World Commission on Dams / Reuters Media Symposium 14 July 1999

Opening Remarks

Professor Kader Asmal

Welcome to all participants - particularly:

• The journalists and representatives of the media.
• The five distinguished speakers
  • - Mr Maurice Strong - Earth Council Institute and Board Member of the UN Foundation.
  • - Ms Alison Bartle International Hydropower Association
  • - Mr Biksham Gujja Worldwide Fund for Nature.
  • - Mr George Verghese, Centre for Policy Studies, New Delhi
  and
  • - Peter Bosshard of the Declaration of Berne.
• Observers from a number of UK based organisations with an active interest in the issue of dams.
• Joji Carino, my fellow Commissioner.
• And the representatives of the Reuters Foundation and IUCN - The World Conservation Union - our hosts and the sponsors of this seminar.

When we first discussed the idea of such a seminar with the Reuters foundation and IUCN I did so not only as Chair of the World Commission on Dams, but also as Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry in South Africa. In my latter capacity I learned two quick lessons, very early on. Any dam whatever its faults or merits will make a quick headline, usually focussing on its potential impacts on the environment and people. Secondly, most journalists express frustration at the seemingly contradictory facts that are invoked by the various interest groups in support of their case.

Let me make a small confession - my fate as Minister and Chair of this Commission has been subject to similar frustrations! Whether this may explain my recent change in portfolio in President Mbeki's new cabinet I leave for others to decide.

However, I remain Chair of this unusual and in many ways groundbreaking commission on dams. Together with my fellow Commissioners we have become part of a process of dialogue, independent review and analysis that cuts to the heart of the sustainable development discourse.

Dams are after all, monuments of development. Many of you will have reported on some of the most important or perhaps controversial dams. Is it not astonishing that in less than 90 years the world has managed to build more than 45 000 large dams. For those of you not familiar with definitions - the International Commission on Large Dams (ICOLD) broadly defines a large dam as having a dam wall of at least 15 metres in height.

Such global statistics tend to over simplify the picture however. For instance the highest dam in the world is 335 meters high - the Rogun Dam in Tadjikistan. Yet most dams according to the ICOLD World Register of Dams (80%) are in fact below 45 meters. The world's biggest producer of electricity is the bi-national dam of Itaipu in Brazil/Paraguay generating more than 12,000 MW of electricity. While the IHA estimates that 20% of the world's electricity is generated by hydropower most dams in the world are in fact built for irrigation purposes, 48%.

It is a complex picture we encounter when assessing the role of dams in development. The debate over whether dams are good or bad has become one of the most intensely contested issues in sustainable development today. Unfortunately this debate has in recent years become increasingly polarised and conflictual - at times, more reflective of the frustrations of each side with the other than focused on the difficult choices associated with managing our water and energy resources.

Dams have become both a symbol and an arena for the global discourse on what we mean by sustainable development. Caught between the imperative to assure supply of water and electricity to domestic, agricultural and industrial users and the desire to ensure that environmental considerations and human rights are not ignored in the process, dams encapsulate the choices and dilemma's faced by every society.

The advent of a Commission such as this one therefore not only responds to a particular technology debate but also reflects a number of significant developments in our body politic. Let me briefly mention some of these, which I believe to be defining elements in the WCD's history and approach:

• Greater knowledge and awareness about the ecological and social costs of development. The notion exposed by any of the early dams builders that any drop of water which reaches the ocean is wasted no longer stands up to scrutiny when ecological functions are considered in assessing costs and benefits of a dam.
• The advent of civil society both nationally and internationally as an increasingly influential voice in public policy making. The principle of public accountability and participation have changed the way Governments take decisions.
• The role and influence of multilateral financing institutions and capital markets in funding large-scale development projects has grown enormously. National development decisions are increasingly influenced by the operating rules of these actors - essentially internationalising many national investment decisions.
• The emergence of the private sector as a major actor in shaping national and global public policy choices based on its ability to withhold capital and technology means that investors and corporations have begun to play an increasingly important role in the policy domain.

In the face of such developments it has become evident that new mechanisms and processes for dialogue are needed in an increasingly interdependent world. Relying on the traditional inter-governmental fora without acknowledging that civil society and the private sector must be represented at the table alongside governments would be to ignore reality. The reality in the today's debate on dams is that it is civil society and the private sector who will to a large extent determine whether governmentss will choose a dam as their preferred option.

The April 1997 workshop convened by IUCN and the World Bank in Gland, Switzerland was an explicit recognition of the need to bring all interest groups of the debate together. The unanimous recommendation of the workshop participants to work together in establishing an independent, international Commission proved once again that in the most conflict ridden of environment an open and transparent dialogue can produce remarkable results. Perhaps without knowing it at the time the Gland group had begun to design a new kind of Commission.

