ICOLD members - United Kingdom
Contributions from the British Dam Society to the ICOLD Formal Response to the WCD Report
Summary
Written comments have been received from six members of the Society (the UK Committee on Large Dams) and a few have offered comments verbally. Not all had read the whole report. Speaking from my own experience, this is essential. The first half is mostly bad news about dams and the second half is optimistic about achieving a new order that will lead to more effective and equitable dam projects.
All the comments are constructive and all are included in full below. It is difficult to summarise, but here is an attempt:
All endorsed the report and the recommendations with different degrees of enthusiasm. Most wanted ICOLD to endorse the report and view it as a guide to good practice.
Most thought that the report says little about the benefits dams have brought, but felt that objecting about this served no useful purpose, and might be seen as condoning bad practice.
One was concerned that the high standards required would slow the process of dam development to such an extent that many would suffer.
Some noted that lack of capacity may constrain progress and wanted ICOLD and others to address this urgently. One suggested particular emphasis on several technical issues including greenhouse gas emissions, public health benefits and sedimentation.
Most wanted ICOLD to take up the activities suggested by WCD which include consultations with NGOs and other groups to learn lessons from dam projects and apply them in future.
Comments Received
1. From Geoff Sims, Vice President, ICOLD, 20th November 2000
No sensible person would argue against the main thrust of the WCD Report. Dams are essential to human well being and will continue to be so in the future. The report must not be used to stop dam projects which are so urgently needed. They are far more likely to be successful if all those involved are represented in the discussions leading to the implementation decision.
The Report is the nearest we have to global guidelines for the development of projects involving large dams. To avoid the waste involved with the bitter arguments of the past we have a duty to adapt our working methods to conform to the guidelines WCD have revealed. This will require considerable effort and probably specific training to achieve reasonably efficient communication between all those benefiting from or affected by a project. The measure of success will be that the good projects, so needed by developing countries in particular, will go ahead smoothly to the satisfaction of all. The whole of the engineering and finance industries involved with these projects will have to address these issues. It will require hard work to facilitate effective communication between the technical professionals and those others with a legitimate interest in a project.
Some dam projects have not fulfilled their planned aims and considerable progress will be needed to reduce the operational weaknesses that are endemic in some parts of the world. It appears that Funding Agencies should address this issue urgently.
There are real difficulties in accounting financially for the environmental and social costs of major infrastructure projects. These matters will be better resolved when there is a good level of understanding of the technical and social bases of these issues.
The WCD has set us all a challenging task to develop good quality projects in the future.
2. From Dr Rodney White, Expert on Flushing Sediment from Reservoirs, 21st November 2000
It worries me that, yet again, people are taking extreme positions in the dams debate. If I may be philosophical for a minute:
1. The world is currently losing its total storage capacity in reservoirs. This is because the gross sedimentation rate exceeds the rate at which new reservoirs are being built.
2. The rate at which new reservoirs are being built has slowed significantly in the last 15 years partly because the downside of dams has been highlighted by those who are concerned with environmental and social issues.
3. There are many firm indicators that suggest more storage will be required in the future:
- population rising from 6 to 9 or 10 billion by 2050.
- water required for food production for the expanding population.
- power demands to meet the aspirations of the expanding population.
4. There are other indicators which will possibly further increase the requirement for storage:
- increased storminess (climate change) due to global warming making it even more important that we can the store the increased floods to cope with the increased droughts.
- greater consumption per head as standards of living increase.
5. It was such a privilege to hear Nelson Mandela speak and his words of wisdom on the aspirations of those without enough water to drink, enough water to produce food, electricity to light their homes and water to provide sanitation must strike a chord with all reasonable people.
6. If we continue to take extreme stances and fight over every individual proposal, dams will continue to be built - but at an extremely slow rate and with extreme animosity.
7. If we take the WCD Report to heart then the following will happen:
- more thorough studies will be carried out before dams are built (possible alternatives, environmental aspects, social aspects etc)
- dams will be designed to be more sustainable (read my Thomas Telford book
"Evacuating sediments from reservoirs" - out in January 2001!)
- dams will cost more.
- dams will be built at a rate which will exceed the "confrontational" rate but will not match the "1960s" rate.
8. Thus, in my humble opinion, the WCD Report provides a compromise solution which is of value. The sad thing is that the "compromise" rate will not be enough to meet the aspirations of the expanding population when the scarcity of water becomes a really serious issue. Stephen Hawking gives the human race less than a 1000 years. Who am I to argue?
