ICOLD members - India

Detailed comments supported by INCOLD:

• Er Gopalakrishnan WCD FORUM member
• Yogendra Prasad Chairman & Managing Director, National Hydroelectric Power Corpn.Ltd.

Final Report of the World Commission for Dams (November 2000)

Comments:
Er Gopalakrishnan WCD FORUM member

Preamble

A Report on ‘Dams and Development’ was released by World Commission on Dams (WCD) in London on 16^th November 2000. As a Forum Member, a copy of their was received in CWC in December 2000. The report has received a wider interest in the media. A separate coverage in annex 1 provides a background on the WCD and MoWR joining the WCD Forum in early 2000 after an initial reluctance to participate in their process.

As could be gleaned from Annex 1, WCD was not a representative body but a group of 12 persons of diverse background each serving in an individual capacity. The WCD report can thus be taken as a collective thinking of the views of the 12 Commissioners only as the Principal dam building nations were neither consulted nor made party to the constitution of the Commission. The body was more like a nominated group of NGOs and anti dam campaigners. The mandate for their role was ‘self-drawn’, based on the preparatory work done by a reference group prior to its formulation. (See Appendix 1). IUCN and WB formally launched the World Commission on Dams (WCD) in February 1998 declaring the following as WCD’s two main objectives:

• To review the development effectiveness of dams and assess alternatives for water resources development, and
• To develop internationally accepted standards, guidelines and criteria for decision-making in the planning, design, construction, monitoring, operation and decommissioning of dams.

WCD claims to have completed a comprehensive global review of performance and impact of large dams in their work based on sampling. The total number of large dams as per Commission’s own figure is 45,000(p.2 of Executive Summary). The Commission (WCD) has noted (page.3 of Executive Summary) that WCD knowledge base consisted of 8 case studies of large dams, overall country review of India and China and cross check survey Performa filled for 125 dams. Rest of the material consisted of public debate and submissions.

While efforts put in by the WCD are claimed as a tremendous one by themselves during the release of their final report, a proper assessment of the whole report would be possible only after an exhaustive study of its ‘knowledge base’ and a critical review of these ‘knowledge base’ documents,. The ‘Knowledge Base’ of WCD is yet to be brought out as a publication by them. Several drafts on thematic reviews were made available to Forum Members throuh their web-site during the process of their finalisation of the Main Report.

WCD had been adding a disclaimer in all the ‘Knowledge Base’ and had made it explicitly that they are not to be construed as WCD report. Commission’s views are solely presented only in their final report (released in November 2000 at London); however, it is seen ultimately that WCD has heavily depended on its ‘ knowledge base’ data in drawing their conclusions in the final report.

Limitations of the Knowledge Base

While all documents forming part of the ‘so-called’ ‘Knowledge Base’ are not yet available (yet to be published), our concern would naturally be on "India Country Study’ which forms a part of it. Hence there are references on this report and our comments on the same in many places in what follows.

The Country paper on India was prepared by a team of Experts majority of whom were not well connected with dams / water resources Engineering; the WCD failed to take into confidence Indian Government or consulted them before award of such studies on Indian Scenario. The Government of India are one of the largest Dam Builders, only next to China, when we see the current global dam building activity date.

The opinions expressed in the reports on ‘Large Dams - Indian Experience’ were mainly biased propagating the opponent’s views as most of the Authors of the India Country Report were well known opponents of Dams. The data used were not representative in character at a number of places in ‘India case study’. An opportunity was given by WCD at a late stage to Govt. of India to review the first draft; however, GoI’s comments on the first draft were not utilised for an appropriate revision of the issues brought out where an amendment was warranted.

On a Global level, WCD undertook ‘Cross Check Survey’ of nearly 100 Projects of which eight were chosen from India. Besides the Cross Check Survey, WCD had brought out detailed review on eight dams around the globe; a majority of these dams are from developed countries. Many of the new dams, which have incorporated environmental concepts in their plans and designs, were not considered in the entire exercise. Recent trends in dam building addressing the areas related to Environmental and social Issues like Public Hearing before Launch of Project as per Environmental Act in India are not discussed. Though some of the recent policies on R& R ( like that of Orissa, Packages on Sardar Sarovar, Tehri etc ) were made available, these and other Environmental Safeguards which are being introduced in the Indian system are not at all reflected. Some of the shining examples of the water resources development projects in India like Bhakra are not even listed in the main report. All factual data were made available freely to WCD and their Secretariat in time after GoI became a Forum member. The information supplied, with respect to the positive contribution of all the select Indian Dams like Nagarjunasagar, Bhakra etc., was not properly utilised to bring out a correct picture on positive contribution or this was inadequately covered.

WCD could have profitably drawn upon authentic literature and wealth of data available with International Organisations like ICOLD,IHPA,ICID and also National Level bodies and Organisations from representative countries which are currently the Large Dam Builders like Government of India and Republic of China. Project Evaluation Reports of the World Bank etc. would also have been a meaningful reference in several cases. The Commission (WCD) however, ignored documents and pertinent information in them even when they were supplied and had opted to rely upon submissions and reports of NGOs; several report writers were guided more by their perceptions and views rather than detailed information and knowledge of factual position around dam projects are the authors of several themes and reviews! A cursory look at the list of presenters at the regional consultations and contributors to the cross check survey reveals that most of them are anti dam activists involved in some campaigns or other against water resources projects.

The exercise has proceeded on a motivated goal and in this process, any thing that which does not reinforce the view point of is relegated in status. The Commission’s approach to creation of so called Knowledge Base looks as an able and clever example of the game of inverse research, where "facts are collected to prove the preconceived hypothesis"

WCD and India Country Report

Page 351 of the final report of WCD report quotes as under:

" The Governments of India and China indicated that they were not prepared to participate in full case studies. Based on a meeting in Beijing in June 1999, China agreed to participate in a country – level review. After a change of institutional responsibilities within the Ministry of Water Resources in China, however, the government withdrew the agreement to participate actively in the country review. The WCD then undertook an external review of dams in China. The Government of India after meetings in New Delhi (June 1999), declined full participation; it subsequently agreed to-cooperate fully with a country review paper on dams in India (February 2000) ".

