Response to the Final Report:

Russian National Committee of Large Dams

Mr. G.G. Lapin, Deputy Chairman
WCD briefing in Moscow, 23d November, 2000

Ladies and Gentlemen, Dear Colleagues,

Availing of the opportunity may I introduce myself: I am Deputy Chairman of the Russian Committee on Large Dams, Gennadi Georgievitch Lapin.

I want to start my presentation with two remarks.

First, during the International Exhibition, last in the twentieth century, that took place in Las Vegas (USA) in March 1999, the most outstanding achievements were identified in the field of civil construction and 10 top construction projects implemented over the past century have been nominated.

The basic criteria for selection of the best among the multitude of the projects considered were their significance for the humankind, cost effectiveness, importance for the people and regions, official recognition at all levels, implementation of innovations, environmental sustainability and their impact on future projects. The first place was awarded to the High Aswan Dam (Egypt) which was built to the design elaborated by the Institute Hydroproject (Moscow).

Second. It is well known world-wise and nobody dares to contest it that the biggest detriment to the urban and rural ecology and hence to the human being health is being inflicted by the motor transport. For example, in Moscow motor car exhausts account for over 80% harmful emissions. Now you can ask yourselves why nobody tries to prohibit the vehicles with internal combustion engines, but all are striving to have it, and vice versa, why all, who feels like, fight with the dams and reservoirs which used to benefit the people from time immemorial?

And now to the point of the issue we have come together to discus.. I have read over the overview of the report several times and first I was not able to get the reason of such opponency in spite of the thoroughness and rather high scientific level of the report. You know, all the issues that were raised, are correct and all that is spoken about, is being done in Russian. But then I got it. The matter is not in the contents of the report but rather in its aggressive and offensive format. The International Commission on Large Dams (ICOLD) with its headquarters in Paris has been in existence for 60 years, which convenes executive meetings and congresses regularly and considers all the problems related to the large dams. The World Commission on Dams (WCD) has not submitted its Report to ICOLD. But in reality the World Bank (USA) 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 the countries and the entire world community, i.e. the World Bank wants to rule through this agency 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 the piper calls a tune".

The World Bank is, for some reasons, interested to throw in an absolutely controversial issue (which is absurd from the view of specialists) of the harm of large dams, to get the governmental agencies and general public involved into debates and drown the issue of the talk in twaddling instead of finding solutions to the acute problems related to electricity supply, water supply, flood control, irrigation and as a result to improve cropping conditions and welfare of the people in different countries throughout the world.

The next moment which makes me wonder. For some reasons, this report was initiated by most well-off countries which had built a great number of dams: USA, Canada, Swiss, Germany, Japan, Australia and some others. Here are some figures (acc. to WCD report): USA built 6575 large dams, Canada - 793, Japan - 2675 and Brazil - 594 while in Russia, according to our Institute statistics, only 236 dams can be listed as large dams and out of this number 195 dams are over 15 m in height and 41 dams fall under this category because of their storage capacity (>3 M cu.m). That is in Russia which territory exceeds the territory of the USA as much as two times and whose hydropower potential ranks the second in the world after China, the number of large dams is by a factor of 28 less than in the USA. And now the gentlemen from WCD say "you shouldn't hasten dam construction, you'd better debate on the subject, argue pro and cons, maybe 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.

All thousand year experience of the mankind shows and supports by the numerous concrete facts that dam engineering means benefit, energy, water supply, rich crops, better quality of life, but suddenly an organization shows up which is only two years old but very rich and says that it is not true and white is black.

The new decision-making framework is, as WCD alleges, based on the three related covenants: UN Declaration of Human Rights, Declaration on the Right to Development and the Rio Principles agreed to at the UN Conference on Environment and Development.
These fundamentals common to the all mankind have been formulated in relation to dam engineering in the form of three basic requirements for assessment of their feasibility: economic practicability, environmental sustainability and solving of the social problems of project-affected population.

In the mid eighties, the Institute Hydroproject laid down the following requirement for the water projects proposed for construction:
"The Project shall be economically viable, environmentally sustainable and socially acceptable".

However, the implementation of these absolutely just requirements leads in most cases to the following results:
1. Economic validation is in most cases performed in rather full scope and here proponents of different views come to a common understanding, while remaining controversies including the options may influence only the level of economic effectiveness.

