Discussion Paper

Supporting Implementation of “Dams and Development: A New Framework for Decision-Making”

Institutional options for follow-up to the World Commission on Dams

Prepared by

Mark Halle

John Scanlon

This discussion paper has been drafted with financial assistance of GTZ-GmbH, Germany.

It reflects the views the authors

February 2001

Supporting implementation of “Dams and Development: A New Framework for Decision-Making”

Institutional options for follow-up to The World Commission on Dams

1. Background and Introduction

It is now February 2001. The WCD report was published four months ago. Its launch in November 2000 attracted considerable attention, and most of the key stakeholder groups concerned with water and energy development have had a chance to read the report, sift the evidence presented, review its conclusions and consider its recommendations.

Reactions have mostly been positive, and a broad range of support for the conclusions has been expressed by many stakeholders. At the same time, and not entirely unexpectedly, the report has been less well received by certain developing countries and by certain actors in the dams industry. Whatever else is clear, the report has not laid the dams debate to rest forever.

The launch of the report was the final official act of the Commission itself. With the launch, the Commission completed its mandate, and the Commissioners themselves have returned to their individual lives and duties. What is left of the Secretariat is engaged in disseminating the report, responding to queries, and tidying up the secondary Commission products for publication.

The Forum meeting in late February is the final meeting planned, and no formal follow-up to it has been agreed. On 31 March, one month after the Forum meeting, the remainder of the Secretariat shuts down, places the key under the mat, and itself disperses. Most of the knowledge base from which the report was drawn will be readily available on CD-ROM, and arrangements have been made so that the website will be hosted, probably passively, for a year or two longer. Then it too goes off the web and is consigned to the electronic annals of history. That is the plan so far. Is it satisfactory?

We should not be too quick to declare that it isn’t. The WCD, like most Commissions, had a time-limited mandate, which it fulfilled with the publication of the report. Perhaps uniquely for independent Commissions, the WCD arose from the 1997 Gland meeting, an informal and once-off coming-together of the range of stakeholders in the dams debate, and not by decision of an intergovernmental body, at the call of a head of government, or on the initiative of an established organization. Nor did it seek the sanction of a body like the UN General Assembly for its product. The recipients of the report are the stakeholders, and the handover has taken place.

During the life of the Commission and until the end of February 2001, the stakeholders have had a meeting place, an institutional locus, in which to share views and seek common ground. This meeting place – the WCD Forum – has played a key role in the whole Commission process. It is now meeting for the final time. Before it disappears, it should be used to gauge the level of stakeholder support for some form of organized and continuing follow-up to the WCD.

This paper takes as its starting point the fact that the Forum meets in late February 2001, presumably for the last time. This meeting is the last occasion within the life-cycle of the WCD for the stakeholders to consider options for the future collectively. If there is no support for an organized follow-up at this meeting, it is equivalent to opting for the default option - where individual stakeholder groups proceed, individually or collectively (or not at all), as they see fit.

This paper sets out a range of options to be considered. It also sets out the assumptions and principles which guided the choice of the options presented. Finally, it identifies functions and activities critical to the optimal implementation of the WCD report, which might benefit from continuing institutional structures.

This paper has been commissioned by a group of concerned stakeholders from the bilateral development cooperation community for four principal reasons:

• because we do not believe the optimal solution will be found simply by allowing the default option (no organized follow-up) to self-select. We prefer options to be considered carefully, on their merits, even if it is to conclude that they should not be pursued;
  
  

• because we are committed to ensuring that the WCD report has the maximum positive impact on the way that water and energy projects are conceived, designed, developed and implemented. We believe that certain functions needed to achieve that impact can best be addressed through a collective effort;
  
  

• because the reaction to date to the WCD report has not only been encouraging, but has suggested that a significant portion of stakeholders wish to take the process further and fear that some of the impact which the report might otherwise have enjoyed will be lost if matters are left to the dispersed stakeholders; and
  
  

• because implementing the WCD’s recommendations will require investment in the institutional capacity of developing countries, it is essential to ensure that the development assistance community is in a position to assess and respond to these needs.
  
  

  2. General considerations

  As noted above, the general reaction to the WCD Report has been very positive, notwithstanding the critique, and in some cases strong concerns, voiced by a number of stakeholders. Considerable attention is now being paid to how the momentum generated by the WCD process can be maintained and used to bring about permanent change in the way that water and energy projects are planned and implemented. Development assistance partners in Britain, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway and Switzerland have, in particular, expressed an interest in keeping the momentum alive by investing in suitable follow-up activities.

