1 – WCD WORK PROGRAMME


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, Turkey Kariba 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, ThailandTucuruí 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 under five 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 ethnic

minorities • Displacement, resettlement, rehabilitation, reparation

and 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 Department, The World Bank’s Experience with Large Dams: A Preliminary Review of Impacts, Washington DC, August 1996. A sanitised 4-page “Précis” is the only publicly available version of the 67-page review.

2 P. McCully, “A Critique of The World Bank’s Experience with Large Dams: A Preliminary Review of Impacts,” International RiversNetwork, Berkeley, CA, April 1997. www.irn.org/programs/finance/critique.shtml

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 report’s 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 unfavourable

projects 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 fordams. Applied to today’spopulation, this meansthat approximately one

out of every hundredpeople now living

on earth would havebeen displaced by

a large dam.

2.1 FINDINGS

Social costs of dams aredevastating and largely ignoredThe WCD found that 40-80 millionpeople have been resettled for dams.Applied to today’s 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 inmental 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 mitigate The 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 world’s 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 earth’s landwhich is irrigated by large dams is lost to salinisationand waterlogging, and that 5 percent of the world’sfreshwater evaporates from reservoirs.

Dams emit greenhouse gasesGreenhouse gases are responsiblefor changing the earth’s 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.

• Irrigation – 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 havebeen more economically viable.

Alternatives are available but not treated 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 that no dam should bebuilt without the“demonstrableacceptance” of

affected people, andwithout the free, priorand informed consent

of indigenous andtribal peoples.

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 establisha 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 ON“RIGHTS AND RISKS” APPROACH

The WCD proposes a new approach to decision-mak-ing based on recognising the rights of, and assessingthe 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 acceptanceThe 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 assessment Before 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 and assessing risks is the basis for identifying

stakeholders

No consensus

Independent review and mediation

Successful mediation

and/or arbitration

Rights Risks

Forum established for needs and options

assessment and project planning

Specific agreements are negotiated and

become part of project compliance

frameworkHH

Specific agreements are negotiated and

become part of project compliance

frameworkHH

No agreement leads to selection of an

alternative project option, arbitration or judicial reviewH

H

Figure 2 – RIGHTS & RISKS APPROACH

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 areimpacted 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 compliance Financial 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-relatedobligations must be developed including both incen-tives and sanctions. Steps should be taken to end cor-rupt practices.

7. Sharing rivers for peace, development and securityMeasures should be developed for countries 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

The WCD’s 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. If the builders andfunders of dams follow the recommendations of the 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 theLondon 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 WCD’s 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 Activities to the WCD Report

CAMPAIGN TIP!

Use the “Fact Sheet on the WCD” on p. 2 of this Citizens’ Guide as a handout

to distribute at workshops, seminars,protests and other events. Translate it into

local languages and distribute tocommunities, affected people and

other interested people.

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 China’s Ministry ofWater Resources was selected as a Commission member but withdrew,supposedly for health reasons. She was not replaced by the Chinese government.

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. Othercentral 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 was“extremely 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 theCommission’s 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 WCD’s 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 Atatürk 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 Commission’s 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

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 WCD’s 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 WCD’s 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 on Irrigation 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 Bank’s technical guidelines tosupport 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 Commission’s 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 agenciesAgencies 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

3.1 SLOW GOING AT THE WORLD BANK

The World Bank’s response to the report has been dis-appointing. The Bank says that it will use the report“as 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 Commission’sdeliberations 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 WCD’s 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 WCD’s recom-mendations into its official policies, instead making acommitment to “work with the government anddeveloper 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 ‘upstream’in decision-making” (in other words to focus more onassessing different alternatives to achieve develop-ment objectives rather than assuming that a dam is thebest option); “effectively implement the World Bank’sexisting 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 largedams and in the WCD process, and based on the WCDreport’s 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:

■ 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.

■ 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.

■ 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.

■ All public financial institutions should place a mora-torium on funding the planning or construction ofnew dams until they can demonstrate that they havecomplied with the above measures.

Endorsed by 109 NGOs from 39 countries

Box 3 – AN NGO CALL TO PUBLIC FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

usual Bank procedure, Bank staff state that this actionplan is a “demand-driven operation” and that the Bank“will 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.” IDA is thearm of the World Bank that supports the poorestnations.

For more information, see the World Bank’s Water 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:■ support the widespread dissemination of the WCD

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

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

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

■ 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 DDP’s 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 and the 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 theWCD 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 Commission’s report will be posted on the DDP’sweb site at www.unep-dams.org.

Box 4 – THE DAMS AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

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 finalmeeting 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 countries. 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

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, people’s 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 there’s a catch. The WCD’s guidelines do not con-stitute international law, and its recommendations arenot binding on any institution. It is up to NGOs andpeople’s 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 WCD’s recommendations 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 people’s organisations.

19

4Using the WCD Report

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

WCD Report.

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 themabout 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 WCD’s 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 proposedproject’s 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 researchinstitutions 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 theWCD’s 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 energyand water ministries; licensing authorities for ener-gy, flood regulation, irrigation or water supply pro-jects; operators such as state electricity boards orriver basin authorities; and public infrastructure anddevelopment finance institutions.

• Start a local campaign to pressure your country’sexport 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 Dams.

Push international financial institutions to adopt WCD recommendations• Start or participate 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

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 RELEVANT FOR OTHER SECTORS?

The WCD’s 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 integratedinto 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 forreparations, or retroactive compensation, for commu-nities affected by dams. The WCD recommends that“Outstanding 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 andmaking 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].


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 communitieswhich 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 damagesDamage 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 percentageof 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 theRight to Remedy” by Barbara Johnston, a BriefingPaper prepared for the WCD, available atwww.dams.org or on the WCD 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.

23

The following is IRN’s analysis of the proposed Nam Theun 2 Dam in Laos, reviewed in light of the WCD’s recommendations. This analysis was prepared and released at the time of the WCD reportlaunch in London in November 2000. A more detailed analysis of Nam Theun 2’s compliance with WCD guidelines is available atwww.irn.org/programs/mekong. Other IRN analyses of proposed projects are available at www.irn.org/wcd. You can use theseresources to get ideas on how to conduct your own evaluations.

BackgroundThe 50-meter-high Nam Theun 2 Dam, planned for the fourth largesttributary 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 Electricité de France and two Thai com-panies in association with the Lao government. Almost all of the dam’s1,060 MW of generating capacity would be exported to Thailand. Theproject 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 peoplefrom their ancestral lands, deprive tens of thousands more people oftheir fishing and farming livelihoods, and flood 450 square kilometres ofthe 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 Thailand’s oversupply of power and its changingpower 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 itfinanced its feasibility study in 1989. Due to the perceived risks ofinvesting in Laos, the developers are unable to attract financing unlessthe World Bank offers guarantees and other concessionary financialassistance.

COMPREHENSIVE OPTIONS ASSESSMENT

GAINING PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE

ADDRESSING EXISTING DAMS

RISK

WCD Recommendation: “A multi-criteria assessment wasused to screen and select preferred options from the fullrange 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 exchangehas 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 theproject design and the negotiation of outcomes that affectthem. Indigenous and tribal peoples gave their free, prior,and informed consent. Effective participation in a stake-holder forum must be facilitated through timely access toinformation and legal and other necessary support.”

Reality: Project proponents point to a 1997 public participation program in Laos asproof that Nam Theun 2 has gained public acceptance. However, in a submissionto 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. “Substantiveinput of affected communities and the public at large was solicited primarily withinthe parameters of developing resettlement options and mitigation measures, whichcame in the later part of the project development process.” Information was notaccessible to directly affected communities or even government officials because ofa tremendous knowledge gap between the foreign experts on the one hand, andthe local people on the other. “There were almost no authentic opportunities in theconsultations for the Lao public to challenge the information presented or questionthe overall viability of the project.”

WCD Recommendation: Risk must be fairly analysed andpublicly discussed. “[Risks] must be identified, articulatedand addressed explicitly. Most important, involuntary riskbearers must be provided with the legal right to engagewith risk takers in a transparent process to ensure thatrisks and benefits are negotiated on a more equitablebasis.” It goes on, “Determining what is an acceptable levelof risk should be undertaken through a collective politicalprocess.”

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 project’s riskassessment. These “involuntary risk takers” have been provided no opportunity toparticipate in decisions affecting their lives.

WCD Recommendation: The report states, “Outstandingsocial and environmental issues associated with existinglarge dams are identified and assessed; processes andmechanisms are developed with affected communities toremedy them.” It also states that “cumulative impacts ofprojects should be analysed,” and “environmental impactsfrom past projects should be evaluated and incorporatedinto the needs assessment.”

Reality: Theun-Hinboun Dam, 50 km downstream of the proposed site of the NamTheun 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 25,000people living downstream and upstream of the dam, including reduced fish catches,the destruction of vegetable gardens and dry-season drinking water sources, lossof fish nets and increased difficulties with transportation. Despite sustained lobbyingby NGOs and numerous promises from the ADB, adequate compensation has stillnot been provided to affected communities.

B0x 5 – EVALUATING A PROJECT AGAINST WCD RECOMMENDATIONS

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 Hinditranslation 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 Hyderabad 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 thananything 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 ThakkarSouth Asia Network on Dams, Rivers and People


24

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 thegovernment’s 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 People’sDeclaration 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 rights of dam-affect-ed peasants and indigenous peoples, and to developefficient, equitable and sustainable options for waterand energy development.

Cordillera Peoples’ Alliance

CASE STUDY 3 – Ugandan NGOs Use WCD to Highlight Problems With Bujagali Dam

Uganda is one of the world’s 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 world’s 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 Uganda’s citizens; no comprehensiveoptions assessment to identify the best ways to meetthose needs; no analysis of the project’s cumulativeimpacts (the dam would be the third in a short stretchof the Nile); and no public accounting of the project’srisks to citizens.

After writing letters to potential funders, including theWorld Bank, about the project’s problems and its non-compliance with various WCD recommendations,Ugandan groups filed a claim with the ombudsman’soffice 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


25

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 ofthe project’s risks onto Uganda.

The IFC’s ombudsman’s office agreed that the project“is 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-man’s 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 shortreport on how the project met WCD recommenda-tions; it began with a disclaimer that the project waswell underway when the WCD report was released,and did not mention the issue of risk at all. The nextday the Bank’s Executive Directors approved fundingfor the Bujagali Dam.

Lessons learnedWhile this project was not stopped by NGOs’ effortsto use WCD recommendations, it was delayed by theirefforts, and there will continue to be greater scrutinyof Bujagali’s impacts. Some of the lessons learned inthis campaign include:

1. Begin with education. Work with key govern-ment agencies, the media, other citizens’ groups andyour own members to discuss the WCD and its implica-tions for your nation. The recommendations, whenquoted out of context, can be vague enough to allowdam proponents to easily refute any analysis showing aproject does not meet them. This tactic serves them wellwith the media, which has a short attention span and isill-equipped to do extensive research.

2. Agencies like the World Bank will use theargument of “national sovereignty” for not imple-menting many of the recommendations of the WCD.For example, regarding Bujagali’s lack of a needsassessment, the Bank states: “The World Bank notesthat in both developed and developing countries, thestate has the right to make decisions in the best inter-est of the community as a whole and to determine theuse of natural resources based on national priorities.”

