ICOLD members - Norway

Concise Comments from NNCOLD on World Commission on Dams

INTRODUCTION

Based on the fact that the ”—report has distilled more than two years of intense study, dialogue, and reflection by the World Commission on Dams (WCD), the WCD Secretariat, the WCD Forum, and hundreds of individual experts on every facet of dams debate---”, commenting on the report in a consistent way has become a difficult task.

Due to the fact that a number of statements in the report itself are repetitive but still far from consistent, everyone interested in following the invitation to make the report the start of a world-wide discussion will face some fundamental problems. The domination of political statements does not make things easier.

Even though one must admire the tremendous work done to make this report, and also in general give credit to the amount of facts selected and commented upon, the question should still be raised:

Would less words, less repetitions have made the report a better and even more useful document ?

In NNCOLDs view the answer is yes. Based on NNCOLDs own experience from the Glomma & Laagen Case Study, we have some questions and doubts on whether the world wide WCD-process have been homogeneous enough to avoid comparing “apples and pears”. We do also question whether the Commissioners actually had a chance to go in depth in the enormous material and if the selection process in the secretariat were actually unbiased.

The majority of the Commission members seems to regard the report as fully independent as well as neutral. To NNCOLD, however, it is difficult to avoid the general, final impression that as a whole

the passing note of the WCD report has resulted in over-emphasising the negative information about large dams and underestimated the positive effects from storing water in reservoirs.

Due to the lack of report consistence, attempts to argue topic by topic is doomed not to succeed. It can always be found some line, in some statement, in some chapter that will be more in line with ones own opinion than the statement you possibly would like to arrest.

Thus, within the given time-limit, NNCOLD have chosen to comment along the following lines :

• Discuss the political and ideological approach chosen by the commission
• Give examples on biased and irrelevant arguments leading to the unbalance referred to above
• Question some of the basic “facts” leading to some report conclusions

POLICY

Based on the following statement : “The debate about dams is a debate about the very meaning, purpose and pathway of development as well as the role the state plays” the Commission has chosen to use the opportunity given through the WCD project to stress certain political views on development in general.

Whether or not this has been the optimal way to achieve their objectives, namely

• to review the development effectiveness of large dams and assess alternatives for water resources and energy development; and
• to develop internationally acceptable criteria, guidelines and standards, where appropriate, for the planning, design, appraisal, construction, operation, monitoring and decommissioning of dams

is difficult to say, at least until possible alternative works are presented. There is, however, reasons to stress the fact that most of the arguments concerning planning and development will apply to all sort of medium and large scale development. So the rapport in some contexts may appear as a crusade with large dams as a convenient scapegoat.

As the Commission has been looking at general development problems by raising even more general political issues, the question can be raised whether the dams debate should be burdened by general, global political issues

The basic question introduced concerns the level of planning and decision. In addition to observing some lack of coherence in this connection, the reader may ascertain that while trying to move as much decision power from national governments to local communities as possible, the report has no remonstrance to introduce internationally based decision procedures that will infringe on the sovereignty of the countries (in the third world!)

The issues raised in the UNDP Human Development Report 2000, and the Rio Principles are not new.

They have been part of foreign aid policy discussions since the late sixties. Most of the principles will be supported by most people. Most of the principles are relevant to a general development debate, some more specifically to the dams debate. A majority of people, in developing as well as in industrialised countries, will also see a general need for a more even distribution of wealth and welfare on national as well as international levels.

It can be questioned, however, whether and when one of the shifts introduced by UNDP, namely

• “From national to international and global accountabilities- and from the international obligations of States to the responsibilities of global actors”

should be applied as uncritically and without reservations as done by the Commission.

There is a possibility that reactions to some of the Commission’s political statements made along this line may over-shadow the damsdiscussion that is intended to take place. This in spite of the topic being no doubt one of the most fundamental questions shared by most participants in development projects, included water resources development;

As an example on what may create political reactions are statements intended to short-cut the government level. The following Commission statements are probably among the top candidates for such reactions:

• “---These obstacles include lack of political will or incentive, especially where the democratisation process has not reached a level where citizens and civil society organisations are strong enough to influence decision-making”.
• “Governments are too often inclined to invoke urgent development needs as a reason for restricting rights, while civil society groups believe that full respect for rights and the search for alternatives represents the surest way of promoting equity and justice in development”.

