Response to the Final Report:

Gedion Asfaw, Technical Advisor, SCSE/EPA
P.O.Box 8202, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
e-mail: scse/epa@telecom.net.et

1.0 BACKGROUND

The World Commission on Dams (WCD) was established in February 1998 as an independent body at a workshop sponsored by IUCN and the World Bank held in Gland, Switzerland in April 1997. The Commission's two objectives were:

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

The Commission had the backing and support of numerous government, non-government, international agencies, the private sector and various foundations and claims that all funding received by it were 'untied'. The two and half year deliberation of the Commission culminated with the launch of the Report of the World Commission on Dams entitled "Dams and Development: A New Framework for Decision-Making". The Report is a landmark achievement, which has examined in detail the debate surrounding large dams. The following paragraphs outline my personal comments on the Report.

2.0 GENERAL COMMENTS

2.1 Genesis of WCD

The unlikely alliance of IUCN and The World Bank to set up WCD raises issues related to 'checks and balances' which seemed to exist before between environmental and development oriented institutions. This is not to say that international agencies should not cooperate in these types of ventures. The concern is it may imply or give an impression that this type of alliance may lead to possible compromise of the primary objectives of the said agencies.

The generally accepted paradigm which stipulates that "environment and development are two sides of the same coin" should not be taken as to imply that agencies with a primary mandate of environment or development have the same objectives, concern, ethical considerations and motives.

This raises a fundamental issue with regards to how and who should be making global public policy in the areas of sustainable development.

I believe this is an area which requires an independent assessment of the work of the World Commission on Dams and I was relieved to find out that such an initiative is already underway through the initiative of the World Resources Institute and other partners.

2.2 Members of the WCD

The Report states that The Commission's 12 members were chosen to reflect regional diversity, expertise and stakeholders perspectives. This may be the original objective but from what one observes there seems to be a bias towards hard line environmentalists.

One wonders, for example, why an exclusive comment by Ms. Medha Patker is included beginning on page 321 of the Report. The inclusion of her comment gives an impression that this was deliberately concocted to make the Report look like a benign report that attempts to find a middle ground for all stakeholders in comparison to the extremist views of Ms. Patkar.

2.3 Objectives of WCD

The first objective of the WCD states "to review the development effectiveness of large dams and assess alternatives for water resources and energy development".

The above objective carries a pre determined and preconceived connotation which sounds to have already condemned large dams and sets out a mission to look for alternatives for large dams.

A more palatable objective would have been "to review the development effectiveness of large dams and assess lessons learned for future sustainable development of large dams".

2.4 From whose perspective?

Given the current and ever widening gap between the rich and the poor, who reviewed and from whose perspective large dams were reviewed have significant bearing on the outcome of the review.

Those countries who have already controlled and are utilizing a large percentage of their water resources can not be put on the same level with those countries which are currently using a fraction of their water resources and as a consequence their people are suffering from hunger and thirst.

It is very difficult for a person who consumes over 400 liters per day in exceptionally convenient ways to understand and feel the plight of millions of mothers and daughters in developing countries who trek miles daily for a jug of unwholesome water.

And when the obvious and direct causes for these human sufferings are highly variable rainfall and mal distribution of water sources which can be addressed effectively with the provision of dams, it may be difficult for affected communities in developing countries to appreciate any argument against large dams.

The WCD Report puts very high value in participatory decision making. I wonder how many of these long distance trekking women in search of water who reside in all of the developing countries have participated in the deliberation of the WCD which focused in the review and assessment of water resources and energy development.

The Deputy Chairman of the Russian Committee on Large Dams, Mr. G.G. Lapin, in his first reaction to the WCD report, states the following. I quote: -

"The World Bank has set up a commission which assumes the right to be called 'World' and which laid down "some rules of game" and is anxious to dictate these rules to all countries and the entire world community, i.e., the World Bank wants to rule through this agency [Commission] the destinies of the peoples throughout the World, but this is interference into the internal affairs of each country. There is a proverb saying "who pays a piper calls a tune".

"For some reason, the [WCD] report was initiated by [the] most well off countries which have built a great number of dams: USA, Canada, Switzerland, Germany, Japan, Australia and Some others. Here are some figures (according to WCD report) USA: 6575 dams, Canada 793, Japan 2675 and Brazil 594 while Russia 236 dams... And now the gentlemen from WCD say "You shouldn't hasten dam construction, you'd better debate on the subject, argue pro and cons, may be you'll find it harmful". It hazards a conjecture that the gentlemen are driven not by the care about the native and poor people in Africa or Russia but by the desire to keep the great and well-off countries great and prosperous as long as possible while native tribes should remain in their pristine state".

3. SPECIFIC COMMENTS

3.1 Executive Summary

The executive summary of the report has encapsulated all that has been told in the main report. The comments on this chapter focus on the main findings and conclusions and additional comments on some parts of the main report are also provided.

Page XXVIII:
The report states that "we believe there can no longer be any justifiable doubt about the following" and bullet point 3 states "Lack of equity in the distribution of benefits has called into question the value of many dams in meeting water and energy development needs when compared with alternatives."

I fail to see what the source of water and energy has to do with equity in the distribution of benefits. Whether the source of water or energy happens to be solar, wind power or small dam equity issues can only be addressed by considering a different set of principles that have nothing to do with the dam size or type of water and energy source.

Page XXIX:
"The challenge is not to mobilize so as to compete successfully, but to cooperate in reconciling needs. It is to find ways of sharing water resources equitably and sustainably - ways that meet the needs of all people as well as those of the environment and economic development."

