Response to the Final Report:

Jan Veltrop

Former WCD Commissioner, President of ICOLD (1988 - 91)

Open letter to ICOLD President Varma
cc. Achim Steiner and past WCD Commissioners

Dear Mr. President,

I have read your letter to Prof. Kader Asmal, Former Chairman of the World Commission on Dams.

Your summary of ICOLD's initial review of WCD's Report is at once eloquent, thorough and moderate in tone. Although critical in parts, it is yet cooperative in being ready to contribute to the implementation of WCD's recommendations. This is especially true for the many WCD guidelines on environmental and social issues which parallel those having been published by ICOLD some years earlier.

The mutual support between ICOLD and WCD was also acknowledged by Commissioner Henderson during her presentation at the ICOLD Annual meeting in Beijing last September. We all recognize that neither ICOLD, nor WCD can enforce any of their recommendations. Instead, both rely on voluntary adoption and implementation by stakeholders.

 Permit me to make a few more specific observations regarding selected points in your letter. First of all, I very much appreciate ICOLD's support of the WCD qualifying statement that "The report is not intended as a blueprint", rather it should "be used as a starting point for discussions, debates, etc."

My detailed observations are as follows:

Item 1. "There is little in the report about the development effectiveness of dams in regulating the world's rivers for human utilization". True. Our objective was not to elaborate on common knowledge about the many beneficial services provided by dams. For completeness sake a rather brief reference was made to water supply for domestic and irrigation purposes, hydropower and flood control. No specific references to navigation, recreation, fisheries and other services of multipurpose projects. However, acknowledged was the need for downstream flow releases to accommodate the environment and riparian agriculture.

Item 2. "---global availability of water---". Such a compilation and review is being undertaken by other international organizations. The reports by ICOLD, WCD and others should be used side by side to review local conditions and to evaluate alternative actions to provide water where needed. Major emphasis in WCD's work program and in its report, was placed on leading the acrimonious debate between proponents and opponents of dams into more constructive channels.

Item 3. Besides for water, the same explanation holds for satisfying energy demands. In fact, the report describes the suggested criteria under which these demands can be satisfied, including further development of hydropower.

Item 4. "WCD's report focuses on the five percent of the people who have not benefited from dams, and therefore ignores the benefits to the majority". Correct, but the report makes clear that such 'tradeoffs' between one group of people and another is no longer acceptable in our modern 21st century world. Instead, all affected people should be the first to benefit from a project.

 That principle was also pointed out in ICOLD's "Position Paper on Dams and Environment", page 11, item f) 'involuntary resettlement'. The next to last sentence reads: "For the population involved, resettlement must result in a clear improvement of their living standard, because the people directly affected by a project should always be the first to benefit instead of suffering for the benefit of others. Special care must be given to vulnerable ethnic minotities".

Item 5. During the selection of the 10 Case Studies, it was quickly realized that it would be impossible to select a manageable sample representative of all 45,000 large dams in the world. Instead, ten were selected on the basis of providing a broad variety of geographic location, existence of major issues of concern, potential for development lessons, and level of information available. Additional considerations included: age and height, transboundary impact, function and purposes, magnitude of impact, reservoir size, extent of catchment area, and existence of pristine areas. (No one would ever think that the Grand Coulee project is in any way representative of large dams in the USA).

On the other hand, as you also pointed out, such recently constructed dams as for the East Side Reservoir near Los Angelos and for a similar emergency storage reservoir for San Diego already applied criteria being promoted by ICOLD and now also by WCD.

Item 6. "The report fails to offer technical criteria and standards for the planning, design, appraisal, construction, monitoring and decommissioning of dams". Obviously, that would go far beyond the task assignment from the meeting in Gland, and time would not have been available in the short period of two years specified for WCD's existence. Furthermore, the composition of the Commission would have had to be significantly different to cover those subjects adequately! Besides, why compete with ICOLD, which continues to have THE worldwide reputation for technical guidance on just those aspects of dams?

The general statement in Chapter 9 reads as follows: "Recognizing that guidelines are available from other sources, WCD focused principally on what needs to be done DIFFERENTLY". That approach covers all potential contributors, and thereby avoids overlooking other organizations besides ICOLD and financing institutions.

Item 7. The decision-making process as fundamentally modified by WCD has been divided into five steps, the first two of which will lead to either the selection of a dam, or to an alternative. Clearly, it was WCD's task to then describe additional steps for the implementation of a selected dam project, not, of course, of any non-dam alternative. That should be up to those who are charged with execution of such an alternative project.

Item 8. "---- A cumbersome negotiation process ----"? There are examples of unfortunate delays, cost overruns and demonstrations as a result of incomplete negotiations, such as in the case of Sardar Sarovar in India, Pak Mun in Thailand, Epupa in Namibia, and Ilisu in Turkey. "ICOLD believes that such negotiations will be viewed as adding additional risks to project development by dam owners and financial institutions and creating additional delays". In my opinion, that is purely hypothetical and flies in the face of the examples just mentioned.

To the contrary, it is the judgement of the WCD that implementation of its procedures may cost more initially because all project related social and environmental costs should now be included. In the end, this will lead to savings in time, elimination of delays, reduction of cost overruns, avoidance of demonstrations, etc.

Item 9. "ICOLD feels that procedures for development are specific to each country". WCD has made clear that its report is not a blueprint, as also acknowledged by ICOLD above. WCD agrees that its recommended criteria and guidelines, as well as its proposed steps for implementation are up to the people and authorities in each country.

Item 10. When reviewing alternative solutions to water, food and energy demands, I am struck by the need to consider two aspects: "Need is the mother of invention", and "Do not assume that technology will inevitable solve our problems". Are these mutually exclusive?