3 From Peter Kite, National Strategic Services Manager, Environment Agency
1. The WCD have produced an excellent report and the process they have adopted is the very one they espouse for dams in that it covers all aspects and is inclusive. The issues have been identified, set out clearly and a way forward offered.
2. There is the fundamental recognition that economic, social and environmental aspects of any development are inter-linked and that the outcome is from a process of reconciling competing needs.
3. The development of a water and energy resources strategy, of which the development of dams forms part, is rightly identified as being contained within the overall development strategy for the particular State.
4. Sustainable water resources management plays its part in the overall aim of sustainable development. There is clear support for the lead taken by the Environment Agency in England and Wales for demand management, reduced consumption, recycling, supply and end use efficiency.
5. There is the expressed need for wider options assessment and a more inclusive consultation process with all stakeholders using a rights and risk based approach. This means more proactive management of this part of the development process in parallel and integrating with other processes in order that lead times are not extended and delays do not occur.
6. There is the opportunity for Engineers to consolidate their role to strongly influence the recognition of all the issues and ensure they are addressed (rather than just being perceived as builders of the structures, however laudable this is).
7. There will be problems of gaining acceptability and implementation in all States, but this could be facilitated in some way if professional bodies, such as ICOLD, accept the findings of the WCD report as best practice guidance.
8. The need to undertake post project appraisal covering all aspects not only the economic, but social and environmental too is supported. Lessons learned should be taken forward and actions put in place to remedy existing adverse impacts caused by dams.
4. From Alan Johnston, Past Chairman, BDS
1. General Tenor of Response
1.1 We need to respond constructively by welcoming the comments which support ICOLD and BDS’s efforts to build and maintain the world’s dams to the highest standards.
The dam engineers views will be drowned out/ignored if we appear to concentrate on the defects in the report.
1.2 We should deal mainly with topics within our technical expertise and should not become embroiled in political aspects.
1.3 The report includes suggested actions by professional associations such as ICOLD (and BDS). We need to respond specifically to these points.
2. Public Health
We need to reiterate that the world would be a less healthy place without the water stored in reservoirs. The report includes a number of examples of adverse effects on health due to the spread of water-borne disease. However the overwhelming benefit of ample, clean water to public health in eliminating diseases such as typhoid and cholera is not recognised adequately in the report.
3. Existing Dams
The report points out that the vast bulk of the dams which will be utilised in the first half of the 21st century already exist and emphasises the importance of the opportunities to optimise benefits from existing dams and the importance of operating and maintaining these dams for reasons of safety and efficiency. The UK system of planning goes a long way to ensure the first objective but no doubt more could be done. Engineers have been calling for increased investment and attention to ensure the safety of dams as the stock ages and it is helpful to have WCD support for this work. The proposals in the Water Bill for the mandatory production of flood plans is an example of the UK government and the industry responding to needs for greater attention to safety and to transparency.
4. Lessons from the Case Studies
The Case Studies present a picture of under-achievement of the initial targets for the projects described. No doubt the authors were constrained by the evidence available. The “non-Dam” or “Do Nothing” options would also have had benefits/disbenefits and there is no reason to believe that they would have fared better in a similar “hindsight” review. However, this is not a reason for complacency. The report encourages us to adopt best practice in all aspects of development and we need to welcome this challenge.
5. Sediment Management
The report provides a useful reminder on the importance of sediment management plans to ensure that the benefit of the storage available in reservoirs is not lost unnecessarily due to sedimentation. The proposals for academic and research bodies should include further work on reservoirs and their catchments to reduce the effects of sedimentation.
6. Environmental Flow Assessments
The report provides a framework for arriving at environmental flows i.e. compensation flows. It would be reasonable to review these flows periodically to reflect changing circumstances.
7. Time-bound Licences
The report advocates strongly the practice of “time-bound licences for all dams, whether public or privately owned”. This proposal has merit but there is no evidence given on how such licences operate in practice. It is worth consideration by UK Government.
8. Greenhouse Gas emissions
The information on GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions from reservoirs is limited and we should support more baseline measurements on reservoirs and their catchments on existing projects to assist in assessments of climate change and energy options.
9. Professional Associations and Agencies
The report makes five recommendations for ICOLD and similar bodies and we should comment on each.
(i) Promote a culture of evaluation and self-reflections
We do try to learn from our experience (hence Congresses, meetings, papers) and apply the lessons learned.
(ii) Extend national committees to include consultation groups of NGO’s etc.
In the UK, consultative groups have been formed on a project-by-project basis and this seems the best way of providing a focus for such groups.
(iii) Set Up Joint Work Programmes (with consultative groups)
There would be merit in DETR funding a Reservoir Operations Research Programme similar to the Reservoirs Safety Research Programme and this would include other disciplines.
