United Nations Environment Programme
Dams and Development Project
Analysis of Reactions on the
World Commission on Dams
Report
DDP SECRETARIAT
May 2003
Analysis of Reactions on the WCD Report – Interim Report
CONTENTS
FOREWORD
1. INTRODUCTION
2. THE REACTIONS
3. ANALYSIS APPROACH
4. MAIN RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
General Comments on WCD Report as a whole
Global review
Strategic priorities
Criteria and guidelines
Agenda and the way forward
5. GENERAL SENSE OF THE REACTIONS
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
The WCD Report
The knowledge base
The role of dams
Performance of dams
Alternatives to dams
Core values and Strategic Priorities
Criteria and Guidelines
Decision making and participation
6. THE WAY FORWARD
7. ACTIONS TO IMPROVE DIALOGUE ON DAMS AND DEVELOPMENT
8. FINAL COMMENTS
ANNEX I
Listing of Reactions
ANNEX II
Analysis of Reactions
Table II.1
Table II.2
Table II.3
Table II.4
ANNEX III
General Analysis
Global Review
Strategic Priorities
Agenda /The Way Forward
Reactions Analysis Matrix Database (Excel file, available on request)
This report was prepared by the DDP Secretariat and does not represent an official position of UNEP or the DDP Steering Committee
Please contact ddpinfo@unep.org for further information
Analysis of Reactions on the WCD Report – Interim Report
FOREWORD
DDP Work Programme, responding to the recommendations of the Steering
Committee, includes the systematic review of the reactions to the WCD Report among
its core activities. The database of collected reactions can be accessed on DDP website.
This paper describes the analysis of the reactions available to DDP Secretariat by the
end of February 2003. The goal of the analysis was to review systematically the
reactions to the WCD Report existing in DDP Secretariat files with the aim of
obtaining general conclusions which may influence DDP work programme, enriching
its activities and achievements by better incorporating the views of the various
stakeholder groups.
To this end a methodological approach was adopted to analyse the contents of the
reactions and elaborate a synthesis of the main issues addressed. The procedure is
certainly not exempted of some subjectivity. The issues are controversial by nature.
Consequently it needs to be stressed that the purpose of analysis carried out, was not to
judge either the contents of the Report nor those of the Reactions, but to draw the main
ideas emerging from the broad and conflicting set of opinions.
As indicated the analysis was based on the existing available set of reactions. Its
balance, or rather imbalances, in terms of stakeholder groups and themes addressed,
reflects that of the opinions. And these varied widely in scope and contents. Some
stakeholder groups produced many and detailed comments on specific chapters and
sections of the Report. Others limited to overall general statements. The final product
of the report, i.e. proposals for further improving dialogue on dams and development,
some of which may be incorporated into the current DDP work programme, responds
to such diversity, while attempting to interpret the “overall sense of the reactions”
underlying the wide range of responses.
DDP Secretariat
This report was prepared by the DDP Secretariat and does not represent an official position of UNEP or the DDP Steering Committee
Please contact ddpinfo@unep.org for further information
Analysis of Reactions on the WCD Report – Interim Report
OBJECTIVE
The goal of this paper is to review systematically the reactions on the WCD Report
existing in DDP Secretariat files with the aim of obtaining general conclusions that may
influence the DDP Work Programme, enriching the activities of the Project and its
achievements by better incorporating the views of the various stakeholder groups. Given
the controversial nature of the issues addressed, it needs to be stressed that the purpose of
analysis carried out, is not to judge either the contents of the Report nor those of the
Reactions, but to draw the main ideas emerging from the broad and often conflicting set
of opinions.
1. INTRODUCTION
1. The Briefing Document of the First Meeting of the Dams and Development Forum proposed an
analysis of the reactions, both positive and negative, on the WCD Report that had been provided as
direct feedback, to UNEP and DDP staff in their meetings and correspondence with individual
government agencies and professional associations. Correspondingly, DDP Work Programme for the
period August 2002- January 2003 incorporated Activity 2.3 ‘Document the reactions to the report’.
There it was stated that reactions already available on the website, plus additional responses to be
added, would be analysed with a view to determine their implication in the work programme, and a
report be prepared.
2. This report responds to such request. It briefly describes the methodological aspects of the analysis
carried out, summarises the main findings and extracts emerging issues and topics that might influence
DDP Work Programme. In this way, DDP would better fulfil its goal and objectives, taking in account
the contributions of all those organisations and individuals who devoted effort to reviewing the report
and conveyed formally their comments to the WCD / DDP Secretariats.
2. THE REACTIONS
3. A rather thorough review of DDP files was carried out to check for available reactions. Most of
them are currently posted in the Website1. A number of them available in hard copy only were also
incorporated into the analysis. Annex I provides a listing of the reactions included in this particular
database, indicating the organisation, author, date and corresponding stakeholder category.
