South Asia

Participant and Commission Members Feedback on the South Asia Consultation

In response to the questionnaire sent to the participants (the 28 presenters) after the meeting, the overall process of the consultation and the ability of the Commission to organise a meeting of such importance appeared to have made a positive impression on the presenters.

For all the participants who responded to the WCD questionnaire (approximately one third), the consultation was an informative process for individuals and organisations sharing different perspectives on the dams debate. They found the eight panels balanced in terms of the background of the speakers and perspectives represented.

It was an excellent opportunity to hear both sides of the story. -- Sardar Muhammad Tariq, Pakistan

Further, the consultation was found to be a good example of an appropriate mechanism for consultations with civil society and for providing information of appropriate policies and guidelines for future development of dams. However, it was felt that there should have been greater attempts on the part of the WCD to invite directly affected communities to the consultation.

Personally, I found it comforting that people presenting a spectrum of positions on the dams debate were all deeply concerned about trying to respond to the issues around the human predicament. There were shared commitments, for transparency and broad participation in decision making, immediate and adequate compensation for those affected, seriousness in addressing environmental and sustainability concerns, and for an examination of the full range of alternatives, even among individuals whose organisations appear to have diametrically opposite points of view on the debate. The Consultation reinforced my belief that within its two year mandate, the WCD will be able to build on these commitments to give the much needed direction on this important question. -- Bikash Pandey, Nepal

On the selection of papers for presentation, some participants felt that the Commission had to be more selective of the presentations in line with the objectives of the Commission. They recommended that presentations should directly focus on the development effectiveness of dams, their options and alternatives, on the decision-making processes for water resource development, and on the providing reviews of costs and benefits of dam projects. In the suggestions for future consultations some recommended that the WCD should select only those presentations that emphasised issues of immediate relevance to the work of the Commission. One participant recommended that presentations should identify case studies that could be visited as field trips during the consultation.

Some participants wanted more time allocated to presentations to enable better elaboration of all the issues involved. Participants felt that the 15-20 minutes allocated to each speaker were not enough to develop the case of each presentation fully.

One participant felt the Commission had not done enough publicising of the consultation in local languages to encourage greater attendance of observers. Likewise, it was the participant's view that the local media should have been involved to a greater extent to highlight the issues being discussed. Greater efforts were also needed to involve the local affected people's groups in these unique meetings.

The WCD needs to put more emphasis on options assessment than it is doing now. It needs to do much more to gain the confidence of the critics of the WCD process. The pro-dams lobby has, over the last few years, lost a lot of credibility. For a process in which the pro-dams lobby is also a participant, WCD's functioning will have to be more transparent and democratic if it wishes to gain the confidence of the critics. More resources will need to be allocated for the active participation of the anti-dams lobby in the WCD process. -- Himanshu Thakkar, India

All the respondents of the questionnaire strongly backed the need for future regional consultations to be conducted by the WCD.

It was recommended that for future consultations the WCD should compile all the papers that were submitted in the response in the call for submissions/final presentations for the consultation. These should be made available to all the participants in order to give them a broader picture of issues being presented. Participants felt it was important for them to have all the papers since these would help them to communicate the issues raised during the consultation with the government, civil society, NGOs and the media in their respective countries and communities.

To keep the participants engaged in the process, it was suggested by some of them that the WCD should institute the following recommendations:

1. post progress material on the work and process of the Commission on the web page, including participants papers
2. send periodic notes to the participants to inform them of the progress being made.
3. WCD should circulate their activities and proceedings of the consultation to the public.
4. A newsletter or regular mailer should be organised for the presenters.

What did the Commissioners learn from the Consultation? Should these be repeated and can we improve their usefulness to the Commission? My answer is yes, as explained below.

"The most important lesson for me was the direct exposure to the important controversies and the often sharp differences of opinion and experience between dam proponents and opponents. Unhappy experiences of the latter group were evident in most cases as a result of affected people not having received the promised benefits in the form of improved water supplies. At the same time, other aspects of dam construction were frequently agreed upon as being beneficial, including the aspect of land redistribution. In my opinion, these facts explain, justify and underwrite the need for the work of WCD. There is no question in my mind that people are looking to the commission for developing quidelines to mitigate unacceptable adverse impacts of dams.

"Our performance at this first hearing demonstrated objectivity and certainly not a division among commissioners along pro-dam and anti-dam lines. The issues involved are much more complicated, as documented quite well in our drafts of the Strategy and Objective Paper, as well as in the Work Programme. Presentations by representatives of the five South-Asia countries (Bangladesh. India, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka) were well balanced with both sides of the debate on dams presenting their impressions and experience with the effects of dams.

"Personally, I would prefer in the future a more direct exchange of opinions (without necessarily calling this a debate). Such an approach would clarify the issues involved more clearly and sharply, thereby providing the commissioners with more specific information and hence valuable guidance on how to define proposed solutions to some of these very difficult issues."

The more we know how strongly stakeholders feel about their personal gains and losses, the better the commissioners will be prepared to draw conclusions and make really effective contributions. The question therefore arises whether future regional consultations should be adjusted to encourage such an exchange between antagonists. For one, I am in favour of trying a more results oriented approach for the next hearings."

Commissioner Jan Veltrop

"We were all pleasantly surprised at how well the consultations went. I felt they were well-managed and informative. Again, we have learnt lessons from this first effort which we can be aware of next time. In March I would suggest that we take some time to evaluate the Colombo event from a cost-benefit point of view both in terms of dollars and qualitatively in terms of our other objectives."

Commissioner Judy Henderson