Third WCD Forum Meeting
25-27 February 2001 - Cape Town, South Africa

Statement - Berne Declaration
Peter Bosshard

Four years ago, I had the chance to attend the Gland seminar which resulted in the creation of the World Commission on Dams. I must admit that like NGO colleagues, I had some doubts about whether we should accept the invitation to attend the seminar. It was not that we were opposed to a dialogue with the dam industry. Rather, we were sceptical if the World Bank and the dam industry would feel committed to the outcome if a new consensus on large dams was reached, and we did not want to become part of a mere alibi process.

As it turned out, Gland was the start of an extremely interesting process the start of the first joint effort which involved the World Bank, other funders, governments, the dam industry, academics, NGOs, and movements of dam-affected people. Contrary to what an earlier speaker has said, NGOs always wanted ICOLD to be part of the process and the industry association certainly was.

Dam conflicts continue to exist, and throughout the WCD process, a lot of mutual mistrust persisted. "I still think that, if the Commission were to come out with an objective report (…), these fundamentalists will reject it as well!", our friend Theo Van Robbroeck said at ICOLD's annual meeting in 1999. Mind you, ICOLD's honorary chairman was not referring to the industry associations, but to the NGOs.

Indeed, NGOs and movements had many problems with the WCD process, and to some extent with the final report: The preparation of the report was strongly influenced by industry consultants. NGOs and popular movements often found it difficult to make their voices heard, and in some cases such as the Tarbela case study the consultants reviewed the performance of their own projects and companies. And like industry, the NGOs would have preferred that the WCD could have reviewed current practices with ongoing projects. Yet the Commission was prevented from looking at the controversial dam projects on the Yangtze, Narmada and Euphrates rivers prevented by the very governments which are now the shrillest critics of the WCD's report.

In spite of many problems, the NGOs remained involved in the WCD process. Like many other groups, the Berne Declaration welcomes the WCD report as the most independent and comprehensive evaluation of large dams to date. I should add that I have great personal respect for all the Commissioners who came from very different backgrounds and still managed to prepare a consensus report. Like Jean-Etienne Klimpt from Hydro-Québec, I believe that the Core Values and the Guidelines of the WCD report could be extended from water and energy planning and dams to other sectors as well.

Still, the fundamentalist faction to which Theo Van Robbroeck referred in 1999 exists. It is not the NGOs, but some representatives of industry associations and governments who have rejected the WCD report outright. Patrick McCully has summarized their reactions.

More importantly, we have also seen many constructive and encouraging responses from national dam industry associations (such as those from Britain and the Netherlands), international organizations (such as the African Development Bank, UNEP and the WHO), export credit agencies (such as those in the US, France or Norway), and bilateral donors (such as DFID or BMZ). Here we have an emerging coalition for the implementation of the WCD report. Like the International Rivers Network (IRN) or the Cordillera Peoples' Alliance (CPA), the Berne Declaration is interested in being part of a structured follow-up process. I believe that the proposal which GTZ has commissioned provides a good starting point for the discussion of such a process a process, I should add, which may of course not go back behind or put in doubt the consensus reached in the WCD report.

Like Himanshu Thakkar, I must express my surprise about the position which the World Bank has so far chosen to take. Officially, we have heard that the Bank is still consulting its member governments and has not taken a final position on the WCD report. Inofficially, we hear from many sources that Bank representatives are busy lobbying behind the scenes against the new report. I find these activities totally inappropriate and unacceptable, and certainly incompatible with the role of an "honest broker" which John Briscoe has quoted from the "Financial Times". Like other NGOs, I believe that through its behaviour, the Bank has disqualified itself from co-ordinating a follow-up process to the WCD as suggested by the Industry Group.

If the World Bank does not reconsider its position vis-à-vis the WCD report, it will run into problems which go beyond large dams and the water and energy sectors. Throughout the Commission's life, the Bank has applauded the WCD process as an example for a multi-stakeholder dialogue which sets the model for the future. It has been one of the main stakeholders in the process, and has had plenty of opportunities to make inputs into the debate. If it does now not feel committed to implementing the recommendations of the Commission, many NGOs will not be interested in engaging in other dialogues with the Bank in the future. In this sense, the WCD report, and the responses to it, are a test-case for the future of the multi-stakeholder approach.

Whatever the World Bank decides to do, we already have an impressive coalition for the implementation of the WCD report. I call on all actors to adopt the Commission's Guidelines, and to engage in a structured follow-up process. Such a process can provide a forum for debate and for planning specific steps for the implementation of the WCD Guidelines. At the same time, a follow-up process may obviously not put the consensus of the most thorough and comprehensive evaluation of large dams in question. We call on all actors to take the main lesson of the WCD report to heart the experience, as Joan Carling of the CPA has put it, that "there are no shortcuts to sound and equitable development processes and projects".