Dams and Development Project

Home

About DDP

Promoting Dialogue

Practical Tools

The World Commission On Dams

ANCOLD RESPONSE TO WORLD COMMISSION ON DAMS REPORT

ANCOLD welcomes the final report of the World Commission on Dams (WCD) and encourages ICOLD to not only accept the report but to actively promote it.

ICOLD should attempt to emerge from the debate on the WCD report as:

The repository of world knowledge on the construction, operation, maintenance and rehabilitation of dams and to be seen to be considering the technical, financial, environmental and social issues.

An impartial guide on the worth of dam proposals able to assist governments and lending agencies to assess what proponents have put forward.

An enlightened NGO working to see that dams are used to contribute to the overall benefit of the world’s populations.

ICOLD will not be able to do this unless it quickly enters the debate on how to constructively move forward from the WCD report. ICOLD should use its public relations funds to position itself as the logical custodian of the process the WCD has commenced. It must not allow itself to be drawn into the details of any project criticised for whatever reason but to continually speak on the value of the principles put forward by WCD and ICOLD’s role in supporting the process.

THE REPORT

It is ANCOLD’s view that the report offers a mechanism and an opportunity to move forward from a position where many dam projects have been stalled by opposition.

The report acknowledges the benefits of dams, perhaps not as fully as some would like but certainly it recognises that without water and power there can be no development.

We all must recognise that some dams have had adverse social and environmental effects, some of which were not recognised in the planning prior to the dam’s construction. Some of these effects were not predictable by the available science at the time.

Equally, we must recognise that the international lending authorities have a choice of projects in which they will invest. It may be uncomfortable to those countries wishing to borrow for investment to know that the lending countries will make the rules. It is not the WCD that causes this; rather, the WCD has shown us what the rules will be.

The WCD’s conclusions on the economics of dams have confused pricing, economics and national policies. Almost all governments are committed to affordable food and domestic power. Few, if any, pay more than lip service to economic rationalism in food pricing. Most farmers around the world are insufficiently rewarded for their efforts in food production. It suits most governments to provide “hidden subsidies” to food production by not passing all infrastructure costs onto farmers. It is often considered to be counter to the national interest to price outputs from these projects at full cost recovery. This argument is more clearly seen in roads where only a very small proportion is tolled.

The report calls for decision-making to be based on the five core values of equity, sustainability, efficiency, participatory decision-making and accountability. We should look at these individually.

EQUITY. In nationally funded projects all should benefit. The widespread corruption in large infrastructure projects should be fought. No group should be forced to carry a burden so that others can profit. ICOLD can have no objection to these objectives.

SUSTAINABILITY. The project should be in harmony with its situation. It should not cause environmental or other problems that will limit its ongoing effectiveness. Neither should it limit the ongoing effectiveness of the community in which it exists. Where this is a dilemma, we have to make trade-offs. The real problem is a population that cannot all be sustained at a lifestyle that some are able to enjoy. This is an equity issue at a wider level than national infrastructure.

EFFICIENCY. Many opponents of dams believe that there are often other options that are not pursued. It is difficult to see why a dam option would be chosen if, looking at all factors, other options are more attractive. It is important for decisions such as this to be clear and their reasons expressed. The benefit of constructing infrastructure works may be the encouragement of development. If this is the case, then they should be efficient in that objective.

ACCOUNTABILITY. This is a clear requirement of those making decisions on behalf of others in all walks of life.

PARTICIPATORY DECISION-MAKING. This calls for decisions made on the other four values to be made openly with all affected parties and with a full knowledge of the factors. This is probably the major criticism of dam decision-making in the past. It is also extremely idealistic. There are countries where decision-making is inclusive and participatory but others where a more centralised approach is preferred.

The WCD here appears to be calling for a single world model for governments and national decision-making. This is again a much wider issue than infrastructure development but goes to the form of government in each country. It is, however, clear that better decisions are made when all the facts and ideas are examined and that these are better accepted by those who have been involved in the process.

Despite the confidence of the WCD it is unlikely that a decision made with full participation of all involved will be accepted by all. Some will always have a different set of values or weight to pluses and minuses differently from the majority. In “not-in-my-backyard” effect is well documented. Difficult decisions often have to be taken in all walks of life.

CONCLUSIONS

ANCOLD believes that ICOLD should welcome the report as a way forward in the difficult task of providing water and power for all. ICOLD must recognise that some dams have had high environmental and social costs. These have led to systemic objections to other essential projects. The five core values can be accepted as a basis of decision-making and it should be recognised that with community participation projects can be made more effective.

Governments and lending agencies must, however, accept that in providing for an ever-increasing population in an environmentally sustainable and socially equitable manner there may be privileges that some currently enjoy which cannot be maintained. Participatory decision-making involving single-issue groups, current inequalities and restricted resources is a challenge for governments.

ICOLD must rise to the challenge of assisting its members to develop projects that will meet environmental, social and economic objectives in a safe and sustainable manner.

It is reasonable that each existing project should, in time, be reviewed to ensure that it continues to be the most effective way of meeting community objectives. Certainly some projects will need to be decommissioned and a larger number modified as populations and their needs change and the knowledge of environmental management develops.

ICOLD can emerge from this debate as the pre-eminent Non Government Organisation working to ensure the effective user of dams for the benefit of all mankind.

Yours faithfully,

Phillip J Cummins

Chairman