"India Country Report" was prepared as India Case Study by five independent consultants engaged by WCD (with out consulting Government of India). Government of India was requested to comment on the findings of "India Country Study" in March 2000 after Government of India became a formal Member of the "WCD Forum" (January 2000). As the "India Country Report" draft was full of controversies and lacked factual data, Government of India provided detailed data required for the study and offered exhaustive comments on it (March 2000). While WCD acknowledged the participation of Government of India and committed to revise the "India Country Study" draft at one stage, they ultimately failed to do so. A modified draft titled "Large dams: India’s Experience", (a revised version of "India Country Study" draft) with a number of inconsistencies was received by the Government of India in September 2000 and WCD’s Consultants/Experts responsible to write "India Country Study" draft themselves could not agree on views other than their own in chapters written by them individually. Having failed to get a consensus report on "India Country Study", through their consultants, WCD informed that the comments of Government of India would be annexed to their consultant’s version of "Large Dams – India’s Experience." In response, Government of India rejected outright the draft of WCD’s consultants’ report viz: "Large Dams: India’s Experience." This aspect has not been reflected in final report and thus the coverage

The Government of India after meetings in New Delhi (June 1999), declined full participation; it subsequently agreed to-cooperate fully with a country review paper on dams in India (February 2000)

as above on India is only partial.

WCD’s Dams Debate

According to the WCD, the ‘dams’ debate’ is complex as well as simple. It is complex because the issues are not confined to the design, construction and operation of dams themselves but embrace the range of social, environmental and political choices on which human aspiration to development and improved well being depend. It is simple because behind the array of facts and figures of economics statistics and engineering calculations lay a number of basic and easily understood principles.

WCD has concluded that:

1. Dams have made an important and significant contribution to human development, and the benefits derived from them have been considerable. Nothing further than this statement is reflected in the Report.
2. In too many cases an unacceptable price has been paid to secure unnecessary price has been paid to secure those benefits, especially in social and environmental terms, by people displaced, by communities d/s, by taxpayers and by the natural environment. (social, environmental, equity).
3. Lack of equity in distribution of benefits has called into question the value of many dams in meeting water and energy development needs when compared with the alternatives (options).
4. By bringing to the table all those whose rights are involved and who bear the risks associated with different options for water and energy resource development, the conditions for a positive resolution of competing interests and conflicts are created.
5. Negotiating outcomes will greatly improve the development effectiveness of water and energy projects at an early stage, and by offering as a choice only these option

Some impressions that the Final report in its Chapters on ‘Technical, Financila ans Economic Performance’ convey are:

Irrigation and flood control dams have not performed well and therefore, other options must be explored.

Hydropower dams may continue to be built ; however, it is elsewhere broght out that GHG emissions of Hydro Projects are as much as thermal and should be the last resort of options.

Large storages may be required for water supply to mega cities.

Irrigation has been subordinated in playing an active role in Agriculture and food production.

It would not be out of place to bring out a few important aspects that the India Country Study attempted to bring forth on Irrigation aspects. In the para on ‘Final summing Up’ in the last Chapter on Some Agreed Conclusion, the Draft Report of WCD acknowledges the contribution of Large Dams as follows: (to quote)

However, elsewhere in the report one finds that (see Para 7.1 of Large Dams – Indian Experience )

"Contribution of Dams : Irrigation

"What has been the contribution of large dams to the country? Taking irrigation first, India’s `irrigation potential’ (i.e., the area which had the potential of being irrigated – a somewhat problematic concept) increased from 22.6 million hectares (ha) in 1951 to about 89.6 million ha by 1997, marking a fourfold growth over a period of 50 years. The production of foodgrains increased from 51 million tonnes in 1950-51 to almost 200 million tonnes by 1996-97. About two-thirds (66.7%) of this increase came from the irrigated area, which is around one-third of the cultivated area. The increase in the production of foodgrains was the result of a combination of several factors such as high-yielding varieties of seeds, chemical fertilizers and pesticides, credit, extension, support prices, and so on, but clearly irrigation played a crucial role, and some of that irrigation came from large dams. Taking the `major/medium’ category (which accounts for 36.8% of irrigation) as a proxy for large dams, we can say that 36.8% of the increase in the production of foodgrains in the irrigated area (which in turn is two-thirds or 66.7% of the total increase), i.e., 24.5% (66.7% x 36.8%) of the total increase, came from areas irrigated by large dams. This still leaves open the question of how much of this increase can be attributed to the dams themselves. One view is that excluding the effects of the other inputs, 10% of the increase can be attributed to dams. However, others are of the view that this is an under-estimate, as irrigation is a precondition for the use of other inputs. The Central Water Commission puts the quantum of increase attributable to large dams at 30%, but the details behind that number are not available. Leaving the numbers aside, it can be stated that large dams have made a contribution to the development of irrigation and therefore to food production and food security."

The findings (based on an analysis indicated by Nirmal Sengupta in his draft for India Country report) that the contribution of large dams in increase in foodgrain production had been marginal and is around 10 % is by isolating the components of increase in the observed foodgrain production during 1950-51 to 1993-94 viz. productivity increase due to (a) High Yielding Variety / improved seeds, (b) Area extension & (c) Irrigation. The contribution of Productivity and Irrigation is, in reality, not amenable for analysis in a compartmentalised manner as had been attempted, for reasons that the contribution of these two factors are somewhat inseparable. The production is a joint effect of irrigation on one hand and the productivity inputs like fertilizers, pesticides and improved / HYV seeds on the other hand. The productivity inputs and irrigation are supplementary to each other; in fact a mere application of other productivity inputs can hardly yield the desired increase in crop production. In effect, without assured irrigation water supply the registered production level would not have been possible! That there can be many claimants for increased productivity is the reason advocated for the exercise but the attempted separation of factors is illogical and lacks credibility and has led to absurd and unacceptable results which the WCD had given some weight in their final report when dealing with Indian Case. It is to be pointed out that:

• The estimated contribution of irrigation on this basis works out to 84% and the contribution of large dams (Major & Medium Irrigation Projects) to 30% and not 10 % as projected. And in reality, the balance 54% contributed by minor and groundwater schemes also depend on dams, though in an indirect manner, as explained in the next para.

• The contribution of hydro-power to total generation of electricity in the country is around 25%. The agricultural pumpsets using electrical energy consume nearly 30% of total generation. Thus, the groundwater exploitation is facilitated by dams and reservoirs and hence the total contribution to agricultural productivity because of irrigation is to be around 80%.

• The contribution of large dams is not only limited to direct irrigation but also to groundwater recharging as many of the canal systems are unlined. Thus, the water, which is lost as seepage , etc. in irrigation systems, is available as surface return flow or ground water recharge. Thus it becomes available for use by minor schemes and Ground Water Schemes for irrigation / other usage like extraction for village watersupply etc.

• A major increase in agricultural production is only feasible because of cultivation in rabi season also. This is possible due to major and medium projects which are having storage as the back-bone and this is feasible only by major and medium dams.