Let me briefly highlight some of the unique characteristics of the World Commission on Dams which were agreed over an eight month period of close co-operation among the so-called reference group members composed of the workshop participants and IUCN and World Bank staff as facilitators.

• The Commission - its mandate, objectives, approach and membership were defined through a consultative process with the reference group. It was a bottom-up rather than top-down process. Negotiating a fair and transparent framework for this multi-stakeholder process was essential to ensure that all parties to the conflict could feel reassured that their perspective would receive a fair hearing.
• The Commissioners - rather than selecting a body of neutral men (speak retired elder statesmen) the decision was made to invite 11 distinguished members who are actively involved in the dams debate - recognisable leaders among the respective constituencies. Who would command trust and respect. The critical and defining element in such an approach is a balance of perspectives rather than supposed neutrality.
• The Funding - the decision was taken by the reference group that financial resources should be sought from public, private and civil society sector contributors. This would prevent undue dependence on one sector and demonstrate multi-stakeholder support for this Commission. To date we have received pledges from 35 contributors - perhaps an unprecedented achievement in the financing of international commissions.
• The WCD Forum - based on the successful model of the original reference group the Commission has established the WCD Forum as a principal mechanism for dialogue and consultation throughout the WCD process involving utilities, indigenous people, corporations, governments, NGO's and international financing institutions. Interestingly, the Forum not only provides a mechanism for dialogue between the WCD and its members, but also among its members many of whom have never met face to to face despite long-standing conflicts.
• The WCD's Work Programme - by now you may have noticed that there is a common thread that runs throughout the WCD process - namely the objective of bringing people from different perspectives together to work on the issues at hand. Dialogue becomes the first step in conflict management. Our work programme consisting of major case studies of focal dams in ten countries, seventeen thematic review papers on key issues prepared by global teams of lead writers and our survey of 150 dams across the world all aim to reproduce the same approach. Each activity is implemented by a group of distinguished experts drawn from across the spectrum of the debate. It is without doubt the most comprehensive and representative review of dams ever undertaken. Most importantly, the Commission will maintain an open door policy throughout its work. It will hold a series of regional and issue focused consultations where Commissioners will listen to submissions from any interested party. In addition written submissions have been invited and are being received from all corners of the world.
• The WCD Secretariat - even in our Secretariat located in Cape Town we have maintained the principle that balance requires diversity not only in terms of expertise but also professional backgrounds. A team of highly skilled individuals recruited from Governments, NGO's, the private sector and academia have become our operational arm in this global review process.

Anyone familiar with the fault lines in the debate will realise the enormous challenge of such an approach. However, one year into the process I am pleased to report that we have made good progress. The Commission has met four times and achieved a remarkable degree of consensus on the WCD process and key issues to be addressed. The work programme is currently being implemented across the globe involving hundreds of individuals and many institutional partnerships. Our financial situation has improved considerably. The WCD has received firm pledges and contributions covering 75% of its total budget.

Four major challenges remain. The first one is straightforward - securing the remaining funds which we hope to accomplish by September 1999. The other three are more complex. The Commission has only been given two years to complete it work, an extraordinary challenge given the number of dams, the range of issues and the diversity of actors and perspectives. Time is not on our side.

The third challenge relates to the strategies of various interest groups - particularly the lobby groups on either side of the debate. An independent Commission is desirable in theory and rather discomforting in practice. Independence implies loss of control over the outcome. This Commission is both an opportunity and a threat. Maintaining its integrity and independence in the face of concerted lobbying has taken a great deal of time and effort.

Finally the spotlight will also be on us as Commissioners. Can we, this diverse group of individuals drawn from across the spectrum of the debate really craft some meaningful agreements? Personally, I feel very confident after the four meetings we have held that we have assembled an outstanding group of individuals. Without wishing to second guess the future I would not be surprised if we find that on a majority of issues there is little disagreement.

Our greatest challenge is to avoid being prescriptive by seeking to make decisions on behalf of others. Each dam is a unique undertaking - both in terms of its location and design as well as its social, economic and political context.

The principle of informed choice lies at the heart of our work. Participation, transparency and knowledge of the full costs and benefits are essential elements of successful decision making in development. Dams per se may not be the problematic issue. Perhaps it is the flawed process of decision making that has been at the centre of the conflicts associated with dams. The distinguished panel of speakers, who have been invited to address you this morning will provide us with a broad summary of dam achievements, failures and unresolved questions.

I hope that as journalists you will find this seminar informative as well as stimulating. Dams lend themselves to communicating the complex choices and trade-offs we face in the search for sustainable development. In my new capacity as Minister of Education I am confronted with the permanent need for didactic tools. If you write or report on development issues - whether in the North or the South - you may find the dams debate a very helpful tool for your work.

We hope you will also keep an eye on our work over the next 12 months. Thank you for joining us for today's seminar.