ICOLD members - Venezuela

Notes of the Venezuelan Committee On Large Dams (COVENPRE) on the report of the World Commission On Dams (WCD).

These notes contain COVENPRE’s views of the WCD’s Report titled “ Dams and Development – A New Framework for Decision Making”, issued on November 16, 2.000.

COVENPRE has reviewed the alluded Report and the following comments make reference to the Chair’s Preface, the Commissioners’ Foreword, the Executive Summary, as well as to each one of its ten Chapters.

Chair’s Preface

• While, as stated, “the World Commission on Dams is, by design, strictly advisory..”, for some the Report should be followed without hesitation and no criticisms should be issued, even if many of the statements contained in the Report are biased and misleading.
• While Mr. Asmal indicates that “our mandate involves the most precious element on Earth..”, no reference is made in his text about the World Water Commission (WWC), the International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage (ICID), or the International Hydropower Association (IHA). Perhaps the reason for this, as stated by Mr. Asmal, is “I assert that we are much more than a ‘Dams Commission”.
• COVENPRE has some second thoughts about the statement “The integrity of our process determines the integrity of this product (the Report), which raises a key point”. We also have some doubts about the expertise of some of the members of the Commission for properly producing and monitoring a report of this nature.
• In his text Mr. Asmal states that “both sides of the debate gave their perspectives..”. The point is that the views and opinions of one of the sides has not been properly considered in the Report. As a matter of fact, the Stakeholder Forum was not consulted during the preparation of the Report, nor shown its draft before the final release.
• Mr. Asmal indicates that”...through hearings, consultations, case studies, submissions and reviews covering roughly one thousand large dams”... “a shared understanding and truth began to emerge”. The fact is that only 2.2% of the worldwide existing large dams (1.000/45.000) or 0.11% of all existing dams (1.000/876.000) were considered. A very precarious figure, indeed.
• Assertions about “dams changing river chemistry or increasing net greehouse gas emissions..”  are very general and have not been proved. Nevertheless, no reference at all is made concerning other factors contributing to river chemistry change, or what is the proportion of these supposed reservoir greenhouse emissions with respect to the greenhouse emissions produced by the burning of fossil fuels or from natural lakes and water bodies. No reference is made about the fact that many man made structures, other than dams, have exceeded by a factor of two or more their initial budget, nor the valid reasons that in many cases have caused such an increase.

Commissioners’ Foreword

• In the Foreword the Commissioners state “Our task was to conduct a rigorous, independent review of the development effectiveness of large dams..” COVENPRE can not preclude some skepticism about the rigour or truly independent character of such review.
• The Commissioners state that their “process has been unique in taking on board a range of interests and opinions previously held to be irreconcilable..”

It is added, “We have examined evidence produced and opinions expressed by a wide range of stakeholders..”. We really think that not all the alluded stakeholders in many regions were consulted, and feel that only groups, mainly with preconceived anti-dams views were addressed.

• As stated in the Foreword, the Commissioners achieved their task, “First by creating a 68 member Stakeholder Forum to act as a sounding board and advisory group for tha WCD”. The fact is that the Forum was not consulted at all during the 30 months that lasted the elaboration of the Report. They were not even shown the draft before the Report’s launch in November 1999.
• With respect to the Regional Consultations, and as a curious case and example, we understand that during the Sao Paulo meeting many of the protesters came from the city’s surrounding slums and had nothing at all to do with dams.
• The eight “independent in-depth Case Studies of specific large dams projects and two country studies”, as well as the “comprehensive global survey of 125 dams, which we used to ‘cross check’ “... deal with a very low number of large dams, in comparison with the existing 45.000, as to draw a really significant conclusion for such a pretentious Report. In this sense, the following sentence is contained in the Foreword: “There has been little systematic collection of data about dam projects in the past, and without baseline data we cannot arrive at definite conclusions about certain type of impacts”.  Nevertheless, they do.

Executive Summary

            COVENPRE sent, in due time, its comments about the Report’s Executive Summary.