4. A total of 117 reactions have been considered. They are heterogeneous in terms of origin, scope,
format and contents. Some belong to the same organisation that issued opinions at different times in
the process and through various means (e.g., press releases, letters either open or addressing the
chairmen of relevant organisations, presentations to the 3rd. WCD Forum meeting). One organisation
responded through its international governing body but also via a number of independent national
committees. Therefore straightforward statistics would be misleading. However they may provide
some sense of the process following the launching of the WCD Report on November 2000.
5. According to Table 1, majority of the reactions came from professional associations (ICOLD,
IHA), followed by NGOs (advocacy and international). However, a large proportion of reactions of
stakeholder category 11 belong to ICOLD, which provided a significant number of individual
responses (34) to the WCD report through its various national committees2.
1
2
See http://www.unep.org/dams/
See Final Proceedings of the Symposium “Benefits and Concerns about Dams”, September 13 2001, Dresden, Germany.
Organised by the German Committee on Large Dams. The ICOLD’s Position(s) on the WCD Report. An Explanatiuon.
Blohm, H.L., Vice-President Montgomery Watson Harza and Past President USSD (pp. 52-57)
This report was prepared by the DDP Secretariat and does not represent an official position of UNEP or the DDP Steering Committee
Please contact ddpinfo@unep.org for further information
Analysis of Reactions on the WCD Report – Interim Report
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Table 1 Distribution of reactions by Stakeholder Category
Category
Number
Government Agencies (Policy)
4
Government Agencies (Project / Basins)
3
Gov. Agencies (Bilateral, Export Credit, Regulators)
4
Affected People Group
3
Indigenous People Groups
2
Utilities / Owners / Operartors
2
Private sector / Industry
5
International NGOs
9
NGOs (Advocacy)
13
Intergovernmental Organizations
10
Professional Associations
49
Organisations Working on Options
3
Research Organizations
2
Others (Individuals, articles, meetings)
8
TOTAL
117
%
3
2
3
2
1
1
4
7
11
8
41
2
1
6
100
6. Figure 1 shows the same distribution in graphic format, highlighting the relative predominance of
stakeholder group 11, Professional Associations.
Figure 1: Reactions distributed by stakeholder
category
13
14
1
2
3
12
4
5
6
7
8
11
9
7. The production of responses to the WCD
Report had two particular pulses in time. One
associated to the launching of the report in
London, November 2000, and other in relation to
the 3rd. meeting of the WCD Forum in Spier,
South Africa, February 2001. Figure 2 shows the
monthly flow of reactions. During DDP process,
initiated in November 2001, a significantly fewer
number of responses have been filed. These are
mostly related with the output of follow on
processes, either with or without the involvement
of DDP.
10
3. Analysis approach
8. The approach use to analyse the reactions to
the WCD Final Report, was to dissect their contents according to the topics covered by the Report.
This required surmounting two main difficulties. The nature of the reactions to the WCD Report,
which is quite diverse. It varies widely from mere overall short statements to rather detailed analysis,
some of these including comments down to the guidelines level. The WCD Report, structured in two
main parts – review and proposals – and a set of thematic chapters provides in principle a good
platform for organising the analysis. However the fact that the same substantive issues are addressed,
although from different perspectives3, in the various sections, renders it difficult to relate
unequivocally the contents of the reactions to specific parts of the report when their authors do not
identify these expressly. Therefore, in order to carry out the proposed analysis, the following steps
were carried forward:
9. The various contents of each reaction were analysed in terms of the following thematic sets
associated with the domain of the WCD report (see Preface disclaimer), and distributed between them:
3
Awareness on these substantive issues is raised in the first part of the Report as a product of past experience. They are
addressed again to substantiate priorities and policies in chapter 8 and once more to back up criteria and guidelines in the
final chapters.
This report was prepared by the DDP Secretariat and does not represent an official position of UNEP or the DDP Steering Committee
Please contact ddpinfo@unep.org for further information
Analysis of Reactions on the WCD Report – Interim Report
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
Sep-2002
Feb-2002
Oct-2001
Sep-2001
Aug-2001
Jul-2001
Jun-2001
May-2001
Apr-2001
Mar-2001
Feb-2001
Jan-2001
Dec-2000
Nov-2000
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Oct-2000
Number
Figure 2: Distribution of reactions per month
General Comments on the Report
Global Review (related to chapters 1 to 7 of the Report)
Strategic Priorities (related to Chapter 8)
Criteria and Guidelines (related to Chapter 9)
The Agenda and the way forward (related to Chapter 10).
10. A matrix format has been used to distribute the contents of the reactions between the abovementioned thematic sets4. Each reaction has an associated row, identified by the organization and
author. They were classified according to stakeholder categories for further synthesis. The number and
heading of the columns varied with the topic. WCD Report chapters, strategic priorities or guidelines,
respectively constitute the natural column headers of thematic sets b), c) and d). The allocation of
reaction contents to each thematic set was eminently subjective, based on the interpretation of the
contents of both the reactions and the Report. However it is believed that the errors and biases in the
process of analysis become to some extent mitigated in the process of synthesis, given that the purpose
of the exercise was not either to judge the reactions or the contents of the Report, but to draw some
broadly based conclusions which might influence DDP work program.
