Opening Remarks

Ladies and gentlemen, friends and distinguished colleagues, it is with great regret that I am not able to be with you in person this morning on the eve of this important Congress. Since I received the invitation from President Aly Shady, I have instructed my staff to actively protect these few days from other callings on the time of a Minister. Unfortunately though, at the last minute, I have been frustrated by events in the education sector in South Africa that require my presence. This in no way reflects on the importance I attach to your organisation or the importance of a constructive dialogue between us. I regret that I have missed an opportunity to visit the beautiful country in which you are holding this meeting - such an appropriate setting to hold your Golden Jubilee, with centuries of irrigation history and home to one of the oldest water courts. My sincere apologies.

At the outset, I would also like to personally thank all those who are already participating in the WCD process - those in our case study countries, the consultative group of key organisations which we call the WCD Forum, and those that have provided submissions to us on a wide range of issues. In particular, I thank President Aly Shady for his involvement and interest in the work of the Commission through the WCD Forum and in coordinating the ICID position paper. I will start my address with a few words on the nature of the debate and the role of the WCD before highlighting the importance of closer interaction of ICID in the WCD process over the forthcoming months.
s

Dams and development

No doubt many of you will have experience with some of the most important, successful, and maybe controversial dams. There is clearly evidence to support the view that many dams have played an important role in national development. Similarly there is evidence that many have given rise to environmental or social consequences that are increasingly deemed unacceptable by society.

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 one side with the other, than focused on the difficult choices associated with managing our water and energy resources.

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.

Challenges for the WCD

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 environments an open and transparent dialogue can produce remarkable results.

Anyone familiar with the fault lines in the debate will realise the enormous challenge facing the WCD in fulfilling its mandate. However, fifteen months into the process I am pleased to report that we have made good progress.

The Commission has met five times and achieved a remarkable degree of consensus on the WCD process. Nine case studies are well underway around the globe that will provide us with extensive lessons. A cross check survey of 150 dams has been initiated, that together with the case studies, will shed light of the effectiveness of dam projects and the scale of their benefits and impacts. Seventeen thematic reviews are underway involving more that 300 writers and reviewers on such diverse but inter-related issues as reservoir induced displacement, international trends in project financing, irrigation and food security, and regulation and compliance.

We have held two regional consultations for South Asia and Latin America where both proponents and opponents of dams have had the opportunity to put their case directly to the Commissioners. We have also received hundreds of submissions from individuals and organisations keen to place their views on the Commission's table.

By design, our work brings us together with people representing a wide range of perspectives. Providing balance to the points of view is a paramount principle of WCD and is rigorously honoured in our discussions and assessments of the points presented to us, whether they be from advocacy groups or technical associations. Despite our determination to be balanced and independent, we have been labeled an anti-dam commission by some proponents of large dams. Believe it or not, some opponents of dams claim just as vehemently that we are pro-dam. We are neither. I would call on you to judge us by our outputs in due course rather than attempting to pre-judge our motives.

Based on our experience so far, I am now even more convinced of the correctness of our approach and the open and inclusive process that only such a Commission can provide. By bringing all sides of a multi-faceted debate along with us, a unique chance is provided to overcome the current paralysis facing decision making. Clear support for this position has been forthcoming. To date, 37 public, private, and civil society organisations have pledged funds to the process. Through the WCD Forum, 57 institutions representing a broad cross section of interests, views and institutions have agreed to actively engage in the WCD process. However, at the same time, either through misinformation or scepticism, others have chosen to stand aloof from the process and even attempt to undermine it. That is regrettable. Hopefully as the understanding of our endeavours improves such positions will change. I feel that we are all striving towards the same end of sustainable development. We will continue in our efforts to be inclusive in defining a way forward.

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. Already in the Commission's discussions, we have witnessed close alignment of views at policy level. On analysing the position statements of bodies such as ICOLD and anti-dam advocacy groups, we found a remarkable level of commonality about the direction for the future. I have recently received a copy of the ICID's position paper on the role of dams and see that there is a convergence on many of the underlying policy principles. I will come back to that later.

So we have to ask ourselves, why are we here at all. Getting the policy principles right is fundamental to our work, but the real challenge to the WCD lies beyond the principles to identifying ways of implementation that are relevant and acceptable to a wide and diverse set of circumstances. It is inconceivable that this can be done by any one constituency in isolation of another.