Chapter One

• Assuming that the population figures given in the Report are approximately correct, and that around year 2.050  world population will vary between 7.3 and 10.7 billion, and that about 70% of it will be living in urban areas, how will the global urban daily water consumption of 0.5 or 0.75 km³ be stored (assuming an on the low side per capita consumption of 100 liters/person/day), if it is not by the means of dams or reservoirs of similar characteristics? Precisely such and increase of the urban population, until a predicted stabilisation around 2.050, is the reason for many more water supply dams have to be built in the future, the great majority of them in the developing countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America. What would be a reasonable alternative for storing water for human consumption if new dams are not built?. In addition to water supply for human consumption, agricultural and industrial uses of water in a world whose economy “Between 1950 and 1990.... grew by a factor of five...”,  may imply a similar growth in coming years and thus, the corresponding increase in water demand. How will it be stored?  What is the option ?
• The text indicates: “To meet food requirements, water used in agriculture may have to increase 15 t0 20% by 2025 even with improvements in irrigation efficiency and agronomic potential”. Will rainfall and alternative irrigation methods, like pumping from the aquifers,  satisfy the irrigation needs of such an increase? Could it not imply overexploitation of the aquifers and the resulting pollution?. Recently, dams have been specially built in Spain to regularly recharge the aquifers from where water is pumped for agricultural purposes.
• “Approximately two thirds of the world’s existing large dams are in developing countries”,   where dams continue to be built. Attractive sites no longer exist in Europe and the United States, where dams are not being built because appropriate dam sites..” “.. have already been exploited,..”. In the Report: ..the pace of dam construction has slowed significantly in recent years. This is partly because industrialised countries have used most of their attractive sites…”  It seems as if the developing countries should not build any more dams for the simple reason that the developed countries can not build new ones.
• The text states: “About one fifth of the world’s agricultural land is irrigated, and irrigated agriculture accounts for about 40% of the world’s agricultural production”. If the  total irrigated area would grow at average rates of 1.3% or 1.0% annualy, by year 2050 the irrigated agricultural area would increase in about 90% or 64%. That means that the present 268 million hectares of irrigated land would grow to about 510 million hectares (1.3% annual increase), or to 440 million hectares (1.0% annual increase). Where would the water to satisfy the corresponding needs of surface irrigation or for recharging the aquifers be stored?
• If “four countries - China, India, United States and Pakistan - account for more than 50% of the world’s total irrigated area” (more than 134 million hectares), it is very likely that the irrigated area of China, India and Pakistan will grow considerably in the future and that more new irrigation dams will be needed in those countries. What would the alternative solution be?, mainly when in arid and semi-arid regions, as the Report comments, “unsustainable irrigation practices have affected more than a fifth of the world’s irrigated area”, and “ In other regions, over-use of tubewells has depleted the ground water aquifers, lowering water tables and making extraction increasingly expensive and specially difficult for small-holders”
• The text indicates: “...about 12% of large dams are designated as water supply dams. About 60% (7.2%)of these dams are in North America and Europe”. This simply implies that if developing countries wish to attain a decent living standard, in some way similar to the that of developed countries, they will have to build more water supply dams and systems.
• The text states: “Hydropower currently provides 19% of the world’s total electricity supply... and “..represents more than 90% 0f the total national electricity supply in 24 countries and over 50% in 63 countries”. It goes on saying that “Between 1973 and 1996 hydropower generation in non-OECD countries grew from 29% t0 50% of world production, with Latin America increasing its share by the greatest amount in that period”. With this in mind, how will countries with a considerable hydroelectric potential and limited or non existing fossil fuel resources or nuclear means for thermal electric generation  tackle their development needs?
• COVENPRE thinks that the information contained in the Report concerning the protection given by dams against floods is biased and focused exclusively to some aspects of the damage caused by floods. Few concrete examples are given and no mention is made of the benefits of dams in cases of high floods, like the very significant role that the Morazán dam, in Central America, played during the disaster of the 1998 hurricanes. The “more environmentally based and integrated approaches...” for the ..”appropriate mix of prevention, defence and mitigation against flood disasters.” are merely enunciative and rather weak for a report that pretends to become a worldwide Guideline.
• The text indicates: “While dams have contributed to economic growth in the 20^th century, the services they provide have come at a cost.” It is curious, what provided service does not imply a cost in some way?. Man-made structures, of all kinds, have transformed the world and have brought progress. How, for example, would Spain manage, were not for the fact that the “..53 km³ of storage behind large dams regulates 40% of its river flow, varying from 71% in the Ebro river basin, to 11% in the basins on the Galicia coast.”
• The text of Chapter 1, and of the Report in general, often contains assertions that seem casual (“Among the many factors leading to the degradation of watershed ecosystems, dams are the main physical threat”). The references of the endnotes are vague and elusive (for example, “Revenga et al, 1998”) and the figures often vary by 100% (“An estimated 0.5-1% of the total fresh water storage capacity...”).
• Dams or similar structures “..also impact on river estuaries, which are frequently complex ecosystems. Closing the mouths of major rivers, salt intrusion, destruction of mangroves and loss of wetlands are among the many issues at stake.” The Delta Project, in the Netherlands, is a recent great achievement and an example of human ingenuity and survival, but would the Dutch be willing to decommission it ?  Why similar projects couldn’t be tackled in other parts of the world, like in Bangladesh, for example? There seems to exist a plus and minus balance in all human endeavours and benefits for mankind always imply reasonable concerns.
• The assertion in the Report: “ The construction of large dams has led to the displacement of some 40 to 80 million people worldwide...” (“Fox and Brown, 1998b”)  is a casual one that should be thorougly verified. The text indicates: “In China, large dams are estimated to have displaced an estimated 27% of all people displaced by development projects (the total includes people displaced by urban expansion, roads and bridges)”. In Endnote # 44 of Chapter it is stated: “Dams account for 34% of all people displaced by development projects in China...”  There is a contradiction between the text and the endnote. A 7% difference in anything having to do with population in China can be certainly appreciable.
• In the Report: “… popular action has also supported dams. Farmers in Madrid recently marched to demand more water and more dams for irrigation”. No comments.
• Among other controvertible reasons given in the Report about ..”why do they (dams) seem to be often the center of controversy,..”, it is said: “Resettlement for large dams tends to be on a larger scale than resettlement for other type of infrastructure.”  Nevertheless, as commented above, in China, the country with the largest number of large dams in the world, and where more large dams are being built, “large dams are estimated to have displaced an estimated 27% of all people displaced by development projects” , according to the Report.
• The assertion: “dams generally flood rich and fertile agriculture land.” is superficial and petty for the aims of the Report.
• The Report states:.., “controversies and conflicts surrounding large dams are not  about dams alone. They are part  of a wider debate about development..” Then, in a near future we could expect to have many WCX, X being anything concerning development: roads, airports, urban areas, etc.
• The issue of dam building can not be addressed lightly in a general way. As the Report  mentions: “is driven by social or environmental concerns, or by broader development considerations, varies from country-to-country.” In the case of the United States, as the Report asserts in a biased way, “the rate of decommissioning is greater than the rate of construction”, for the simple reason that at present only one large dam is being built in the USA and more than one rather small large dams are being decommissioned. Fair way to say things !
• The Report mentions: “The review of global experience with dams set out in Chapters 2-6 confirms that these concerns are justified. Dams have often not met their targets.” As we have seen, the review of dams by the WCD has been very limited and the pretended global experience is controversial and can not justify or confirm any concerns. The words often, considerably, many, substancial or similar, are used very freehandedly  along the Report, without specifying actual figures.  In this case, how often have dams not met the set targets, 10%, 50% or 90%? It is easy to write in general terms when discredit is the sought goal.
• Concerning the performance of dams (cost and benefits), the Report says: “Dams have generally performed well as an integral part of water and energy resource development strategies in over 140 countries..” It goes on saying: “Performance is often measured in terms of whether the project delivered the benefits that were the basis for approval and funding of the project.” …”There is no easy formula for calculating the costs and benefits to yield a quick and easy judgement on the overall balance.”
• Even if the Report is about dams, when speaking of greehouse gases allegedly produced by dams, the ones produced by natural lakes and other bodies or water or the ones emitted by the burning of fossil fuels, are rarely mentioned compared with the gases supposedly produced by dams.
• The Report makes reference to …“the question whether dams are selected over other options that may meet the water development or energy objectives at lower cost, or that may offer more sustainable and equitable development benefits.” The Report is simply enunciative and fails to describe the really valid alternatives for  water supply or irrigation dams, or really address the problems involving the GHG emitted by the burning of fossil fuels in the production of electric energy, or showing proved evidence concerning the emission of GHG from reservoirs. What would be the actual competitive options?. The Report should have pointed them out and established comparisons.
• The Report states: “The 1996 report of the World Bank’s Operations Evaluation Department (OED)... “observed that 90% of dams reviewed met the Bank’s standards for resettlement at the time they were built, but 75% failed to meet the Bank’s most recent standards”.  Is it fair to judge old endeavours through new rules?
• COVENPRE has reserves about the competence and expertise of some of the 12 members of the WCD. On the other hand, “The opponents of large dams tend to underscore the importance of the review convinced that it will reveal the depth and persistence of the negative impacts that dams have caused.”  Does it mean that they were convinced before the review was made?. With such a limited number of dams reviewed worldwide, COVENPRE has also reserves about “..the solid foundation of material on which..” the WCD based its analysis and conclusions.
• The Report mentions that “in the first few months of its work the Commission decided that the group should be retained as a consultative body for the Commission process, to be known as the WCD Forum.”  The fact is that the WCD Forum was not at all consulted by the Commission during the preparation of the Report, nor was even shown its draft before the ostentatious November 16, 2000 launch, in spite that “It has around 70 members and operates as a ‘sounding board’ for the work of the Commission.”
• Concerning the “Cross-check Survey of dams”, the “Completed survey forms were received for 125 dams in 52 countries.”  With more than 45.000 large dams worldwide, 125 seems like an insignificant number on which to base such a haughty report.