11. Based on this database, a process of synthesis was carried summarising the range of comments for
each stakeholder category. The general sense or the spectrum of responses from all groups within each
category was condensed either by means of quoting texts or briefing the relevant concepts. The
product of this process for each thematic set is reflected in the tables of Annex II and described in the
following Section 4. Section 5 reflects the outcomes of the analysis interpreting the general sense of
the reactions while the emerging proposals for action to improve dialogue on dams and development
are addressed in Section 6
4. MAIN RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS
Following, the main results of the elaboration for each thematic set is presented in terms of structure
and range of the contents and contribution of the various stakeholders groups.
4.1
General Comments on the WCD Report as a whole
12. This first thematic set comprises either entire reactions consisting of a short general conclusive
statement on the Report, or the parts, from more lengthy and detailed contributions, dealing with
4
This elaboration constitutes the Annex III. It is not included in this report but is available upon request as a non edited Excel
file..
This report was prepared by the DDP Secretariat and does not represent an official position of UNEP or the DDP Steering Committee
Please contact ddpinfo@unep.org for further information
Analysis of Reactions on the WCD Report – Interim Report
overall appreciations and general conclusions on WCD Report. Consequently, this section reflects
partially or totally almost all reactions, authors and stakeholder groups.
13. Table II.1 summarizes in the form of briefings and quotes, the main conclusions in the reactions
about the overall contents of the Report. Comments on the WCD process have not been included here.
In this respect a quite thorough analysis of the whole process with valuable conclusions that will
contribute to enrich DDP process may be found in “A watershed in Global Governance?”, Dubash
Navroz et al., WRI Lokayan and LEAT, 2001 (http://governance.wri.org/pubs_pdf.cfm?PubID=3150)
14. Within the context of inherent subjectivity that underlies this analysis, the following thematic
headings seem to cover quite reasonably the major aspects addressed by those general conclusions and
statements. Rows in Table II.1 correspond to each of them.








The WCD report
The knowledge base
The role of dams
The performance of dams
The alternatives to dams
Core values
Strategic Priorities
Decision making and participation
15. Abbreviations that identify the author5 of the reaction have been added to each briefing or quote.
An elaboration of the main points that may be drawn from the material in Table II.1 is presented in
section 5.
4.2
Global review
16. This part of the analysis comprises the contents of the reactions that address directly or can be
reasonably associated to the aspects covered in Chapters 2 to 7 of the Report. Again, comments
generally do not indicate the specific chapters of the Report that they are referring to. Generally, they
tend to deal with recurrent topics, substantive to those chapters, some coinciding with the issues listed
in the precedent section. The topics adopted in this section for grouping the comments are:







The knowledge base
Role of dams
Performance of dams
Environmental issues
Social issues
Options
Decision Making and Planning.
17. Rows in Table II.2 in Annex II are organized according with these topics and presents two
columns. The first column, reactions, contains a briefing of the relevant contents of the reactions,
trying to reflect the range of opinions encountered. A second column lists relevant topics and issues
emerging from to the concerns posed by the reactions. These emerging issues and topics may become
the basis of possible actions to improve dialogue on dams and development. This issue is dealt with in
a latter section of this report.
18. Figure 3 maps the distribution of contributions to the topics by the various stakeholder categories.
It indicates that contributions are not well balanced in terms both of stakeholder category and topics.
Professional associations, Group 11, contribute most to each and all topics. Analysis of the causes
underlying these imbalances exceeds the scope of this report. Some stakeholder groups have not
addressed specifically, any of the topics under consideration. However, they may have done so in
general terms through the material considered in Table II.1.
5
See Table I.1 in Annex I
This report was prepared by the DDP Secretariat and does not represent an official position of UNEP or the DDP Steering Committee
Please contact ddpinfo@unep.org for further information
Analysis of Reactions on the WCD Report – Interim Report
Figure 3:
Distribution of comments to the Global Review per Topic and Stakeholder Category
STAKEHOLDER CATEGORY
AREA OF CONCERN
GA (pol)
GA (proj/
Bas)
GA (bilat/
ECA/
Reg)
Affect
Util/
Prov/ Ind Int NGO
Own/ Op
Indig
NGO
(Adv)
Int-Gov
Org
Prof Ass
Optns
Rsrch
Oth
Knowledge base
Role of Dams
Dams performance
Environmental Issues
Social Issues
Options
Decisions making and
participation
(Abbreviations: GA (Pol) = Government Agency (Policy); GA (proj/Bas) = Government Agency (Projects/Basins); GA (Bilat/ECA/Reg) = Government Agency (Bilateral, Export
Credit Agency, Regulators); Affect = Affected Peoples Groups; Indig = Indigenous Peoples Groups; Util/Own/Op = Utilities/ Owners / Operators; Priv/Ind = Private / industry; Int
NGO = International NGO; NGO (Adv) = NGO (advocacy); Ing Gov Org = Inter-governmental Organisations; Prof Ass = Professional Associations; Optns = Organisations
Working on Options; Resrh = Research Organisations; Other = Others (individual, articles, meetings)
4.3
Strategic priorities
19. Contents of reactions addressing the strategic priorities and policies principles are considered here.
In some cases the reactions made explicit reference to strategic priorities and policy principles.