The need for constructive interaction

The question facing us now,though, is whether current policies and approaches are adequate to deal with the consequent challenges. For the past decade there has been a realisation that the answer to this question is no. Making a simple connection between more food and more dams is too simplistic for the severity of the situation that faces us. The mandate of WCD clearly identifies that dams are an option, but one of a number options which need to be rigorously evaluated through an integrated framework. We have not ruled out large dams. The first challenge to our interaction is to move beyond position papers and dig into the wealth of material that can inform the Commission in terms of its three main outputs - the review of development effectiveness of dams; the framework for options assessment and decision support; and criteria and guidelines covering planning, design, operations and decommissioning. Each problem is unique - in terms of location as well as its social, economic and political context.

Turning back to the relationship between WCD and ICID, I see that a constructive dialogue will allow us to build on a common understanding of the basic problems, and on the nature of effective solutions. Much work has been documented and experience gained. Lets be honest though, that often we are constrained in identifying the true underlying problems whether it be for political, technical, contractual or commercial interests. The WCD has to break through these constraints in its search for recommendations that will be acceptable and which will attract a degree of local commitment and ownership. There is no single jury that will vote on the arguments presented by either side - nor is this an Oxford Union debate where a motion is passed but where both sides still harbour their preconceived positions. We are involved in a participatory process to reach a common understanding.

One of the main reasons I particularly regret not being able to be with you today is that I have had to face these challenges and dilemmas. As South Africa's Minister of Water Affairs I lived through this for five years until June of this year - through the lobbying from vested interests, and the intransigence on both sides of the dams debate. The new era of politics in South Africa certainly provided a climate within which fundamental changes in water policy were possible, but even so, we have demonstrated that some far reaching changes can be made in a very short time.

But elsewhere, what crescendo of public opinion, what calamity is required to make the necessary changes and overcome barriers built in to the status quo? Ways have to be found to rise above considerations of political expediency and address the problems that we all know exist for millions of disadvantaged rural and urban dwellers. We need to go beyond the rhetoric.

At the recent Stockholm Water Symposium I made a plea to move away from the current arrogance that stifles creative action on an integrated front to address the problem facing more than one billion people without access to clean drinking water. Deep down, we all know the problems. The challenges facing the water sector as identified by the current vision exercises will not be solved by tinkering around at the edges. A new approach has to be found. And this has to cut to the core of what kind of development our societies wish to achieve.

In the case of irrigation, the research community and your own ICID working groups have a wide range of experience to promote improved performance. Performance aspects have been the focus of research programmes for more than a decade. We know the problems, and as a non-engineer, forgive me for saying they are rarely technical. Yet, we are still looking for solutions we can implement. We need more home grown leadership and ownership. Our greatest challenge is to avoid being prescriptive by seeking to make decisions on behalf of others.

In President Aly Shady's letter to WCD, he identified a wide range of areas where technological, management and social solutions are available. I challenge you all now to build on this commitment and work within the WCD framework to bring these solutions to our rapidly expanding knowledge base and demonstrate how the policy principles agreed in Dublin, in Rio and debated in each of your national assemblies, can be brought into reality. In particular I would ask further detailed information on some of the policy principles enshrined in your position paper through examples of good practice and successful implementation. These include, and I draw from your paper:

• how to realise truly integrated land and water management to maximise social and economic welfare without compromising the sustainability of vital ecosystems
• how to ensure that people are better off after project implementation than before
• how to empower women; and
• how to ensure everyone has a voice in determining their futures as stakeholders in development.

Closing remarks

As I mentioned before, the very fact that the World Commission on Dams has been created signifies that a business-as-usual approach is not tenable. 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 today's debate on dams is that it is civil society and the private sector who will to a large extent determine whether governments will choose a dam as their preferred option. Public choice and availability of capital are among the key variables that define our scope for planning the future of water resources management.

I have already noted that there is a surprising degree of agreement on certain crucial policy aspects. Now we need to go beyond this to implementation. The first challenge I pose to ICID and its members over the coming months and years is to fully subscribe to the WCD process. From all walks of life people have done this and at the same time have left space for themselves to judge the Commission on its outputs in due course.

The second challenge is to use your wealth of experience to articulate, as individuals or national organisations, how we can move beyond the broad policy statements to address the key issues and end the current paralysis in decision making. It is time to move beyond visions and position papers to identify clear incentive frameworks and guidance for implementation, learning from where initiatives have failed and building on where they have worked.

I thank you for inviting us to be part of this Congress, and apologise again for not being with you in person today. My colleagues in the WCD Secretariat will be with you to discuss these issues further during the formal and informal sessions of the meeting.