(iv) Develop processes for certifying compliance with WCD Guidelines
If Governments or lending agencies decide to adopt WCD guidelines they will determine the certifying compliance processes. ICOLD could assist if asked.
(v) Extend ICOLD Register to include Social and Environmental Parameters
This would be a major undertaking and require financial input from beyond ICOLD’s resources. To be comprehensive it would need also further technical and also, economic parameters. The individual case study approach is likely to be more practical.
5. From Rod Bridle, Chair, British Dam Society
The World Commission on Dam’s report covers all aspects of development involving dams and was prepared after consultations with all groups with an interest in dams. No dam professional with a conscience can have been comfortable reading its early chapters. While some of the shortcomings listed might be put down to the evolving processes of decision making, implementation and operation of dams, the social and environmental costs have been unacceptable in many cases, often unnecessarily so.
Drawing on guidelines issued by ICOLD, the World Bank and others, and following the principles of sustainable development, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948); the UN Declaration on the Right to Development (1986), the Rio Declaration on the Environment and Development (1992), the later chapters of the report set out positive guidelines on how to improve on the already ‘significant contribution that dams have made to human development’.
They address the fundamental failures in the processes of dam development through a series of strategic priorities and guidelines, all entered into in good faith by all parties. They include compliance and dispute resolution arrangements at every stage. Public acceptance should be generated through decisions negotiated in a forum of core stakeholders including affected peoples, environmental advisors and government planners. Comprehensive options assessments should be made, including impact assessments, life cycle costings, and checks that benefits and costs are equitably distributed between those affected and those benefitting. The sustainability of rivers and livelihoods should be examined through ecosystem surveys and environmental flow assessments. At project stage, detailed surveys of social conditions and risks of impoverishment should lead to implementation of resettlement and mitigation plans that result in equitable benefit sharing. Periodic re-licensing and reviews of existing dams should be made to check and adapt their operational effectiveness and redress remaining negative social and environmental impacts.
The Commission encountered considerable experience and good practice in implementing such a rights based approach, but it requires a legal and procedural framework that provides for free and informed negotiation.
While the WCD recommendations may seem challenging, few are new in ICOLD’s experience. The Report compliments ICOLD by many references and puts much trust in us. It recommends that we participate in the process of furthering the good practice recommended in the report by a number of actions. These include encouraging professional development by reviewing performance of dam projects and applying lessons learnt, including engaging with NGO, environmental and affected peoples’ groups with the same objective. We should also consider developing processes for certifying compliance with WCD guidelines and expand the ICOLD dams database to include social and environmental data.
I will urge BDS to will take up these specific recommendations and advocate the approach to dam development recommended in the report. I hope ICOLD will do the same. By doing so ICOLD will grow from the international ‘dam engineers’ organisation that it is in large measure at present to become ‘the’ international dam organisation, able to speak with authority on every aspect of dams.
Adopting the new recommendations will impose heavy burdens on professionals in dams, not just engineers. An immediate need will be for evaluation of existing dams and making recommendations on improved efficiency. This seems to be a step further than our current work on operations and rehabilitation and we should consider preparing an emergency bulletin on the subject. Negotiators, operational managers, options and risk assessors, to name but a few, will all be needed to progress new dam projects within the recommendations. ICOLD needs to encourage professional development and develop Bulletins on such issues.
6. From Jim Claydon, Yorkshire Water
1. This is a Report that deserves serious consideration and more time than I have been able to give it so far. The comments below are not intended to be a comprehensive review, but reflect particular points of personal interest to the writer.
2. I attended the launch of the report in London on 16th November. The verbal presentations were balanced, yet the written text does not always reflect this. Most of the press coverage has concentrated on the negative impacts of large dams and I can understand why this is the case from the report. An example of this lack of balance is that the section starting on page 15 headed “Problems associated with Large Dams” is not countered anywhere with a section on “Benefits associated with Large Dams”. There are statistics given on how many people have been displaced but none on how many lives have been saved by flood control or protected by increased agricultural production.
3. The Options Assessment section of Chapter 8 gives equal weight to social, environmental, technical, economic and financial factors. I agree they must all be considered, but the relative weighting will vary according to the local political and regulatory situation. I note there is no reference to environmental economics, where techniques are being employed to reduce decision making to purely financial equations. Am I correct in assuming that this is not favoured by the Commission?
4. On decommissioning dams it is worth noting that in the UK there is opposition to removal of dams because of loss of public amenity. The proposition that the sediment can be released downstream would cause wide environmental concern.
Home