2. Environmental impact assessment, irrespective of the scope and level of refinement, is predictive in nature while the availability of numerous schools and procedures for such predictions creates a field of uncertainties which unavoidably lead to unresolvable conflicts.

3. Reaching complete consensus in the social matters is theoretically impossible. There exists always a group of individuals sticking to their own independent point of views. Validation of the project in this aspect is always fraught with conflicts.

This is an objective situation arising probably from the human psychology which is run into practically at each project.

According to our estimates, environmental and social validation of the water projects (hydropower, water management, multipurpose) has been considerably improved world-wise over the last 30-40 years. Practically all or most of the project designs used to undergo public hearings which have highlighted the above mentioned situation, which methods are used to resolve the arising conflicts?

We think that they (these problems) are solved by the institutive methods practised in each country.

What new is proposed by the WCD in its decision-making framework for solving these problems?

Nothing but appeals to "in-depth" economic validation and reaching of the broad consensus on the environmental and social aspects of the problem.

If the in-depth-economic validation of project still remains at the level of shear appeals with enumeration of some risk zones the conflicts in the environmental and social spheres are literally turned into the absolute.

We believe that implementation of this idea in practice would be equal to cease of any water resources development in the interest of hydropower and water supply because it is impossible to reach the overall consensus on this or any other problem.
Compliance with the Human Rights and Environmental Protection requirements in full scope (within the context of the above said) which is pursued by one part of the public involved in the conflict, contradicts the 3d fundamental concept - Right to Development on which the other part of the public insists.

I have mentioned above that this situation is not new and at present it finds its own solution in each particular case. Novelty of the new decision making framework consists in the WCD proposition to raise solution of this controversies from the national level to the international stage engaging some international bodies including banking and financial institutions to solve these conflicts.
In our opinion, such a practice can ultimately lead to oversensitive results and conclusions with their motivation lying outside the essence of the conflict which may prove to be one more and rather effective factor restraining realization of the Right to Development. We have a right to speak about it in such categories as hydropower and developed water economy serve in many cases the basis for development. That's why we are not in position to concur with the new concept in the full measure. Though we recognize importance and validity of the requirements identified for such projects, we have not yet found in this concept an acceptable decision-making procedure and methods for resolving the conflicts.

These are conclusions of general nature and now I am getting to some specific points. It is said at page 2 of the Overview:

"Opponents point to the adverse impacts of dams, such as debt burden, cost overruns, displacement and impoverishment of people ...".
The above considerations are not resultant of the dam impact but are rather the elements of the state politics pursued in some of the issues. These problems do not exist in the countries with socially-oriented legislation. In Russia for instance, pay off of hydropower projects used to take 3-4 years during the topping out periods when the hydropower plant was still being developed to the full capacity. Instead of impoverishment, the dam projects would gave rise to construction of new towns and other communities with well-developed infrastructure in these regions. So, the above said postulate is wrong.

It is said at page 4 of the Overview: "This water is recognized as a scarce natural resource".

It should be noted that water is available on the earth in much more quantities than any other natural resource. The problem consists in its proper use, its redistribution including through construction of dams because of irregular distribution of water resources over the territory.

The same page says that "by 2025 there will be a total of 3.5 billion people living in water-stressed countries".

In order to avoid this situation the water resources should be intensively developed through regulation of the stream flows and dam construction.

Page 5 states that "two billion people lack electricity and electricity demand in developing countries will increase".

Why should anybody give up use of water power for these purposes. Proceeding from global problems, preference should be given to the renewable sources of energy.

At page 6 it is stated: "There is little public controversy about the choice between an embankment dam or a gravity dam, or about whether to use earth, concrete, or rock-fill".

We think that the type of the dam can be selected by qualified experts as being done in Russia basing on the results of appraisal but not on the outcome of public debates which are biased and unprofessional. Russia has negative experience with debates when they brought to standstill dam construction and financing of these activities at all stages.

I believe that the key words of the WCD report are: to start public debate and the more debates are unprofessional the better. The more difficult is to convince opponents the higher is probability that you will not be understood and the issue will be drowned in endless debates.

We are not against debates and we think that they are mandatory. Public must be exposed to all aspects of implementation of the dam projects. It is imperative to account, to a maximum possible extent, for the interests of the project-affected region and indigenous people but the problem should not be put in such a perspective that practically any person could veto the project. And nobody could ever practically get unanimous support for implementation of a dam project.