  The section below sets out some general considerations which introduce the subsequent discussion of follow-up options.

  In Chapter 10 of the WCD Report (Beyond the Commission – An Agenda for Change) the Commission calls:

  “…for those who entrusted us with the mandate two years ago and who created the Commission as a platform for dialogue – become the heirs of our work, go forth with it, and multiply its impact”

  This call to “go forth” related in particular to the findings of the WCD that set out a clear way forward, in particular in Chapters 7, 8 and 9. The WCD also set out strategic entry points for follow-up in Chapter 10.

  While the main follow-up responsibility clearly rests with the stakeholders themselves, it must be recognised that some of these, especially in developing countries, lack the full capacity and resources needed to implement the Report. This, in turn could restrict a country’s ability to access finance for energy and water development.

  In approaching the challenge of implementing the Report, it is important to recall some of the key findings of the Commission, especially those that emphasise:

• the importance of transparency and the sharing of information to maintain a sense of public trust and confidence in the process;
  
  

• the need to ensure that all stakeholders have the means to access information and assistance to enable them actively to participate in the process;
  
  

• the absence of any reasonable follow-up on past investments, which has limited the ability to evaluate the performance of past projects;^[4] and
  
  

• the importance of ongoing monitoring and evaluation and the strengthening of the knowledge base to improve capacity to take informed decisions on future development options.
  
  

  In the long run, the success of the WCD Report hinges on the follow-up. The Commission anticipated that this would occur through the optimal uptake by stakeholders, rather than through the establishment of new institutions or the duplication of existing capacity. However, many stakeholders are severely limited in terms of the resources and capacity required to implement the Report.

  The successful implementation of the WCD Report can be allowed to evolve naturally or can be assisted through establishing an organised follow-up process. The organised follow-up process can take many forms, depending upon the functions vested in it. The following sections review and discuss the range of possible institutional arrangements that might support the organised follow-up process, and the functions for which they might be required.

  The principal purpose of any follow-up to the WCD should be to ensure the effective dissemination and implementation of the Report. The intention is not to recreate the WCD or the Secretariat, but to create a clearly defined process to favour the optimal implementation of the Report’s recommendations, and to push further in areas that logically flow from the WCD Report, including the need:

• to keep the dialogue alive through the active and ongoing dissemination of the Report, the WCD Knowledge Base, and follow-up action taken by various stakeholder groups;
  
  

• to ensure that all stakeholders have the means to access information and assistance on the implementation of the recommendations and thereby facilitate the development of capacity;
  
  

• to enable appropriate monitoring and evaluation of the implementation of the Report’s recommendations;^[5]
  
  

• to enable donors to consolidate their investment in the WCD process;^[6] and
  
  

• to provide transparency through the sharing of information amongst all stakeholders.^[7]
  
  

  3. Options for an organized follow-up

  3 a) The Do-Nothing Option

  As noted above, the default option is to consider that the Commission has fully served its purpose, that the Report stands on its own two feet, sufficiently clear and sufficiently accessible that any interested part can find in it the guidance they might seek and the inspiration to use it in their work on dams. It is an option that shows strong faith in the capacity of the different stakeholders to take care of each aspect of the report’s recommendations, and which is confident that the dynamic between and among stakeholders will be sufficient to ensure that the full value of the report is realized.

  This option cannot be dismissed. As the Commission process has amply demonstrated, the stakeholder groups embrace an extraordinary depth of knowledge, experience, financial and persuasive power. The cooperation and opposition of different stakeholder groups did, after all, lead to the creation of the WCD and provide the Commission with the input for their work.

  On the other hand, if a Commission was needed, it is surely because the various stakeholder interactions, on their own, were insufficient to overcome the obstacles to satisfactory planning and implementation of dam projects. It can be assumed that it may neither be sufficient to ensure the optimal uptake of the full range of the Commission’s recommendations, nor to take further, beyond what the Commission was able to do, the entire dams debate.

  In the end, it will come down to an assessment of the importance of the key follow-up functions identified below, and in particular the evaluation of how likely it is that these will be adequately addressed with the existing configuration of stakeholder groups. We believe that, at the very least, the alternative options presented below should be given serious consideration and debate.

  3 b) Network-based options

  Network-based options offer the means of perpetuating some of the key advantages of the WCD approach while offering administratively and financially light solutions when compared with established institutional structures.

  Broadly speaking, the range of light, network-based options is as follows:

• Network with strong secretariat: An organisation hosts a dedicated and proactive secretariat to coordinate and actively promote networking and the sharing of information between stakeholders.^[8]
  
  

  Discussion: This sort of network would need to be led by people who can play a proactive role on dam-related issues, and who would maintain a high profile in networking and sharing information between stakeholders.

