Is The WCD Report Pro or Anti-Development?

"It is one thing to find fault with an existing system. It is another thing altogether, a more difficult task, to replace it with an approach that is better." - Nelson Mandela 16 Nov 2000

The WCD report has been public just one month, but lively reactions are already streaming in from all corners of the globe and all of the constituencies interested in dams - from local fishermen in Colombia, Zimbabwean dam managers, US sports fisherman and members of the European Parliament. Among the more critical reactions, one merits particular attention as it suggests that, at root, the WCD report may be interpreted as anti-development.

If implementing the WCD recommendations leads to fewer dams being built, the argument appears to run, are we not asking developing countries to forego much-needed water and energy development, thus delay-ing or abandoning benefits which the rich countries awarded themselves with-out compunction?

The report is clear in recognizing the large, unmet demand for water and energy, and in noting that this demand will continue to grow in the fore-seeable future. It recognizes that, when all is said and done, societies have a sovereign right to deter-mine their development pathways. And it notes in more than one place that, when the different options for water and energy development have been assessed, a large dam may prove to be the best option. In fact, the criteria for decision-making on water and energy development set forth in the report are neutral in terms of whether or not a dam - or indeed any other option - is the right solution.

Thus the report should not be interpreted as anti-development. Instead, the Commission has moved beyond outmoded and often simplistic notions of what development really is, and deliberately placed itself in the forefront of thinking on how to determine, and then reach, the goals that societies set for themselves.

The notion that short-term sacrifice was acceptable if it put the country on a fast track to prosperity, since the resultant wealth would serve to correct the temporary imbalances, has lost much of its credibility. The saying that "a rising tide floats all boats" no longer convinces. We now know that a rising tide does not float all boats. In fact, the model tended to aggravate social inequities, and encourage environmental destruction, leaving the rich better off, but the poor more marginalized and resentful. It is not a sustainable model. The failure to respond to this has done more harm to dams as an option than any anti-dam campaign could ever do.

It is no longer accept-able to hide behind aggre-gate statistics of water delivered to farms, or megawatts contributed to the grid. The full impact of a development project - positive and negative - will be the basis for future judgement, whether in the North or in the South. Cost-benefit analysis is an important tool for decision-makers, but yields the right result only if all the relevant costs and benefits are factored in and given the right weight.

With large dams, and indeed with many other large-scale projects, this was often not the case.

New development thinking is impatient of abstract notions, and centres on the human being. In the end, development is appropriate if it serves individuals, communities and societies. And it must serve not just some in society but must yield benefits to all. The WCD report works from a notion of sustainable development. Development must rest on the three legs of economic efficiency, social equity and environmental sustainability.

Each of these has had its champions. The champions of economic efficiency have pointed to the role that market mechanisms can play in allocating resources and ensuring the sort of robust economy that offers real development opportunities to individuals, communities and societies.

The champions of social equity have, in the past few years, gained considerable strength through the conver-gence of human rights thinking and development theory. It is now well recognized that democratic institutions, individual freedoms, human security, and a governance model based on openness, participation and account-ability offer the best guarantee of lasting development.

The third leg, environmental sustainability, has been slower to converge with the rest. Although sustainable development gained universal acceptance at the Earth Summit ten years ago, most members of the environ-mental community, once seen as anti-development, accept that environmental goals will only, ultimately, be achieved within a framework that respects human rights and responds to human needs.

The WCD was an experiment in applying this new approach to development practice. Implementing its recommendations, while adding new requirements at the front end of the project cycle, will in all likelihood avoid costs and delays further down the line.

The WCD experience will reinforce a form of development which respects human rights, ensures equitable distrib-ution of development benefits, and fits within a frame set by the need for environmental care. Far from being anti-development, Dams and Development is likely to be seen as reinforcing development through speeding the transition from traditional approaches based on political and financial power, to the new consensus emerging around the notion of sustainable human development.