Chapter 2

• The Report indicates: “.., a substantial number (of dams) have met or exceeded their targets and continue generating benefits after 50 years or more.” In that respect COVENPRE agrees with the statement that “project selection, design, and operations could be improved relative to past performance.”
• The Report observes “The average cost overrun of the 81 large dam projects included in the WCD Cross-Check Survey was 56%”. In general, a significant number of infrastructure projects, of all kinds, have cost overruns. In this sense, can conclusions about large dams be drawn from a number as low as 81? Geotechnical and economic conditions, change orders, labor unrest and political problems can imply changes in the estimated costs and schedules. The costs in thermal power projects have in general less overruns because there are less uncertainties, geotechnical and of other types, but, reasonably, they should be appropriately penalized cost-wise due to the permanent emission of greenhouse and noxious gases. Concerning schedule slippages, the Report notes: “A recent study of World Bank financed hydropower projects reports a 28% delay in average. While this is a considerable slip, it is no different than the recorded in the same study for thermal power projects (30%).
• With regard to irrigation, should dams be blamed for “..under-achievement of targets..” due to “..institutional failures..”,..including inadequate distribution channels, overcentralised systems of canal administration, divided institutional responsability for main system and tertiary level systems, and inadequate allocation of financing for tertiary canal development.” ? ; or by “Lower than expected crop yields... caused by agronomic factors, including cultivation practices, poor seed quality, pest attack and adverse weather conditions, and by lack of labour or financial resources.” ;or by a descent in  production due to a “..decline in commodity prices.”  Further along it says “irrigation dam projects in the WCD Knowledge Base have all too often failed to deliver on promised financial and economical profitability..” In spite of the mentioned under-achievement of targets or of the failure to deliver the generally elusive promised or estimated financial and economical profitability, what would have happened had these irrigation dams not existed?. On this same subject, the Report states: “In the case of the Columbia Basin Project, yields have been 30-50% higher than predicted in planning reports in 1932.”  Our conclusion is that the problems  of irrigation depend on planning and management, and not on the existence of dams, which will be always needed.
• Concerning hydropower dams, the WCD Knowledge Base Report makes reference to “a number of projects (how many?) that have greatly exceeded their targets and a few notable under-performers.”  Further on: “Limited available evidence suggests that hydropower projects often diverge substantially from their economic targets,..” and ..” a number of older projects continue generating benefits even after a half-century or more of operation.”  As in the rest of the Report, there is a tendency to consider only shortfalls; no numbers or references are given to back up noncommittal and inconclusive statements, like in the following sentence, in this case favorable to dams: “A number of projects have far exceeded their technical, financial and economic targets."  As a comment, it is not abnormal for hydropower dams to perform closer to the established targets than irrigation dams, due to the fact that there are less factors to attend to in the obtention of the final product. Following the same  intention, the Report remarks ...”although a number of hydropower projects fall short of their financial and economic targets and can be considered economically unprofitable, others meet their targets or even exceed expected profitability.”...”the nine evaluation studies that included data on financial performance (all from the World Bank and ADB) showed much less downward variability, with only one project falling short of target by a significant amount (namely from 11% down to 6%)”. In COVENPRE’S opinion the number or hydropower dams reviewed by the WCD was exiguous as to draw the general conclusions included in the Report with respect to power schemes.
• With respect to water supply dams, the Report asserts: “Water supply dams in the WCD Knowledge Base have generally fallen short of intented timing and targets for bulk water delivery and have exhibited poor financial cost recovery and economic performance”. Further along: ”At current rates, water fees are rarely sufficient to recover both capital and recurrent costs for water supply systems in many developing countries.”, and ...”..,a number of studies by the World Bank have demonstrated that people, even those who are less well off in developing countries, are often willing to pay for improved water supply services.”  Concerning these somewhat contradictory concepts, what is the valid alternative suggested by the WCD to store enough water for human supply, if it is not by means of dams?.
• Speaking of flood control dams: “..while dams have provided important flood control benefits, some dams have increased the vulnerability of riverine communities to floods.” and “Growing concern over the cost and effectiveness of large dams and related structural measures..”....“..has led to support for integrated flood management as opposed to flood control.”  We would like to learn about really effective methods related to integrated flood management and prevention of natural disasters without the existence of dams and the retention effect they provide. It is, in a way, a sort of wishful thinking!.  As to the loss of the fertility of the flood plain because of dams, a debatable issue, it would be much worse to have little water or non at all in the dry season for the irrigation of the agricultural land in the flood plain. The Report adds: “..reservoirs have not been operated properly in times of emergency or rapidly developing situations or when floodgates have mechanical failures at critical times.”  and  adds: “peaking operation of hydropower stations has caused an unexpected surge of water in the river;..”. The statement “that dams have encouraged settlement in areas that are still subject to floods that exceed the maximum design flow”. These circumstances are exclusively related to operation, reservoir management and land use problems and have nothing whatsoever to do with dam themselves. Moreover: “..after centuries of raising dykes, the height of dykes at places on the Yangtze River is over 16 metres above the floodplain.”  That is precisely one of the reasons why the Three Gorges dam is being built. Should man quit flying in airplanes because some have crashed because of adverse weather conditions, operation flaws or defective equipment?.
• With respect to dam safety, dams are becoming safer, for: “The failure rate of large dams has been falling over the last four decades. Of dams built before 1950, 2.2% failed, while the failure rate of dams built since 1951 is less than 0.5%."  Is the example of the River Severn, in the United Kingdom, whose discharge rate is not given, a representative example to quote in this Report?. The discharges of some important rivers in developing countries pose much more significant problems for the dams that will have to be built.
• In what has to do with findings and lessons, the Report states: “The degree to which large dams in the WCD Knowledge Base have delivered services and net benefits as planned varies substantially from one project to the next with a considerable portion falling short of physical and economical targets.”  Again, with so few dams considered with respect to the total number of existing ones, and consequently with such a restricted knowledge base, how can general conclusions be drawn as to imply that the Report should act as a guide.?