Despite the clear-cut proof of success of Large Dams in Indian context (such as Bhakra & Beas etc), which were made available to WCD Secretariat in time after a perusal of India Country Study draft report, Consultants failed to project the above picture in a proper perspective.

Social performance (People & Large Dams)

Resettlement & Rehabilitation:

WCD’s emphasis on the fate of affected people and the needed protection of their rights is of particular interest. States, developers, NGO’s, dam owners and operators, and funding institutions should make the affected people the "first among the beneficiaries" and provide them with a means to maintain and increase their livelihood. Each government must address this pressing issue in its own way, while giving affected people the right to be consulted, adequately compensated, including resolution of past grievances, and protected by a fair and efficient national legal system. However, there is a tendency to project as though whatever has been done in the past are faulty! The recent measures to adequately safeguard the environmental concerns, efforts to announce R& R Policies etc are not even cited as good and notable progress! Far more, it is the Commission’s "data base" which is questionable ; it is misleading and its figures on displacement-a core area of its concerns.

This is seen from the following observations in its coverage under "Social Consequences of Large Dams"

• "Construction of large dams has led to the displacement of some 40 to 80 million people world wide as shown in Chapter 4" (p.16)
• "Between 1986 and 1993 an estimated 4 million people were displaced annually by an average of 300 large dams starting construction each year" (p.17)- this means 32 millions in these 8 years.
• "In India, estimates of the total number of people displaced due to large dams vary from 16 to 38 million people"(p.17)
• "By 1949 about 5000 large dams had been constructed world wide, three quarter of them in industrialised countries. By the end of 20^th Century, there were over 45,000 large dams in over 140 countries(p.8).
• "At its peak nearly 5000 large dams were built world wide in the period from 1970 to 1975. The decline in the pace of dam building over the pasat two decades has been equally dramatic…"(p.9)
• "China alone has built around 22000 large dams, or close to half the world"s total number. Before 1949 it had only 22 large dams. Other countries among the top five dam building nations include the United States with over 6390 large dams; India with over 4000, and Spain and Japan with between 1000 and 1200 large dams each")p.9)

From the above statements of facts/data, following conclusions emerge:

• India with 4000 dams out of 45000 worldwide, i.e.9% has caused 40 to 48% of displacement.
• Average displacement per dam has been 900 to 1800. But between 1986 to 1993 it had been 12500 per dam.
• The displacement between 1986 and 1993 was total 32 million people. China with 22000 dams has acknowledged displacement of 10 millions by 1980. Thus 42 million displacement of China + 1986-93 period. This is out of 40 to 80 mllions for the whole century worldwide by 45000 dams?
• And if we add India’s figures as given in the report, displacement in the rest of the world prior to 1986 is almost nil!

Absurdity of above figures, as derived from Commission’s own statements, are apparent. It seems that the WCD had attempted to sensationalise the matter of R&R and Dams and Reservoirs!

WCD Knowledge Base especially when Indian Cases are dealt with is seen to suffer from a bias. The tendency of selective quoting and even misquoting is quite visible in its observations on Sardar Sarovar Project (SSP) in Narmada Basin. It is apt to point out at this stage that one of the Commissioners of WCD from India (Mrs .Medha Patkar) fought a protracted legal battle to stall the Project and the Supreme Court gave its verdict recently against the petition of NBA seeking to stall the Project construction. The report states at p. 117 as follows: (to quote).

‘ In 1988 in India, reconnaissance surveys in 93 of the 254 villages to be submerged in the Narmada Sagar Dam impoundment area yielded hundreds of archeological sites ranging from Lower Paleolithic to historic temples and iron smelting sites.’

It has been clarified by Sardar Sarovar Nagam Ltd (SSNL) that

• only 4 out of 254 villages are to be submerged, the remaining 250 being only partially affected.
• A large majority would be only marginally affected-
• to be more precise 1123 villages will have only 1% to 10% of their agriculture land inundated;
• in other 32 villages between 11% to 25% in several villages only Government land would come under pondage and no private or agriculture land;
• an exaggerated and false impression is conveyed when the report indicates that 254 villages would be submerged.
• The report even while making such misleading statement ought to have also noted that the Archeological Survey of India has been busy completing exploration of potential sites well before actual pondage takes place.

Similarly while the report makes a critical remark on the SSP about exclusion of canal affected people from resettlement programme(p.105), later while observing that those not in possession of legal title on land or subsisting on forest or community land are generally denied resettlement benefits, it has chosen not to give credit to the same SSP for including even landless and others not having legal title over land (such as encroachers or forest / community land) in the compensation package and offering them land in the command area. Thus the Indian practices in respect of Resettlement and Rehabilitation had not been sincerely covered.

One more instance is seen in box No. 4.3 (p.104) where statistics of the number of families affected having gone up from time to time are given. The number of families has increased principally on two counts e.g.

There is thus no case of "missing number" as the report suggests because of its motivated efforts to downplay good case histories and practices as followed in recent times in developing countries like India.

The WCD, on the contrary, in its anxiety to underplay the potential of positive social impact goes on to argue that

"Once poorer farmers (after getting irrigation) achieve household food self sufficiency, they will probably chose to market surplus produce and, therefore shift to higher value crops."

The concern is that those people who do not participate in the irrigation projects or are otherwise marginalised due to dam construction may face higher food prices and decreased food security! The logic is as much perverse as absurd. It could mean that the poor farmers should continue to have subsistence rain-fed agriculture because if they have irrigation and after meeting their food requirement, they grow high value crops than others may suffer! This almost amounts to advocating reputation of subsistence agriculture, low level of income and production.

The widespread and serious impact of drought on socio-economic life of rural areas, the fact that hundred of thousands of farm labour and small farmers having to labour on famine relief works on subsistence wages to keep their body and soul together, and the ravages of rural socio-economy brought about by repeated droughts are pointer to the need of irrigated agricuture in a develoing Economy. One could comprehend socio economic significance of drought proofing through irrigation and assured employment in farm sector. If WCD had taken cognizance of the wide spread under employment, and migration of rural labour particularly of tribal and weaker sections to far away places because after the monsoon crop is harvested there is no just work and no livelihood in their villages for next seven months, then it could have well appreciated the social dimensions of the positive impact of large dams in poor arid regions of the World. But then the Commission has in its own words –

"To acknowledge the costs in this regard is not to deny the benefits. However, in order to provide the foundation for the way forward. It is essential to understand the extent diversity and range of social impact. Thus the WCD has chosen to give overwhelming attention to the negative impact and social costs.

The conclusions thus suffer from negativism and lacks credibility as the imperatives and compulsions of developing countries ignored.

Following observations of the WCD itself in its report are pertinent.

