Three "Reality Checks" of the WCD Report - DAMS Newsletter 9, March 2001

Press Releases / In the Media / Newsletters / Speeches / Events / Calendar / Non-English

the WCD Newsletter
No 9 : March 2001

Home


Newsletters:

	March 2001

	December 2000

	August 2000

	April 2000

	December 1999

	September 1999

	June 1999

	March 1999

	December 1998


Printing?

	Download the PDF version of the printed March 2001 Newsletter (348k)

[Newsletter Contents]

Three "Reality Checks" of the WCD Report
Economics & Project Development

How might proposed water development schemes in the pipeline stack up against the WCD recommendations, written on paper? Or vice versa? Compliance may still be in the eye of the beholder. But several potential case studies showed the readiness and ability for a direct and rapid response by all parties to rise to the WCD challenge.

It is no great secret that some actors (on both sides) in the debate over dams and development harbour deep misgivings or serious reservations about the potential impact of Dams and Development.

From the first hour of the Forum, various participants focused their fire through several major concerns about the second part of the Report. Some, speaking on behalf of governments and industry, argued that the criteria and guidelines, if widely adopted, could potentially 1) drag out the planning and decision-making process, 2) generate unreasonably high costs, 3) hamper the needs of developing nations, and 4) threaten the sovereignty of elected decision makers.

Yet, on the second day, it was individual governments, industries and contractors who stood up and affirmed that, when it came right down to it, they not only believe they can rise to the challenge, but the criteria and guidelines could prove useful and practical to their work. NGOs, who felt the Report was too balanced in favour of dams, made it perfectly clear that these presentations during, after and between the official Forum programme did not constitute any endorsement or agreement with the project in question. Interpretation of the word "guidelines" alone became a subject of debate.

But what has emerged unequivocally is that these priorities, guidelines and criteria are already being rigorously put to the test, by both sides. There is now a common measuring tool, a yardstick, a raised bar over which to vault. Several proponents of specific dams assert their confidence that the project can and will clear the hurdles; while vigilant NGOs will be holding those hurdles in place to test whether they in fact can and do.

Notably, all three case studies and reality checks arose from developing economies of the South...

It would be tempting to argue that the WCD Report mostly illustrates how far apart both sides are in using the recommendations to support their side. But that would ignore the level of debate only two years earlier, in which players could not even agree to disagree, much less talk to one another. While there is wide interpretation of what the WCD's recommendations mean for these projects, the debate and discussion has been given focus, structure, a level playing field, and an open space for dialogue in which, in each case, proponents and opponents addressed each other cordially, often by their first names.

Skuifraam Dam, South Africa

In an arid landscape, the South African Department of Water Affairs and Forestry sought to meet real demand for water in Cape Town, increasing from 350 million cubic metres in 1997 to 600 million cubic metres in 2011.

Of two dozen options evaluated by the public among them aquifers, sewage reuse, desalinisation, alien vegetation clearance the 780 million rand project, Skuifraam Dam, rising 60 metres high across the Berg River, appeared top on the short list.

Last November, six months after feasibility studies, public consultations, appeals and as the project was being authorised, the WCD Report was launched (by the nation's former water minister) in London. And the Report recommended that "dams in the pipeline" be assessed to identify improvements.

DWAF initiated an internal review against the Report's chapter 9, with guidelines for good practice, where relevant (the Berg is not a shared river, has no productive fisheries, and involves no displacement, for example). Its findings, according to Director General of DWAF Mike Muller, were that Skuifraam complies well with WCD guidelines in the planning stage, and that while the design, implementation and operations phases are still to be implemented, the dam "will substantially meet guidelines in the future."

In feedback, Muller listed strengths of the guidelines to promote good planning and decision making, to promote integrity and accountability, and to promote a holistic perspective. He also noted difficulties open to interpretation, level of detail, overlaps, lack of legal context, relevance to particular projects, and addressing existing dams.

He concluded that the guidelines "should be emphasised as a checklist of best practice, not a list for compliance for which it is not appropriate." He added that "a guideline manual for each phase of a project would be helpful."

Skuifraam Dam opponents felt the Report, its guidelines and the governments support of the WCD process, required a fresh, collaborative review. Together both sides could investigate, check implementation of conservation and demand management strategies, review of existing analytical reports, ascribe a correct value to water as a resource, and redress inequity of allocation and access to water.

"We are committed to working with government to find economically viable and environmentally acceptable solutions to the problem of water provision and the implementation of practical measures to prevent water wastage," said John Taylor of the Skuifraam Action Group. In a separate letter to SA DWAF Minister Ronnie Kasrils, Liane Greef of the Environmental Monitoring Group staked the outcome of such collaboration in bold terms: "If a joint study clearly and unambiguously illustrates that the dam is indeed the last resort and is the best option, then we will support it. Alternatively, if this collaborative study highlights the feasibility and true economic viability of alternative, then these should rather be pursued."