However in many of them the pertinent parts of the reactions had been subjectively assigned. Figure 4
maps the distribution of reactions to strategic priorities by stakeholder category. Policy principles 1.3
and 1.4 dealing with negotiated outcomes and informed prior consent, 3.2 dealing with options
Figure 4: Distribution of Reactions by Strategic Priority and Policy Principle and Stakeholder
Category
STRATEGIC PRIORITIES
SP1 Gaining Public
Acceptance
Stakeholder Category
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
SP2 Comprehensive Options
Assessment
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
SP4 Sustaining Rivers and
Livelihoods
SP3. Addressing Existing Dams
2.5
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
GA (pol)
GA (proj/Bas)
GA (bilat/ECA/Reg)
Affect
Indig
Util/ Own/Op
Prov/ Ind
Int NGO
NGO (Adv)
Int-Gov Org
Prof Ass
Optns
Rsrch
Oth
STRATEGIC PRIORITIES
Stakeholder Category
SP5. Recog Entitlements &
Sharing Benefits
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
SP6. Ensuring Compliance
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
SP7. Sharing Rivers for Peace,
Development and Security
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
GA (pol)
GA (proj/ Bas)
GA (bilat/ ECA/ Reg)
Affect
Indig
Util/ Own/ Op
Prov/ Ind
Int NGO
NGO (Adv)
Int-Gov Org
Prof Ass
Optns
Rsrch
Oth
(Abbreviations: GA (Pol) = Government Agency (Policy); GA (proj/Bas) = Government Agency (Projects/Basins); GA (Bilat/ECA/Reg) = Government Agency (Bilateral, Export
Credit Agency, Regulators); Affect = Affected Peoples Groups; Indig = Indigenous Peoples Groups; Util/Own/Op = Utilities/ Owners / Operators; Priv/Ind = Private / industry; Int
NGO = International NGO; NGO (Adv) = NGO (advocacy); Ing Gov Org = Inter-governmental Organisations; Prof Ass = Professional Associations; Optns = Organisations
Working on Options; Resrh = Research Organisations; Other = Others (individual, articles, meetings)
This report was prepared by the DDP Secretariat and does not represent an official position of UNEP or the DDP Steering Committee
Please contact ddpinfo@unep.org for further information
Analysis of Reactions on the WCD Report – Interim Report
assessment and 5.3, with negotiated resettlement agreements, are the aspects that invoked a major
number of comments. Again, professional organisations have made comments on almost all the policy
principles, while a number of stakeholder groups have made none. These may have made
contributions to these aspects in general terms in the first part of the analysis.
20. Table II.3 briefs or quotes the reactions dealing with strategic priorities and policy principles.
4.4
Criteria and guidelines
21. Figure 5 indicates that very few contributions addressing specifically criteria and guidelines have
been provided in the reactions. Only the Professional organizations (ICOLD, ICOLD National
Committees and IHA) and one representative of Category 6 (Nam Theun II Project) have made some
comments on most of the guidelines6. Such limited number of opinions did not provide enough bases
for carrying out a synthesis similar to those in the previous sections. However, relevant parts of this
material have been incorporated into the strategic priority analysis, in Table II.3
Stakeholder Category
Distribution of Reactions by Criteria or Guideline and Stakeholder Category
Criteria
Figure 5:
Guidelines for Good Practice
SP1
1
2
SP2
3
4
5
6
7
8
SP3
9
SP4
SP5
SP6
SP7
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26
GA (pol)
GA (proj/ Bas)
GA (bilat/ ECA/ Reg)
Affect
Indig
Util/ Own/ Op
Prov/ Ind
Int NGO
NGO (Adv)
Int-Gov Org
Prof Ass
Optns
Rsrch
Oth
(Abbreviations: GA (Pol) = Government Agency (Policy); GA (proj/Bas) = Government Agency (Projects/Basins); GA (Bilat/ECA/Reg) = Government Agency (Bilateral, Export Credit
Agency, Regulators); Affect = Affected Peoples Groups; Indig = Indigenous Peoples Groups; Util/Own/Op = Utilities/ Owners / Operators; Priv/Ind = Private / industry; Int NGO =
International NGO; NGO (Adv) = NGO (advocacy); Ing Gov Org = Inter-governmental Organisations; Prof Ass = Professional Associations; Optns = Organisations Working on
Options; Resrh = Research Organisations; Other = Others (individual, articles, meetings) SP1 = Gaining Public Acceptance; SP2 = Comprehensive Options Assessment; SP3 =
Addressing Existing Dams; SP4 = Sustaining Rivers and Livelihoods; SP5 = Recognising Entitlements and Sharing Benefits; SP6 = Ensuring Compliance; SP7 = Sharing Rivers for
Peace and Development
4.5
Agenda and the way forward
22. Very few contributions addressed specifically and in detail the contents of Chapter 10 of the
Report. However, most of them included a proposal for the way forward, ranging from a general
follow up statement to detailed plans of activities that draw on the contents or recommendations of the
Report (e.g., World Bank and IUCN). These are summarized in Table II.4. It is to be noted that DDP
itself is the relevant way forward action resulting from the reaction analysis carried at Spier Meeting
by the multi-stakeholder DD Forum.