3. Early on in the campaign, address the topic ofoptions and needs. Try to get independent academicsand experts to do research on these topics. Large damsare often far along when citizens’ groups get involved,and so it is important to “begin at the beginning” andtry to compile strong data on the nation’s needs andbest options for meeting those needs. Bujagali cam-paigners tried to push the Bank and other funders todo this work, but were constantly dismissed by pro-dam parties as “just anti-development” and “withoutgood alternatives” to the dam.

Lori PottingerIRN Africa Campaigns

CASE STUDY 4 – Use of WCD Contributes to Ilisu Campaign Success

In November 2001, UK construction firm BalfourBeatty and its Italian partner Impregilo withdrewfrom the controversial Ilisu Dam in Turkey, citing eco-nomic, social and environmental grounds. The compa-nies’ withdrawal means that the $2.5 billion project nolonger has the financial support of the UK, US andItalian governments, casting its future in doubt.

Balfour Beatty’s withdrawal was the result of a two-yearcampaign by a coalition of British human rights andenvironmental groups which formed the Ilisu DamCampaign. The Campaign’s main aim was to opposethe UK export credit agency’s proposed $200 millionsupport for Balfour Beatty’s construction of Ilisu.

The Ilisu Dam is planned for the Tigris River in theKurdish region of Turkey. The dam would affect up to78,000 people, the majority of them Kurds, in an area


26

Launch of the Ilisu Dam Campaign in front of the UK’s Depart-ment of Trade and Industry in London. Credit: Richie Andrew

where human rights abuses are widespread. It wouldalso flood unique archaeological sites, including the10,000 year old city of Hasankeyf.

The Campaign used many different tactics, includingstrategic use of the World Commission on Dams’ rec-ommendations, to target both the UK governmentand Balfour Beatty.

Targeting the governmentIn order to challenge the UK and other governments’support for the Ilisu Dam, the Campaign consistentlypointed out how the project failed to meet interna-tional guidelines, including those of the WCD.

In October 2000, a fact-finding mission to the IlisuDam area revealed that the project remained serious-ly flawed: among other problems, there had still beenno meaningful consultation with local communities,and political conditions in the region made fair andjust resettlement unattainable.

In the run-up to the WCD report’s London launch inNovember 2000, the Campaign succeeded in gettingthe Ilisu Dam issue covered in leading national news-papers, so that media were primed for the NGO pressconference on the launch day. Ilisu was then picked upby the world’s media as a key example of a dam whichwould not get built under the WCD’s new criteria.

On the day of the WCD launch, the Campaign issuedan open letter to the UK government stating that theproject violated all seven strategic priorities of theWCD. The Campaign then received a great boostwhen WCD Chair Kader Asmal said “it does not takemuch intelligence to see Ilisu does not meet theguidelines for new dams.”

Throughout the year that followed, the Campaignpublished further reports detailing the ways in whichIlisu violated the WCD’s recommendations and sub-mitted these to parliamentary committees, Membersof Parliament, and relevant ministries. This wasbacked up by public pressure, through letter-writingand meetings with representatives.

Targeting Balfour Beatty: shareholder activism At Balfour Beatty’s 2001 Annual General Meeting(AGM), Campaign member Friends of the Earth pro-posed a shareholder resolution calling on the compa-ny to adopt the WCD’s recommendations. The

Campaign’s main argument was that Balfour Beatty’sinvolvement in Ilisu and other controversial projectsposed risks to Balfour Beatty’s reputation. The share-holder resolution argued that the WCD recommenda-tions would form an ideal framework for new forward-looking corporate policies.

In the run-up to the AGM, campaigners held meetingswith key investors in Balfour Beatty, and sent thembriefings and letters, seeking their support for the res-olution. Many of these investors then met or corre-sponded with the company before the AGM, forcingBalfour Beatty to justify itself to its major investors.

The Campaign also produced a “spoof” annual report– Balfour Beatty counter-report 2001, Balfour Beatty’sAnnus Horribilis – imitating the company’s own annu-al report. The report highlighted key controversialprojects in which the company was involved, includingthe Ilisu Dam, and argued for adoption of the WCD’srecommendations. The report was used to brief themedia, institutional investors and shareholders.

One hundred “shareholders” from the Campaign andFriends of the Earth then attended Balfour Beatty’sAGM and dominated the agenda with questions aboutthe company’s involvement in the Ilisu Dam, othercontroversial projects and financial risk.

The final results of the vote on the resolution were 1%for the resolution and 57% against, with nearly 41%abstentions. For the Board to “fail to win the supportof more than 40% of institutional shareholders,” in thewords of the Financial Times, was a major blow toBalfour Beatty. Although the resolution was defeated,a strong warning was delivered to Balfour Beatty’sBoard of Directors.

The Campaign’s impact was demonstrated by BalfourBeatty’s public statement on the day of the AGM thatit “has committed itself to taking the WCD principles,criteria and guidelines into account in determiningwhether and how it should be involved in any futurehydroelectric projects.” Six months later, BalfourBeatty withdrew from the project.

Kate GearyIlisu Dam Campaign


27


28

Liane Greeff from the South African NGOEnvironmental Monitoring Group, offers the followingsuggestions for how to organise a multi-stakeholderprocess in your country on the WCD’s findings and rec-ommendations.

1. Gain the support of your allies for organising amulti-stakeholder process. Then meet with key play-ers in the local dams debate. When talking with thedifferent players, be clear about the WCD processand the nature of the Commission, which includedrepresentatives from all sides of the debate. Thismay help to draw different stakeholders into theprocess.

2. Send a letter to the government (approach the high-est-ranking officials and send copies to the lowerlevels) requesting a multi-stakeholder meeting.Make suggestions about who should host the meet-ing or process. Ensure that the host organisationsrepresent the different sides of the debate (forexample, government, NGOs, affected people, acad-emics, funding agencies, unions, etc.).

3. Contact the Dams and Development Project to gettheir support and help in lobbying the governmentand other players in your country.

4. Keep pressure on the government to respond andmove the process along.

5. Hold a preliminary meeting to agree on how theprocess will operate and who should be on theSteering Committee. Try to ensure a balance of stake-holders and perspectives. If possible, include repre-sentatives from groups working on alternatives suchas water conservation or energy efficiency. If youhave access to a WCD “expert” such as a Commis-sioner, Secretariat staff or forum member, it would be good to include them in this initial meeting.

6. Form the Steering Committee. In South Africa, theSteering Committee consisted of the South AfricanNational Committee on Large Dams (the SouthAfrican arm of ICOLD), the Department of WaterAffairs and Forestry, the Environmental MonitoringGroup and IUCN. The Steering Committee met over afour-month period.

7. Obtain copies of WCD resource material for theSteering Committee – WCD full report, summaryreports, CD-ROMs of the knowledge base, powerpoint presentations.

8. Explore different funding options – from govern-ments, donor agencies, research institutions etc. Askthe DDP for advice on funding. Ensure that civilsociety organisations have the necessary funds andresources to participate in the process.

9. The Steering Committee should discuss the following:

• What kind of process is most appropriate?

• What is the desired outcome? For example, is it toencourage institutions to adopt WCD recommen-dations, is it to raise awareness, conduct researchor other purposes?

• If organising a workshop or conference, theSteering Committee needs to agree on speakers,agenda, scale (local, provincial, national, region-al) and focus (whether the discussion will focuson a specific dam or be open-ended).

10.Select representatives from industry, government,academia, NGOs, indigenous people, river basinauthorities, affected people, labour, alternatives,local water authorities, financing organisations.Ensure there is a balanced representation.

11. Most importantly, agree at the outset to respect different opinions and to work cooperatively.

Box 6 – HOW TO ORGANISE A MULTI-STAKEHOLDER FOLLOW-UP PROCESS TO THE WCD

Despite some weaknesses, the WCD process was agreat success. Various institutions have expressed aninterest in setting up similar “multi-stakeholder”processes to review performance in other sectors. IfNGOs consider getting involved in such processes,they should pay attention to the following lessons fromthe WCD:

• NGOs and people’s movements had organised suc-cessful campaigns against numerous dams in theyears prior to the WCD, and therefore entered theWCD process from a strong position. The industryand governments had found it increasingly difficultto secure funding for dam projects, and were oftenforced to accept people’s movements and NGOs atthe negotiating table, and on the Commission.NGOs might not be in an equally strong position inother sectors, and industry or governments mightnot be equally inclined to accept a strong NGO rolein other “multi-stakeholder” processes.

• A strong and united international network of damcritics existed at the time the WCD was established.The network was sufficiently open to integrate newregional or issue-based groups whenever it wasappropriate. At the same time, a high level of mutu-al trust allowed the network to reach decisions insmaller circles if this was required by the pressuresof time.

• The WCD helped to strengthen and broaden theNGO coalition working on large dams, throughencouraging stronger cooperation among NGOs,and between NGOs, movements and other allies,both internationally and within many regions.

• While the NGOs that monitored the WCD processwere very well coordinated, the same was not truefor the dam industry. They were not experienced inadvocacy or public relations work. As commercialcompetitors, the companies were not used to work-ing together, and they did not have a competent lob-bying association. For other sectors, the situationmay be different.

• The core NGOs put an extraordinary amount ofwork and commitment into the WCD process. Thework demands were high; from the preparations forthe original seminar in April 1997 through to thelaunch of the WCD report in November 2000 andthe follow-up processes.

• NGOs and activists who serve as members of a com-mission like the WCD, and activists who monitorand pressure such bodies from the outside, mustplay different roles. They are exposed to differentpressures, expectations and obligations. It is impor-tant that NGOs are aware of these differences, sothat potential conflicts do not result in a loss of con-fidence.

29

5Lessons from the WCD Process

• While NGOs insisted that the WCD be balanced,they also wanted the industry and government sideto be represented by major players, so that theCommission’s report would come from the broadestbase of interests, and have a strong impact. The highpersonal integrity and commitment of the represen-tatives of the dam industry, the governments anddam operators were an important reason why theWCD was able to reach a consensus report in spiteof the very different backgrounds and perspectivesof its members.

• The WCD’s secretariat played a major role in everyaspect of the WCD process and report. Externalconsultants wrote many of the most important partsof the WCD’s knowledge base. Most of them had atraditional development background and perspec-tive. The NGOs initially underestimated the crucialrole of the secretariat and the consultants. It proveddifficult to find, and motivate, trusted NGO expertswho were prepared to work for the WCD on thesecretariat or as consultants, or who had the timeand expertise to review lengthy reports in English.

• The strong input of dam-affected communities andtheir movement was absolutely critical for a processwhich was supposed to review the real-worldimpacts of large dams. Even if the WCD was offi-cially committed to an open and participatoryprocess, the mainstream perspectives of the secre-tariat and consultants and the very real scarcity oftime and resources meant that affected communi-ties were often excluded from the process. Manyimportant documents were available only inEnglish, and time was often not sufficient to allowaffected communities to attend meetings or to pre-pare written comments. Even the NGO networkmonitoring the WCD process sometimes neglectedconsulting grassroots movements or facilitatingtranslation, which affected the quality of its outputsand the cohesion of the network. NGOs and move-ments getting involved in similar processes need toconstantly push for an open process which allowscommunities and groups from outside the expertcircles to participate.