• "Over the past thirty years, the alliance of northern activists groups (environmental and human rights groups) with NGOs and affected groups’ associations in the south has resulted in more vigorous and more coordinated. Opposition to dams world wide. In many cases, the strength of these coalitions has had a major impact on dam related planning and policy and at the level of individual dams."(p.19)

• "As earlier sections of this Chapter showed, the pace of dam construction has slowed significantly in recent years. This is partly because industrialised countries have used most of their attractive sites…."(p.20)

• "In North America and Europe most technically attractive sites are already developed"(p.9)

• "New approaches are not always well received by developing country governments. They often see them ad a case of developed countries, having benefited from cutting corners themselves, turning to insist that developing countries meet higher standards. However, to obtain international financing- public or private- developing countries find themselves having to comply with new approaches, norms, and policies as a condition of financing or partnership."(p.26)

Strategic Priorities, Criteria & Guidelines

.

WCD’s decision making framework is based on an emphasis to five core values namely – equity, sustainability, efficiency, participatory decision making and accountability on the plea that these were not given consideration in the way it should as they think it, in the past.

However, emphasis on equity in a wrong manner is dangerous. Many countries including India and USSR have learnt hard way that too much emphasis on equity can only perpetuate poverty. And increasing the size of the cake is the first task, before insisting on its equitable distribution.

The WCD asks for formal multi-step negotiations between all Stake holders. The steps include recognizing the needs, choosing the options to satisfy those needs, and finally selecting the design, construction and exploitation parameters of the selected option, only if it is a dam. Population that might be affected by a proposed dam, and especially indigenous people, must at the end demonstrate through written contracts with developers "their acceptance of key decisions."

Developing Nations such as India will certainly be concerned that such a cumbersome negotiation process, with mediation steps, review by expert panels, and requiring all detailed information about the potential impact on the ecosystem and the population, will, in fact, stall any new development projects. The cumbersome nature of the process is further complicated by the WCD recommendation to revisit the operational parameters of a constructed dam with all stakeholder participation at the end of each five year period. This will add additional risk to project development by developing Nations such as India. The document will make it difficult for the financial institutions to support the new programmes of developing countries; the result will be creating enormous delays and increased costs of Projects for developing Nations who may have to find their own funding methodologies.

Therefore, the qualifying statement of WCD, worded in its own style as below (to quote) is of relevance for developing countries.

Only developed countries, which have the time and money to explore all possible alternatives to dams and can afford, if they wish, may wish to opt for such excercises on ‘Options Assessment’ as brought out in WCD Report.

Even while applying the concepts of equity and participatory decision making, WCD has restricted its attention only to the groups which are adversely affected by a dam. It has failed to appreciate that there are much larger sections of society for whom the dam and the water supply flowing from the dam are nothing short of life line in terms of drinking water and a source of employment and livelihood, both recognised as basic needs and human rights by the U.N.O.

In the same manner while considering the sustainability criterion, preservation of environment and preventing ecological degradation of water scarce areas and which need fresh water input from outside to supplement their local fresh water resources should also be given due weightage along with preservation of bio-diversity and environmental aspects of upstream and downstream of a river to the dam. Poverty is the biggest polluter. And so is the pressure of \human and cattle population of water resources, vegetation and fuel & fodder resources of an area. Therefore the option is either to transfer human and cattle population from water deficit to water surplus regions or to pursue the more practicable option of transferring water to areas where human and cattle population are suffering and in the process are also straining the ecology in a disparate game of survival.

The Report has devoted one of the longest chapters on "People and Large Dams- Social Performance". In this Chapter of 33 pages, the benefits of irrigation, hydropower and employment are of course listed but with a persistent attempt to downplay them. While talking of employment generation by the large dams and rather reluctantly observing that the farms jobs in command areas have increased and also benefited the disadvantaged groups of the society, the Report hastens to add that this would be evaluated vis-à-vis what alternative use of project resources could have generated. Similarly, while acknowledging the improvement in living standard and increase food production in most populous countries like India and China the Commission cites from its "Knowledge Base" the share of increased food production as attributable to additional land brought under irrigation being only 10% in respect of India (India Case Study refers). We have already dealt with this aspect in paragraphs above and hence leave it as such!

The Commission’s approach in suggesting Criteria & Guidelines therefore looks lopsided, and defective. Their preoccupation with only negative impact and ignoring in toto and sidelining positive social consequences has rendered the analysis, evaluation and recommendations one sided and of very little practical value. But it can not become a meaningful framework for planning and decision making on large dams.

WCD was very much aware that-

• Whatever would be the impact direct or indirect- of their report, it would be on the water resources development programme of developing world; and the industrialised developed countries would not be concerned significantly.
• It is these developing countries who are in dire need of augmenting and harnessing their water resources not only to meet present needs, but also to cope with the increase in population.
• Developing countries, depending as they do on financial and other support on International bodies and developed countries, are under pressure to fall in line, and also suffer delays and cost escalation.

It was therefore expected that the Commission, while formulating their views and recommendation, should keep the imperatives of the developing world in its perspective. This would mean that along with the perspectives of justice and equity to the affected families, the imperative need to extend irrigation cover, generate cheap hydro power, assure healthy drinking water to improve the health and quality of life, etc. would be given due weight. In an agrarian economy like that of India where a large majority of rural population depends upon agriculture for livelihood, ravages of droughts and large scale disruption in economic and social life of small farmers and farm labour should have received attention and due weight while discussing the social dimensions of large dams.

But the Commission’s perspective is so narrowly circumscribed and its concerns are to preoccupied with the project-affected families that social and human sufferings of those water starved and deprived people are totally ignored. While repeatedly talking about stakeholders, those sections of society which have a strong stake in a dam construction and who stand to suffer and lose if a dam is not constructed or is delayed, are not even recognised as stake holders!

Such a biased and one sided approach is not perhaps entirely unexpected, considering the background and dogmatic views that many of the commissioners have been credited with.

Decision making process recommended by the Commission is unrealistic, impractical and hence unacceptable to any Democratic Set up and particularly the Republic of India:

The commission has recommended seven sets of guidelines/components of framework that should govern the decision making and planning of a dam. While the underlying four basic principles such as public, acceptance, assessment of options, recognising entitlement and sharing of benefits and ensuring compliance should be well received in any democratic and enlightened society, the guidelines suggested by the Commission to translate these principles into practice is written down as if a prescription for a medieval society or a primitive community where institutional frame work, judicial and democratic process and non-existant; and as if the dam project is viewed purely in a local perspective.