An even higher potential for (unwanted) reactions can be anticipated due to the rather

sensational suggestion made by the Commission to go further than the ILO Convention concerning the definition of indigenous people. The commission is suggesting to involve groups satisfying the following criteria :

• “Historical continuity with pre-colonial societies, which is determined on the basis of the following criteria, regardless of whether they are formally recognised as indigenous people or not:
• Subsistence oriented and natural resource based production systems
• Presence of customary social and political institutions
• An indigenous language, often different from the national language
• An experience of subjugation, exclusion or discrimination, whether or not these conditions persist.
• Vulnerability to being disadvantaged in the development process
• Close attachment to ancestral resources in such areas
• Self-identification as distinct from the dominant group or groups in societies, and identification

by others as members of a distinct group”

It can be questioned whether the Commission will help solving specific dam questions by an approach which actually can be interpreted as carrying wood to the fire of nationalism that is riding the world as a night-mare these days.

Psychologically it is difficult to find a more efficient way to take the focus away from the actual topic to be discussed. Some national states, not only in the third world, are likely to reject the principles suggested very heavily.

By not having succeeded in balancing between general political obsessions and policy issues with direct thematic relevance, the Commission is running the risk to take focus away from the actual debate concerning large dams.

BIASED AND EXAGGERATED ARGUMENTS AND STATEMENTS. BASIC FACTS ?

By just commenting on the following limited number of examples one will be far from a complete analysis of the Commission’s report. The cases should, however, be able to support some of the critical comments made under the first part of this brief report.

Stakeholders at different levels

To avoid “suffering of indigenous and tribal people, women and other vulnerable groups, who have been shown to suffer disproportionately---“ and to secure “women’s participation and gender equity” the Commission is suggesting that “A fair, informed and transparent decision-making process, based on the acknowledgement and protection of existing rights and entitlements, will give all stakeholders the opportunity to fully and actively participate in the decision-making process”.

Supplementary to what is stressed under Policy, the following comments are relevant :

• Discussions on cultural differences concerning gender equity will usually not be initiated by the traditional local groups praised by the Commission as guarantors for democratic handling of dam projects. It is not clear how gender policy, seen from a Western point of view, is going to be imposed on the local stakeholders through new decision rules for dam projects, without coming very close to what could be regarded among some stakeholders as neo-colonialism.
• Throughout the report it seems to have been forgotten that certain needs arising at a national level, for instance as part of a national or regional energy policy, will need initiatives taken at a central level. Thus, the counterpart to local stakeholders will not be government and big companies only.

Ordinary consumers in cities do also have this position.

Similar to risks taken by local stakeholders, risks like big city black-outs will certainly have consequences to citizens as a whole.

• The Commission seems to take it for granted that “indigenous and tribal people, women and other vulnerable groups” always will have the same interest as stakeholders as environment and bio-diversity. On the contrary, the opposite may very often be the case, particularly when the definition of local people is widened according to the extension suggested by the Commission (ref. Policy) .

Example : Initiatives to establish protected areas to strengthen or re-introduce endangered wild animal populations are often taken by academics, NGOs or ministries at a national, regional or international level, frequently against the will and preferences made by the local population.

Alternatives to dams

Even when limited to the energy aspect only, the report fails in a number of ways when it comes to alternatives.

• In contrast with the global approach in the policy part concerning the decision-making process, climate and energy problems at a global scale are only briefly touched upon. By avoiding this decisive argument for global thinking, the lack of balance become even more evident.
• Existing dams are given very little credit for their CO2 savings. On the contrary, the reports main focus in this relation is limited to non typical CO2 release from certain reservoirs.
• Like in many reports influenced by NGOs, the transition period needed to develop and introduce economically feasible new technologies and so-called new renewables is embarrassingly underestimated.
• Similarly Demand Management is introduced as the solving solution – no more dams needed. Unfortunately it is a long way to go before demand management can replace coal and nuclear energy sources in the industrialised countries. This should be even more valid for large-scale hydro as a renewable energy resource.