Chapter 3

• The assertion in the Report that: “Reservoirs interrupt the donwnstream flow of organic carbon, leading to emissions of greehouse gases such as methane and carbon dioxide that contribute to climatic change.” has not been demonstrated. As a matter of fact the Report mentions that: “A first estimate suggests that the gross emissions from reservoirs may account for between 1% and 28% of the global warming potential of GHG emissions.”  What scientific value has a spread of 27%? On the other hand, the Report should mention what percentage in the emission of GHG is represented by the burning of fossil fuels and by the natural lakes. Furthermore, the Report states: ...”reservoir and catchment characteristics must be investigated to find out the likely level of GHG emissions.” and “Establishing that a reservoir emits GHGs is not enough to assess the impact of a dam on climate change.” It goes on saying: “The WCD Case Studies only provide data on carbon dioxide emissions from the Tucurui reservoir. Even in this case there is no data on emission without the dam, making a conclusion on the net effect impossible.” In Box 3.2: “Background emissions from natural pre-impoundment habitats have not been measured for Tucurui, so true comparisons of net emissions with alternatives remain elusive.”  The Report adds: “ Pre-inundation removal of vegetation is one alternative, but the net effects of such an activity are not well understood.”
• The Report contains the biased assertion “Storage dams are intended to alter the natural distribution and timing of streamflow.” This is as true as saying that mankind has built cities with the intention of altering the natural vegetation and topography of urban areas, or that extensive agricultural activities have been implemented with the intention to modify natural habitats. The fact is that storage dams are bult with the intention of accumulating water for different beneficial human purposes.
• With respect to mitigation, the Report says: “While there are cases of good mitigation, the success is nevertheless contingent upon stringent conditions including: - a good information base  (WCDs ?) and competent professional staff available to formulate complex choices for decision makers... – a co-operative process with the design team and stakeholders... – monitoring of feedback and evaluation of mitigation effectiveness...” ...”Current large dam designs are often not sufficiently flexible to allow for changed operating regimes to meet environmental (or other) goals.”!  It seems as if somebody would be fishing for consulting work, given that planning and design teams in developing countries - where dams are being and will be built - are becoming increasingly autonomous.
• Concerning decommissioning: “In the United States and France, dams have been decommissioned to restore key environmental values,...”. And in Box 3.8: “A total of 467 dams have been removed in the United States, 28 of these are large dams...” That means that 6% (28/467) of the removed dams in the USA were large dams. Prejudicially the Report does not mention the age or the height of the alluded dams or if they were serving some purpose. Similar information is not given about the mentioned French dams.
• A final comment on findings and lessons, “avoidance or minimisation of ecosystem impacts can be achieved through legislation or policy measures that set-aside particular river segments or basins, or through good site selection (such as avoiding main stem dams).”  Dams, to be beneficial, have to be built where there is water, because the intention is to store it. Of course, a dam with no impact whatsoever would have to be built on a dry river.