Public acceptance in a broad sense forms the very basis of any democratic administration. Such public acceptance emerges when people perceive fairness, equity and overall interests of the whole community being followed. And the democratically elected governments, from local to national level, are accountable for this; in fact, the continuation in office of any ruling party is also dependent on that. But if for every single project decision, informed participation and acceptance by all groups concerned is to be carried out, the decision making would become a long drawn, protracted process, rendering irrelevant the existing democratic institutions and the very basis of administration by elected representatives of the people.

While discussing "rights, risks and negotiated outcomes" the report advocates a consultative process and negotiating project specific agreement relating to benefit sharing, resettlement and compensation. Conceptually it is an idea to drive the view point that all sections of the society which are adversely affected or have stake in project decision are made parties to decision making process. But it is not easy to translate this into actual practice.

Public Hearing before Project’s acceptance has been made mandatory in the process of Environmental Clearance in India which adequately address the concerns of all concerned. If the WCD process ass suggested is considered, an issue that would arise would be as to how does direct consultations take place when the number of people affected both ways i.e.- by implementing a project or by non implementing a project runs into hundreds of thousands.

Then again the question would be how a national perspective or a wider perspective should be brought to bear as against purely individual or local perspective in which most of the affected persons are bound to view the matter. For instance, the need for extending irrigation cover in a developing country to meet food requirement of growing population, or the necessity of achieving a proper mix of hydro and thermal power may not make much meaning to the displaced families who are more concerned about their own personal lives.

There is also a question of common people being carried away by a concerted campaign being carried out by interest groups which are committed to their own dogmas / agenda. This is particularly relevant in most of the developing countries where on account of illiteracy and low level of education, majority of people can be easily misguided or confused by populist propaganda. Free thinking, free expression and free choice would remain elusive unless such motivated group keep out and bonafide local leadership can emerge so as to project the genuine concerns and sentiments of local people.

One more question will be whether the democratically elected representatives who are office bearers of the democratic institutions from village Panchayats upto Parliament should not be considered to represent peoples’ voice. In fact, if for every important decision making, and there is no reason to single out only water resources project, direct consultation is advocated then that would amount to calling into question the basic principle on which the democratic institutions from village upto national level- are expected to function and decide important matters of public policy and public affairs.

Moreover, "free, prior and informed consent’ as suggested by the Commission is likely to render all major project proposals of significance subject to purely local perspective and evaluation, negating the regional and national planning of economic development.

It is evident that tribals or even non-tribals affected by the project would understandably view the dam proposal from their own perspective. Human tendency is to place self-interest before every thing else and even educated elite’s are no exception to this. One cannot anticipate communities living in remote areas on riverbank to envision the national economic horizons and appreciate the need of agriculture sector or energy sector of the region in context of wider Socio economic planning, as proposed by WCD in their Criteria and Guidelines.

This would virtually amount to putting the clock of socio-economic development back to pre-industrial revolution time when local communities were surviving on harnessing local resources purely for local needs.

It is also contradictory to WCD’s own observations that-

"Urbanisation implies an increasing concentration of water and energy demand in mega cities…"(p.4)

On one hand, WCD appears to recognise the inevitability of transfer of water from where it is in plenty to where there is unfulfilled demand and water shortage. But on the other hand it wants a dam decision subject to veto power of the local people settled on the river banks!

Again, when we talk of stake holders, people who are to benefit from a project are also to be considered as stake holder. In context of areas suffering from acute water shortage non implementation of a project may mean depriving these people of a feasible and dependable source f water which has a potential of vastly improving their quality of life and releasing them from hardships of drought and drinking water crisis.

A more rational approach would be to consult the people which are likely to be displaced, on matters of rehabilitation and resettlement programme so that the relocation takes into account their social and economic aspirations, they have a sense of sharing the benefits of the project and, they can switch over to new life after relocation with hope and contentment.

But to make the entire project planning as subject matter of such consultative decision making process and a negotiated outcome is neither feasible nor warranted in context of a democratic set up, and even it is to be considered, it should encompass all stakeholders-those who need the dam as well as those who are likely to be adverselyu impacted.

WCD’s guidelines "Sustaining rivers and livelihood" also suffers from a similar negative reaction to the wide effects of the process of eco-development. WCD wants preservation as far as possible of "the rivers as the basis for life and livelihood of local communities". This would in effect mean that families living on river banks, hauling water from river bed to their huts on the upper side, making subsistence living by primitive agriculture on slopping river bank land, or fishing, or such miscellaneous activities, passing every monsoon in fear of flooding, should be left to their present subsistence and primitive living, and equally primitive use of the river wealth, in name of preserving their livelihood! Habitation along the river bank is generally scattered; people have to traverse uneven terrain, making community life and social infrastructure a far cry!

Even leaving aside the need for transferring water to where it is needed and to store the monsoon flow for round the year usage, this philosophy of condemning the riverine communities to their primitive and subsistence living in the name of preserving their life style and culture and means of livelihood is more in nature of romanticizing primitive life; topping it with a euphemism that they are happier though being denied of the amenities and benefits of an overall development.

WCD’s obsessive concern for preserving the rights of affected local people makes it distrust the entire public set up- even the legal frame-work of the country to which these people belong. In its anxiety to champion their cause, the Commission has advocated International legal recourse! No self respecting nation would of course accept such officious advise of supra national adjudication in the matter affecting its own people. Such a recommendation itself smacks of an altitude of looking down upon the socio political institutions of developing countries!

With the foregoing comments, the detailed review of some of the provisions are given in Annex 2, parawise to be specific:

Part II

Comments on

WCD FRAMEWORK, PRIORITIES, CRITERIA AND GUIDELINES

WCD FRAMEWORK, PRIORITIES, CRITERIA AND GUIDELINES

WCD Framework

• UN Charter on Human rights, UN Declaration on right to development and Rio Declaration on Environment are not new to the world. These have been amalgamated into the constitutional and legislative framework of the nations and are being practiced by the governments. WCD believes that fulfilling development needs requires respect for fundamental rights, and not a tradeoff between them. It also believes that an equitable and sustainable approach to development requires that a decision to build a dam or any other options must not, at the outset, sacrifice the rights of any citizen or a group of affected people.
• This is being looked into by the respective Central and State Ministries and the implementing agencies in the Indian context. While there is no perpetual conflict between these three charters in the present setup, the proposed guidelines of the WCD, which has widened the scope of rights and risks of all stakeholders versus the responsibility of the governments to development, particularly in the light of the negotiated development, may have to be examined in depth and if necessary through improved constitutional/ legislative / legal framework.