6
The Asian Development Bank displays in its web site the planned responses to the WCD report. The report, dated January
2002, details how ADB policies concerning infrastructure in general and dams in particular, are accounting or plan to
account for WCD recommendations in terms of strategic priorities and policies, guidelines and institutional responses. (see
http:www.adb.org/NGOs/adb_responses.asp)
This report was prepared by the DDP Secretariat and does not represent an official position of UNEP or the DDP Steering Committee
Please contact ddpinfo@unep.org for further information
Analysis of Reactions on the WCD Report – Interim Report
5. GENERAL SENSE OF THE REACTIONS
23. Table II.1 presents, organised according to the proposed set of a most addressed topics, the
synthesis of the overall contents of the reactions. Following is an attempt to summarize them in order
to reflect the “sense” of the range and focus of the reactions.
5.1
The WCD Report
24. A general tone of appreciation for the effort and process resulting in the Report emerges from
most of the reactions. It is seen as a valuable contribution to improve practices in the development of
water resources, showing the way forward to a comprehensive approach to the dams issue. All these
considered in the context that the Report is not a final verdict on dams nor its recommendations a rigid
prescription or a blue print.
25. However, it is clear that is has been perceived differently by different stakeholder groups.
Governments recognized its usefulness while “retained” concerns. Affected people and indigenous
groups fully supported the Report while finding it short in terms of their aspirations of denouncing
development models and corporative private interests. The private sector and industry welcomed the
report for raising the political profile of the challenges faced by the world in terms of safe water and
energy, providing a model to deal with other likely controversial infrastructures and a sensible,
although idealistic, way forward. International NGOs considered it a major step in the debate on
energy supplies and water resources development, and dams more specifically. Advocacy NGOs
welcomed extensively the Report, finding that it vindicates much of what dam critics have long
argued. International financing organisations viewed in the recommendations of the Report a road map
to move to a more sustainable and equitable dam planning and management process. They voiced the
concerns of the governments raised during the consultation of the Report. Other intergovernmental
organisations supported the report for its contribution to the goals of sustainable development.
Professional associations raised, via formal declarations and/or presentations of their chairmen, major
criticism as regards the balance of the report, the adequacy of its recommendations to find the required
sustainable solutions and their concerns that the implementation of the recommendations would
obstruct the implementation of new projects. However, at the national committee level, opinions and
positions as regards the WCD Report showed significant diversity7. Options groups welcomed the
report and its emphasis on comprehensive options assessment.
5.2
The knowledge base8
26. The value for future work, the effort devoted and the great amount of data that has been collected
and stored in the WCD Knowledge Base is generally acknowledged. Also its further development is
encouraged.
27. However, governments, industry and professional groups criticized that it was not representative
enough to draw generalised conclusions about the performance of dams. The size of the sample pool
of dams considered; the diversity of geographical situations of dams covered; the way it reflects the
progress in dam design and the lack of consideration of some issues (e.g. existing guidelines), were
considered relevant weaknesses by some organisations within these groups.
5.3
The role of dams
28. While intimately linked with the next item, performance of dams, many reactions and groups
addressed the issue of the role of dams in water resources management. On one extreme, governments
7
8
The general sense and diverging range of responses from the ICOLD National Committees is briefed in the
paper: The ICOLD’s Position(s) on the WCD Report. An Explanation. Blohm, H.L. Final Proceedings of the Symposium
“Benefits and Concerns about Dams”, September 13 2001, Dresden, Germany. (pp. 52-57)
The WCD Knowledge Base consists of: 7 Independent Case Studies, Cross Check Survey of 125 large dams, 17 Thematic
Review, 4 Regional Stakeholder consultations, approx 1000 submissions, papers & abstracts.
This report was prepared by the DDP Secretariat and does not represent an official position of UNEP or the DDP Steering Committee
Please contact ddpinfo@unep.org for further information
Analysis of Reactions on the WCD Report – Interim Report
and professional associations joined in their concern that the Report adopted an imbalanced attitude
towards dams understating their significant role in future development of water resources to attend
water supply, food and energy demands. On the other, affected people and advocacy NGOs
complained that the report, while confirming their denunciations about the unacceptable social and
environmental impacts of dams, leaves the door open to consider dams as a valid option for water
resources development.