• Network with coordinating secretariat: An organisation hosts a modest secretariat to disseminate and coordinate the flow of information among stakeholders.
  
  

  Discussion: Such a network has a modest profile and plays a role in helping control and monitor the flow of information among stakeholders. Otherwise there is no real intervention from the secretariat, which limits itself to a reactive and coordinating role and which maintains a modest profile.

• Network with server: A host organisation provides internal administrative services to facilitate networking among stakeholders.^[9]
  
  

  Discussion: Such a network provides administrative and facilitating services, but is not otherwise proactive. Rather it responds to requests for information and has a low profile.

  3 c) Established Institutional Structures

  Moving beyond the various network-based options, we believe considerations should be given to a range of more established institutional structures. Broadly, the range of options is as follows:

• Single heir: Management of the follow-up could be entrusted to a single existing institution – the World Bank, IUCN, ICOLD, UNEP, Oxfam, Global Water Partnership, or another.
  
  

  Discussion: The WCD did not give a mandate to any single heir. In view of the fact that the multi-stakeholder nature of the Commission’s make-up is widely regarded as its greatest asset, it is hard to imagine how any existing institution could offer the range of attributes which would no doubt be required to maintain the trust and confidence of the stakeholders to the WCD process. Each of the organizations noted above (and who are mentioned because, at one time or another, they were suggested as possible heirs to the WCD Report) offers some advantages, and significant disadvantages. We believe that no currently-existing single organization offers the range of requirements to serve as the single institutional heir to the process.

• Multiple heirs: Different follow-up functions could be distributed among a variety of existing organizations.
  
  

  Discussion: While this might overcome some of the objections to the single heir option, it is also fraught with problems. The richness of the WCD is that it combined streams which, in the past, had been at cross-purposes. Dividing and dispersing the follow-up would revive the problems of the past and sacrifice one of the Commission process’s principal advantages. This could be partially overcome if a small cluster of international institutional partners were to get together to host and support an autonomous follow-up body, as suggested elsewhere in this paper. The guarantees of genuine autonomy would have to be watertight, and the criteria for the host institutions would have to be set out clearly and unambiguously. Nevertheless, a combination of the original hosts of the Gland process (World Bank and IUCN), together with Oxfam or some other NGO with credibility in the development field, might be considered.

• Purpose-built institution: If no existing institution is found to possess the ideal characteristics, it might be envisaged that the best solution is to establish a WCD successor body - a World Centre on Dams, which mirrors the Commission’s make-up in its governance structures.
  
  

  Discussion: The establishment of such a new institution would go against the current, both of the Commission’s moral contract (that it was there to fulfill its mandate and disband, not to seek its own perpetuation in institutional form), and of the international resistance to creating new institutions. Our view is that this solution should be considered only if no other solution is found to be adequate.

• Multiple purpose-built institutions: This option would appear to combine the drawbacks of both existing and purpose-built institutions – engaging in permanent financial commitments and abetting institutional proliferation while dismantling the effort at holism on which the Commission’s success depends.
  
  

  Discussion: Nevertheless, it should not be dismissed out of hand. If, in examining the key follow-up functions set out below it is considered that some of them do require organized follow-up, it may be optimally ideal for each to be assigned to a structure built deliberately with that function in mind, or to place some of these functions in acceptable existing institutions, and to establish light structures to ensure that the others are addressed.

  4. Functions

  The right choice from among the options set out above depends on the follow-up functions that need to be performed. As described above, an organised follow-up process should be limited to the effective dissemination and implementation of the Report, and the functions listed below are based upon this conviction.

  A follow-up process could carry out any or all of the following functions:

• Provide a means for the exchange of information on the methods and processes adopted by stakeholders to implement the WCD recommendations.
  
  

  Possible activities: The exchange of good examples of documents such as compliance plans, mitigation, resettlement and development action plans, performance bonds, trust funds, integrity pacts, and criteria for financial guarantees.

• Actively support and fund capacity building necessary for the implementation of the Report.
  
  

  Possible activities: Education, training and technical support to groups and countries that do not have the capacity to review and implement the Report effectively.

• Facilitate the ongoing involvement of the WCD Forum or suitable successor body as a sounding board and advisory group.
  
  

  Possible activities: To convene forums of stakeholders to consider specific issues.^[10]

  · Further develop the WCD web site to disseminate updated information, including the expanding knowledge base.