Strategic priority Guidelines for Sustainable development:

The proposed Guidelines are vague and elaborate and does not hold Parliamentary democracies competent enough to address the manifold objectives that development must keep in view. In fact

• Implementing WCD guidelines is likely to increase the developmental burden of the nations by many folds. This may lead to slowing developmental progress, increased dependence on funding agencies. This may lead to rich nations becoming rich and poor and developing nations becoming poorer.

Priority-1 Gaining Public Acceptance

Guideline-1 Stakeholder Analysis:

• NGOs are recommended to operate as Stakeholder Forum representative. Government planning body is responsible for initiating the Stakeholder analysis and also for funding the Stakeholder Forums. An NGO as a representative of affected stakeholders while financially supported by the governments, is not likely to ensure free and fair participation in the development process. Some alternative source of funding of Stakeholder forums may have to be looked into.
• In the Indian Context, elected representatives of the Gram Panchayats can play an active role as a stakeholder group and can effectively participate in the stakeholder forums.
• Stakeholder Forums should work as a registered body and may also have representatives from developers/governments.

Guideline2: Negotiated Decision-making Process:

• Literacy rate in India is low. Many of the affected stakeholders are poor, and downtrodden. Both Governments and Stakeholder Forums may have to include education programmes that the affected people are able to understand, the developmental responsibilities as well as their rights.

GL-3 Free, Prior Consent:

• Responsibility of obtaining PIC and informing the same to the governments in a timeframe manner should lie with the Stakeholder forum.

Priority-2 Comprehensive Options Assessment:

Guideline-4 Strategic Impact Assessment (SA) for environment, Social, health and Cultural Issues:

• SA is a broad assessment for screening various options considering entire sectors, policies and programmes to ensure consideration of environmental, social, health, and cultural implications of all options at the early stage of the project in order to assess the rights and risks of all. Main purpose is to gain public opinion at the initial stage in favour of a specific project option involving all.
• Review of the SA is proposed at the highest political level (Parliament).

Guideline –5 Project Level Assessments (IAs) for ‘Environmental Impact assessment’, Social Impact assessment, Health Impact assessment and Cultural Heritage Impact assessment.

• It is proposed to enlarge the scope of the existing EIAs in the countries. A two stage IA at scoping and Assessment stage are suggested. I.A.’s are to be developed independently from the interests of the developers/Financiers. Independent panel of experts are proposed. Responsibility of IAs lies with the developers. IA process to continue beyond construction etc.
• Nations have already developed infrastructure in this regard. A switch to independent authorities for IAs with enhanced scope, may have some implications due to increased cost etc.

Guideline-6 Multi Criteria Analysis:

• Level of involvement of Stakeholder forum in MCA may have to be devised.
• Stakeholder Forums may or may not have the expertise for the purpose. This may increase the burden of the developing nations through engaging experts in various fields from rich and developed nations, while its own expertise may be sitting idle.
• Decisions of the Stakeholder forums may be biased and may need further scrutiny.

Guideline –7 Life Cycle Analysis (LCA)

• In case of small hydro projects, LCA seems to be an appropriate choice, as the cost analysis of various options will automatically rule out the infeasible options. In case of multipurpose choices, the LCA along with MCA will be the duplication of the effort.

Guideline-8 Green house Gas Emissions:

• The Thematic paper on GHG has suggested that reservoirs do emit GHG’s mainly in tropical dense forest regions where carbon content of the reservoir area and carbon flows into reservoirs are excessive and knowledge on the subject is limited. However WCD has strongly recommended that GHG analysis must be conducted in almost all reservoirs. Base line surveys in existing reservoirs are recommended as basis for future planning in other areas.
• Technology on this subject is not yet developed to provide conclusive proof of the GHG’s being emitted by all reservoirs.
• On the contrary, water resources projects result in the creation of an abundant vegetational cover in areas brought under cultivation, which reduces GHG. However, more studies will have to be undertaken to prove the GHG impacts, positive or negative.
• In India, the areas subject to inundation due to reservoir submergence are normally removed of all trees which has a good commercial value for the affected population and this practice can be followed elsewhere to mitigate GHG impacts. Thus the cases related to South America which has been cited to cause GHG emissions because of submergence of wooded lands are not applicable to situations in India where submergence follows clearance of wooded land.
• Suitable studies should also compare the GHG’s emission in relation to alternative energy sources such as thermal where a lot of fossil fuel is burnt which is depleting and thus non sustainable for the level of of equivalent energy production.
• Till sufficient information base is available, this guideline is best dropped. Otherwise, it is likely to hamper development on flimsy and questionable hypothesis especially in developing countries.

Guideline-9 Distributional Analysis of projects:

• Status of gainers and losers from a project cannot be measured in economic terms in the long run. However, only per hectare benefit equivalent may be compared and provided to the affected people on the pre-fixed date as much depends on the individual efforts of the gainers and losers of the projects. However State should ensure equal opportunity of development to both, in physical terms and not financial terms.
• Further work would be necessary before the findings can be amalgamated into the planning process.

Guideline10 Valuation of social and Environmental Impacts

• Internationalization in the procedures of economic analysis has been recommended. While it may be desirable in case of large projects funded by the banks and multilateral agencies where in internationalized procedure is perhaps unavoidable and in a way is inherent, it may not be so in case of projects developed from internal resources of the nations.
• Governments normally obtain loans for large projects while small alternatives may not need loans. Internationalized economic analysis should be conducted in all options when options are compared in the regional sense. Level playing fields may have to be ensured.

Guideline-11 Improving Economic Risk Analysis:

• No Comments

Priority –3 Addressing Existing Dams

Guideline-12 Ensuring Operation Rules reflect social and environmental Concerns.

• Stakeholder forums should ensure that encroachment of the floodplains do not occur for habitation/cultivation etc. Therefore, stakeholder Forums should be involved in devising and revising operating rules from time to time. If dam operators are to be held responsible for such eventualities, representatives of the Stakeholder should also be held responsible for the same.

Guideline-13 Improved Reservoir Operations

Priority-4 Sustaining Rivers and livelihoods

Guideline –14 Baseline Ecosystem Surveys

Guideline-15 Environmental Flow Assessment:

Guideline-16 Maintaining productive Fisheries:

Priority-5 Recognising Entitlements and sharing Benefits

Guideline-17 Sharing Social Conditions

Guideline-18 Improvement Risk Analysis:

Guideline-19 Implementation of the Mitigation, Resettlement and development Action Plan. (MRDAP)

Guideline-20 Project Benefit-Sharing Mechanisms:

• Both direct and indirect project benefit-sharing mechanisms are in practice in India. WCD provisions in this regard would need to be examined further.