5.4
Performance of dams
29. The performance review carried out by the WCD on the basis of the information collected in the
Knowledge base has been the object of reactions. As in the previous point, extreme polarisation
characterises the opinions.
30. Governments, either through their representatives or via the voice of the international funding
agencies, express their view that the evaluation was partial, unbalanced and biased, understating the
benefits of dams. Voices of the industry support this view. Some intergovernmental organizations, like
FAO, expressed its concern about the need of a more thorough analysis on food and dams.
Professional organisations voiced strongly the above criticism pointing out that the review focuses on
negative performances of dams, and it does not include a detailed survey of the substantial benefits
derived from them.
31. On the other hand, affected people and advocacy groups find that the report confirmed their
negative appreciations of the role of dams. International NGOs express that the Report represents a
fair and balanced assessment of both benefits and costs, with input from all constituencies through
high-quality reviews, public hearings and thorough information gathering. Advocacy groups support
this opinion.
5.5
Alternatives to dams
32. Consistent with views expressed about the role and performance of dams, the assessment of
alternatives to dams has been object of strong and, to some extent, polarised comments.
33. Governments, directly or voiced by international funding agencies, express that the report does not
deal even-handedly with the alternatives, that they are not realistic if conceived to achieve an adequate
scale to meet future needs. The industry sees that the Report makes dams appear as the last resort and
the professional associations indicate that the WCD failed to make an objective and scientific
assessment of the alternatives to large dams. Taking distance from these views, international NGOs
consider that the Report identifies generally realistic alternatives for meeting energy and water needs
and it often promotes well-known and emerging sensible options. Affected people group complains
that the Report adopts an ambiguous language that may suggest the necessity to continue with the
construction of these huge projects.
5.6
Core values and Strategic Priorities
34. There is a general consensus by all groups on the core values and the strategic priorities, as can be
seen from the statements compiled from the reactions in Table II.1. Either manifested expressly or
through adhering to a number or principles, the agreement that permeates through the reactions
correlates properly with the vision that emerged from the Spier meeting and set the foundation of the
DDP mandate.
35. Reactions from various stakeholder groups like government export credit agencies, affected
people, industry, international NGOs, advocacy, international organisations and professional
associations expressly indicate that WCD core values are shared and accepted as a basis for decision
making process. Not only for dams but all options in water and energy sectors and broadly applicable
to other infrastructure as well.
This report was prepared by the DDP Secretariat and does not represent an official position of UNEP or the DDP Steering Committee
Please contact ddpinfo@unep.org for further information
Analysis of Reactions on the WCD Report – Interim Report
36. Strategic priorities are supported by most groups but with a varying degree of conditionality. This
means that they are not all accepted with equal level of adhesion. The underlying policy principles and
implementation on the field are a matter of concern for some groups, like government and professional
associations. Some groups highlight certain strategic priorities, and policy principles. For example,
affected people and indigenous groups stress public acceptance, with emphasis on the rights and risk
approach and prior informed consent, and options assessment. Industry voices support to recognising
entitlements and sharing benefits, ensuring compliance, prevalence of negotiated solutions and balance
between technical, economic, social and environmental issues. International financing agencies,
voicing governments they consulted, concur with the need of promoting all seven strategic priorities.
Gaining public acceptance has been the object of special support from professional associations, in the
context of further considering implementation aspects and ensuring accordance with national
legislation.
5.7
Criteria and Guidelines
37. As it results from the number of statements compiled in Table II.1, the guidelines have raised
reactions from almost all groups. Again polarisation into extremes is noteworthy.
38. Those who voiced concerns on the 26 Guidelines (governments, credit agencies, private sector,
industry, professional associations) pointed out a number of arguments in support of their opinion: the
need to compare them with national policies and accommodate them to specific conditions, laws and
priorities in countries; they being ambitious, idealistic, not verified their applicability in practice;
consequently the fear on their effect of preventing, or at least seriously delaying, future water
resources projects and the possible negative impacts on time requirements and planning security; the
need to put them in perspective with already developed guidelines and criteria and consulted with the
major concerned governments; an unclear definition of the process, division of responsibilities,
scheduling and financing between the parties involved which emerges from their contents.
39. Groups adhering to the Guidelines (affected, indigenous, some private groups, and advocacy
NGOs) generally support their opinion in broad terms. Some of them committed themselves to their
application, other considered that the guidelines although appearing complicated are certainly do-able
or suggested that guidelines could be extended from water and energy planning and dams to other
sectors as well. Advocacy groups strongly argued in favour of the guidelines demanding the full
application of the recommendations of the report to international financing agencies and even the socalled ”moratorium”.
5.8
Decision making and participation
40. Although inherently linked to WCD strategic priorities, policy principles and guidelines, the issue
of decision making processes and participation has been the focus of reactions by various stakeholder
groups. All welcome transparency, participation and involvement of all stakeholders. However, the
means through which such involvement is achieved and the decision making process carried on, as
seems to result from WCD proposals, has raised the concerns of governments, financial agencies,
industry and professional associations and got the full support of affected people and advocacy NGOs.