In developing countries, where according to the Commission one finds two billion people without electricity at all, to suggest demand management solutions is an insult to the potential consumers, still hoping to be offered at least a minimum of the advantages following electrification.

• The Commission is strongly focusing on project delays and cost overruns as typical problems connected to dams. It can be questioned whether this is specific to dams or rather a general problem common to all large scale enterprises, included those introduced as alternatives to dams.

Two examples on irrelevant argumentation

In addition to focusing on cost overrun and project delays other comments even more irrelevant should be mentioned.

• From the Commission’s findings and lessons “---with a flood control component have provided important benefits in this regard, but at the same time have led to an increased vulnerability to flood hazards due to increased settlement in areas still at risk from floods---“.

The tendency to develop the natural flood plain of the river is a well known problem, in industrialised as well as in third world countries. To present this as a negative characteristic of dams is, however, a distortion of reality. It can be compared to making an effort to stop construction of air-ports to avoid that anyone run a risk to be too late to catch a flight.

Is it to support the idea that governments and major international corporations should not be the dominating stakeholders of dam construction and planning ? Whatever the reason, someone can use this focus by adding it to their general negative attitude to dams.

Dams and trends in global economy. Market mechanisms

While the enthusiasm for local participation is backed by the intention to apply international guidelines, standards and institutions, the Commission cleverly avoids a discussion of trends like the widening use of global markets. By doing this, one important mechanism that tend to be an ever more dominant factor as a decision-making tool for investments, is totally kept away from the discussion.

Whether or not international market mechanisms are acceptable in ones political priorities or not, it can not be swept under the carpet that free markets will be as important as applying so-called strategic priorities as suggested by the Commission. Planning economy in a new dress, strengthened by elements like environment and local people as more visible stakeholders, is not likely to make the pendulum of global economy to swing back from market mechanisms in the near future.

This shortcoming of the report means a fundamental lack of balance, at least regarding dams made for hydropower. It is important to keep in mind that development of free electricity markets is no longer limited to Western Europe and Northern America.

Guidelines for good practice. Decision procedures

It is assumed that by introducing tools for future planning of large dams the Commission is acting with the best intention. Other institutions, like the International Energy Agency, Implementing Agreement for Hydropower Technologies and Programmes have also been working with best practise guidelines in order to enhance development of hydro power. An important difference that should be kept in mind is that IEA is reserving their guidelines for the national level. In other words international standards for decisions are avoided. Whatever the approach;

When mixed with political objections these red tape procedures may represent efficient roadblocks

to any development. The Norwegian procedures referred to by the Commission have in fact very effectively stopped virtually all hydro power development in the country since the late eighties.

Thus, the result of the best intention shown by the Commission may be investments in environmentally less favourable energy resources.

FINAL REMARKS

The Commission is expressing a hope that “---one of the lasting results of the WCD process will have been to change the tenor of that debate from one of lack of trust and destructive confrontation to

co-operation, shared goals and more equitable development outcomes”.

This hope is certainly also shared by NNCOLD. A better mutual understanding might already have been achieved through the report.

The rather critical comments made in this brief report are, however, made in order to show that mistrust can not be totally avoided unless every suspicion about intended bias from one part is removed. In NNCOLDs opinion this is not the case with the WCD report at hand.

Quo vadis?

A relevant question is,- will this report be just a document used to hit ones opponents in the head when relevant or will someone take the responsibility of refining and develop some of the vast amounts of half digested basis material gathered in the WCD process? NNCOLD will advise ICOLD, in collaboration with other relevant organisations, to take on the challenge to bring the results several steps further than WCD have managed,- and hopefully on a more neutral path.

Pål Mellquist

President NNCOLD