Priority-6 Ensuring Compliance

• Monitoring mechanism exist in India in respect of ensuring prompt ompliance and in case it is desired that the affected / Stakeholders should also be involved in this exercise, this can be considered; positive attitude of all Stakeholders is a must once an agreed decision to implement is decided. Any obstructive tendency for vested interest should be safeguarded.

Guideline-21 Ensuring Compliance

• No Comments

Guideline-22 Independent review panels for Social and Environmental Matters (IRPs)

• Government sponsored IRPs involving Stakeholder Forums can be considered but Stakeholders should also take an active and constructive part in implementation aspects.

Guide-line-23 Performance bonds

Guideline –24 Trust Funds

Guideline-25 Integrity Pacts

• In a democratic Governmental system, the performance, Integrity and Trust are ensurable through the parliamentary processes and there cannot be any better substitue which can represent the woill of the people in an overall sense.

Priority –7 Sharing Rivers for Peace, Development and Security

Guideline-26 Procedure for shared rivers

• Provisions of UN convention on the Law of the Non-navigational uses of International watercourses (Riparian Principles) and other agreements are well document and already in use in India. Further provisions are taken from Indus waters Treaty.
• Other provisions are satisfactory.

WCD AND BEYOND

The WCD has quoted that it alone is ultimately responsible for the conclusions and recommendations presented in the report. As a follow up of the dissemination of its report, the commission recommends that all interested groups put in place an appropriate consultative process to review the report and propose a fitting response that will lead to effective implementation and incorporation of its recommendations in their respective policies. Specific requests by WCD to the governments and line ministries are:

National governments to:

• establish an independent, multi-stakeholder committee to address the unresolved legacy of past dams;
• require a review of existing procedures and regulations concerning large dam projects; develop a specific policy statement governing stakeholder participation in options assessment and planning, setting out the range of considerations that will be incorporated;
• review legal, policy and institutional frameworks to assess and remove any bias against resource conservation, efficiency and decentralised options, and any hindrance to open participatory processes; and
• introduce and support a UN General Assembly resolution that welcomes the need.

Comment:

No Sovereign State would like to have an external review of its decisions and it would like to ensure that no tacit and tactful steps are made by any bodies from outside to surrogate the authority of deciding the measures as to what is best for the Nation. Keeping this in view, any positive suggestion of WCD can be given a due consideration.

FUTURE COURSE OF ACTION

Limitations of the WCD Final Report

Report of the WCD has put forth the criteria and framework to mingle the disputing aspects in the project cycle of the dams. While reactions on these are pouring in, it remains to be seen how these guidelines can be put into practice. The existing dam design criteria of nations are also to be reviewed and some further guideline would be required.

The following issues have not been considered adequately in the report:

1. While basin planning and its management is being talked about in the scientific and technical community, its real effectiveness lies in its implementation, which is lacking. WCD report has recognised that there is no typical basin in the world. The directives in this regard in WCD report are weak. The existing Inter-basin Transfer laws and policies, which are considered not adequately in the present context, are merely reproduced.
2. Inability of the governments to prevent encroachments of the bed-plains due to various reasons required much stronger criticism by WCD as all ecosystem and bio-diversity livelihood problems are encountered due to ever increasing d/s habitation.
3. WCD Thematic on financing trends has reported that 78% of the dams all over the world are built by nations own resources and only 22% are built from financial aids/loans etc. It is surprising to note that the WCD report is silent on this aspect. Thus the WCD financial review of dams is confined to only those projects, which are funded by the banks and other agencies. The report will be incomplete without this analysis as majority of the problems faced by the governments are primarily because of inadequate resources of the developing nations, which are frequently diverted due to internal priorities.

Increased Responsibility of the International Bodies like ICID/ICOLD/IHA/IAIA

With the dissemination of the report of WCD, the responsibility of the above international agencies associated with dams has increased many folds. Reactions of country members are to be analysed in depth. WCD examined only the disputing aspects of the dams. General guidelines put forth by the WCD are yet to be merged into the respective guidelines/design criteria of the nation dam building industry. The disputable aspects as well as the pro-developmental aspects should be incorporated into the WCD guidelines/criteria. This process may change the entire strategy of the developmental guidelines and resulting criteria. The acceptable aspects of the WCD guideline can now be further examined and re-designed as to how these can be merged in the design aspects of the future and pipeline dams.

Parawise Comments in Annex 2 follows ………….

From YOGENDRA PRASAD

Chairman & Managing Director, National Hydroelectric Power Corpn.Ltd.

Comments on Various Specific Issues

1.      Impact of human induced water withdrawals from world’s lakes, rivers and ground acquifiers to an extent of 3800 cubic km twice as much as it was 50 years has been projected with dramatic effects.  Doubling the water withdrawal in 50 years ago with growing global population is neither unexpected nor excessive.  The fact remains that the world including the affluent and advanced segments still suffer due to excess water as floods or deficit water as droughts.

2.      Much has been discussed about competing needs and competing interests and balancing both within and between.  There is nothing unusual about this.  Competing needs and interests are inherent conflicts of nature in any field and the path of cooperation is always studded with compromises supporting the concept of survival of the fittest.

3.      It is heartening to note that the more than 45000 dams around the world have contributed substantially for the survival of human being and satisfying human needs including electricity for comfort and life support.

4.      The number of persons displaced by the 45000 or more dams is cited as a major cost of construction of dam and a matter of serious consternation and concern.  The fact that dams have been built for thousands of years (quote) and conceding for argument displacement of even 80 million persons in a period several thousand years, the impact is not alarming considering the world population of about 10,000 million.  Further humans by nature nomadic and diaspora is a very natural phenomenon world over irrespective of prosperity and necessity.  Displacement is a continuous occurrence under compelling circumstances-in search of food, shelter, safety, security, etc.  The displacements have done good to all-better health, better job, better food, better education, better standard of living.  The most prosperous nation in the world, USA is a land of migrants.  Hence displacement of dam affected persons is a minor issue which in the ultimate reckoning will enrich the people displaced in all aspects.

5.      The commission’s 12 members were chosen to represent all interests and the commission’s mandate relates to, among other things, alternatives for water resources and energy developments and matters that are esoteric, Serious doubts arise about credentials and suitability of members well known to be eristic, acerbic, insouciant and inveterate.  A fair and unbiased report from people with a mind set is therefore not possible.

6.      The total number of large dams as per the WCD report is well over 45000 built over a period thousands of years.  However, the knowledge base includes 8 detailed case studies, country review for only 2 countries out of more than 200 countries in the world, cross check survey of 125 existing dams, 17 Thematic Review papers, etc.  It is stated that this provided the basis for technical financial, economic, environmental and social performance of large dams.  In the absence of details it would not be possible to conclude if a proper mix of samples of dams was considered.  In any case the number of samples is too small and too less to draw any useful conclusion.  The whole exercise of WCD gets reduced to a mockery with a miniscule sampling, which guided the assessment.