Notably voice of governments seems to emerge more strongly as regards this particular issues.
41. In effect, governments emphasise the sovereign right of states within the framework of
international law to make decisions on the use of their own natural resources based on national
priorities and the need for a decision-making processes, established by government, to mediate the
different interests. Industry is concerned that decisions may be taken away from national government.
42. Professional associations interpret a trend in WCD recommendations to move decision power
from national government to local communities, promoting a “bottom-top” planning, shifting the
balance of power in dam decision making “from developers and governments to the potentially
affected local population”. The interpretation of a “de facto veto right” for a small minority is brought
forward as well.
This report was prepared by the DDP Secretariat and does not represent an official position of UNEP or the DDP Steering Committee
Please contact ddpinfo@unep.org for further information
Analysis of Reactions on the WCD Report – Interim Report
43. Affected people groups welcome the report as they interpret that it states that no dam should be
constructed without fully informed “public acceptance” of all stakeholders. International NGOs
support the report in that it makes a strong case for fully transparent and participatory decision-making
processes for water and energy development, giving more influence to all stakeholders, including local
communities and indigenous people over decisions.
6. THE WAY FORWARD
44. The follow up activities proposed by the reactions to the Report, are summarized in Table II.4,
together with the source of the recommendation. These proposed activities can be broadly grouped as
follows:




Implementation of WCD recommendations: proposed actions range from immediate effective
incorporation to institutional frameworks and full enforcement by all stakeholders to their
consideration just as a reference to check current policies and regulations of credit agencies at
country level. In practice, each national dialogue is addressing the recommendations as it sees
fit.
Dissemination of WCD recommendations and materials: proposals generally coincide in the
need to promote their wide distribution, to facilitate their access to all audiences, to ease their
consideration by all groups by means of their translation to local languages, to organise
workshops and meetings for their discussion and interpretation, etc.
Building on the contents of the WCD Report: Proposals range widely, directly associated to the
particular attitude that each stakeholder group adopted towards the Report. From addressing
specific issues considered as outstanding weaknesses to full action plans comprising the most
relevant aspects elaborated by the Report (e.g., IUCN, World Bank, WWF).
Institutional responses: Some organisations created special task forces to take care of the follow
on (WWC), or committed existing internal bodies to carry out special activities and programmes
(e.g., BMZ, IUCN, ICOLD, WB).
7. ACTIONS TO IMPROVE DIALOGUE ON DAMS AND DEVELOPMENT
45. In accordance with the proposed objective of drawing conclusions from the analysis of reactions
that may contribute to improve dialogue on dams and development and influence DDP Work
Programme, this paper has identified the major concerns and relevant topics and issues emerging from
the reactions. These may provide substance to actions aiming to improve dialogue. These actions may
involve a variety of approaches, like review and discussion papers, thematic workshops, regional
studies or even pilot demonstration projects addressing those topics, issues and concerns. It is
envisioned that carrying forward these “actions” may broaden the basis of consensus about processes
and procedures, and consequently, on their final outcomes. It is thought that these actions might be
promoted or carried out by the “dams and development community”, represented in principle by the
organizations that integrate the DD Forum and DDP Steering Committee or representatives of their
constituencies.
46. These actions should build on the wealth of information available in WCD knowledge base,
international NGOs and professional organisations, research institutions and other sources. In order to
ensure objectiveness and enhance broad acceptance, the findings should be submitted to multistakeholder discussion arenas, either at global or national levels. Their undertaking itself should be
commissioned under the supervision of task teams integrated by various stakeholder groups to ensure
a balanced product.
47. DDP Work programme may benefit from involving in some of these actions. In fact the planned
issue-based workshops on Comprehensive Options Assessment, Gaining Public Acceptance,
Addressing Existing Dams and Ensuring Compliance, will address the concerns emerging from the
reactions, particularly those listed in Table II-3. These issue-based workshops constitute an
This report was prepared by the DDP Secretariat and does not represent an official position of UNEP or the DDP Steering Committee
Please contact ddpinfo@unep.org for further information
Analysis of Reactions on the WCD Report – Interim Report
appropriate platform where controversial topics may be addressed within the multi-stakeholder
approach provided by DDP.
48. The review also indicates that there is a wealth of ongoing actions undertaken by other
organisations that may benefit DDP Work programme, either by: engaging in complementary specific
activities in a co-ordinated manner; co-operating with those of other organisations; programming joint
activities; following up the findings of the other organisations to incorporate them to the networking
and exchange of ideas elements of DDP Work Program.
