1.0 BACKGROUND

1.1 Introduction

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is a key tool to incorporate the environmental dimension into decision making and for environmental management of dams throughout the project cycle. EIA has been defined as the process of identifying, predicting, evaluating and mitigating the biophysical, social, and other relevant effects of development proposals prior to major decisions being taken and commitments made. EIAs of dams are among the earliest applications of this tool and a large experience both in good and bad practice has accumulated in the last thirty EIAs. Also, governments, bilateral and multilateral donor agencies have adopted a vast array of guidelines, criteria, standards and procedures for EIA. These provide an initial source of information on the evolution of EIA practices, from which lessons can be drawn.

Social Impact Assessment (SIA) is the process of assessing or estimating, in advance, the social consequences that are likely to follow from specific policy actions or project development. Social impacts include all social and cultural consequences to human populations of any public or private actions that alter the ways in which people live, work, play, relate to one another, organise to meet their needs, and generally cope as members of society. SIA has been less widely practised in the context of large dams as a separate analysis; it has often been integrated to EIAs. The rising concerns with displacement of populations without adequate resettlement and compensation highlight the need for a full-fledged SIA, be it conducted as a separate analysis or continue to be part of EIAs.

EIAs and SIAs have contributed to introduce environmental and social concerns into the decision making process on dams. They contributed to identify the impacts of the creation of reservoirs, to introduce consultations to interested groups and affected people, and to foster environmental management of dams. However, concerns have been raised on the effectiveness of EIAs and SIAs in providing adequate support to key decisions on dam projects.

Effective contribution of EIAs and SIAs to decision-making on dams

Improving development effectiveness of dams may require that the environmental and social costs and benefits be adequately identified and accounted for in the economic analysis, as well as in project planning, design and implementation. EIAs and SIAs should be able to provide inputs to project budgets and management, from the feasibility stage on. EIAs and SIAs might have not been sufficiently applied at earlier stages of the decision making process, thus making them of little relevance to the analysis of alternatives to dams. Although the analysis of alternatives to a dam has been part of EIAs, they mostly failed in identifying a non-dam solution to a development need. One of the key arguments of the debate is that EIAs – and to a lesser extent SIAs - have been frequently used to justify an already selected project. Also, although full-fledged, independent SIAs could provide a better focus on social issues, there are some concerns about adding another evaluation procedure to an already complex decision-making process.

The adoption of Sectoral EIA approaches has to be explored as a means to identify the least-impact alternatives. Regional EIAs and SIAs at a river basin level could also contribute to manage the various possible uses of the resource base and to establish multiple development scenarios. The potential of EIA and SIA as planning tools could be further explored, and their linkages with the dam project cycle strengthened.

The scope of EIAs and SIAs

Hydroprojects may have a profound impact on natural habitats and biodiversity, both aquatic and terrestrial. Lack of watershed management may foster erosion/sedimentation processes, curtailing the useful life of the reservoir. Trapping of nutrients and the change of downstream flows may impact the floodplain and estuarine areas. Although the localized impacts of dams are relatively well captured by EIAs/SIAs, the studies have mostly failed to address meso- and global scale impacts of dams. EIAs/SIAs have mostly focused on the dam/reservoir area and its surroundings, without sufficiently taking into account cumulative impacts at the basin level, or the extent of the indirect effects of dams on a regional scale. The social impacts of dams and related structures (reservoir, canals, access roads, etc.) have often been insufficiently assessed, especially with regard to up- and downstream riverine populations.

Scientific uncertainty and social response

The scientific value of EIAs has been often hindered by lack of information on the environment (adequate hydrological models, understanding of ecosystem functioning, the ecological requirements of keystone species, biodiversity distribution and abundance, etc.), the complexity of large river basins that may cover more than one country, and the cumulative basin effects that raise from multiple dam projects on individual rivers. Also, little emphasis was put on the project management at the end of a dam’s useful life. Emerging issues - such as global climate change or the impacts of dams on coastal areas – and changing societal priorities will require flexibility in decisions on project selection, design and operation. As uncertainty cannot be eliminated from a forecasting exercise, risk analysis – including the social acceptance of risk - gains importance in the decision-making context of large projects.