7.      While enlisting the various failures of some large dams to perform and to yield expected results, the assessment seems to have shut out all positive impacts.  Further generalised statements equally applicable for any developmental works such as delays, cost over-runs, effect on eco-system etc. pervade the report solely to impress that large dams are really evil structures.  The absence of positive impacts does not lead to a balance sheet approach as claimed and condemnations of large dams as monumental failures weaken the force of arguments against large dams.

8.      The non-dam options suggested such as demand side management, supply efficiency etc. have been tried for many years especially in countries where scope for betterment of  performance is available.  They however cannot be a substitute for the immense benefits that large dams yield.

9.      The construction of a large dam becomes a compulsion and is not the result of a hasty thoughtless fancy.  Dire need to provide food for starving millions and thirsty throats has been the basis for construction of dams and decision to construct is preceded by critical study of ramifications.  Even then decades pass before active start is made because of concern of relatively few who are inconvenienced compared to millions who are benefited.  There are examples of a large number of dams not taking shape even though not facing any opposition even after several years since sanction for evolving acceptable mitigating measures.

10.On the face of it, the five principles for decision making are universal and noble.  They are applicable to even small dam and for any size with equal relevance, reliability, validity and vehemence.  However, when conflicting interest, supercharged passion and stoked fire of emotion are involved, sane compromises are not possible and consensus is never achieved.  The idea is idealistic and utopian but is never pragmatic and practical.  If the larger interests are to be protected neutral agencies should prevail upon a minor group of antagonists in the overall interest of country and society rather than a cucconed community.

11.When the question of “rights” is being raised, the limiting line for rights become questionable.  “Rights” should not mean “rights” of people at the dam site or the rights of those affected by dam construction.  The rights should include the rights of benefits some enjoy elsewhere, the right to food, water and shelter and many more.  The river belongs to the nation and sometimes to a region.  The land belongs to the country and the people.  Just because a clan, a group and a community migrated and settled along the river course, ownership and the right to use do not automatically get conferred on them.  Proximity and vicinity do not bestow the right to own and control.  Produce and products travel far and wide to benefit rich, the affluent and those who can afford.  This is the natural law of trade and commerce.

12.The suggestions for optimizing benefits from existing dam by better technology, management and operation practices are excellent and must be put to good use sincerely.  Though this is expected to be done in all cases, the approach may not receive due attention as new construction may be easy and profitable than modifications needing greater efforts to carry out.  Same is the case with other options.  However, the benefits that can be derived from large dams is so enormous, one may not find other options comparable and dam option cannot just be wished away.

13.It is true that commitments made regarding R&R measures, compensation and employment etc. are ignored with impunity in developing countries having pervasive corruption.  Exploiting the innocent and illiterate and socially weak tribals by corrupt officials, politicians and individuals by cheating, coercion and intimidation etc. are facts of life.  This menace is common to all developmental works.  It does not mean that developmental works that benefit majority of society should be abandoned just because few are cheated or denied their due.  The remedy is to attack the malady and not the body.  NGO and anti-dam activists should channelise their energy to ensure that the intended benefits reach the PAP.

14.The 7 strategic priorities highlighted in the WCD report are by and large noble, logical and acceptable to varying degrees.  Public acceptance and if tribals are involved, their free, prior and informed consent are recommended as guides for decision making.  As mentioned earlier, acceptance by all can be ruled out as impractical.  Comprehensive option assessment by considering other options to achieve the same objectives and a proper assessment of the various options should guide the decision-making.  There is no denying that deriving full benefits from existing dams by scientific reservoir operation and water use management should precede any decision to construct new dams.  All other priorities for decision making such as recognizing entitlements and sharing benefits, ensuring compliance etc. have been amply addressed in the foregoing.

15.Divisive conflicts arising out of storage and diversion of waters on trans boundary river have been cleverly avoided and in most of prestigious trans-national projects such as Itaipu, the implementation have been marked by cordiality, cooperation and mutual trust to reap mutual benefits.  Conflicts arise in many ventures due to adoption of unfair means and by overbearing attitude of one nation by another.

16.All in all, the objective of the WCD report is to highlight the negative impacts of large dam construction, focus the plights of tribals and other project affected persons, exaggerate the failures or effectiveness of large dams and suggest measures for rational decision whether or not to have large dam – measures that outwardly appear harmless but on closer look dangerous.  The whole WCD report’s executive summary opens up surprisingly with the history of dam construction and how dams have benefited humanity.  Having provided the comfort of unbiased or rather favourable atmosphere that plunges one to lethargic complacence, the report unveils the real intentions gradually by bringing in contemporary awareness of the insidious perils and evils and ends again with a set of guidelines for a decision about the need for the dam that are beguiled with equitable and dispassionate solutions.  In sum and substance, the WCD report even with the sugar coating is decisive anti-antagonistic to large dam construction and undoubtedly opposed to large or for that matter any size and type of dam.  The report wrongly presumes that the river and the waters with the forest and fodder belong to the people around and only to the people around whose fancied distress should be prevented and if possible, preempted.  The motto seems to be “let million suffer and perish but few living in poverty, penury, nudity, ignorance, illiteracy and, in short, misery should be prevented from any improvement or integration with the main stream”.  WCD does not seem to comprehend that for every one person affected by having a large dam there are thousands who are more affected by not having a large dam.  Thus the project affected persons (PAPs) are those who are affected by constructing a dam and also those who are affected by not constructing a dam.

17.As far as, hydro projects are concerned there are very few single purpose storage projects in India and so may be the case in other countries except for pumped storage schemes.  The extent of submergence and displacement in run of the river hydel schemes is minimal and R&R measures implementable.

18.The definition of large dam as per “ICOLD” covers almost all dams.  The classification of dam as large or small has not material importance except where statutory provisions are attracted for compliance or benefits.  If the categorisation should be in terms of submergence and displacement, this may insulate dams of hydro projects in general and those of run of the rivers in particular from onslaught by dam opponents.  There is an urgent to divide on the basis of distress, as dams with beneficial impact and dams with adverse impact.

19.The idea of sharing of cost and benefit as propounded in the WCD report.  Distress and benefit are inter-dependent.  The question of why some people should bear the cost and suffer and others far away should reap and enjoy the benefit and profit can be countered by another question as to why the soldiers fight in the border and elsewhere to allow the rest of the population to rest and sleep in peace and security.  Would the dam antagonist suggest disbanding the military services to protect the lives of the fighting forces.