In the event of controversies it must be divided on by the majority and be governed by regional interests and state interests.
The state priorities must prevail over the private ones (without encroachment on the Human Rights), otherwise it is going to turn into anarchy.

The same page states: "The problems all relate to what the dam will do to river flow and to rights of access to water and river resources".

In the Russian practice all these problems are dealt with in a special section of the design report, which is called Environmental Implication Assessment. This Environmental Assessment Report is subject not only to the State Environmental Appraisal but also is exposed to public hearings. These procedures are stipulated by the Law on Environmental and Ecological Assessment".
It is said at the next page (10): "Opponents content that better, cheaper, more benign options for meeting water and energy needs exist..."

The water supply specialists know that dependable drinking water supply meeting the quality specified by the World Health Organization and provided through a centralized system is more efficient and safer than the decentralized water supply. The Russian experience shows that only a centralized water supply of communities may assure required quality and quantity control, pursue water saving policies and provide uninterruptable long-term water supply service.

It relates also to electric energy supply. The interconnected power grids are much more economically viable and cost effective than isolated electric energy sources and provide electric energy services to the end-users.

Page 8 of the Overview states: "...a considerable portion falling short of physical and economic targets". We think that this statement is absolutely wrong, no examples have been given.

In Russia there are no dams or other water developments which have failed to achieve the technical targets set by the Owner, as well as economic ones. This is a shear allegation.

If in any country a dam falls short of the design targets, it is not the dam fault, but incompetence of the agency which designed the dam.

The next page (9) says: "Growing concern over the cost and effectiveness of large dams ... have led to the adoption of integrated flood management". As specialists, we wish to stress that in the world practice there are no more liable and cost-effective methods of flood protection than flood flow control with the aid of dams and storage reservoirs. And all but god-knows so-called integrated methods don't possess these qualities.

At the same page it is stated: "Waterlogging and salinity affect one-fifth of irrigated land globally ...". This statement does not concern the dam shortcomings, but reflects inability of some water users to properly manage available water resources. Technologies have been long ago developed and introduced in the world-wide practice which ensure irrigation without waterlogging and salinity effect. I wish to give some figures for information: in Russia 5.5 Mha are irrigated, in the USA - over 18 Mha, the crop yield from the irrigated land is as much as 2-3 times higher than from the dry land. "Irrigation is bad" is reiterated by those who have 3.3 times more irrigated land yielding 3 times higher cash crops which are sold to us.

It is said at page 10: "The Commission found that reservoirs samples so far by scientists all emit greenhouse gases ..." I believe that is intentional juggling of the facts and want to dwell a bit on this statement.

The report does not indicate the storage reservoirs (dams), which have been inspected by scientists involved in investigation of greenhouse gas emissions. It is unlikely that simple physical inspection could establish this fact. Apparently it will depend both on the clearing of the reservoir bed, age of the reservoir and climatic conditions.

Long-term special observations and analysis of their results are required. It may be assumed that they meant the Balbina dam in Brazil where such studies were carried out in 1991-1993, but it is not right to extrapolate the results of these observations, which have not been checked, onto all other storage reservoirs as:

- it is not known whether the reservoir bed had been cleared of timber and what was inundated;
- the long-term trends have not been identified for emission of methane and carbon oxide;
- there is no description of methodology used to measure gas emissions.

Investigations carried out by a British group of scientists "Earth Friend" who have not been mentioned in the Report, lead to another conclusion. These scientists have found that specific emissions of greenhouse gases in energy production work out to be as follows:

- coal firing thermal plants - 1210 gr/kWh;
- gas firing thermal plants - 573 gr/kWh;
- nuclear power plant - 47 gr/kWh;
- hydropower plant - 16 gr/kWh.

Studies conducted by the Hydroproject Institute show that the existing hydropower plants permit reducing the CO2 emissions by over 6% country-wise from all sources including thermal plants, metallurgy, transport.

The hydropower plants rank among the most environmentally benign sources of electric energy. I wish to stress that resolutions adopted by many international conferences note that the drastical means for control of the greenhouse gas emissions is to increase the share of electric energy produced by renewable energy sources among which hydropower plays the leading role.
It is a small part of concrete objections on concrete statements set out in the WCD Report. For lack of time I'm not able to continue their enumeration. That is why we are not in position to agree to most of the conclusions made in the WCD Report.

Thank you for your kind attention.