I feel what is encapsulated in the above paragraph should have permeated in all parts of the Report.

Page XXXI Performance of Large dams:
The under performances of large dams in many aspects are enumerated with respect to falling short of physical and economic targets, delays, cost overruns, negative impacts on ecosystems and communities, etc. I am not convinced that the above recourse should necessarily lead to a conclusion of looking for other options for water and energy sources. If at all it leads to any conclusion, it should be to a better study, design and execution of large dam projects.

The options enumerated are all logical options in any undertaking but in developing countries where there are no or minimal goods and services, the demand management options such as reducing consumption and recycling seem to be out of place and out of context.

The supply side options which suggest to opt for small, distributed generation sources or localized water collections are nothing but the same old stereotyped arguments with the aim of keeping the statuesque i.e. the rich with their big dams and the poor with their hand pumps.

3.2 New Policy Framework

The seven strategic priorities set out by the Commission are said to be based on human rights, the right to development and a healthy environment.

In countries such as Ethiopia the above internationally recognized rights can not be practically achieved with out the wise use of their water resources.

The general apprehension I have with the seven guiding principles is the way these principles make the dam building option very difficult and cumbersome.

The degree of involvement of the public in water and energy resource development varies from country to country and depends on the political environment and cultural factors. In most developing countries "informed participation by all groups of people" is a process which will take time to fully put in practice. The development of the water resources of a country can not be held hostage to this requirement while realizing the conditions prevailing in these countries in terms of literacy, awareness and cultural factors which hinder full participation of all groups in the decision making process.

Alternatives to dam do often exist. In a country such as Ethiopia with over 110 bmc mean annual flow in its rivers which transport 75% of this flow out of the country, with less than 20% of the population having access to potable water and less than 5% having access to modern energy, there is very little chance that other options will fare better than small, medium and large dams to achieve the development objectives of the country.

Optimizing benefits from existing dams and addressing social and environmental issues are all acceptable but the issue in developing countries is that there are very few dams to warrant for undertaking such measures. What incremental benefits can be generated from optimizing benefits from the existing 8(eight) large dams in Ethiopia as compared to the over 6500 dams in the USA or to the over 2500 dams in Japan?

4. THE ETHIOPIAN SITUATION

Ethiopia is one of the poorest countries in the world currently with over 6 million people needing food assistance. Less than 20% of the population has access to portable water, less than 5% has access to modern energy, less than 5% of its irrigation potential of 3.5 million hectares and less than 2% of its hydropower potential of 135,311 Giga Watt Hours per year has been utilized.

Its water resources potential and varied topography, climate and soils offer enormous opportunities for the development of irrigation and hydro electric power through the use of small, medium and large dams.

The Commission's Report can only be useful to Ethiopia to the extent the Report assists the country in the development of dams which will bring sustainable benefit to the people of the country.

To this end the government should seriously review the WCD Report before endorsing it and before proceeding to use the report to review its priorities and procedures.

5. RECOMMENDED FOLLOW UP ACTIONS OF WCD

Chapter 10 of the Report suggests a set of follow up actions by national governments, line ministries, NGOs, international organizations, private sector, bilateral aid agencies and multilateral development banks, etc.

Such a comprehensive report should of necessity have follow-up actions for its implementation. I am of the opinion that some of these follow up actions need revisiting and reformulating. Some of them sound like veiled threats and some call for the international community to gang up against nations who aspire to build dams in the future.

I particularly find the following follow up actions of the Report to be not helpful to developing countries.

"Introduce and adopt common environmental, social and transboundary criteria for financial guarantees and strengthen institutional capacity to appraise projects against such criteria." (P.316)
"Improve co-ordination among agencies at international level to ensure that dam projects refused by one agency are not accepted by others." (P.316)

It seems that developing countries are going to be faced with yet an other stumbling block in the development of their water resources. Poor countries such as Ethiopia have all along been handicapped to develop their water resources by international financing agencies and have missed numerous opportunities while other riparian countries were assisted by these agencies to build dams. The chapter entitled 'Procedures to Shared Rivers' in the WCD Report compounds the problems of poor countries by stating "...Any external financing for the dam should be conditional upon resolution of the issues as described in Chapter 8- (Strategic Priorities-A New Framework for the Development of Water and Energy Resources-p.215)." (P.306)

I sometimes wonder why the great aqueducts of the Roman Empire, the great pyramids of Egypt, the Great Wall of China, the magnificent rock-hewn churches and steles of Ethiopia did not require the financing of multilateral banks. The dams we are talking about are not as complicated as these wonders of the world.

I think the time has come for developing countries to opt for self-reliance and embark upon regulating their water resources with their own resources and capabilities for the benefit of their people. There is no doubt that such endeavors will make people and the environment centers of all development activities including dam building.

In contrast with the Commissions Report I find the following caption very inspiring. It is quoted from the Internet. (The Nine Dams of Tennessee River)

"The Tennessee River was once untamed. It caused havoc on the lives of the people who settled near its bank. The river often flooded and was not navigable in many areas. The unpredictable Tennessee wasn't kind to the families who grew cotton, tobacco, and corn within its flood plains. It also posed a problem in shipping the crops to the rest of the nation and world.

"Today the Tennessee has been tamed. Nine dams have been built along the river to ensure the people of Tennessee Valley adequate transportation and protect against flooding rains. The dams also provide electricity for industries and residents, recreation for tourists and residents, and water supplies during times of drought."

I wish I could say the same thing for Ethiopia's Awash, Abay, Baro Akobo, Wabe Sheble, Tekeze, Genele Dawa and Omo Valleys. I would then happily comply with the recommendations of the WCD Report.