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

Opening Remarks
Prof. Kader Asmal - WCD Chair

Friends, colleagues, fellow Commission veterans: Welcome to the Third and Final meeting of the consultative Forum of the World Commission on Dams. Since our last meeting we have progressed from Knowledge Base to Final Report, and, as a reward, progressed from a former Breakwater prison to the more hospitable Spier Wine Estate. I hope the environs, and libations, allow a constructive dialogue over Dams and Development and what happens next.

Much has changed since our last meeting, but one thing has not. During our work programme, and despite our diverse composition, some observers often labelled us as inherently "pro-dam" or "anti-dam." My response then, as many of you may know, was to say: "Hang us for what we have done, not for what you think we will do."

Now that we are in fact done, and the Report is out there, some persist in trying to hang us by labelling Dams and Development as "pro-dam" or "anti-dam." To which I must still reply: Hang the Report for what you actually read in it, in print, not for what others may tell you it seems to say between the lines.

The Report speaks for the Commission, and for itself. But as it can't respond to what it has not said, I would like to take this last opportunity:

(1) to challenge some of the assumptions that have been ascribed to it but which in fact are found nowhere in the Report,
(2) to show that, rather than exacerbate and raise the North/South divide, the Commission Report actually helps integrate and lower it, and
(3) to convince you that, by Tuesday evening, we can walk away from each other, we can even walk away from the Report, but we can't escape the real needs, tensions and pressures that the Commission has addressed through its new Framework for Decision Making.

As Nelson Mandela said at the launch, the challenge facing all of us does not arise from the Commission, which no longer exists. Nor does it arise from the Report, which is, after all, only ink on paper. The challenge comes from the world to which we must return.

In listening to the initial wave of responses to the Report I feel reassured that this process has yielded a positive result and in some respects a unique opportunity for our world.

No sensible report should hope for universal endorsement when addressing a controversy such as the dams debate. I am proud to say that we have passed this test of "harmonious irrelevance" with flying colours -- the lively and in some quarters intense response to the Report illustrates this clearly.

More importantly, however, this Report has, within a few weeks of publication, given rise to a remarkable wave of meetings, reviews, and consultations literally across all five continents and across the entire spectrum of institutions. I do not recall any international Report since Brundtland having been studied with equal intensity in Cabinet offices and village houses of local communities. It is a tribute to those who created the Commission to have understood the need for such a process among the communities we serve.

Before looking at where we move from here let me just spend a few moments responding to some of the comments I have seen in recent weeks. I will focus here on those which seem to deviate from what the Report says of means to say. In some instances, however, I have to admit to wondering whether there are two versions of the WCD Report, as I could not even recognise the attributed statements.

• Despite talk of a negative or bleak tone, nowhere in the Report will you read "large dams are good." Nor the converse, that "large dams are bad." Large dams simply are. The Report shows how, where, when and why certain aspects of those dams have performed for better or for worse and, more importantly how we can dramatically improve the decisions to develop water and energy resources for all.
• Despite interpretations that this Report hands a "veto power" over to the minority. No such term or word exists. Where we advocate prior informed consent for projects affecting indigenous peoples we do so with reference to judicial review in case no consent is possible.
• The supreme and independent role of the State as final arbitrator remains intact, despite complaints to the contrary. Nothing in the Report erodes this authority. Strengthening the active role of citizens and making government agencies more accountable is an integral part of democratic nation building.
• The Report does not discriminate according to size. It does not say large dams are worse than small dams. Or vice versa.
• Nowhere in the Report is there support for, or an explicit call for, a dam building moratorium. Dams should be judged on a case by case basis, and pass or fail according to the criteria and guidelines societies set for them.
• Our guidelines offer guidance - not a regulatory framework. They are not laws to be obeyed rigidly. They are guidelines, with a small "g," that illustrate best practice and show all nations how they can move forward. But guide us they should, as they will reduce the risks and costs for all parties involved.
• Some say the Global Review is too harsh on dams in the past, and ignores the best practice in recent years. Ironically, these are the same who claim our criteria and guidelines are impossible, even though they are explicitly rooted in the same best practice they say we ignore.
• The Report does not set uniform, across the board, compensation levels for resettlement. We do not advocate a formula, at say, three times median annual income. What we advocate are criteria and processes that will ensure people are better off than before -- a self-evident objective in development.
• The Report does not set uniform in-stream flows. No river is the same. Even the same river varies from day to day. So rather than say "leave 23 percent of the water in the river, we encourage and establish a framework for local assessment and decision making.

A Second argument I have noted in some comments is that the Report may be fine for developed nations of the North, but discriminates against, ignores and "shackles" the perspective and needs of developing nations of the South.

As someone from the South -- in fact the extreme South in Africa -- and as an active Minister of a Southern government I feel somewhat empowered to comment on this issue. I have been an anti-colonialist all my life. I listened intently to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan's Milleniaum effort to respect and yet empower all nations. WCD responds directly to his challenge.

To argue that a Report which calls for informed choices, participatory decision-making, effective and optimal use of major infrastructure investments and accountability of public services is contrary to the interests of the South, or anti-development, strikes me as both anachronistic and, forgive me, unrealistic and naïve!

The debate about dams is today a debate of the South -- not of the North. It is in the South that dams are being built. It is in the South that the dilemma of pressing needs and limited resources is faced on a daily basis, it is in the South that governments and their citizens are engaged in a continuous debate how to overcome underdevelopment and the painful realities of poverty and inequity. It is in the South that we must confront the dependency on foreign aid, investors and technology transfer.