Chapter 4

• In the first page of this Chapter, the Report mentions: “The direct benefits they provide (dams) to people are typically reduced to monetary figures for economic analysis and are not often recorded in human terms.”  However, in Chapter 2, Box 2.5, “Profitability of the Grand Coulee Dam (GCD) was not an explicit objective.”  Also in Chapter 2, in an opposite sense,“Large irrigation dams in the WCD Knowledge Base have typically fallen short of physical targets, failed to recover their costs, and been less profitable in economic terms than expected.” and,“Water supply dams in the WCD Knowledge Base have generally fallen short of intended timing and targets for bulk water delivery and have exhibited poor financial cost recovery and economic performance.”  Nevertheless, as intended, dam irrigation agriculture has progressed and needed supply water has been delivered.
• It is not easy to make comments about a Chapter where many biased assertions, prejudicial allegations, general declarations and unproved statements are made. Reading Chapter 4, and the Report in general, gives the impression of reading an abridged version of Mr. McCully’s book “Silenced Rivers”.
• The Report mentions: “..dams have negatively affected many people and societies.” On the other hand, many more people and societies have been affected positively and benefited by dams. Then it adds: “This is clear through the WCD knowledge Base, most poignantly through many of the presentations made by dam-affected people in the WCD Regional Consultations...”.  COVENPRE admits that some impacts caused by dams may have not been often ackowledged or considered in the planning process. Nevertheless, the WCD Knowledge Base is characterized by the investigation of only eight dams, seven of which were developed more than twenty years ago and do not necessarily represent the vast majority of them. Not all countries have the same problems concerning water management issues which vary according to the existing local societies, geographical situation, availability of water and need for development. We understand that it has been more convenient for the WCD – perhaps due to time constraints - to express general opinions and device comprehensive guidelines to be applied universally, instead of having studied in more detail a bigger number of diversified dams, in  which case the results of the Report might have been different. We deem that developing countries have to go ahead building dams for their progress, and also that more considerations regarding environmental and societal issues have to be taken into account.
•  With respect to irrigation the Report asserts: “Dams, along with other economic investments, generate indirect economic benefits as expenditure on the project and income derived from it lead to added expenditure and income in the local or regional economy.” ; and “Estimates of project benefits usually rely simply on the expected crop output and ignore the use of water for horticulture,  livestock and fish production, as well as domestic water supply.” ...” they represent a gain in the economic welfare of the nation only when excess capacity (unemployed resources) exists.”, which is the case in all  developing countries. The example of Tarbela can be cited, for as mentioned in the Report: “The Tarbela dam illustrates this: in addition to securing existing water supply, the expansion of the cropped area by 39% and the increase in the cropping intensity have primarily benefited those owing land prior to the construction of the dam.”
• Talking about downstream livelihoods, the Report asserts: “..., the Urrá 1 dam on the Upper Sinú River in Colombia displaced 12 000 people but also affected severely more than 60 000 fishermen in the lower Sinú, where the fish population diminished drastically as a result of the dam.” The truth of the matter is that in Urrá 1 there were 7268 displaced people who were compensated, and 2 500 pretended fishermen were affected. Further on the Report mentions: “Substantial losses to downstream fisheries production as a result of dam construction are reported around the world.”, and.....”Adverse impacts on downstream fisheries have been severe, even in projects implemented in 1990s.”  Nevertheless, in page 86 of the Report and making reference to Tucurui, the Report mentions: “ ..., the resevoir fishery has expanded tenfold in the last 20 years (actually, 16 years), with the result that the total fishery (upstream, downstream and in the reservoir) has tripled in size to 4 700 tonnes per year since the dam was created.”
• With respect to gender, “Gender relationships and power structures are all too often detrimental to women.” And further on: “..., little is known regarding the ways in which benefits generated by dams affected existing gender disparities and relationships. Where dams have improved the general supply of services, the increased availability of water for household uses, electricity and food (through irrigation) are likely to have benefited women..” ....”For example, 80 000 people resettled from the Akosombo dam benefited from services including the following: 82 school blocks, 46 markets, 146 public latrines, 52 boreholes, 6 wells and 162 water stand pipes.”  Also: “..., improved family income coming from irrigated agriculture at Aslantas dam enabled farmers to give both boys and girls higher education.”
• Concerning equity and the distribution of costs and benefits the Report remarks: “Large dams have also provided substantial socio-economic benefits through the delivery of water, electricity and flood control, as well as various ancillary services. In many cases these benefits extend beyond the time frame proposed in the original project documents.” Table 4.1 illustrates the services and benefits generated by large dams. It is really regrettable that the WCD Case Studies cover such a scant number of dams, for there are many more dams in the world, not mentioned by the WCD, that have provided large benefits to society.
• On equity and the balance-sheet exercise, the Report asserts: (The balance-sheet exercise) “...is implicitly based on the assumption that if the overall balance of impacts is positive, then those who gain would share the benefits with those that lose out.” , and: “The debate on the social impacts of dams is thus about the equity dimension...”  Does this mean that dams would not imply social problems if through goverment policies the benefits provided by them would be distributed in a reasonably equitable manner? Thus, in the social aspect, the problem is not about dams themselves, but has to do with the deficiency in the application of adequate procedures by the local administrations, depending on the country where the dam is built and the national practices. In this sense the Report gives various interesting examples about successful benefit-sharing cases in various countries.
• About findings and lessons the Report remarks: “...a simple accounting for the direct benefits provided by large dams – the provision of irrigation water, electricity, municipal and industrial water supply, and flood control – often fails to capture the full set of social benefits associated with these services. It also misses a set of ancillary benefits and indirect economic (or multiplier) benefits of dam projects.”