30

This Chapter outlines the WCD’s key findings from itsglobal review of large dams. The global review is con-tained in Part One of the WCD report, consisting ofthe following five chapters:

• Chapter 1 provides a general overview of water,development and large dams.

• Chapter 2 reviews the technical, financial and eco-nomic performance of large dams.

• Chapter 3 examines the environmental perfor-mance of large dams, including ecosystem and cli-mate impacts.

• Chapter 4 evaluates the social performance of largedams, looking especially at the displacement ofpeople, and the distribution of gains and lossesfrom dam projects.

• Chapter 5 looks at various alternatives to large damsfor meeting the needs of irrigation, drinking water,electricity and flood management.

• Chapter 6 considers the planning, decision-makingand institutional arrangements that guided thedevelopment of water and energy resources.

This summary is arranged in the same order as theWCD report.

As this is a summary only, we recommend thatyou consult the full WCD report when using it inyour campaigns. Each section in this summaryhas a reference to the pages in the full WCDreport where you can find more information.

31

6Key WCD Findings

CAMPAIGN TIP!

The WCD’s findings can help support your own analyses of the economic, social,and environmental impacts of dams. Youcan point out that the common patterns

the WCD found are likely to have some local relevance.

6.1 GENERAL

Dam construction has slowed worldwideThe WCD calculates that there are currently over45,000 large dams worldwide. While dam constructionaround the world peaked in the 1970s at about 5,400annually, construction has fallen by 60 percent sincethen (see Figure 3). The WCD calculates that annualspending on large dams during the 1990s was $32-46billion. Throughout the 20th century, an estimated $2trillion was spent on dams.1

6.2 TECHNICAL, FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE

The WCD shows that dam promoters systematicallyexaggerate the benefits of their projects. Dams haveon average generated less power, irrigated less landand provided less water supply than predicted, andhave actually placed some populations at greater riskof suffering damages due to floods.2 Since most infor-mation came from dam operators and funders, it islikely that the WCD’s conclusions understate just howpoor dam performance has been.

Power generationHydropower dams studied by the WCD showed “anoverall tendency to fall short of targets.” Fifty-five per-cent of dams with a hydropower component generat-ed less power than projected. A quarter of the 28 damsthat met or exceeded their targets did so because theirinstalled capacity was increased, thus requiring largerinvestments than predicted.3

Irrigation“Large dams designed to deliver irrigation serviceshave typically fallen short of physical targets.” The 52irrigation dams analysed by the WCD all irrigatedless land area and supplied less water to fields thanpredicted. After 15 years, only about 75 percent ofirrigation area targets were met on average. TheWCD notes that the larger irrigation dams have theworst record.4

The WCD produced global statistics on the contribu-tion of large dams to world food production. Whiledam industry publications have repeatedly implied thata third of world food production is made possible byirrigation from dams, the WCD estimates that damscontribute to 12-16 percent of world food production.5

Water supplyWater supply dams have fared even worse than irriga-tion projects. “Water supply dams in the WCDKnowledge Base have generally fallen short of intend-ed timing and targets for bulk water delivery...” Onaverage, 70 percent of water supply dams did notdeliver as much water as predicted. One quarter of thedams delivered less than half as much water asclaimed.6

Flood control“[W]hile dams have provided important flood controlbenefits,” the WCD states that “some dams haveincreased the vulnerability of riverine communities tofloods.” Downstream communities have faced “signif-icant downstream damage” when reservoirs have notbeen operated properly or equipment has failed.Some have died when peaking operations ofhydropower plants have caused an unexpected surgeof water and warning systems have “not been effectiveor heeded.”

Dams can exacerbate damages caused by floods. Theyprovide a false sense of security and encourage settle-ment on flood-prone areas. “When the exceptionalflood finally arrives, there are more people and high-er-value property at risk than there otherwise wouldhave been. Damages may therefore be larger than iffloods continued to be normal events.” Between 1960and 1985, the United States government spent $38billion on flood control, mostly on structures such as


32

Figure 3 – RATE OF DAM CONSTRUCTION WORLDWIDE

Source: ICOLD, 1998. Note: Information excludes dams in China

dams. Yet average annual flood damage continued toincrease – more than doubling.

Where “normal” floods have been eradicated by dams,there have been high costs to farmers, fisherpeopleand others dependent on floodplain resources. 7

Cost and time overruns“Large dams have demonstrated a marked tendency

towards schedule delays and significant cost over-runs.” On average, the construction cost overrun for81 large dams studied by the WCD was 56 percent(see Figure 4). The largest cost overruns were inCentral and South Asia, where they averaged 108 per-cent and 138 percent, respectively. Half of the damsstudied by the WCD had construction delays of oneyear or more (see Figure 5).8

Economic returnsThe WCD had great difficulty finding reliable statis-tics on the economic returns from dams. They were,however, able to analyse the results of a few projectevaluation reports carried out by the World Bank,Asian Development Bank (ADB) and AfricanDevelopment Bank. These indicate that on average,large dams have been at best only marginally econom-ically viable.9 Of 20 hydropower dams funded by mul-tilateral banks, about half failed to meet their eco-nomic targets. Nine of the dams had an economicinternal rate of return (EIRR) under 10 percent.10

Infrastructure projects in developing countries aretypically judged successful if they have an EIRRexceeding 10 percent.

Irrigation dams “did not recover their costs” and “haveall too often failed to deliver on promised financial andeconomic profitability.” For 14 irrigation dams fundedby the World Bank and ADB, the actual EIRR aver-aged 10.5 percent, compared with an estimated EIRRof 15 percent when the projects were approved.11

Water supply dams have “exhibited poor financial costrecovery and economic performance.”12 Three out offour water supply dams funded by the World Bankand ADB had EIRRs “well below” 10 percent.13

Multipurpose projects tend to fall even further behindtheir economic targets than single purpose projects.14

SedimentationThe WCD estimates that 0.5-1 percent of world reser-voir volume is lost from sedimentation annually.Sedimentation can affect a project’s physical and eco-nomic performance, and will eventually affect projectlife by filling the reservoir’s storage area.15

Waterlogging and salinisationOne-fifth of irrigated land worldwide is affected bywaterlogging and salinity due to dam-fed irrigation.This has “severe, long-term and often permanentimpacts on land, agriculture and livelihoods...”Facilities to drain affected land are often omitted frominitial project plans, leading to the “overestimation ofproject net benefits. Resolving waterlogging and salin-ity problems entails significant rehabilitationcosts...and loss of productivity.”16

Chapter 6 – Key WCD Findings

33

Figure 4 – COST OVERRUNS OF LARGE DAMS

Figure 5 – PROJECT SCHEDULE PERFORMANCE

81 dam sample

99 dam sample

6.3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Fisheries“Substantial losses in downstream fishery productionas a result of dam construction are reported fromaround the world.” “Marine or estuarine fisheries arealso negatively affected when dams alter or divertfreshwater flows.” The use of fish passes to mitigatethe impacts of dams has had “little success.”17

Downstream impactsStorage dams can “significantly disrupt the whole flowregime,” dramatically altering the riverine environ-ment and changing the water temperature. Dams alternatural habitat, often allowing exotic plant and animalspecies to take over native species. The WCD statesthat large dams have led to “the loss of aquatic biodi-versity, upstream and downstream fisheries and theservices of downstream floodplains, wetlands andriverine estuarine and adjacent marine ecosystems.”Environmental flow requirements are “increasingly

used to reduce the impacts of changed streamflowregimes on ecosystems downstream.”18

Blocking sediments and nutrients“The reduction in sediment and nutrient transport inrivers downstream of dams has impacts on channel,floodplain and coastal delta morphology and causesthe loss of aquatic habitat for fish and other species.”Eliminating the natural flood cycles can decrease thefertility of floodplains, lead to “dramatic reductions” inbird species and “severely” diminish recharge ofgroundwater in floodplain areas.19

Failure of mitigation measuresMitigation efforts “have met with limited successowing to the lack of attention to anticipating andavoiding impacts, the poor quality and uncertainty ofpredictions, the difficulty of coping with all impacts,and the only partial implementation and success ofmitigation measures.”20


34

Q

Figure 6 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AT TUCURUI RESERVOIR, BRAZIL

Source: WCD

Monitoring of greenhouse gas emissions in theTucurui reservoir show that emissions are largeand vary from year to year. The figure below com-pares measurements of emissions at Tucurui forthree different years with emissions from fossil fuel

plants. In most cases, the gross emissions (which do not account for natural pre-impound-ment emissions) at Tucurui are equal to or higherthan the fossil fuel alternatives.

Cumulative impactsThe WCD found that multiple dams in a river basinhave led to “cumulative impacts on water quality, nat-ural flooding, and species composition…” Addingmore dams to a basin may lead to “an increased andcumulative loss of natural resources, habitat quality,environmental sustainability and ecosystem integrity.”21

6.4 SOCIAL IMPACTS“Pervasive and systematic failure to assess therange of potential negative impacts and implementadequate mitigation, resettlement and developmentprogrammes for the displaced, and the failure toaccount for the consequences of large dams fordownstream livelihoods have led to the impover-ishment and suffering of millions…”

“The poor, vulnerable groups and future generationsare likely to bear a disproportionate share of the socialand environmental costs of large dam projects with-out gaining a commensurate share of the economicbenefits.”

DisplacementThe WCD estimates that 40-80 million people havebeen displaced by dams. The WCD states that “all toooften this physical displacement is involuntary andinvolves coercion and force – in a few cases evenkilling.”

Those displaced “face a broad range of impoverish-ment risks that include landlessness, joblessness,homelessness, marginalisation, food insecurity,increased morbidity, loss of common resources, andcommunity disarticulation that result in a loss of socio-cultural resilience.”22


35

The WCD found that reservoirs are a significant con-tributor to climate change, and that hydropowerschemes in some cases may have a greater impact onglobal warming than fossil fuel power stations. TheWCD quotes a “first estimate” that gross emissions fromreservoirs may account for between 1% and 28% of allglobal greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions released due tohuman activities. The Canadian researchers who devel-oped this estimate later refined it, suggesting thatreservoirs are responsible for 7% of the global warmingpotential of greenhouse gas emissions.

The WCD states that “all reservoirs emit GHGs” andthat “in some circumstances the gross emissions can beconsiderable, and possibly greater than the thermalalternatives.” However, “some values for gross GHGemissions are extremely low and may be 10 times lessthan the thermal options.”

The WCD explains that decomposing vegetation andsoils flooded under a reservoir emit carbon dioxide andmethane. Organic matter washed into a reservoir fromupstream and the decomposition of aquatic plants andalgae also generate a large amount of these gases.Thus, emissions may continue for the lifetime of thereservoir, long after all vegetation in the reservoir hasdecomposed.

“Current understanding of emissions suggests thatshallow, warm tropical dams are more likely to bemajor GHG emitters than deep cold boreal dams,” theWCD states. “To date, no experience exists with min-imising, mitigating, or compensating these impacts.”The Balbina reservoir in Brazil, which in places is onlyfour meters deep, is expected to produce three milliontons of carbon dioxide equivalent annually over itsfirst 20 years. A coal-fired power station of the samecapacity would produce 0.35 million tons of carbondioxide a year.

