ICOLD members - Slovakia

Miroslav B. Liška, President of the Slovak NCOLD

Based on athorough analysis of 8 case studies and on asurvey of 125 large dams all around the world, the Report proposes arealistic approach to the planning, realisation, management and monitoring of large dams, to prevent unnecessary disputes about the usefulness of dams.

In spite of the fact that on page 7 of the brief version (overview), of the Report, the point of significant contribution of dams to the human development is stressed right in the first point, the next two points put this in doubt by stating that

- in too many cases an unacceptable price in social and environmental terms has been paid and that

- the value of many dams is questionable.

If this statement is put in relation with information given in the first paragraph of the introduction (pg.6) the reader can get afalse impression that most of the 45000 existing large dams have caused more harm then benefit. The examined 8 + 125 cases represent only less then 0,3 % of the total number of dams and the choice of cases was focused on “disputed” projects. Therefore it would be closer to the truth if the word “some” would be used instead of “many” and “too many”.

Besides, for dams conceived and built in the past, in other social and economic conditions, it is not adequate to apply today´s criteria for their classification. According to the state of knowledge in the time of their approval and construction, they could be justified, even if they do not comply with the actual standards.

On page 8, in the box 1 is an ICOLD definition of “large dams”. According to my knowledge adam lower then 15 metres is qualified as “large”, if the volume of the reservoir is greater then 1 (not 3) million cubic metres !

On page 11 (paragraph 3) there is again amisleading statement, saying: “In the United States, where the rate of decommissioning is greater then the rate of construction …”. This gives again a false impression, as if the USA were decommissioning dams because they became convinced about their harmfulness. The opposite is true. The number of dams is in this case not decisive, because small, inefficient and may be also environment-harming dams are decommissioned and replaced by bigger, more efficient and more environment-friendly ones. Iam sure that the stored volume of water and the installed capacity is still rising even in the USA, in spite of the fact that the limited resources of water and hydraulic energy are utilised to arather high degree, what diminishes the possible increase of these values. On page 16, in the last paragraph of the chapter “Ecosystems and large dams” there is repeated that “…in the US, ecosystem restoration is being implemented as aresult of the decommissioning of large and small dams.” This sentence, leaving out the word “some”, gives again the false impression of alarge scale abandoning of dams. The TV-film “Dams in Today´s World” sent by the USCOLD to all national committees, towards the end of the year 2000, is aproof that the formulation of these parts of the Report is inadequate.

On page 14, the forth bullet mentions cost overruns of large dams. Reasons of this, besides the rate of inflation, is the cost of involved investments, where the surrounding municipalities often take advantage of the prepared investment and try to solve as much of their problems as possible, on the cost of the dam project – as acondition of their consent. In the frame of the R-M-D Canal, social infrastructure (reconstruction of town centres) was financed from the project-budget, in Gabíkovo fresh-water supplies and waste-water management, improving largely the existing state of many towns and villages and the replacement of roads and resettlement is always realised on amuch higher technical level, as compared with the replaced structures. In some cases, especially in developed countries, where the anti-dam lobby is strongest, the conditions of the consent can reach also ablackmailing character.

On page 15, in the central paragraph, the report states that “On balance, the ecosystem impacts are more negative then positive…”. Of course, in some cases it may be true, but it can be also the consequence of comparing the “state after construction of the project” with the “state before construction”, what can lead to false results. Along most rivers of Europe (and Iam sure such trend can be observed also on other continents – certainly also along the Rio Grande) the ground-water level is declining, due to river-bed erosion, increase of ground-water consumption and other factors. Therefore, in the zero investment option, the surrounding nature would “naturaly” deteriorate, what can be remedied by the project. The impact of the project should therefore be always assessed as the difference between the “state with the project” and the “state without the project”.

In the next paragraph of the pg.15, there is again astatement that can be falsely generalised on all dams: “…reservoirs sampled so far by scientists all emit greenhouse gasses… significant, relative to emissions from equivalent thermal plants.” This may be true, if the vegetation in the reservoir – especially woods – were left to be flooded, what is not acase of properly realised dam project ! In the Nam Ngum reservoir, built in Laos in the thirties, there was awar between three local “generals”, all wanting to cash the price of high-quality tropic wood, (of course not caring for the remainders). Because the conflict was not settled before the filling of the reservoir, the trees eventually were left as a “ghost-wood” protruding from the water-level just upstream of the dam, until these days. But this is not atypical case.

In the centre of page 17, the Report points out that the “Knowledge Base demonstrated lack of commitment or lack of capacity to cope with displacement…” and “that the poor other vulnerable groups and future generations are likely to bear adisproportionate share of the social and environmental costs of large dam projects …”. Again, the Knowledge Base does not represent an average sample of dam-projects, but rather of the most discussed ones. Iagree that, the share of costs and benefits should be allocated more equitably. However, it is not the “priviledge” of dam projects, to put the heaviest burden on the poor, most vulnerable groups. In the history, it was the case of the settling of the West in United States, the case of every war. Also in highway projects, or thermal energy projects, people who have least benefit of the new investment have to get out of the way, to make possible the economic development of aregion. It is sufficient, to make provisions, to avoid such practice.