Chapter 5

• Concerning agriculture and irrigation, the Report affirms: “Irrigation represents one of the inputs to enhance livelihoods and achieve economic objectives in the agricultural sector with subsequent effects for rural development.” Further on, “Irrigated areas increased from 40 million hectares in 1900 to 100 million hectares by 1950 and to 271 million by 1998. Dams support 30-40% of this area.” Then, “Irrigated agriculture has contributed to growth in agricultural production worldwide, although inefficient use of water, inadequate maintenance of physical systems and institutional and other problems have often led to poor performance.”. In spite of the inadequate maintenance and other problems, growth is the result of the “major multiplier effects produced by successful large irrigation schemes.”  Considering all these factors, should dams be blamed for these inefficiencies? The Report presents three levels of options that do not take dams into account: (1) “improving performance and productivity of existing irrigation systems through improved basin and system-level management  on farm technological options...” (?) ; (2) “improving the productivity and livelihood opprtunities offered by alternative supply-side measures through enhancing rain-fed agriculture, supporting local and traditional water appropriation techniques and adopting new technological options such as water recycling” and (3) “investing in supply-side measures to develop new irrigation areas based on direct abstraction from rivers and groundwater.” This does not seem serious. How can some of these “revolutionary” techniques be applied if there is no stored water. How can rain-fed agriculture be performed without stored water in places where rain is irregular or scarce? How can direct abstraction be implemented without diversion or other structures, and a regulated source of water? How will aquifers be recharged in the event of overpumping due to increasing agricultural needs? And, “A final option is to import food from other countries rather than trying to achieve either a higher degree of food self-sufficiency or security through domestic production.”  This means, then, that Turkey, for instance, should not fully develop its considerable potential in wheat cropping, but should leave the production in the hands of other countries, as the tradition or the vested interests dictate?
• The Report states: “In the semi-arid areas of Argentina, Brazil and Venezuela rainwater run off captured from roads is collected in drainage ditches or street gutters and transported to cultivation areas.”  Obviously these drainage ditches and street gutters do not accomplish their drainage purposes and must be located reasonably near the cultivation areas. Also: “There are hundreds of thousands of small reservoirs or water tanks around the world...” ... “Tank systems have provided irrigation and supported agriculture and livelihood for centuries in South Asia,...”.  Further along, “The implications of of the widespread replication of these small-scale storage methods on reducing demand for irrigation water and enhancing the sustainability of groundwater supplies, as well as their impact on existing surface water sources, could be far reaching.” So, according to the WCD recommendations small reservoirs and water tanks around the world will totally solve the irrigation problems concerning water storage. This means, then, that in order not to build dams, because of obscure reasons, things should go on as they have been for centuries, of course, mainly for the developing countries. One has to admit that these concepts seem rather contemptuous.
• On groundwater, “Groundwater – employed on its own or in conjunction with surface irrigation – is often more productive than surface irrigation per unit applied.”, but “Continued withdrawal of groundwater at current levels is, however, becoming unsustainable in many places.” , and “Groundwater depletion has been a growing concern in the North China plains for over three decades, with water levels falling by 30 meters since the 1960s.”  No wonder China is building and will build more dams.
• In relation with  energy and electricity, the Report indicates: “..., there is no supply global crisis on the horizon as anticipated for fresh water.” Nevertheless, according to the World Energy Council (The Challenge of Rural Energy Poverty in Developing Comunities, October 1999): “More than half the world’s population lives in rural areas, nearly 90% of them – some 2.8 billion – in the developing countries. The vast majority of these people is dependent on the traditional fuels of wood, dung and crop residue, often using primitive and inefficient technologies.”, and “It is calculated that an amount of energy equivalent to 7% of the world’s electricity production today could cover basic human needs.”  In this respect it is interesting to notice the following assertion in the WCD Report: “High consumption societies must also reduce their use of fossil fuels.”  The Report also mentions: “It is certainly broadly accepted that the long-term trend is towards a global energy system thet is less carbon-intensive and less reliant on finite energy resources.”  and  “...the direction implied is clear: a shift towards ‘cleaner fossil fuels’; a significant accelerated shift towards the use of renewable energy sources for electricity generation.”. As renewable sources the Report proposes the use of solar and wind power as alternatives to hydropower. These are interesting ideas, though a bit naive. These alternatives are nothing but intermitent energy producers that would have to be backed up by more reliable sources (hydropower or fossil fuels) . In addition to this, not all areas of the world receive the appropriate solar exposure in duration or intensity, nor the relevant winds with the due intensity and continuity, as to satisfy the demand of scattered power consuming centers  Furthermore, the proposed alternatives could not, reasonably, produce the huge amounts of power needed to satisfy the increasing global power demand. Concerning demand-side management, it would be interesting to figure out how much of the need for electrical generation could be reduced through improved efficiency, and compare it with the future increases in demand.  With respect to fuel cells, they are dependant of other sources of energy that would likely be fossil based. In this case prices would be high and environmental risks would persist.
• In the case of floodplain management, the three integrated strategies given in the Report: (1) “reducing the scale of flood through a number of structural and non structural means”; (2) “isolating threats through structural, technological and policy alternatives”, and (3) “increasing people’s capacity to cope effectively with floods”., as well as the two catchment management measures for reducing the scale of floods, are rather ideal and unrealistic, applicable only in very few cases to small basins.

Chapter 6

• This Chapter contains a systematic repetition of the same arguments concerning dams that the WCD exposes throughout the Report, always with a footing in information coming from a very low number of cases around the world. It is, in some manner, a goebbelian way of stressing criteria and forcing the justification of concepts which are often ill based or naive.
• The Report asserts: “...many dams were not built based on an objective assessment and evaluation of the economic, social and environmental criteria that apply in today´s context.”  It is not fair to judge past endeavours through standards that are now being generally discussed. Further on: “Governments were the proponents for  practically all large dams and many large dams were built by government agencies themselves.”  One first question: Is this adverse? How could it have been done otherwise, mainly in the case of developing countries? . And, “...the building of large dams was the hallmark of communist regimes.”  To cite only two examples, Brazil and Venezuela have not had communist regimes and have developed large dams for hydroelectricity which supply more than 90% and 70% of the electrical energy, respectively.
• About professional associations like ICOLD  -  who for almost 75 years has dealt with dam related knowledge - IHA and ICID, the Report  mentions: ”...international associations made up of members from government and industry from industrialised and developing countries alike..... play an important role in building capacity of member countries by collecting and disseminating technical and other information and holding annual meetings to promote formal and informal professional exchange.”
• The Report indicates: ”In the downstream context, when faced with dwindling supplies from upstream, dams provide downstream riparians with a practical means of replacing lost dry season flows by storing wet season flows.”  How else could this storing be achieved?
• Concerning the projections of demand for water supply, the case in developing countries is often not the one cited in the Report for Norway and Slovakia, in the sense that  “...demand forecasts, ...have frequently overstated sectoral needs.” . One interesting assertion of the Report is, “Water scarcity and the threat of water shortages is a driving force for more efficient water use in many countries, but the response has not been universally translated into concrete action in fostering water-efficient practices.” . This may have happened in some developed countries, but, in general, is not the case in developing ones.
• In relation to the cost-benefit analysis the Report indicates: ”Alternative approach to a decision support system based on CBA is to use a method that recognises that projects often have multiple objectives and not simply economic welfare maximisation.”  The Report, however, fails to show what alternative methods should be used to ponder other objectives for making the appropriate comparisons and evaluations.
• On decommissioning, the Report mentions: “One proposal is to ensure that decommissioning funds are set aside at the time of the dam commissioning or during the project´s licence period.”  The general implementation of this concept would make dams, as well as other man made structures, very expensive and allow useful monies to be idle during the life of the dam, which can be quite long in many cases. Perhaps this is one of the ideas proposed by certain groups with the intention to discourage dam building.
• About bank policies and national regulatory systems, “... they have paid more attention to monitoring the planning and construction phases than the operation of the project, which is often left to national governments.”  And with respect to “...achieving satisfactory social and environmental outcomes...”, ..“The short term and inflexible nature of the agreement between the borrower and the bank is an obstacle to achieving this result.”  Would this mean that there should be a supranational institution in charge of monitoring the operation of the projects in addition to the planning and construction, which could also act as an intermediary between the borrowers and the banks and export credit agencies?  Mr. Asmal’s phrase in the Report’s Chair’s Preface - “I assert that we are more much than a Dams Commission” - comes to the mind.