Calculations of the contribution of new reservoirs toclimate change must include an assessment of the nat-ural pre-dam emission or sink in order to determine thenet impact of the dam. The WCD states that land usechanges induced by displacement of people, resourceextraction and other activities associated with con-struction of a dam may form part of the net contribu-tion of dam projects to greenhouse gas emissions.

For more information, see p. 75 of the WCD finalreport and the WCD Thematic Review, “Dams andglobal change”, available at www.dams.org or on the WCD CD-ROM.

Box 7 – RESERVOIRS CONTRIBUTE TO CLIMATE CHANGE

Affected groups not counted or compensated“At the planning stage, the numbers of both directlyand indirectly affected people have frequently beenunder-estimated…” In the eight WCD Case Studies,initial project assessments “failed to account for all theaffected people,” undercounting by 2,000 to 40,000people. A study of World Bank projects revealed thatthe actual number of people to be resettled was 47%higher than the estimate made at the time ofappraisal.23

Millions displaced due to canals, powerhouses andproject infrastructure are not counted or consideredfor resettlement. Nor are communities livingupstream and downstream of dams who suffer liveli-hood losses. “[C]ompensation has usually gone only tothose in possession of legal titles, leaving out a largenumber of people – often the poorest – who dependon common resources such as forests and grazinggrounds for subsistence.”24

Failure of resettlement, mitigation, and compensationThose resettled “have rarely had their livelihoodsrestored, as resettlement programmes have focusedon physical relocation rather than on the economicand social development of the displaced.”

Resettlement has been “involuntary, traumatic.”Development opportunities have been denied to com-munities “for years and often decades.” “Little or nomeaningful participation of affected people in the

planning and implementation of dam projects – including resettlement and rehabilitation – has taken place.”Cash compensation, often delayed if provided at all,“has usually failed to replace lost livelihoods.” TheWCD concluded that many projects have had “inade-quate compensation, unsuitable mitigation, and lackof recourse.”

Affected people have “often been forced to resettle inresource-depleted and environmentally degradedareas around the reservoir…The replacement of agri-cultural land, basic services, and infrastructure atresettlement sites has often failed to materialise, wasinadequate, or was delayed for many years.” Without asource of livelihood, affected people have been forcedto “abandon resettlement sites and migrate.” TheWCD states that “at least 46% of the 10 millionChinese resettled as a consequence of reservoirs arestill in ‘extreme poverty.’ In the case of India, 75% ofthe people displaced by dams have not been rehabili-tated and are impoverished.”25

Indigenous peoples“Large dams have had serious impacts on the lives,livelihoods, cultures and spiritual existence of indige-nous and tribal peoples. Due to neglect and lack ofcapacity to secure justice because of structuralinequities, cultural dissonance, discrimination andeconomic and political marginalisation, indigenousand tribal peoples have suffered disproportionatelyfrom the negative impacts of large dams, while oftenbeing excluded from sharing in the benefits.”26

Downstream communitiesThe WCD states that downstream impacts are “notonly among the most significant unassessed and unad-dressed aspects of large dams, they are also indicativeof the magnitude and spread of impacts associatedwith an altered river regime.” Downstream impactscan extend for hundreds of kilometres and wellbeyond the river channel. Millions of people livingdownstream from dams, particularly those whodepend on floodplains and fisheries, have “sufferedserious harm to their livelihoods and had the futureproductivity of their resources put at risk.”27


36

Tribal musicians who would be displaced by the Sardar SarovarProject in India. Credit: Harikrishna & Deepa Jani

Impact on womenThe WCD states that dams have “widened gender dis-parities” among affected communities and that“women have frequently borne a disproportionateshare of the social costs and were often discriminatedagainst in the sharing of benefits.” Despite the adop-tion of policies by governments and funding agenciesto address gender issues in development, “actual pro-ject planning and implementation continue to over-look gender aspects.”28

Cultural heritageThe WCD states that large dams have “had significantadverse effects on cultural heritage through the loss ofcultural resources of local communities and the sub-mergence and degradation of plant and animalremains, burial sites and archaeological monuments.”“In most cases no measures have been taken to min-imise or mitigate the loss of cultural and archaeologi-cal resources.”29

Human healthDams can have “significant adverse health outcomesfor local populations and downstream communities.”In tropical countries, resettled communities can faceincreased risk of diseases like schistosomiasis andmalaria. High levels of mercury can accumulate inreservoir fish, poisoning people who eat the fish. “Inrecent years, the high incidence of HIV/AIDS in con-struction and settlement areas is a growing concern.”Further, “[d]estruction of community productivebases in agriculture and fisheries can give rise to foodshortages, leading to hunger and malnutrition.”30

Equity and distribution of costs and benefitsThe WCD Case Studies “show that the direct adverseimpacts of dams have fallen disproportionately onrural dwellers, subsistence farmers, indigenous peo-ples, ethnic minorities, and women. …In downstreamareas, communities suffering from altered river flowsare mainly subsistence farmers whose livelihoods arelargely based on the exploitation of resources offeredby the natural flow of the river (fisheries, floodplainfarmlands, and pastures).”

The WCD concludes that by failing to take into accountthe true social and environmental costs and benefits oflarge dams, the “true economic efficiency and prof-itability of these schemes remains largely unknown.”31

6.5 ALTERNATIVES

A key part of the WCD’s mandate was to assess the dif-ferent options available for meeting the services pro-vided by large dams. The WCD assessed possibilitiesfor demand-side management, supply-side efficiencymeasures and new supply options in the four areas ofagriculture, energy, water supply and flood manage-ment. The WCD emphasises that the options it lists arenot exhaustive, and that selecting the most appropriateoption depends on giving all the options equal andappropriate consideration in the assessment process.

It should be noted that the WCD did not analyse andcompare the various options it considered on an equalbasis to dams. That is, the WCD did not look at the cli-mate impacts of alternatives, did not examine costrecovery and economic viability, nor projected versusactual output of the various options. Instead, theWCD outlined a number of different alternatives, anda framework for assessing them.

The WCD states that demand-side management(DSM) has “significant untapped and universal poten-tial and provides a major opportunity to reduce waterstress.” DSM options include reduced consumption,recycling and technological and policy options thatpromote efficient use of water and power. Improvingsystem efficiency at the supply side can “defer theneed for new sources of supply by enhancing supplyand conveyance efficiency. Needless loss of power andwater can be avoided through reductions in waterleakages, improving system maintenance and upgrad-ing control, transmission and distribution technologyin the power sector.”32

A short summary of the findings of the WCD on optionsfor water and energy resources development follows.


37

CAMPAIGN TIP!

Organise a briefing for the media to discuss the WCD’s findings and its

implications for your region. Invite localexperts to discuss specific projects’

impacts and alternatives.

Agriculture and irrigation“In the irrigation and agriculture sector, preferenceis for improving the performance and productivityof existing irrigation systems; and alternative sup-ply-side measures that involve rain-fed, as well aslocal, small-scale, and traditionalwater management and harvestingsystems, including groundwaterrecharge methods.”33

To improve the performance and pro-ductivity of existing systems, theWCD identifies the following options:

• Improved basin and system levelmanagement, including sedimentflushing and catchment manage-ment can increase the efficiencyand life of irrigation systems.

• Controlling salinity and reclaiming saline land is anurgent priority in order to increase productivity ofexisting land. New drainage and maintenance ofexisting drainage is one method, but is insufficientin itself. The WCD recommends an integratedapproach combining management of surface water,groundwater and agricultural practices. Salt-toler-ant crops and vegetation can remove excess surfacewater and lower water tables.

• Controlling the loss of seepage in canals could saveup to 14.8 billion m3/yr of water. Canal lining is oneway to control losses, as well as maintenance of irri-gation systems.

• Technologies exist for improving the efficiency ofsurface irrigation, through cultivation of less waterintensive crops in dry regions, and micro-irrigationmethods such as sprinkler and drip systems.

• Pricing structures for irrigation water which reflectthe cost of supplying water and associated external-ities can encourage efficient use of water and shouldbe designed with stepped rates to provide securityfor basic livelihood needs.

Some alternative supply-side measures include:

• Enhancing rain-fed agriculture and supporting localirrigation technologies. “Some 80% of agriculturalland world-wide is under rain-fed cultivation, con-tributing to 60% of food production. Given the num-ber of low-income households that rely on rain-fed

agriculture throughout the developing world, theenhancement of opportunities in this sector can havea major effect on productivity and livelihoods.”34

Some examples of appropriate technologies includetreadle pumps and low-cost drip systems, small

motorised ground pumps, rainwatertanks, and rainwater harvesting usingsmall dams and embankments to traprun-off.

• Reuse of irrigation drainage waterand urban wastewater.

Power“The priority for a sustainable andequitable global energy sector isfor all societies to increase the effi-ciency of energy use and the use of

renewable sources. High-consumption societiesmust also reduce their use of fossil fuels.Decentralised, small-scale options based on localrenewable sources offer the greatest near-term andpossibly long-term potential in rural areas.”35

The WCD estimates that the technical potential ofdemand-side management (DSM) in countries with ahigh per capita consumption, such as the UnitedStates, may be up to 50%. DSM is about consumersusing less electricity and using it more efficiently inthe residential, industrial, commercial and govern-ment sectors. One major DSM measure is replace-ment of energy inefficient appliances. Generally,investments in promoting consumers’ use of efficientappliances are much cheaper than new supply options.

Alternative renewable supply options include biomass,wind, solar, geothermal, ocean energy sources andcogeneration.36

• “Wind power is the fastest growing of the renewableenergy options and is competitive with other con-ventional options when a back-up generation sourceis available and when government support is provid-ed as an incentive.” The European Wind EnergyAssociation estimates that by 2020 a total of 1.2 mil-lion MW of wind capacity could be installed world-wide, providing 10% of the world’s electricity.


38

“Some 80% ofagricultural land

world-wide is underrain-fed cultivation,contributing to 60%of food production.”

• “The cost of solar photovoltaics (PV) has dropped80% in the past two decades and will need to fall bya further 50-75% in order to be fully competitivewith coal-fired electricity.” While this technologywill not significantly contribute to grid power in theshort-term, the long-term potential is considerable.

• Solar thermal systems can almost compete with con-ventional thermal power in settings with high solarinsolation levels.

• Biomass options are commercial where biomass fuelis readily available. The greatest potential is indecentralised local systems.

• Fuel cells show great promise, and are expected tobe commercially available for use in vehicles and ingrid and off-grid electricity supply by 2005.

In rural areas, decentralised options provide an oppor-tunity to reach some of the 2 billion people who cur-rently have no access to electricity. Some optionsinclude simple household lighting systems and mini-grids powered by diesel generating sets, small gas tur-bines, micro-hydro units, windmills, and photovoltaicsystems. These are simple and flexible ways to expandenergy services to remote areas, have a short con-struction time and have low environmental impacts.

Water supplyDomestic, municipal, and industrial consumptionaccounts for less than one-fifth of water use world-wide, and only about 5% in Africa, Central America,and Asia.