The statement on the top of page 18: “..failure to account adequately for these impacts … led to the impoverishment and suffering of millions, giving rise to growing opposition to dams by affected communities world-wide.” – substitutes the cause with the consequence and should be omitted. The growing opposition to dam did not start in the poor countries, but in the richest ones, where the opposition to dams was financed by the competing source of energy. Or have you ever heard about astrong environmental opposition against thermal energy projects? And it causes sour rains, adds to global warming-up, requires the replacement of whole towns and totally destroys the landscapes by open coal mines of by oil fields. The poors in the third world are again used as hostages in the economic battle of the rich ones.

Demand-side management, mentioned on page 18, has two sides: the economising of water and energy use is apositive one. The dam owners and power producers are interested in reducing the leakage losses, while the consumer is pressed by the cost of water or energy, to minimise or optimise his consumption. Further cutting down, or keeping low the consumption would mean the reducing of the living standard of people, or would cause losses in production and in productivity. This way of lowering the consumption was tried-out by the communist system and did not work. Of course, there are options to energy production. But wind and solar energy cannot be counted as competitive.

On page 20, to the reasons of leaving unresolved past conflicts, mentioned in the third paragraph, Iwould add also “…little care for fulfilling of international treaties and for respecting interests of neighbouring countries”.

Among the seven strategic priorities, on the first place is “Gaining Public Acceptance (pg.24). It has to be stressed that, it cannot mean that everybody should agree, but that aproject will be accepted in ademocratic way, by amajority of stakeholders, including people affected by the reservoir. But there always has to remain the possibility to override objections of some participant (stakeholder), if there is no other and no better way of assuring the development of the given region.

The second priority is the following (on pg.24) “Comprehensive Option Assessment”. Ido not agree with the general statement that “ Alternatives to dams often do exist.” Alternatives to energy supply exist always, sometimes also for flood protection. But no substitute for water (used for drinking, personal hygiene, and food production) was invented yet ! Therefore, for matching irregular and not assured flow of water in a river with the growing human needs, there exist no alternative, but adam. However, a comprehensive alternative solution, covering the multiple purposes and benefits of a dam project, often does not exist ! Of course, one possible solution is the co-operation of several dams in aregion which – working in asystem – can achieve ahigher effect. This is very clearly and correctly stated in the third priority “Addressing Existing Dams” (pg.25). However, it is less likely to occur in adeveloping country, where often the proposed dam is the first in the region. The co-operation of asystem of smaller dams is more probable in developed countries, where the dense population did not allow in the past to build alarge reservoir, instead of which several reservoirs on the tributaries had to be built.

In the forth priority concerning “Sustaining Rivers and Livelihoods” (pg.26) there is again arigid, dogmatic and therefore incorrect statement: “Dams transform landscapes and create risks of irreversible impacts.” More correct would be: “…dams may create risks …, but they may also help to overcome deficiencies in water-availability in the surrounding nature ! The third bullet prefers dams on tributaries – what may prove (especially in developing countries with lower density of population) much less efficient and much more burdening the budget of poor countries. (Now the social point of view disappeared ?) Priority should be given to the solution, where the desired effects are reached with lowest costs, including the environmental and social ones !

Ihave no comment to the rest of priorities.

On page 30, in specifying the first critical decision point requires completion:

“1. Needs assessment – validating the needs for water, water transport,

flood protection and energy services.

On page 32, after the “Box 3”, there is again atoo aggressive and generally incorrect statement: “Social, environmental, governance and compliance aspects have been undervalued in decision-making of some projects in the past.”

Asimilar remark applies also on page 36 to the first paragraph: “…the dam option will not be foreclosed or refused à priori, before they have had achance to examine their water and energy development choices, or solution of other river-related problems, within the context of their own development process.

Concluding remark: When alaw about anything is proposed, it is not acceptable, to consider the object of the law as à priori bad and dangerous and to stress it several times in each chapter. For instance - frequent road accidents lead in many countries to the invention of alaw about the principles of the road traffic, where it specifies regulations that have to be kept by all participants. However, it would be ridiculous, to start every second paragraph with astatement that cars are dangerous, that if you have another possibility to get from place Ato place B, you should avoid the use of acar. It specifies the priorities of people on marked crossroads, but avoids unnecessary accusations. It is natural that the law is formulated in aconsent between car users and representatives of pedestrians or people living only along the roads. But the formulation of paragraphs should not reveal the personal hatred of some of its inventors against cars as such, even if they have one, and would prefer to forbid completely the use of these deadly machines. From history, we laugh about the first “traffic law” which ordered to aperson to run before this dangerous (damned) machine, to warn people and to get them out of its way !

Bratislava, January 10, 2001.