  Possible activities: The posting of news on upcoming forums and consultation processes, and stories about the implementation of the Report, ranging from pledges of support to on-the-ground implementation.

• Prepare an annual State of the WCD Report containing information on all actions taken over the preceding year to implement the Report and on lessons learnt.
  
  

  Possible activities: A statement and review of what has occurred against the WCD Report. This should not include any subjective assessment of a process or document. It should however provide sufficient information to assist others to form their own judgement.

• Provide access to stakeholders during consultation processes on the development of new support instruments.
  
  

  Possible activities: This could include consultation on export credit agencies’ internal guidelines and policies, and a possible ISO 14001 third party certification mechanism.

  5. Two Options for a WCD Follow-Up Unit

  In view of the above, two options appear to respond best to the requirements of WCD follow-up. The critical aspect of both options is that they are, and are clearly seen to be, follow-up initiatives with a mandate limited to assisting with the effective dissemination and implementation of the Report. Consistent with this approach, the use of the word follow-up “unit” is quite deliberate, to avoid any suggestion of an ongoing secretariat.

• Option 1: A small co-ordinating unit located within a host institution and established principally to disseminate and effectively co-ordinate the flow of information among stakeholders.
  
  

  Discussion: This option is based upon the ‘network with a co-ordinating secretariat’ model referred to above, and assumes that a low-key approach to an organised follow-up is preferred. It would be responsive rather than proactive and could undertake the following functions:

• Provide a means for the exchange of information on the methods and processes adopted by stakeholders to implement the WCD recommendations.
  
  

  - Further develop the WCD web site to disseminate updated information, including the expanding knowledge base.

• Provide access to stakeholders during consultation processes on the development of new support instruments.
  
  

• Option 2: A proactive and strong supporting unit located within a host institution that actively encourages and assists the ongoing networking and sharing of information among stakeholders, and with the implementation of the Report.
  
  

  Discussion: This option is based upon the ‘network with a strong secretariat model,’ and assumes that a high profile organised follow-up is the preferred approach. The model has been adapted to suit the WCD process. It would be a proactive unit that could undertake the following functions:

• Provide a means for the exchange of information on the methods and processes adopted by stakeholders to implement the WCD recommendations.
  
  

• Actively support and fund/facilitate the capacity building necessary for the implementation of the Report, and a provide partnership/information service for matching capacity building and implementation needs with potential sources of support for such activities..
  
  

• Facilitate the ongoing involvement of the WCD Forum or successor body as a sounding board and advisory group.
  
  

  - Further develop the WCD web site to disseminate updated information, including the expanding knowledge base.

• Prepare an annual State of the WCD Report containing information on all actions taken over the preceding year to implement the Report and on other lessons learnt.
  
  

• Provide access to stakeholders during consultation processes on the development of new support instruments.
  
  

  In finally considering any light, network-based option, a number of issues would need to be carefully considered, including:

• what would the terms of reference be?
  
  

• who would endorse the terms of reference?
  
  

• what level of administrative support would be provided?
  
  

• who would host the unit?
  
  

• who would fund the unit?
  
  

• who would staff the unit?
  
  

  The two options presented above are addressed in detail in the context of these questions in Appendix 1.

  A note on governance

  Whether either of the above two options – or another – is chosen, serious consideration will need to be given to how the arrangement is governed. It is the assumption here that the host institution in either option will not have the task of steering or taking decisions relating to the work of the follow-up unit. Instead, it is assumed that the unit will work autonomously, under the supervision of a group that will be established as part of the unit’s design. Such a group would in all likelihood be drawn from among the stakeholder groups who wish to be involved in organised follow-up to the WCD report through the unit. However, such a supervisory group would normally adopt one of two models: an oversight body with a clear role in steering the work of the unit; or a more hands-off body whose primary role is consultative and advisory. The proper arrangement will depend very much on the nature of the partnerships created in support of such a follow-up unit, but should maintain the maximum flexibility consistent with effectiveness and accountability.

  6. Action Required during the WCD Forum meeting february 2001

  There is a strong need to move quickly to implement any follow-up process. Provided the option chosen does not go beyond the range of objectives and functions proposed in this paper, broad stakeholder support at the forthcoming WCD Forum should be sufficient to warrant proceeding further.

  We have, we hope, set out convincingly why the Forum should consider seriously, and develop a shared sense of what follow-up, if any, is required (including the decision by default to do nothing). In the event that one of the options is favoured or a clear sense of the meeting emerges that further serious consideration is required, it would be desirable for the Forum to also support the process to be followed, who will participate in that process, and what mechanisms will be used to validate the results of that process.