Valuation of environmental and social impacts

EIAs have not sufficiently incorporated the valuation of undisturbed natural areas and of the functions and services they provide to various social groups. The long-term effects are still subjected to large discounting, and little is known on the effectiveness of mitigation and compensation measures to these impacts. Moreover, the maximization of the use of riverine resources for a limited number of purposes has rarely explored the full potential of these resources. Both EIAs and SIAs are valuation exercises, in the sense that they not only forecast changes but also attribute significance to them through socially defined criteria. However, consultations have often been limited to seek validation of EIAs and SIAs findings and proposals. EIA studies have often failed to capture the different values attributed to elements of the environment by the various stakeholders, and to properly address the concerns over rights of ownership and use of natural resources. SIAs are increasingly being proposed as tools more suited to identify these (sometimes contradictory) values and as processes to support social negotiations around them.

Consultation and participation

Incorporating the range of values and social goals vis-a-vis the environment asks for more refined participatory planning approaches, including adequate mechanisms for assessing and negotiating compensations for environmental and livelihood losses. EIAs and SIAs processes have created some opportunities for consultation and participation of affected people at various stages of the project cycle. Further refinement of these tools could contribute to increase the transparency and accountability of decision-making processes.

From evaluation to management of environmental and social impacts

Implementing the recommendations of EIAs and SIAs is still a major issue in the dams debate. The lack of institutional, managerial and technical capacity at various levels, the lack of financial resources, conflicting priorities and mandates, the weak political clout of affected populations and environmental groups, the lack of consultation and participation, the lack of coordination, are some of the factors that have contributed to failures in managing environmental and social impacts of dams.

A review of the performance of environmental management and compensation plans derived from EIAs and SIAs of dams could bring useful insights on the constraints and opportunities for their implementation.

2.0 SCOPE OF WORK

The focus of this thematic review is aimed at: (i) evaluating the effectiveness of EIA and SIA in incorporating environmental and social concerns into the decision making process on large dams (including the consideration of their alternatives), and (ii) identifying ways to improve their usefulness. The review will also identify good practice and recommend new approaches that could be incorporated into the planning and implementation of dams. The review will include:

• an analysis of the current experience of EIAs and SIAs as tools to inform the decision-making on dams: Have the scope of EIAs and SIAs responded to the broad social concerns around dams? How have EIA studies dealt with scientific uncertainty, "contradictory truths" and the precautionary principle?
• an assessment of the effectiveness of EIAs and SIAs as planning tools in preventing, compensating, mitigating or offsetting negative environmental and social impacts, and exploring the opportunities created by dams: to what extent have EIAs and SIAs contributed to address adequately the issues identified in the studies?
• an assessment of the contribution of the EIA and SIA processes in creating negotiation spaces among the different and often contradictory social interests around dam projects.
• an evaluation of the performance of EIAs and SIAs as the basis for management actions: to what extent these tools contributed to efficient and effective environmental management? To what extent they contributed to the adequate mitigation and compensation of social impacts, including resettlement?
• recommendations for modifications in the use of EIAs and SIAs that would improve their performance throughout the planning and project cycle on dams: How to ensure that EIA and SIA conclusions follow through to implementation? What kind of support – financial, managerial, technical, political – is necessary to achieve this? What kind of monitoring and audit systems should be put in place?

This thematic review will orient the analysis of EIA/SIA and practices on environmental and social issues management in the case studies, including: a) to verify if environmental and social studies were undertaken and how were they used in the decision-making process; b) to assess the scope and level of detail of the studies, and the adequacy of the proposed environmental management and social actions; and c) to assess the effectiveness of the implementation of environmental management and social measures based on the EIA/SIA, and identify major constraints. The cross-check survey will determine the extent to which EIAs and SIAs have been used in dam developments.

EIAs and SIAs could provide the framework for incorporating many of the findings and recommendations of most of the proposed thematic reviews on social and environmental issues. In particular, there are strong linkages with the Options Assessment and Institutional Framework thematic areas.

The product of this thematic review will be linked to all the three WCD outputs, namely: (i) for the global review of dams it will provide an assessment of the overall performance of EIAs and SIAs; (ii) for the framework for options assessment and decision making, it will identify good practices and also methods and procedures for EIAs and SIAs; (iii) for the Criteria and Guidelines, it will suggest policies for improving the contributions of EIAs and SIAs to decision-making throughout the project cycle, and to enforce compliance with their recommendations.