“In the water supply sector, meeting the needs ofthose currently not served in both urban and ruralareas through a range of efficient supply options is thepriority. Further efforts to revitalise existing sources,introduce appropriate pricing strategies, encouragefair and sustainable water marketing and transfers,recycling and reuse, and local strategies such as rain-water harvesting also have great potential.”37

Demand-side management measures are relevant inindustrial countries and among high-consumptionurban water users in developing countries. Some mea-sures to reduce consumption include:

• Regulatory standards for appliance and equipmentmanufacturers and subsidies to consumers to installwater-saving devices such as low-flow toilets, show-ers and washing machines;

• Tariff structures that start low and progressively risefor high levels of consumption;

• A significant proportion of high-quality domesticwater is used in sewerage systems to transportwaste. A number of low-cost and alternative sanita-tion systems that have low water requirements areavailable, such as pit latrines and septic tanks.

Supply-side alternatives include:

• Stabilising and reducing losses from piped systemsthrough leakage and other problems can save a sub-stantial amount of water.

• Rainwater harvesting through rooftops, tanks andother methods are an alternative source of domesticwater supply.

• Recycling of wastewater for agriculture, groundwa-ter recharge, landscape irrigation and industry.

Integrated flood management“In the case of floods, as absolute flood control maybe neither achievable nor desirable, it is necessaryto manage floods so as to minimise flood damagesand maximise their ecological benefits.” 38

The WCD outlines an integrated approach to floodmanagement and control which consist of three com-plementary approaches, namely:


39

By 2020, it is estimated that 1.2 million MW of wind capacitycould be installed worldwide.

• Reducing the scale of flood through a number ofstructural and non-structural means;

• Isolating the threat of floods through structural,technological and policy alternatives; and

• Increasing people’s capacity to cope effectively withfloods.

Reducing the scale of floods implies managing thequantity and quality of surface water runoff. Catchmentmanagement measures include:

• Groundwater recharge measures, such as infiltra-tion trenches, detention basins, infiltration ponds,retention ponds and wetland areas to reduce runoff;

• Forest protection, lower impact logging practices,avoidance of clear-felling and less intensive agricul-ture to reduce soil erosion and landslides that leadto channel siltation;

• Small-scale storage of runoff and improvements indrainage can mitigate floods.

Isolating the threat of floods can be done through:

• Flood embankments that do not cut off naturaldrainage patterns;

• Flood proofing of houses and other structuresthrough waterproofing walls, fitting openings withpermanent or temporary doors or gates; raisinghouses; or building boundary walls around thehouse;

• Limiting floodplain development.

Increasing people’s coping capacities can be donethrough:

• Integrated catchment and coastal zone manage-ment, and wise planning and use of floodplains andcoastal zones;

• Emergency planning such as forecastings, warnings,evacuation plans and post-flood recovery. Compen-sation and insurance should be considered as part of this.

6.6 DECOMMISSIONING

The WCD report states that dam decommissioning“may be necessary due to safety concerns, dam own-ers’ concerns about lower profits, or concerns aboutsocial and environmental impacts.” In the US andFrance, dams have been decommissioned to “restorekey environmental values, often related to migratoryfish (salmon), and often as a condition of project reli-censing.”39

The WCD’s final report recommends that dam designshould include provisions for decommissioning andproject licenses should define the “the responsibilityand mechanisms for financing decommissioningcosts.” The WCD’s thematic review on Financial,Economic and Distributional Analysis proposes thatfunds be “set aside for decommissioning at commis-sioning and/or during the period the project is underlicense and generating revenues.” This is acceptedpractice with nuclear power plants in the UnitedStates and other countries.


40

Getting water in Burkina Faso.

6.7 POLITICAL ECONOMY OF DAM-BUILDING

The WCD looked at the decision-making, planningand compliance processes pertaining to large dams.

Role of foreign assistanceMultilateral development banks and bilateral aidagencies “have played a key strategic role in spreadingthe technology to developing countries, lending legiti-macy to emerging dam projects, and fostering thetechnological and human resources required to buildand maintain dams.”

The World Bank started financing dams in the 1950s,providing on average over $1 billion per year. At thepeak of lending in 1980-1984, total financing for largedams by multilateral development banks and bilateralaid agencies was more than $4.5 billion annually.41

Bias towards large damsThe WCD reports that “[p]olitical economy or intel-lectual barriers often pre-determined what optionswere considered in a given context.” “[O]ptions assess-ment was typically limited in scope due to political andeconomic interests driving dam projects, lack of famil-iarity with other options, the perceived need to quick-ly proceed with large-scale projects to meet large pro-jections in demand, and the relative ease of develop-ing new supply relative to undertaking policy or insti-tutional reform.”

Overstated predictions of future demand for waterand power “has militated against a gradual approach ofadopting smaller, non-structural options and haspushed decision-makers into adopting large-scale damprojects because they seem to be the only adequateresponse to the large gap between existing supply andforecast demand.”42

Conflicts of interest“The end result of the influence exerted by vestedinterests, and the conflicts of interest that have arisen,has been that many dams were not built based on anobjective assessment and evaluation of the technical,financial and economic criteria applicable at the time,much less the social and environmental criteria thatapply in today’s context.”43

Failure of EIAsEnvironmental impact assessments (EIA) still fre-quently fail to influence decision-making. EIA “con-sists mostly of measures to compensate or mitigate theplanned impacts and render them acceptable whenthe decision to proceed has already been taken.”“Most dam proponents see an EIA as an administra-tive hurdle to be cleared, or a requirement to securefunding.” Often “huge political, technical and financialinvestment” has been made before the EIA is evenlaunched.44

Lack of participation and transparencyThe WCD found that “there has been a generalisedfailure to include and recognise affected people andempower them to participate in decision-making.”Insufficient time, resources and information havebeen made available for public consultations.Opportunities for participation, when provided, “oftenoccur late in the process and are limited in scope.”This has “magnified the negative impacts of such pro-


41

Figure 7 – DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE FOR LARGE DAMS

Source: WCD.Notes: Data for bilateral agencies also includes financing by theCommission of the European Community and includes only allhydropower investments from 1975 to 1997

jects and alienated affected commu-nities,” leading not only to serioussocial impacts but also “scheduledelays, cost overruns and poor finan-cial and economic performance.”45

Lack of compliancePoor outcomes and mistrust “stemfrom the failure of dam proponentsand financing agencies to fulfil com-mitments made, observe statutoryregulations and abide by internalguidelines…It appears that businessis still often conducted as usual whenit comes to planning and decision-making. Further, past conflictsremain largely unresolved and pastimpacts largely unmitigated.”46

Corruption“[T]he opportunity for corruptionprovided by dams as large-scaleinfrastructure projects further dis-torted decision-making, planningand implementation.” “Decision-makers may be inclined to favourlarge infrastructure as they provideopportunities for personal enrich-ment not afforded by smaller ormore diffuse alternatives…Allegations of corruption have taint-ed many large dam projects in thepast but have seldom resulted inprosecution in court.”47


42

“As a developmentchoice, large dams

often became a focalpoint for the interests of

politicians, dominantand centralised

government agencies,international financing

agencies and the dam-building

industry.”40

1 pp. 8-112 pp. 68-693 p. 494 pp. 42-435 p 126 p. 567 p. 588 p. 39

9 p. 6810 p. 5411 pp. 68 and 4712 p. 6813 p. 5814 p. 6815 p. 6516 p. 66

17 p. 8418 p. 7719 p. 8120 p. 9321 p. 8822 p. 10223 p. 10424 p. 105

25 p. 10626 p. 11027 p. 11228 p. 11429 p. 11630 p. 11831 p. 12032 p. 163

33 p. 16334 p. 14335 p. 16436 p. 15137 p. 16438 p. 16439 p. 9240 p. 168

41 p. 17042 p. 17843 p. 19144 p. 18245 p. 17646 pp. 192-19347 p. 186

FOOTNOTES

Note: All references are to Dams and Development: A New Framework for Decision-Making, Earthscan Publications Ltd., November 2000

7The WCD’s Recommendations

The WCD developed a framework for assessingoptions and making decisions for water and energyresources development, along with a set of criteria andguidelines for the planning, design, construction,operation and decommissioning of large dams. Theseare contained in Part Two of the report.

The WCD’s recommendations establish a frameworkfor decision-making not just on dams but on energyand water planning in general. Beyond energy andwater, the recommendations have implications for theways that all types of development projects areplanned and implemented. Most importantly, thereport outlines how the directly affected people whohave conventionally been forgotten in the name ofdevelopment may gain the power to either reject, orbenefit from, projects.

The WCD’s overall framework is based on a “rights andrisks” approach to development. This means that allstakeholders whose rights might be affected, and allstakeholders who have risks imposed upon them invol-untarily, should be included in decision-making ondevelopment. This is a radical departure from previoustop-down decision-making on development projects.The WCD believes that this approach “offers an effec-tive way to determine who has a legitimate place at thenegotiation table and what issues need to be includedon the agenda.” It is highly significant that what is

being discussed is “negotiation”, which implies anattempt to reach agreement between both sides, ratherthan merely “consultation”, the usual term favoured bythe developers.

The WCD’s recommendations consist of a number ofcomponents, the two most important of which are:

• Seven broad strategic priorities that shouldguide decision-making. Each one includes a set ofprinciples that, if applied, should lead to more equi-table and sustainable outcomes. Some examplesinclude gaining public acceptance for all key deci-sions, and comprehensive options assessment. Thestrategic priorities can be used as a basis for analysingwhether a particular project complies with WCDprinciples. See p. 49 for a complete list of strategicpriorities.

• A step-by-step process for how to make deci-sions on water and energy development, calledthe “criteria and guidelines”. Five stages areidentified in the decision-making process, and ateach of these stages a set of key criteria describe theprocesses required for compliance. The criteria andguidelines can be used to push for a new approachto planning development projects. They can also beused to show how the decision-making process for aparticular project has not followed the WCD’s rec-ommended process.

43

In addition, the WCD recommendations include:

• A special section on dams in the pipeline, whichdescribes how to apply the strategic priorities to pro-jects already at an advanced stage of development

• Twenty-six “guidelines for good practice,”which provide more explanation of how to imple-ment principles outlined in the strategic priorities.

7.1 FIVE KEY DECISION POINTS: THE WCD CRITERIA AND GUIDELINES

The five key decision points present a comprehensiveframework for decision-making on water and energyservices. The framework is based upon the sevenstrategic priorities and upon recognising the rights andassessing the risks of all stakeholders in the process.Five key decision stages are identified, and at each ofthese stages the WCD recommends a set of criteriathat describe the processes that are required for com-pliance. These provide a way of determining whetherthe Commission’s recommendations have been fol-lowed and whether the process can proceed to thenext stage of planning or implementation.

1.Needs assessment: validating the needs for water and energy services. Stakeholders should develop a clear statement ofwater and energy services needs at local, regional andnational levels. A participatory assessment should pro-duce a clear set of development objectives that guidethe assessment of options.

2. Selecting alternatives: identifying thepreferred development plan The second stage outlined by the WCD involvesselecting alternatives and identifying the preferreddevelopment plan from various options. Stakeholdersshould participate in creating a list of options, assess-ing options and in negotiating those outcomes thatmay affect them. At this stage a comprehensive multi-criteria assessment should be used to select preferredoptions from the full range of alternatives, with socialand environmental aspects given the same significanceas economic and technical factors.

