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

Narmada Bachao Andolan (Save the Narmada Movement)
Himanshu Thakkar

I am speaking on behalf of NBA, India. And let me thank my previous speaker (from IHA) for speaking for Indians and yet politely tell him how wrong he is. Not everyone, in fact, not most from India would be against the WCD report, as he would like us to believe.

Yes, I am speaking here on behalf of Narmada Bachao Andolan, that is save the Narmada Valley. NBA has been fighting against large dams in the Narmada Valley for over 16 years now. The World Bank has in fact aided and encouraged the Sardar Sarovar Project in the Narmada Valley where the struggle started and we are still suffering the sins of the Banks there.

NBA has been involved in WCD process right from the Gland meeting. We participated in the process and put in considerable resources in the process in spite of many risks involved. Many of our colleagues kept cautioning us about the composition of the commission. We were warned that we will have to make heavy compromises in the process. We were told that there will be no real place for consultation of the affected people. We were told how the forces close to the World Bank would much greater resources and opportunities to influence the process. We were shown evidence of past experience that showed how in spite of all the policies and promises from the global & international financial & business organisations, there was little to show that they really believed in equity, participation, transparency or accountability.

And yet we participated in the process whole-heartedly and put in what resources we could in the process. A consensus report is now before us. A consensus report with which we too have many problems. That this is a compromise report is evident in many respects, but most clearly from the fact that commissioner Medha Patkar had to put in that note, with which we totally agree.

What we would expect now is that all those who had participated in this process should now honestly, fully and fairly implement this consensus report. That would be absolutely minimum expectation one can have from the various stakeholders. However, looking at the responses of the forum members like the World Bank (what we heard this afternoon) and Govt. of India, our worst fears seem to be coming true. The response from the World Bank was most disappointing as it essentially said that the Bank will do nothing about the WCD recommendations, except keep them in mind if and when they review their policies in future. This is most shameless, dishonest response and this is not acceptable. And how the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank arrived at such a decision? By consulting a few, selected governments. Would anybody in this room need TWO guesses as to what would be the responses of these governments to recommendations like those of the WCD? Do we need WCD process to arrive at these answers? This only show how dishonest has been the response of the Bank.

We ALL need to try our best to ensure that THAT does not happen.

There is no place or time here to look at comprehensively what the critics of the report are saying. However, let us take one point to illustrate how unsupportable their arguments are. The critics of the report are saying that Options to Large Dams are not feasible or do not exist. (It was indeed amazing to hear more than once this afternoon that Large dams do not have level playing field with respect to options. This is amazing because the reality is that the non-large dam options never have level playing field. Have the supporters of large dams, before embarking on such projects ever asked what are the options to large dams? Have the World Bank ever asked before initiating a dam if there are non large dam options? As WCD report says, the options exist, but the dam developers have almost never explored them in any clear, participatory way. In fact, they have almost never explored them. And if you want evidence to show that options can work, evidence for that too is available. From all the ecological zones of India, for example. Most eloquent example is of course from the arid state of Rajasthan from Northwest part of India. Here, while most of the region is facing the third consequent year of drought right now, the 600 villages around Alwar district are facing no water problem as people here, through community efforts for local water harvesting over the last sixteen years, have solved their water problems. Similar examples can be given from other regions. This only shows how hollow are the criticisms of the dam developers.

What shall WE do in the post WCD report period? We have been trying to disseminate the report. However, if we have lagged behind a bit, it is because we have been waiting for the WCD to organise the India Launch meeting, which they have been postponing for one reason or another. We hope WCD soon has its India launch meeting. We would in any case disseminate the report in various ways, for we believe the report has not really reached the people who need it, who can use it and who can be empowered by such a report. We will do this in various ways, including having meeting in various regions, having articles in media, publishing translations and extracts of the report as the report as such is very expensive for most people in India. We would also try and influence the various dam developers to follow the WCD recommendations.

As WCD chair Prof. Asmal has said in his preface to the WCD report, decisions of water involve power. And nobody gives up power easily. So this process is bound to involve struggle and we would continue this struggle. And we would like that the former Commissioners of the WCD should have an important role in this process.

Thank you.