6 June 2001
CIWEM Response to the WCD report
The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management

Dear Sir,

CIWEM Response to the WCD report

The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM) is an independent professional body representing managers, and other professionals, who are responsible for the stewardship of this country's environmental assets. CIWEM's agreed purpose is to develop and promote the better and integrated management of the environment; to foster a better understanding of water and environmental issues and to enhance the quality of people's lives. This is achieved through CIWEM's Royal Charter; education, training and development; dissemination of information; conferences and events; research and publications; contact with Government, agencies and other bodies; partnerships with other organisations, and the publication of Policy Position Statements (PPS).

CIWEM welcomes the chance to comment on this document. Our comments are as follows:

CIWEM feels that the report is long, repetitious in many places and does not read easily. In some places, it appears to be anti-dam rather than objective. While it is appropriate to provide full support to those in danger of being displaced by a dam, there is a heavy focus on this issue.

The report has very little to say explicitly about the UK. However, CIWEM feels that if the principles being applied follow the concepts of sustainable development, it can only do the reputation of dams good in the future compared with now.

CIWEM believes that there needs to be a comprehensive programme of water conservation before a dam or reservoir is built to make sure that existing water resources are being used
effectively before more are built. In the main report, there are only 6 pages of discussion about water supply dams. CIWEM feels that this is surprisingly little considering the importance worldwide of water supply dams.

The report criticises water supply dams for having poor financial performance. It then states that this is because charges for water supplied in developing countries are rarely sufficient to recover capital and operating costs. However, this is not the fault of the dam, and is to do with the water tariffs, and those who set them. This issue is affordability - there is no point setting the high tariff needed to recover costs if consumers cannot afford to pay it. The point applies whether the water comes from dams, rivers or aquifers.

There is little recognition of the benefit that municipal water supplies have brought in improving health and economic well being, particularly for women of poorer communities who would otherwise often have to use a polluted unhealthy source or buy water from water vendors at greatly inflated prices. CIWEM feels that if health benefits could be valued they would probably outweigh the costs.

In Chapter 8 (Option Assessment) most of the proposals are sensible, although somewhat idealistic. Implementation in developing countries may be difficult, but should be tried. In particular, the factor of planning blight does need consideration, even when the scheme does not go ahead.

The report only considers as stakeholders those adversely affected. If a scheme does not get built, or does not work properly then the beneficiaries are affected also. CIWEM suggests that all beneficiaries and potential beneficiaries are considered stakeholders, and that full and wide stakeholder involvement should be considered.

With regard to impact assessment, all environmental, social, health and cultural heritage aspects should be considered. For example, often the increased water supply will have appreciable social and health benefits. These should form part of the assessment, even though prediction may not be easy.

Owners of dams should be further encouraged to continue with post project monitoring and evaluation. However, when permission is required for further dams, evaluation studies are extremely useful.

CIWEM feels that the review section of the report is over-critical and written in a biased way. The relevant points could have been made without this criticism and bias. The forward process is sensible, if somewhat idealistic. However, this should not stop implementation in all countries. However CIWEM feels that this report is a positive step in proposing that constructive dialogue and consensus overrides division and polarisation. In the review section, there are a number of cases where serious but unsupported allegat!ons dialogue and consensus overrides division and polarisation.

In the review section, there are number of cases where serious but unsupported allegations are made, and others where facts shown in the figures do not support the criticism in the text. This biased writing alters the balance of the review.

We hope these comments are of help to you. If you wish us to expand upon, or clarify , any of the points we have raised, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Yours sincerely,
Nick Reeves
Executive Director


Nick Reeves BA, DMS, FloD, MILAM, FIHort,
15 John Street, London WC1N 2EB Registered Charity No.1043409
Executive Director Tel 0207831 3110
Fax 020 7405 4967
E-Mail: admin@ciwem.org.uk
Website: www.ciwem.org.uk