 

 

Chapter 7

• Knowledge and conceptions generally evolve. The Report states: “The Commission acknowledges that today´s perspective on development reflects the benefit of knowledge that may have not been available to past decision-makers.”  By the same token, a future perspective on development may reflect a benefit of knowledge that we may not have at present. There are few unvariable concepts.  That is why it could be somewhat audacious to say: “...it is clear that the positive contribution of large dams to development has, in many cases, been marred by significant social and environmental impacts which are unacceptable when viewed from today’s values.”
• Satisfaction of human needs in developing countries call for efficient and expeditious solutions. We tend to agree with the Report in the sense that “Meeting rapidly growing needs for water and energy – particularly in the developing countries of the South (?) – imposes difficult choices  on governments.”  The Report mentions: “The world appears set to move beyond the growth paradigm, which judged progress largely in narrow economic terms...”.  It would be interesting to know other methods that serve to ponderate progress in order to make inevitable comparisons.
• The Report expresses: “...global trends are increasingly leading us to decision- making based on transparent processes, full access for affected parties to relevant information, ....”. At the same time “the Commission recognises there is no universal formula.”  And furthermore “...a process that is too complex can needlessly delay decisions and deprive potential beneficiaries of the fruits of any of the development alternatives under consideration.”  Later on, “Negociated outcomes do not replace government decision-making: on the contrary, they rest on the State actively fulfilling its role as planner and enabler...”  These negociations are far more difficult in developing countries where often the State has to intervene and indicate the direction and set the pace.

Chapter 8

• COVENPRE has few comments on the text of this Chapter due to the fact that  it contains a continuous repetition of the concepts already expressed.
• Concerning the “...nature of open and transparent decision making processes.”, the Report states: “Negociations should result in demonstrable public acceptance of binding formal agreements among the interested parties with clear, implementable institutional arrangements for monitoring compliance and redressing grievances.”. Further on, “A stakeholder forum can facilitate this process.”  If the forum is consulted, which is not always the case, as we know, things could be somewhat better. In any case, a forum such as the one proposed would involve many persons and in general, institutions that would make the decision process practically never-ending and the project would not be accomplished as conceived, with the corresponding damages for the potential beneficiaries.
• Once again the Report mentions: “There are also some new options reaching the stage where they can compete in the market, for example renewable technologies for electricity generation such as wind and solar power.”  We have no further comments.
• The Report insists: “For example recent research shows that some reservoirs emit greenhouse gases.”  As mentioned previously this has not been proved, as commented before in the case of Tucurui and asserted by the WCD.
• With respect to irrigation, “In the irrigation sector, enhancing existing systems by fulfilling undeveloped potential and increasing the productivity of water offers the best alternative to new construction.”  This would hold true if undeveloped potential and increased productivity would bring benefits similar to those of the new construction.
• The Report mentions, “The WCD Knowledge Base provides many examples where the services provided by older dams have been restored or extended in time.” , and  “,...this approach can increase hydroelectric benefits by 5 to 10% over rule-based operating criteria...” . The question is that not always an increase of 5 to 10% obviates the necessity of installing additional power.
• In the phrase, “The public should have the opportunity to comment on a survey assessing improvement opportunities for all dams.” , it would be interesting to learn who is the public, and how has the WCD devised its intervention.
• Concerning project financing, the Report exhorts multi-lateral and bilateral financiers to harmonise criteria in order to  “... prevent developers from turning to financiers with weak guidelines to fund unacceptable projects.” Who determines what is weak or unacceptable?
• The Report adduces the convenience to appoint an “Independent Review Panel”  with the aim to ensure “compliance with criteria and guidelines”.  Such panels would require, according to the Report, 1) “establishing an accredited list of experts through a multi-stakeholder advisory group”, and b) “giving such panels the power to invoke the ‘stop lights’ that the Compliance Plan will establish;...”  How would the panels be formed?  What would be their composition? How would the experts be chosen? How will the ‘stop lights’ of the Compliance Plan be established and by whom? The answer to these questions is surreptitiously given when mention is made of practical manifestations in the case of dams, like the “development of a stewardship council on dams or...”  Further on the Report mentions that, “An overarching Compliance Plan is the best way to ensure that compliance activities and measures are effectively pursued and implemented.”  In principle, an overarching Compliance Plan should be established and implemented by an overarching authority.  Who would this authority be?  Would it be accepted by the great majority of developing countries which have intrinsic problems that are not the same or similar to the ones of the developed countries?. One must not forget that developed countries have already built almost all their dams, and with no constraints. Now it is easy to “overarch”. In this sense the Report indicates: “Private sector financial service providers and international financial institutions (IFIs) must work together to insure that projects and companies that comply with the WCD Criteria and Guidelines have acces to...”  a series of particular benefits listed in the Report.  In this respect the Report mentions: ”External financing agencies have influenced and can continue to influence countries in the second and third categories, (2- those that require financial or technical support for a significant proportion of the project itself, and, 3 - those that may be capable of undertaking the project independently, but rely on external support for other projects and programs in the same sector).”  In plain words this could be called extorsion.
• Further on: “A lower cap on liability for dam projects certified as complying with the WCD Criteria and Guidelines could be arranged particularly where legally binding arrangements that reduce the risk of non compliance are in place.”  And speaking of bond rating systems: “A rating system similar to the Standard & Poor credit-worthiness rating that reflects compliance could favor WCD compliance bonds.”   This goes far beyond the initial overt intentions of the WCD, and reminds us once again of Mr. Asmal’s phrase: “I assert that we are much more than a ‘Dam Commission’ “.  Further on: “Where federal funds are sought for project assistance, they should be made conditional on compliance with the Commission’s strategic priorities.”

