3 October 2000
WCD Locks In SE Asian Launch
Regional Launch of Final Report in Bangkok November 24

Who: WCD Commissioners Dr Judy Henderson and Dr Jan Veltrop and WCD Staff
What: Presentation of Final Report Dams and Development to Asia
When: 10:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. on Friday 24 November 2000. Press briefing 8:30 to 9:30 a.m.
Where: Central Plaza Hotel, Bangkok
Why: The WCD has, by international mandate, (1) reviewed the development effectiveness of large dams and assess alternatives; (2) developed a framework for assessing options and decision-making processes for water resources, energy services and development; and (3) developed internationally-acceptable criteria and guidelines for planning, designing, construction, operation, monitoring, and decommissioning of dams.
Local contact: siravilai@ait.ac.th

Twenty nine months after its birth, seventeen months after it began its case study of Pak Mun dam in Thailand, twelve months after starting a Cross-Check Survey of 45 dams in Asia and Australia, nine months after a Regional Consultation in Hanoi and five months after reading 338 Submissions from the region, the World Commission on Dams has completed its work.

To fulfil its mandate, the Commission will present its comprehensive global analysis, independent findings and authoritative criteria and guidelines for action in Bangkok on the 24th of November, with a goal of turning controversies of the past into consensus for the future.

"The proof of the pudding is always in the eating," said WCD Chair Kader Asmal. "So the real test of our work will be whether our report helps countries meet the day-to-day needs of our thirsty, hungry citizens without exhausting the waters that sustain us all. The measure of our progress over the last two years is how practical and useful our collective work has been for all. Only then will it endure."

Prominent among its issues is the Pak Mun dam in Thailand, itself part of a larger debate on development throughout East and Southeast Asia. The government of Thailand readily agreed to let an independent team of Thai experts analyse and prepare a case study commissioned for the WCD on Pak Mun dam. The team has completed that study and upon its release, fuelled debate and news accounts.

But Pak Mun is merely one of ten dams selected across the world as part of a case study programme. And those case studies are a fraction of all the evidence prepared for the WCD, such as a global cross-check survey of dams which included, regionally: Japan, Laos, Malaysia, the Philippines, Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia and Australia.

All these studies, reviews, surveys and reports, like Pak Mun, provide inputs to the WCD Final Report. They concern the planning, decision making, performance, construction, operation and decommissioning of large dams. The Commission then uses them to frame criteria and guidelines on future decisions on water and energy development options. The WCD's findings, lessons and criteria and guidelines will be presented in its final report, to be presented in Bangkok on 24th November.

"All our commissioned case studies and thematic reviews are inputs to, not outputs of the Commission. The research which goes into the WCD does not, by itself, pass judgement, or make recommendations," said Secretary General Achim Steiner. "Only one document embodies the conclusions of and speaks with one voice from the Commission, and that is our Final Report, which will first be released in London on the 16th of November, then to all regions right afterward."

In the case of Thailand, the case study authors provided the WCD with important insights. Dr. Sansanee Choowaew of Mahidol University's Faculty of Environment and Resource Studies and a key member of the WCD's Pak Mun Case Study team put the lessons from the Pak Mun dam in context:

"The project complied with the standards of the cabinet at the time and was thus approved. If the project also complied with the international funding agency's standards at the time of appraisal in 1990, many of the serious unexpected impacts could have been avoided. The Pak Mun project has given an expensive lesson that expected benefits from fisheries turn out to be much lesser than unexpected costs for fisheries management, for fisheries compensation, and for complicated conflict resolution concerning social aspects of fisheries."

Each major study, report, review and survey prepared for the WCD has been rigorously peer-reviewed by the primary interests involved. In the case of Pak Mun, for example, that includes review and comments by the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (EGAT), the World Bank, and civil society organisations. Not all reviewers will agree with the authors' conclusions in the study.

However, reviewers of the Pak Mun study identified a number of issues where interpretations of the evidence continue to diverge. Among the disagreements are questions of the scope of environmental impacts and their mitigation, as well as the economic rationale of Pak Mun within Thailand's overall power generating system:

• World Bank country director, Mr. Shivakumar: "EGAT complied with the World Bank standards at the time of appraisal in 1990. The height of the dam was reduced and its location changed to drastically reduce resettlement of persons and to preserve the Kaeng Tana and Kaeng Saphue rapids which are tourist attractions. This was done at a substantial sacrifice in power benefits…The method the Bank used to evaluate the economic viability of the project was the appropriate one for a power project which was being constructed as a component of an integrated system. And this methodology complied with the Bank's guidelines."



• EGAT Dep. Governor, Mr. M.L. Chanaphun Kridakorn: "The power benefit of the Pak Mun Dam is the core benefit of the project. Other benefits such as fishery, irrigation, etc. are secondary, and are not necessary for project justification. The peak generation of 126-136 MW has been achieved in 1995-1999 indicating that Pak Mun can serve more than the dependable capacity of the peak month used in the planning criteria which was already conservative. Further, Pak Mun dam construction did not induce a sudden damage on fish diversity in the Mun river. Evidence reveals that the number of fish species found during the year 1969 to the year 1993 was only 158. And EGAT paid compensation not only to directly affected families but also to indirectly affected."

The WCD case studies aim to present an independent view as well as documenting differing perspectives on the evidence presented by the study team. Thus, it incorporates comments it felt were matters of fact and accuracy that could be independently verified. Where significant differences remain, these are noted in the executive summary, and the report, and in the annexes where the full text of reviewers comments are reproduced for all parties to consider. In the interest of transparency, participation and inclusiveness, WCD distributes the report to the public, partners, participants and media, and posts it on the web site: www.dams.org.

A recent editorial in the Bangkok Post called the study "an eye-opening report," but then asked, appropriately, "What next? The study was done by an independent, neutral party to tell it like it is. If respected, the long-denied truth can help resolve conflicts between the people and the state in the face of spiralling natural resource wars."

Indeed it can. The Pak Mun case study provided one of many insights into the work of the Commission. The WCD Final Report goes beyond learning from the past and presents a new framework for decision making with clear directions and practical guidance. It does not tell either the people or the state what to do. It does, however, provide the clear evidence, historic context and a step-by-step framework from which all parties can carefully develop lessons from the past to shape policies for their future.