2A. Investigative studiesOnce the preferred options are chosen, there should bemeaningful participation in preparatory studies such asbaseline, impact and investigative studies for individualprojects. The studies and impact assessments should be“open and independent” and a careful analysis must beundertaken to recognise the rights and assess the risksof all stakeholder groups. Project-related impact assess-ments should include social, environmental, health andcultural impacts. For the proposed project to be part ofa preferred development plan, the acceptance of theproject-affected people and the prior informed consentof indigenous people should be obtained.


44

NON-DAM OPTIONS DAM OPTION

POLICY, PROGRAMME,

PROJECTSHH

Q

Q

PROJECT PREPARATIONHQQ

PROJECT IMPLEMENTATIONH

H

PROJECT OPERATIONHH

Criteria 3

Criteria 4

Criteria 5

Criteria 1

Criteria 2

Criteria 2A

Q

Figure 8 – FIVE KEY DECISION POINTS

3. Project preparation: verifying agreements are in place before tender of the construction contract Only after stages 1 and 2 have been completed shouldproject preparation take place. Stakeholders shouldparticipate in the project design and the negotiation ofoutcomes that affect them. Indigenous and tribal peo-ples should give their free, prior and informed consentto the project as designed. Licenses issued for devel-opment of a project should incorporate any conditionsthat emerge from the options assessment process.Mitigation, resettlement, monitoring and develop-ment plans must be agreed with affected groups, andcontracts signed, before construction starts. Benefit-sharing mechanisms must be agreed and set in placewith affected groups.

4. Project implementation: confirmingcompliance before commissioning The implementation stage covers procurement ofgoods and services and construction. Clearance to com-mission the project is not given by authorities until allcommitments are met, including benefit sharing andmitigation measures. The operating license should beconfirmed, including specific requirements for moni-toring, periodic review and adaptive management.

5. Project operation: adapting to changing contextsDam operation must be guided by development-ori-ented goals that include social and environmental con-siderations rather than purely technical concerns. Anydecisions to modify facilities, operating rules andlicense conditions to meet changing contexts should bebased on a participatory review of project performanceand impacts. Monitoring should take place regularlyand feed back into project operation. A process shouldbe initiated to decide on reparations, if necessary.

7.2 DAMS IN THE PIPELINE

The WCD recognises that its strategic priorities andpolicy principles are as relevant to projects already atan advanced stage of planning and development asthey are to the selection of a project in the earlieroptions assessment stage. The WCD calls for an openand participatory review of all ongoing and plannedprojects to see whether changes are needed to bringthem into line with the WCD strategic priorities andpolicy principles. In general, regulators, developersand, where appropriate, financing agencies shouldensure that such a review:

• Uses a stakeholder analysis based on recognisingrights and assessing risks, in order to identify astakeholder forum that is consulted on all issuesaffecting them;

• Enables vulnerable and disadvantaged stakeholdergroups to participate in an informed manner;

• Includes a distribution analysis to see who sharesthe costs and benefits of the project;

• Develops agreed mitigation and resettlement mea-sures to promote development opportunities andbenefit sharing for displaced and adversely affectedpeople;

• Avoids, through modified design, any severe andirreversible ecosystem impacts;

• Provides for an environmental flow requirement,and mitigates or compensates any unavoidableecosystem impacts; and

• Designs and implements recourse and compliancemechanisms.

Governments may also use the review of dams in thepipeline as an opportunity to compare the existing pol-icy framework for planning and implementation ofwater and energy options with the criteria and guide-lines proposed by the Commission.

This process of review implies added investigations orcommitments, the renegotiation of contracts and theincorporation of a compliance plan.

Chapter 7 – The WCD’s Recommendations

45

CAMPAIGN TIP!

Call for an open and participatory review of a dam that is already in the

pipeline. Use the WCD recommendations as a basis for undertaking the review.

7.3 SELECTED GUIDELINES FOR GOOD PRACTICE

The WCD proposed 26 guidelines tosupport the application of the deci-sion-making processes outlined in theWCD report. Guidelines regardingnegotiated decision-making; free,prior and informed consent; andstrategic impact assessment are sum-marised below.

Negotiated decision-makingprocessesNegotiation processes should be con-ducted in which all stakeholders havean equal opportunity to influence decisions. Followingare the attributes of a fair negotiation process:

• Representatives for the stakeholder forum shouldbe chosen through a free process of selection toensure the legitimate representation of all interests.

• The integrity of community processes should beguaranteed through assurances that communitieswill not be divided or coerced. Communities maydecide to pull out of the process if their humanrights are not respected or if they are intimidated.

• Adequate time should be allowed for stakeholdersto assess, consult and participate.

• Special provisions should be made to resolve dis-putes regarding prior informed consent for indige-nous and tribal peoples (see opposite).

• Adequate financial resources should be made avail-able to stakeholder groups who are politically orfinancially weak or who lack technical expertise toenable them to participate effectively in the process.

• Transparency should be ensured by defining criteriafor public access to information, translation of keydocuments and by holding discussions in a languagelocal people can understand.

• Negotiation should be assisted by a facilitator ormediator, when requested, selected with the agree-ment of the stakeholders.

To ensure a legitimate process,stakeholders should agree on theappropriate structures and processesfor decision-making and mecha-nisms for dispute resolution; agreethat the interests at stake and legiti-mate community needs are clearlyidentified; ensure that availablealternatives are given full considera-tion; and agree on the timeframe forkey milestones within the decision-making process.

When a negotiated consensus cannotbe achieved through good faithnegotiations as described above, the

agreed-upon independent dispute resolution mecha-nisms are initiated. Where a settlement does notemerge, the State will act as the final arbitrator, sub-ject to judicial review.

Free, prior and informed consentFree, prior and informed consent of indigenous andtribal peoples is conceived as more than a one timecontractual event. Rather, it is a “continuous, iterativeprocess of communication and negotiations spanningthe entire planning and project cycles.” Progress toeach stage in the cycle should be guided by the agree-ment of the potentially affected indigenous and tribalpeoples.

Prior, informed consent should be broadly representa-tive and inclusive. How it is given or expressed will beguided by customary laws and practices of the indige-nous and tribal peoples and national laws. At thebeginning of the process, indigenous and tribal peo-ples will tell the stakeholder forum how they willexpress their consent to decisions including endorse-ment of key decisions. An independent dispute reso-lution mechanism should be established with the par-ticipation and agreement of the stakeholder forum atthe outset.

For more information, see the WCD ThematicReview, “Operationalisation of Free Prior InformedConsent,” available at www.dams.org or on theWCD’s CD-ROM.


46

Free, prior andinformed consent is a “continuous,iterative process

of communicationand negotiation

spanning the entireplanning and

project cycles.”

Strategic impact assessmentStrategic impact assessment (SIA) can be used torecognise the rights to be accommodated, assess thenature and magnitude of risks to the environment andaffected stakeholder groups, and determine availabledevelopment options. SIA takes the concept of project-level impact assessment and moves it up into the initialphases of planning and options assessment. It is abroad assessment covering entire sectors, policies andprograms and ensures that environmental, social,health and cultural implications of all options are con-sidered at an early stage in planning. This termincludes sectoral, basin-wide, regional and cumulativeenvironmental assessments.

The general goals of strategic impact assessment are asfollows:

• Recognising the rights of stakeholders and assessingthe risks;

• Incorporating environmental and social criteria inthe selection of demand and supply options and pro-jects before major funds to investigate individualprojects are committed;

• Screening out inappropriate or unacceptable pro-jects at an early stage;

• Reducing up-front planning and preparation costsfor investors and minimising the risk that projectsencounter serious opposition; and

• Providing an opportunity to look at the option ofimproving the performance of existing dams andother assets.

7.4 FOLLOW-UP STRATEGIES FOR SPECIFIC SECTORS

The WCD proposed a number of follow-up strategiesto push forward the ideas outlined in the WCD report.

National governments• Establish an independent, multi-stakeholder com-

mittee to address outstanding issues with existingdams.

• Require a review of existing procedures and regula-tions concerning large dams.

• Develop a specific policy statement governingstakeholder participation in options assessment andplanning.

• Review legal, policy and institutional frameworks toassess and remove any bias against resource conser-vation, efficiency and decentralised options, and anybarriers to open participatory processes.

Line ministries• Issue criteria and guidelines for promoting inde-

pendent review and dispute resolution around largedams.

• Adopt the practice of time-bound licenses for alldams.

Suppliers, contractors, developers and consultants• Abide by the provisions of the anti-bribery conven-

tion of the Organisation for Economic Co-operationand Development.

• Develop and adopt voluntary codes of conduct,management systems and certification proceduresfor best ensuring and demonstrating compliancewith the Commission’s guidelines.

• Consulting companies should use and refine thetools proposed by the Commission, such as distrib-utional analysis, multi-criteria analysis, rights-and-risks approach and environmental flow assessments.

• Put in place mechanisms to ensure that dam design-ers either participate in or at least receive evalua-tions of predicted social, environmental, financialand economic performance five years after con-struction. Make these evaluations publicly available.


47

CAMPAIGN TIP!

Prepare an analysis of how a proposedproject complies with WCD

recommendations and distribute this togovernment agencies and funders.

Private financiers• Develop criteria for bond-rating systems for use in

financing all options in the water resources and elec-tric power sectors.

• Incorporate the principles, criteria and guidelines ofthe Commission in corporate social responsibilitypolicies and statements.

• Use the Commission’s guidelines as social and envi-ronmental screens for evaluating individual pro-jects.

Bilateral aid agencies and multilateral development banks• Ensure that any dams for which financing is

approved adhere to the WCD’s guidelines.

• Accelerate the shift from project- to sector-basedfinance. Increase financial and technical support fortransparent and participatory needs and optionsassessment, and the financing of non-structuralalternatives.

• Review past projects to identify those that may haveunderperformed or present unresolved issues andshare in addressing the financial burden of such pro-jects for borrower countries. This may involve can-celling the outstanding debt related to them, con-verting debt repayment into development assistancetargeting affected areas, or providing new supportto help borrower countries address unresolved eco-nomic, social and environmental problems.

• Review internal processes and operational policiesin relation to the WCD recommendations to deter-mine changes needed.

Export credit agencies• Introduce and adopt common environmental, social

and transboundary criteria for financial guaranteesand strengthen institutional capacity to appraiseprojects against such criteria.

• Improve coordination among international agenciesto ensure that dam projects refused by one agencyare not accepted by others.

• Require private-sector applicants for dams to meetdue diligence criteria or voluntary codes of conductthat conform to the WCD recommendations.

• Promote consultation and information disclosure asnormal procedure.

Academics• Evaluate dam case studies following WCD method-

ology.

• Undertake research on alternatives to dams such asdemand-side management, and ensure this is avail-able to decision-makers.

• Assist in improving the WCD knowledge base, par-ticularly in terms of comparative data on the devel-opment effectiveness of large dams and the impactsof dams on local, regional and national developmentand on affected people and the environment. TheWCD lays out specific areas for research in Chapter10 of the report.