Let us not fall into the trap of a self-serving elite in the North and the South who characterise the objective of good governance as a Western phenomenon, which we cannot afford in the South. Our Report -- written by a majority of Southerners' -- recognises the challenges we face in developing countries both in terms of nation building and our dependencies in the global economic context. By advocating efficient, effective and accountable decision-making we build on the lessons learnt. We also recognise that without good projects we are unlikely to succeed in attracting capital, technology and partnerships that are essential to overcoming our current resource constraints.

Unlike other Commissions, the WCD was not set up by an elite group of Western consultants and retired white male "experts" to pass down judgements from authority on high. The Commission is young and old, male and female, North and South, dynamic, authoritative and active in the arenas of public and private affairs, and from all corners of the globe.

It also does not consist of a small group of like-minded individuals patting one another on the back and congratulating its collective self. We are -- or rather were -- collectively representative of antagonists who could barely look at one another, let alone speak to one another.

Which brings me to my final argument: to convince all of you that, by Tuesday evening, you can walk away from each other, and from the Report, but you can't escape the real needs, tensions and pressures that the Commission has addressed through its new Framework for Decision Making.

It has been four years since Gland, and our memories are often short term. But let us remember that it was the initial challenge -- a kind of "social contract" among stakeholders in development -- which gave birth to the WCD. To question the credentials or composition of the WCD may be a useful tactic, for either side. But if a group as professionally competent and reflective of the diversity of views of society as the WCD is dismissed as somehow irrelevant -- where else will we turn for developing a new consensus on the role of dams in development? The answer, I'm afraid, is nowhere.

The exciting and undeniable prospect is that while the pressures are out there, in executive board rooms and in villages, the Report is out there in those same places. I know, because we are hearing reports come in that in government agencies in India, in fishing villages of Colombia, in Parliamentary offices of Europe, and in engineering circles in China - tattered copies are being passed back and forth. They are marked up, dog-eared, littered with yellow Post Its. The Report is being discussed, debated, used and above all read.

Some try to blame the messenger for a decline in dam construction -- a situation it did not create. Others try to invest the messenger with powers to stop or govern dam decisions - a mandate it did not have or even want. But neither side can shoot the messenger; as of November 16, 2000 the messenger has ceased to exist. All you are left with is the message.

What is the message? The WCD Report unequivocally affirms that in response to growing development needs, dams remain one important option. To turn that option into an ideological crusade --- by either side and for whatever reason --- would not only be doomed to failure but ultimately disenfranchising: It pre-empts whole societies from making an informed choice which is their sovereign and human right. But an informed choice it must be and that is what the Report aims to support.

We, the former Commissioners, cannot and do not make that informed choice. You can, and I hope you will. Whether idealist, pessimist, skeptic or realist in your reaction to the Report, the question is whether it helps you make that informed choice, and whether doing so will help your interest in the long run. But none of that is possible without continuing the dialogue.

Our Report offers a new approach to decision making. If developers, - public or private, -can respond to this challenge, dams will continue to be built. However, if societies cannot be convinced that a dam is their best and preferred option then opposition will continue to grow - not because of the WCD report but in spite of it.

All of us may have been tempted at various points to give up, and walk away from the WCD process, to go back to our old entrenched positions. We have been tempted to return to the "water war" mentality of the last century, in which one person's gain is another's loss.

But we did not. What brought us back to the table? What brings us together today? I suspect it is the understanding that that mentality is not constructive. We agree that no one can "win" a water war, so let us continue to broker for peace, through a negotiated understanding.

As long as we remain entrenched behind our respective battle lines, vilifying the same faceless enemy, we will not succeed. It is only when - by accident or intent - we wander out onto the neutral ground between the battle lines - only then can our perspective shift. Out there we see things from a new angle, and meet new people and look at new ways out of the stalemate.

Some may call this landscape "No Man's Land," and indeed this barren, inhospitable place between the battle lines is never comfortable or secure. It constantly seems about to be overrun by one side or the other; your own side may accuse you of desertion. But still you stay and talk with these others. The past three years have involved all of us meeting on this neutral ground, speaking with one another, finding a way to end the vicious circle of conflict.

And so, as the bombs continue to burst overhead, and as Berthold Brecht's "struggle of the mountains AND the struggle of the plains" rage on behind us, on both sides of the battle lines, let me simply say: The choice is ours! We have all become part of an important undertaking. We were given an opportunity and I believe that, through our focused investments of time and energy and resources, we have created a far greater opportunity for others in return.

As you may have heard, just this week the Commission has awarded the Zayed Prize for the Environment, the worlds largest environmental prize. Just as water must be for sharing, so too must that award be shared equally not only among the Commissioners, Secretariat and all of you here today who established us and oversaw our work programme, but those thousands of participants who undertook Dams and Development along with us, and who saw WCD as an opportunity. The next two and a half days will show what we are all able to do with that opportunity. The Report is a reference point for the future -- but the future it is not.

One of my colleagues in Africa, upon hearing about the Report from others, chose to see it as presenting a crisis, he worried that the high standards it set, based on best practice, would ultimately place shackles on his country. "It might imprison us," he wrote me. My response is that we all have been imprisoned too long already. We were imprisoned by our prejudices, chained by our assumptions, shackled by our narrow perspectives, bound by our false beliefs. The Report, I hope you will agree, is our chance, at last, to liberate ourselves.

Thank you.