Chapter 9

• In WCD’s opinion, based on WCD Knowledge Base, “Social, environmental, governance and compliance aspects have been undervalued in the past.”, “...applying the Commission’s proposal will make a difference.”  Further on: “... the Commission proposes a set of guidelines firmly anchored in examples of good practice from the Knowledge Base to describe how its policy principles can be realised. These guidelines....should be incorporated by governments, professional organisations, financing agencies, civil society and others as they continue to improve their own relevant guidelines and policies over time.” The Report has identified  “...five critical decision points...”  which are presented in the text; these “...principles and general guidance... are also relevant to no dam-options for water and energy services.”   The Report alleges: “The five key stages and associated decision points are generic and need to be interpreted within the overall planning contexts of individual countries.” And, “Recognising that guidelines are available from other sources, the Commission focused principally on what needs to be done differently.” On the one hand, the WCD data base is poor as has been mentioned previously; so the conclusions drawn from it are often misleading. In this sense the Report states making reference to the Knowledge Base: “...there are still gaps in our knowledge, experience and understanding. Many issues cannot finally be settled because the information needed to resolve them is still not available.” On the other hand, who judges if these policy principles are appropriate?. Why developing countries have to follow acquiescently all the prescriptions coming from the WCD, as if they were a unique and undisputed solution?
• We consider that if the given five key decision points, an in general, the recommendations given in this Chapter would be implemented as the Report advices, the delays for conceiving, planning, investigating, validating, consulting and constructing any project, primarily in developing countries, would take an exceedingly long time and would make the financing far more difficult, with the consequent disservice to the people that should have opportunely been benefited by the undertaking.
• “The Commission proposes a validation process to confirm the setting of priorities and the formulation of development objectives.”  and, “Responsability for this validation process rests with the State.”  A question comes to the mind on this issue: if a given country’s planning teams, supported by the State, set the priorities and the objectives for a given development taking into consideration all the basic data, the needs of the people, and the opportunity of the endeavour, who will accomplish the validation process?. Later on the Report states: “An independent panel of experts (reporting formally to the highest environmental protection authority) should be appointed to assist the government and the developer in reaching sustainable social and environmental outcomes.” Then, “Briefing materials, records of meetings, and results of the overall process should be available in appropriate languages.” Why the language of the given country would not be appropriate if it is not one of the frequently spoken languages in the world?  The only thing that one can speculate concerning this matter is that such panel of experts would not be composed by nationals, but by foreign consultants who do not speak the local language and pretend to undertake the worldwide responsability to implement the validations, as a sort of overarching authority reviewing all present dam projects in whatever stage they might be, as well as all future ones.
• On the negociated decision making processes, “All stakeholder forum members should share a genuine desire to find an equitable solution...”....”...the process and the stakeholders should be as free as possible from ....manipulation.” ....”Adequate time is allowed for stakeholders to assess, consult and participate.”  None of these recommended procedures were met by the WCD in relation with the Forum appointed by the Commission to act as a sounding board during the preparation of this Report.
• With no sound basis whatsoever, as has been mentioned earlier, the Report repeats: “Recent research indicates that reservoirs can emit greenhouse gases.” . And, “...net emissions from reservoirs above baseline emissions are the appropriate estimates.”  Base line estimates barely exist, as the Report indicates in a previous chapter.

Chapter 10

• We have few comments on this Chapter, where the WCD emerges as a world authority whose irreprochable principles and guidelines ought to be followed meekly by all countries, including developing ones. In this sense: “If all parties now adopt, adapt, and implement our recommendations.....much of the energy currently focused on the controversy surrounding large dams can be channeled  into improving development outcomes...”
• The Report indicates: “The Commission alone is ultimately responsible for the conclusions and recommendations presented...”. A part of the alluded responsability should also fall on the “dam constituencies....who entrusted us with the mandate two years ago and who created the Commission...”.
• With sufficiency the Report asserts that “...its recommendations are in the elightened self-interest of all concerned,...”.  Further on: “We are aware that many organisations involved with dams, water and energy will have to review existing criteria and guidelines and adapt them in light of our report.”, and “By applying it they can immediately begin incorporating the content and spirit ouf our report in their own professional practices.”
• With respect to the activities of the WCD, the Commisioners’ Foreword indicates: “The life of the World Commission on Dams ends with the publication of this Report.”  Apparently this is not completely true, since “The Commission welcomes a response from all parties concerning the proposal arising from the review processes.”, and  “Governments and other organisations are further invited to report on what actions they have taken as a result of such reviews,...”.....”These reports can also be sent to the WCD website...to facilitate sharing of lessons and information.”
• The Commission urges all parties involved in activities related to large dams, to adopt and support the principles and guidelines given in the Report. They induce line ministries, civil society groups (national NGOs and international NGO networks), ISO, the private sector ( “For consulting companies, refine the use of the tools proposed by the Commission so they become standard industry practice.”), bilateral aid agencies and multilateral development banks, intergovernmental organisations (United Nations) and academic and research bodies, to follow the Report’s recommendations without discussion or previous agreement.
• Perhaps another way of approachig the general issue would have been more promising. In the same way that the WCD encourages the general application of review processes through stakeholder’s fora in order to reach agreements and device procedures for the benefit of all involved parties, why wasn’t the Report, its principles and guidelines, the result of an ample forum of representative independent participants concerned with the dam’s debate.

Some Additional Comments