48

7.5 THE WCD’S STRATEGIC PRIORITIES

The following seven strategic priorities are taken directly from the WCD report. No changes to language havebeen made. Each strategic priority contains a key message and a set of supporting policy principles. Each of thepolicy principles are described in greater detail in the WCD report.


49

STRATEGIC PRIORITY 1

GAINING PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE

Key Message

Public acceptance of key decisions is essential for equitable and sustainable water and energy resources development.Acceptance emerges from recognising rights, addressing risks, and safeguarding the entitlements of all groups of affect-ed people, particularly indigenous and tribal peoples, women and other vulnerable groups. Decision-making processesand mechanisms are used that enable informed participation by all groups of people, and result in the demonstrableacceptance of key decisions. Where projects affect indigenous and tribal peoples, such processes are guided by theirfree, prior and informed consent.

Effective implementation of this strategic priority depends on applying these policy principles:


COMPREHENSIVE OPTIONS ASSESSMENT

Key Message

Alternatives to dams do often exist. To explore these alternatives, needs for water, food and energy are assessed andobjectives clearly defined. The appropriate development response is identified from a range of possible options. The selec-tion is based on a comprehensive and participatory assessment of the full range of policy, institutional, and technicaloptions. In the assessment process social and environmental aspects have the same significance as economic and finan-cial factors. The options assessment process continues through all stages of planning, project development and operations.


1.1 Recognition of rights and assessment of risks are thebasis for the identification and inclusion of stakehold-ers in decision-making on energy and waterresources development.

1.2 Access to information, legal and other support isavailable to all stakeholders, particularly indigenousand tribal peoples, women and other vulnerablegroups, to enable their informed participation in deci-sion-making processes.

1.3 Demonstrable public acceptance of all key decisionsis achieved through agreements negotiated in anopen and transparent process conducted in goodfaith and with the informed participation of all stake-holders.

1.4 Decisions on projects affecting indigenous and tribalpeoples are guided by their free, prior and informedconsent achieved through formal and informal repre-sentative bodies.

2.1 Development needs and objectives are clearly for-mulated through an open and participatory processbefore the identification and assessment of optionsfor water and energy resource development.

2.2 Planning approaches that take into account the fullrange of development objectives are used to assessall policy, institutional, management, and technicaloptions before the decision is made to proceed withany programme or project.

2.3 Social and environmental aspects are given thesame significance as technical, economic and finan-cial factors in assessing options.

2.4 Increasing the effectiveness and sustainability ofexisting water, irrigation, and energy systems aregiven priority in the options assessment process.

2.5 If a dam is selected through such a comprehensiveoptions assessment process, social and environmen-tal principles are applied in the review and selectionof options throughout the detailed planning, design,construction, and operation phases.


50


ADDRESSING EXISTING DAMS

Key Message

Opportunities exist to optimise benefits from many existing dams, address outstanding social issues and strengthen envi-ronmental mitigation and restoration measures. Dams and the context in which they operate are not seen as static overtime. Benefits and impacts may be transformed by changes in water use priorities, physical and land use changes in theriver basin, technological developments, and changes in public policy expressed in environment, safety, economic andtechnical regulations. Management and operation practices must adapt continuously to changing circumstances over theproject’s life and must address outstanding social issues.



SUSTAINING RIVERS AND LIVELIHOODS

Key Message

Rivers, watersheds and aquatic ecosystems are the biological engines of the planet. They are the basis for life and thelivelihoods of local communities. Dams transform landscapes and create risks of irreversible impacts. Understanding, pro-tecting and restoring the of ecosystems at river basin level is essential to foster equitable human development and thewelfare of all species. Options assessment and decision-making around river development prioritises the avoidance ofimpacts, followed by the minimisation and mitigation of harm to the health and integrity of the river system. Avoidingimpacts through good site selection and project design is a priority. Releasing tailor-made environmental flows can helpmaintain downstream ecosystems and the communities that depend on them.


4.1 A basin-wide understanding of the ecosystem’s func-tions, values and requirements, and how communitylivelihoods depend on and influence them, is requiredbefore decisions on development options are made.

4.2 Decisions value ecosystems, social and healthissues as an integral part of project and river basindevelopment and prioritise avoidance of impacts inaccordance with a precautionary approach.

4.3 A national policy is developed for maintaining select-ed rivers with high ecosystem functions and values intheir natural state. When reviewing alternative loca-

tions for dams on undeveloped rivers, priority is givento locations on tributaries.

4.4 Project options are selected that avoid significantimpacts on threatened and endangered species.When impacts cannot be avoided viable compensa-tion measures are put in place that will result in a netgain for the species within the region.

4.5 Large dams provide for releasing environmentalflows to help maintain downstream ecosystemintegrity and community livelihoods and aredesigned, modified and operated accordingly.

3.1 A comprehensive post-project monitoring and evalu-ation process, and a system of longer-term periodicreviews of the performance, benefits, and impacts forall existing large dams is introduced.

3.2 Programmes to restore, improve and optimise bene-fits from existing large dams are identified and imple-mented. Options to consider include rehabilitate,modernise and upgrade equipment and facilities,optimise reservoir operations and introduce non-structural measures to improve the efficiency ofdelivery and use of services.

3.3 Outstanding social issues associated with existinglarge dams are identified and assessed; processes

and mechanisms are developed with affected com-munities to remedy them.

3.4 The effectiveness of existing environmental mitiga-tion measures is assessed and unanticipatedimpacts identified; opportunities for mitigation,restoration and enhancement are recognised, identi-fied and acted on.

3.5 All large dams have formalised operating agreementswith time-bound license periods; where re-planning orrelicensing processes indicate that major physicalchanges to facilities, or decommissioning, may beadvantageous, a full feasibility study and environmen-tal and social impact assessment is undertaken.


51


RECOGNISING ENTITLEMENTS AND SHARING BENEFITS

Key Message

Joint negotiations with adversely affected people result in mutually agreed and legally enforceable mitigation and devel-opment provisions. These provisions recognise entitlements that improve livelihoods and quality of life, and affected peo-ple are beneficiaries of the project. Successful mitigation, resettlement and development are fundamental commitmentsand responsibilities of the State and the developer. They bear the onus to satisfy all affected people that moving from theircurrent context and resources will improve their livelihoods. Accountability of responsible parties to agreed mitigation,resettlement and development provisions is ensured through legal means, such as contracts, and through accessiblelegal recourse at national and international level.



ENSURING COMPLIANCE

Key Message

Ensuring public trust and confidence requires that governments, developers, regulators and operators meet all commit-ments made for the planning, implementation and operation of dams. Compliance with applicable regulations, criteria andguidelines, and project-specific negotiated agreements is secured at all critical stages in project planning and implemen-tation. A set of mutually reinforcing incentives and mechanisms is required for social, environmental and technical mea-sures. These should involve an appropriate mix of regulatory and non-regulatory measures, incorporating incentives andsanctions. Regulatory and compliance frameworks use incentives and sanctions to ensure effectiveness where flexibilityis needed to accommodate changing circumstances.


5.1 Recognition of rights and assessment of risks is thebasis for identification and inclusion of adverselyaffected stakeholders in joint negotiations on mitiga-tion, resettlement and development related decision-making.

5.2 Impact assessment includes all people in the reser-voir, upstream, downstream and in catchment areaswhose properties, livelihoods and non-materialresources are affected. It also includes those affect-ed by dam related infrastructure such as canals,transmission lines and resettlement developments.

5.3 All recognised adversely affected people negotiatemutually agreed, formal and legally enforceable miti-gation, resettlement and development entitlements.

5.4 Adversely affected people are recognised as firstamong the beneficiaries of the project. Mutuallyagreed and legally protected benefit sharing mecha-nisms are negotiated to ensure implementation.

6.1 A clear, consistent and common set of criteria andguidelines to ensure compliance is adopted by spon-soring, contracting and financing institutions andcompliance is subject to independent and transpar-ent review.

6.2 A Compliance Plan is prepared for each project priorto commencement, spelling out how compliance willbe achieved with relevant criteria and guidelines andspecifying binding arrangements for project-specifictechnical, economic, social and environmental com-mitments.

6.3 Costs for establishing compliance mechanisms andrelated institutional capacity, and their effective appli-cation, are built into the project budget.

6.4 Corrupt practices are avoided through enforcementof legislation, voluntary integrity pacts, debarmentand other instruments.

6.5 Incentives that reward project proponents for abidingby criteria and guidelines are developed by publicand private financial institutions.


52


SHARING RIVERS FOR PEACE, DEVELOPMENT AND SECURITY

Key message

Storage and diversion of water on transboundary rivers has been a source of considerable tension between countriesand within countries. As specific interventions for diverting water, dams require constructive co-operation. Consequently,the use and management of resources increasingly becomes the subject of agreement between States to promote mutu-al self-interest for regional co-operation and peaceful collaboration. This leads to a shift in focus from the narrow approachof allocating a finite resource to the sharing of rivers and their associated benefits in which States are innovative in defin-ing the scope of issues for discussion. External financing agencies support the principles of good faith negotiationsbetween riparian States.


7.1 National water policies make specific provision forbasin agreements in shared river basins.Agreements are negotiated on the basis of good faithamong riparian States. They are based on principlesof equitable and reasonable utilisation, no significantharm, prior information and the Commission’s strate-gic priorities.

7.2 Riparian States go beyond looking at water as a finitecommodity to be divided and embrace an approachthat equitably allocates not the water, but the benefitsthat can be derived from it. Where appropriate, nego-tiations include benefits outside the river basin andother sectors of mutual interest.

7.3 Dams on shared rivers are not built in cases whereriparian States raise an objection that is upheld by anindependent panel. Intractable disputes betweencountries are resolved through various means of dis-pute resolution including, in the last instance, theInternational Court of Justice.

7.4 For the development of projects on rivers sharedbetween political units within countries, the neces-sary legislative provision is made at national andsub-national levels to embody the Commission’sstrategic priorities of ‘gaining public acceptance’,‘recognising entitlements’ and ‘sustaining rivers andlivelihoods’.

7.5 Where a government agency plans or facilitates theconstruction of a dam on a shared river in contraven-tion of the principle of good faith negotiationsbetween riparians, external financing bodies with-draw their support for projects and programmes pro-moted by that agency.

USEFUL CONTACTS

Dams and Development ProjectPO Box 16002Vlaeberg 8018Cape TownSouth Africa Tel: 27 21 426 4000Fax: 27 21 426 0036Email: [email protected]: www.unep-dams.orgCheck out this website for information about follow-up activities on the WCD.

World Commission on Damswww.dams.org Visit this website for copies of the WCD report (inPDF format), WCD background studies and a widevariety of responses to the report.

International Rivers Network1847 Berkeley WayBerkeley, CA 94703USATel: 1 510 848 1155Fax: 1 510 848 1008Email: [email protected]: www.irn.orgIncludes many NGO documents commenting on theWCD report and information and links on otherissues relating to large dams. IRN’s website also pro-vides links to groups all over the world involved inlarge dam campaigns at www.irn.org/links/damfight-ers.shtml. IRN provides a free e-mail listserv with informationon the WCD. To subscribe to this listserv, send amessage to [email protected] and in thetext of the message, type “subscribe <your emailaddress>”.