  We believe this should include a serious discussion of the continuation of the WCD Forum itself, either in the form of a single meeting to discuss a follow-up plan, or as a multi-stakeholder group to assess uptake and implementation of the WCD recommendations periodically, or in whatever modified form may eventually be agreed.

  The Forum has acquired a certain acceptability and a certain legitimacy in the course of its existence and in view of its contribution to the WCD process. It is not complete, and some would quibble about the balance of its membership, but most, we feel convinced, would agree that it has been a useful and critical piece of the WCD puzzle. It is, therefore, the most appropriate place in which to debate follow-up activities that would benefit from collective action.

  To the extent that the Forum achieves a broadly-shared view of the actions required, these will have the advantage of considerable legitimacy. To the extent that it does not, it will leave the field to other actors and other processes. We are convinced that the results would be less valuable.

  Appendix 1: Two Follow-up Options presented in detail

  The options for organised follow-up are discussed in Section 3. Two options are put forward as most appropriate given the follow-up functions to be fulfilled and the nature of relations between stakeholders in the dams debate. Further detail on both of these options is discussed below in the context of the six questions to be considered.

  What would the terms of reference be?

  Possible terms of reference have been developed for both options. Final terms of reference could be shared with the WCD Forum to gauge stakeholders reactions.

  Option 1: A unit of no more than three persons to be established for two years to:

  · facilitate information sharing amongst all stakeholders;

  · monitor actions taken across the globe to implement the Report and its recommendations; and

  · update and disseminate information in a timely fashion to stakeholders through the Internet.

  Option 2: A unit of no more than five persons to be established for two years to:

  · encourage and actively assist all stakeholders to review and implement the WCD Report and its recommendations;

  · support and mobilise funding for the capacity building necessary for the implementation of the Report, and provide a partnership/information service for matching capacity building and implementation needs with potential sources of support for such activities..

  · facilitate consultation and information sharing amongst all stakeholders;

  · monitor actions taken across the globe to implement the Report and its recommendations;

  · convene annual forums with the successor to the WCD Forum and convene special meetings to address specific issues as necessary;

  · prepare an annual report setting out actions taken over the preceding year to implement the Report and on other lessons learnt; and

  · update and disseminate information in a timely fashion to stakeholders through the Internet.

  Who would endorse the terms of reference?

  Option 1: The terms of reference could be shared with the WCD Forum at its final meeting to gauge stakeholders responses. The Forum could be reconstituted as the WCD Follow-up Forum in its current or amended form at the same meeting.

  Option 2: The same as above.

  What level of administrative support would be provided?

  Option 1: Administrative support should be kept to a minimum and support purchased (or provided in kind) from the host institution. The Unit should be limited to a full time compliment of three, with short-term consultants used as necessary.

  Option 2: Administrative support should be kept to a minimum and support purchased (or provided in kind) from the host institution. The Unit should be limited to a full time compliment of up to five, with short-term consultants used as necessary.

  Who would host it?

  Option 1: Given the light institutional structure that is proposed, a host organisation will be necessary. This should minimise administrative costs by enabling the new process to tap into existing administrative support, for example financial services. The host organisation should have credibility with all stakeholders and not be seen as giving an advantage to any particular group. Steps that could be taken to ensure this include:

• The funds for the Unit being held in a separate account and be audited separately;
  
  

  · The Unit having a separately delineated work space, providing adequate physical separation from host institution staff; and

• The Unit having separate telephone and fax numbers and e-mail addresses to the host institution.
  
  

  There is no clear option for a host institution, and all options will have their critics. The most appropriate host will inevitably be the least objectionable option. The following two potential options for a host institution - the IUCN and the UNEP/DTIE- are briefly described below to illustrate how host institutions may be viewed and assessed. These options have not been discussed with the institutions concerned.

  The IUCN has the advantage of comprising government and non-government members, and being one of the co-hosts of the meeting that led to the establishment of the WCD. It has an established track record as a host institution (eg Ramsar Convention) and offers a less complex administrative framework than most international organisations. In fact IUCN provided the financial umbrella for the WCD which enabled the Commission to operate independently and effectively.

  The UNEP Division of Technology, Industry and Economics (DTIE) is also worth consideration. This Division was created in 1998 as a part of the reorganisation of UNEP in an attempt to provide integrated responses to industrial and urban issues. It has developed strong links to the private sector, in particular the financial service and insurance sectors, while offering its traditional framework for inter-governmental processes.

  The mission of UNEP DTIE includes:

• To encourage decision makers in government, industry and business to develop and adopt policies, strategies and practices that are cleaner and safer.