Muller said DWAF was not prepared to do another review of its decision, given the process undertaken to date and time pressures. But he agreed to a joint meeting with all parties as proposed by Greef, agreed to set up mechanism for interaction, and ensured provision of whatever information can be made available.

Nam Theun 2, Laos

After returning to Lahmeyer Meritic, as project manager of Nam Theun 2 in Laos, former WCD Secretariat member Engelbertus Oud was asked to assess whether a scheme in the pipeline could, in fact, measure up to the standards and guidelines established under the report.

Could `sustainable' and `development' coexist in the same phrase, as well as in the same project?

The NT2 project, a 50 metre, US $1.1 billion joint venture between private developers and the Lao government, would, if constructed, divert water from the Nam Theun to Xe Bang Gai at 200 cubic metres per second. It would have an installed capacity of 1,070 MW, generate 6000 GWh/a, and export 90 percent to neighbouring Thailand.

It would also displace 4,800 people upstream and impact an estimated 40,000 downstream.

The project is stalled, currently awaiting a power purchase agreement with the Thai electricity utility, a concession agreement with the Lao government, and a decision from the World Bank on whether to grant guarantees and other financial assistance to the project.

Both Oud, on behalf of developers, and IRN, on behalf of NGOs and affected people, have used the WCD guidelines as a "reality check" standard to determine whether the project has measured up, or should, in fact, proceed.

After and outside the official proceedings of the Forum, Oud compared NT2 against the WCD's recommendations on: resettlement policy; environmental mitigation policy; public participation, education and training. He prepared two checklists for measuring compliance; one based on the stage of development, and the other based on the guidelines, with 17 objectives per guideline.

After explaining reasons for any non-compliance, Oud stated that "the project has complied with so many of the WCD guidelines prior to their existence," and "is an ideal testbed to check the workability of the WCD criteria and guidelines."

Not so fast, said the NGOs, who argue that the WCD guidelines should be used to check the workability of projects like NT2. Indeed, IRN did just that starting on November 16, 2000. It evaluated NT2 against: comprehensive options assessment; gaining public acceptance; identifying risks; and addressing existing dams.

On each point, NGOs argued that the project came up short, noting, for example, that options were not adequately assessed: "In 1997, the Bank commissioned a Study of Alternatives to Nam Theun 2, done by hydropower consultants Lahmeyer. The study focused on how the country could meet its commitments to provide electricity to Thailand, rather than on other options by which water and other resources could be utilized to provide revenue and alternative livelihoods."

Bujagali Dam, Uganda

According to the magazine Development Today, the Bujagali hydro power project in Uganda is likely to become a test case for how Nordic aid agencies will follow up on the recommendations of the World Commission on Dams.

The project is currently in the last stage of lender due diligence which will include the release of the EIA next month in the World Bank Info Shop.

Sweden expects to make an independent assessment of the project, while Norway will rely on World Bank studies. SIDA also plans to conduct followup studies of two dams funded by Nordic donors during the 1990s.

While both sides of the dams debate are reserving the right to interpret the guidelines as they see fit, all welcome the Report as useful in identifying points of agreement, and disagreement, and moving the discussion forward.

In a public statement, AES Nile Power, the developer of the 250 MW hydropower project in Uganda, said it "supports WCD's effort and are convinced that its project meets and exceeds the principles of the WCD's strategic priorities." AES has developed the Bujagali hydro project over the last five years in the absence of the WCD findings. During this time, AES has pursued its principles of best practice in order to supply the energy needs of Uganda in a sustainable and environmentally prudent manner."

The company maintains that six of the seven WCD strategic priorities affirm the project, as AES has worked to gain public acceptance, assess options, sustain river and livelihoods, recognise entitlements and secure benefits, ensure compliance and share rivers across boundaries.

However, other viewpoints suggest that this will be the subject of further discussion IRN uses guidelines from those same priorities to note that:

on 'needs assessment' Bujagali will not bring power to the rural poor;

on 'increasing efficiency' Uganda has no thorough evaluation of DSM options;

on 'comprehensive options assessment' Uganda has excellent renewable energy potential, but project proponents have dismissed these in favor of Bujagali;

on 'cumulative effects' Bujagali Dam will be the third dam in one short stretch of the Nile, yet neither of the two previous projects had environmental impact studies;

On 'risk,' the project has big risks for Uganda's taxpayers, and yet public discourse on the terms of the government's agreement with AES has been minimal.

Home / Search / Site Map / Contact Us / Links