53

8Resources

PUBLICATIONS

World Commission on Dams Report

Dams and Development: A New Framework forDecision-Making, The Report of the WorldCommission on Dams, Earthscan Publications Ltd.,November 2000, paperback $29.95. Developingcountry NGOs are offered a 35% discount off thebookstore price. The WCD report is also available inPDF format on the WCD’s website or as a free CD-ROM from the Dams and Development Project.

Represas y Desarrollo: Un Nuevo Marco para la Tomade Decisiones, the official WCD report in Spanish, canbe downloaded at http://www.dams.org/report/espanol.htm. At that site, you can also download a pow-erpoint presentation on the WCD in Spanish. To ordera hardcopy version of the report, contact the DDP.

Dams and Development: An Overview, November 2000This 30-page summary of the WCD report is avail-able on the WCD’s website or from the DDP. Thissummary is available in English, French, German,Hindi, Polish, Portuguese, Russian and Spanish.These translations are available online atwww.dams.org/report.

On the WCD website, some background documentsare also available in French, Japanese, Portugueseand Spanish at www.dams.org/polyglot.

Selected WCD Background Studies

The following is a list of WCD background studiesthat are particularly useful. You can download thesedocuments from the WCD’s website or ask the DDPto send you a CD-ROM.

The Social Impacts of Large Dams: Equity andDistributional Issues, WCD Thematic Review I.1, by Adams, W., 2000. Includes useful sections on gen-der impacts of dams and impacts on downstreamcommunities.

Displacement, Resettlement, Rehabilitation,Reparation and Development, WCD ThematicReview I.3 by Bartolome, L.J., de Wet, C., Mander,H. and Nagaraj, V.K. 2000. Includes case studies ofexperiences with resettlement in Africa, Argentina,China, India and Mexico.

Dams, Ecosystem Functions and EnvironmentalRestoration, WCD Thematic Review II.1, byBerkamp, G., McCartney, M., Dugan, P., McNeely, J.and Acreman, M. 2000. Includes a useful backgroundpaper on instream flows and managed flood releasesfrom reservoirs.

Dams, Indigenous People and Vulnerable EthnicMinorities, WCD Thematic Review 1.2, byColchester, M. – Forest Peoples Programme 2000.Includes case studies on Canada, Guatemala, India,Malaysia, Namibia, Norway and the Philippines.

Reparations and the Right to Remedy, WCD BriefingPaper, by Johnston, B.R. 2000. Articulates the legalbasis for reparations.

Large Dams: India’s Experience, WCD case study, byRangachari, R., Sengupta, N., Iyer, R.R., Banerji, P.and Singh, S. 2000. Also available in Hindi fromSANDRP – email [email protected].

Environmental and Social Impact Assessment forLarge Dams, WCD Thematic Review V.2, by Sadler,B., Verocai, I. and Vanclay, F. 2000.

Transparency and Corruption on Building LargeDams, Contributing Paper prepared for WCDThematic Review V.4, by Wiehen, M.H. –Transparency International. 1999.


54

NGO Publications

Summary Excerpts from the World Commission on Dams Final Report, prepared by InternationalRivers Network, November 2000. Includes 31 pages of useful WCD report excerpts, available at www.irn.org/wcd.

A Watershed in Global Governance? An IndependentAssessment of the World Commission on Dams, byDubash, N.K., Dupar, M., Kothari, S. and Lissu, T.,World Resources Institute, Lokayan and Lawyers’Environmental Action Team, Washington, DC,November 2001, $25. You can download this reportat http://www.wri.org/governance/wcdassessment.html.

“The Use of a Trilateral Network: An Activist’sPerspective on the World Commission on Dams,” by McCully, P., American University InternationalLaw Review, Vol. 16 No. 6, 2001. Contact IRN to get a copy.

Guardianes de los Ríos: Guía para activistas, byAguirre, M. and Switkes, G., International RiversNetwork, Berkeley, 2000.

Guardiões dos Rios: Guia para Ativistas,International Rivers Network, Berkeley, 2000.

Silenced Rivers: The Ecology and Politics of LargeDams, 2nd edition, by McCully, P., Zed Books,London 2001. Available from IRN for $25 plus ship-ping costs.

River Keepers Handbook: A Guide to ProtectingRivers and Catchments in Southern Africa, byPottinger, L., International Rivers Network,Berkeley, 1999.

*International Rivers Network has produced a powerpoint presentation on the WCD. Contact IRN to get a copy.

NGO CONTACTS

Regional Networks

Network for Advocacy on Water Issues in SouthernAfrica (NAWISA)c/o Liane GreeffEnvironmental Monitoring GroupPO Box 18977Wynberg 7824South AfricaTel: 27 21 761 0549/788 2473Fax: 27 21 762 2238Email: [email protected]: home.global.co.za/~emg

Rivers Watch East and Southeast AsiaContact: Aviva Imhof, RWESA Coordinatorc/o International Rivers Network1847 Berkeley WayBerkeley, CA 94703USTel: 1 510 848 1155Fax: 1 510 848 1008Email: [email protected]: www.rwesa.org

Africa

Frank Muramuzi, National Association ofProfessional Environmentalists and Martin Musumba, Save the Bujagali CrusadeP.O. Box 29909KampalaUgandaTel/Fax: 256 41 530181Email: [email protected]

Chapter 8 – Resources

55

Europe

Heffa SchückingUrgewaldVon-Galen-Strasse 4D-48336 SassenbergGermanyTel: 49 2583 1031Fax: 49 2583 4220Email: [email protected] Web: www.urgewald.de

Antonio TricaricoReform the World BankCampaign, ItalyVia F. Ferraironi, 88/G00172 RomaItalyTel: 39 6 2413976Fax: 39 6 2424177Email: [email protected]: www.unimondo.org/cbm

Tonje FolkestadAssociation for International Waterand Forest Studies (FIVAS)Osterhausgt 27N-0183 OsloNorwayTel: 47 22 98 93 00Fax: 47 22 98 93 01Email: [email protected]: www.solidaritetshuset.org/fivas/

Pedro ArrojoCoalition of People Affected byLarge Dams and Aqueductsc/ Santa Cruz 7, Oficina 350003 ZaragozaSpainTel/Fax: 34 976 392004Email: [email protected]: www.geocities.com/coagret

Goran EkSwedish Society for NatureConservationBox 4625, Åsögatan 115SE-11691 StockholmSwedenTel: 46 8 702 65 09Fax: 46 8 702 08 55Email: [email protected]: www.snf.se/english.cfm

Christine EberleinBerne DeclarationP.O. BoxCH-8031 ZurichSwitzerlandwww.evb.chTel: 41 1 277 70 00Fax: 41 1 277 00 01Email: [email protected]: www.evb.ch

Nick HildyardThe Corner HousePO Box 3137Station RoadSturminster NewtonDorset DT10 1YJUKTel: 44 1258 473795Fax: 44 1258 473748Email: [email protected]: cornerhouse.icaap.org

Kate GearyIlisu Dam CampaignBox 210266 Banbury RoadOxford OX2 7DLUK Tel: 44 1865 200550Email: [email protected]: www.ilisu.org.uk


56

Latin America

Selma Barros de OliveiraInternational Rivers Network /Movimento dos Atingidos por BarragensRua Dr. Veiga Filho, no. 83, apto. 7401229-001 São Paulo, SPBrazilTel: 55 11 3666 5853Email: [email protected]

Sadi BaronMovimento dos Atingidos por BarragensRua Silveira Martins, 133-Conj 21/22Praça da Sé 01019-000 São Paulo, SPBrazilTel: 55 11 232 1328Email: [email protected]: www.mabnacional.org.br

Carlos B. VainerInstituto de Pesquisa e Planejamento Urbano eRegional Universidade Federal do Rio de JaneiroEdifício da Reitoria, sala 543Cidade Universitária Ilha do Fundão21641 590 Rio de JaneiroBrazilTel: 55 21 598 1915Fax: 55 21 564 4046Email: [email protected]

Elias Diaz PeñaSobrevivencia25 de Mayo 1618Casilla de Correos 1380AsunciónParaguayTel: 595 21 480182/224427Fax: 595 21 550451Email: [email protected]

South Asia

Himanshu ThakkarSouth Asia Network on Dams, River and People53B, AD BlockShalimar BaghDelhi 110 088India Tel: 91 11 713 4654Email : [email protected]: narmada.org/sandrp

Shripad DharmadhikaryManthan Resource CentrePlot #119, Satpuda ColonyOpp. Dashera MaidanBadwani 451 551Madhya PradeshIndiaTel: 91 7290 24867Email: [email protected]

Medha PatkarNarmada Bachao AndolanB-13, Shivam FlatsEllora ParkBaroda 390 007IndiaTel/Fax: 91 265 382232Email: [email protected]: www.narmada.org

Gopal Siwakoti “Chintan”Water and Energy Users’ Federation-Nepal P.O. Box 2125KathmanduNepalTel: 977 1 429741Fax: 977 1 419610Email: [email protected],[email protected]

Mushtaq GadiSUNGI Development FoundationHouse No. 17, Street 67 G-6/4IslamabadPakistanTel: 92 51 2276579, 2276589Fax: 92 51 2823559Email: [email protected]


57

Southeast Asia

Chainarong SretthachauSoutheast Asia Rivers Network78 Moo 10Suthep RoadTambol SuthepMuang Chiang Mai 50200ThailandTel: 66 53 278 334/221 157Fax: 66 53 283 609Email: [email protected]: www.searin.org

Joan CarlingCordillera Peoples AlliancePO Box 9752600 Baguio CityPhilippinesTel/Fax: 63 74 443 7159Email: [email protected]

Shalmali GuttalFocus on the Global South c/o CUSRIChulalongkorn University Phyathai Road Bangkok 10330 Thailand Tel: 66 2 2187363-65 Fax: 66 2 2559976 Email: [email protected] Web: www.focusweb.org


58

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

ADB Asian Development BankAGM Annual General MeetingDDP Dams and Development Project,

follow-up body to the WCD.DFID UK Department for International

DevelopmentDSM Demand-Side ManagementEIA Environmental Impact Assessment EIRR Economic Internal Rate of ReturnEx-Im Export-Import Bank of the USGHG Greenhouse GasHEA Hydro Equipment AssociationICID International Commission on Irrigation

and DrainageICOLD International Commission on Large

Dams, the industry’s main lobby group.IDA International Development Association,

soft-loan window of the World BankIFC International Finance Corporation, pri-

vate sector arm of the World Bank

IHA International Hydropower AssociationIRN International Rivers NetworkIUCN International Union for the Conservation

of Nature MW MegawattsNGO Nongovernmental organisationOED Operations Evaluation Department of

the World BankOPIC US Overseas Private Investment

CorporationPPA Power Purchase AgreementSANDRP South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers

and PeopleSIA Strategic Impact AssessmentSIDA Swedish International Development

AgencyUK United KingdomUNEP United Nations Environment ProgrammeUS United States of AmericaWB World BankWCD World Commission on Dams

All dollar figures are in US dollars.


59

citizens’ guide to the world commission on dams · this citizens’ guide to the world commission...

Documents