8. FINAL COMMENTS
49. An analysis of reactions to the WCD report filed in WCD and DDP databases has been carried
out. The methodological approach could not avoid a certain degree of subjectivity when selecting
some focal themes to organise the responses, apportioning parts of the reactions to those themes,
briefing or quoting the main contributions and summarising the sense of the reactions within a wide
range of opinions. Given the objective of the task, focused on deriving outputs that would influence
DDP Work programme rather commenting the reactions themselves, the findings of this report may be
considered reasonably objective and the goal of the task achieved. A wide set of emerging concerns,
issues and topics possible have been identified in response to the reactions, and a number of them are
already pursued by DDP in the context of the planned issue based workshops. The door is open for
other organisations or groups of organisations to take care of the broad set of identified possible
contributions to improve and substantiate further dialogue on dams and development. DDP is ready to
assist them in such endeavour.
.
This report was prepared by the DDP Secretariat and does not represent an official position of UNEP or the DDP Steering Committee
Please contact ddpinfo@unep.org for further information
Analysis of Reactions on the WCD Report – Interim Report
ANNEX I
Listing of Reactions
(See explanatory notes at the bottom of the Table)
Stakeholder
Category
Organisation (Abbreviation)
General Directorate of State Hydraulic Works (DSI)
Government of INDIA (India)
Goverment
(Policy)
Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Norway)
UK WCD Report consultation draft (UK)
Confederación Hidrográfica del Ebro (CHE)
Gov Agency
Nepal Electricity Authority (Nepal)
(Proj / Basin)
Organisation Pour La Mise en Valeur Du Fleuve Senegal
German Federal Ministry for Economic Co-operation and
Development, (BMZ)
Gov Agency
GIEK's - Norwegian Institute of Export Credit Guarantees
(Bilat/ ECA/
(GIEK)
Reg)
Swedish International Development Agency (SIDA)
Swiss Agency for Development and Co-operation
Brazilian Movement of Affected People (MAB)
Affected
Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA)
People Group
Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA)
Cordillera People´s Alliance (CPA)
Indigenous
James Bay Cree Nation and the Picimakak Cree Nation
People Group
(JBC)
Utililities/ Colorado River Municipal Water District (CRMWD)
Owner/
Nam Theun 2 Hydro-Electric Project, Lao PDR (NT2)
Operators
Industry Group (IG)
Private/
industry
Binnie Black & Veatch (BBV)
Harza Engineering Company (HE)
Hydro Review Worldwide (HRW)
Rockefeller Brothers Fund (RBF)
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)
International
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)
NGOs
South Asia Technical Advisory Committee of the Global
Water Partnership (SATAC-GWP)
World Water Council (WWC)
World Water Council (WWC)
World Water Council (WWC)
Berne Declaration (BERNE)
Berne - IRN
Coalition of Conservation Groups, USA (CCG)
NGOs
(Advocacy)
Environmental Defense (ED)
Green Cross International (GC)
International River Network (IRN)
Representative / Author / Presenter
DSI - Ankara, Turkey
A. Sehkar, Commissioner (PR). Ministry of Water
Resources, India
Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Consultation Draft. WCD Report - Towards a UK
position
José V. Lacasa Azlor, CHE
Janak L. Karmacharya, NEA
Cheickna Seydi Ahamadi DIAWARA
Manfred Konukiewitz (BMZ)
Date
30-Jan-01
1-Feb-01
15-Jun-01
13-Sep-02
25-Feb-01
25-Feb-01
22-Feb-01
25-Feb-01
GIEK's - Norwegian Institute of Export Credit
Guarantees
SIDA´s View on the WCD Report
Paul Peter (SADC)
Sadi Baron, MAB
Medha Patkar, NBA, Press note.
Himanshu Thakkar, NBA
Joan Carling
Cree Nation
5-Mar-01
1-May-01
25-Feb-01
25-Feb-01
20-Nov-00
25-Feb-01
25-Feb-01
8-Dec-00
Chris Wingert, P.E.- Assistant General Manager
Engelbertus OUD
4-Dec-00
25-Feb-01
Harza Engineering, Hydro-Quebec, Siemens,
Electricité de France
Chris Binnie FR Eng
Edward F. Carter, Director. (Letter to The Wall
Street Journal)
Carl Varsant, Editor in Chief
Peter Riggs
IUCN 2nd Congress in Amman. Resoluction 2.19
responding to the Recommendations of WCD
Ger Bergkamp, IUCN
Dams in the IUCN Proramme 55th Meeting of
IUCN Council
Mrita Koch-Wesser, Director General of IUCN (IRN
Press release)
IUCN Statement on WCD Report. Approvedat the
55th Meeting of the IUCN Council
South Asia Technical Advisory Committee of the
Global Water Partnership
Mahmood Abu Zeid, President WWC and Minister
WRI Egypt
Statement of the 10th Board of Governors Meeting
Biksham Gujja, WWF Position Statement
Peter Bosshard, Berne Declaration
Peter Bosshard (Berne Declaration) and Patrick
Mc Cully (IRN), endorsed by 109 NGO of 39
countries
Letter to the new President and 107th Congress.
Signed by 38 USA NGOs enrolled in nature
conservation (fisheries)
Allison Cob - Press release
Green Cross International Newsletter. Dec 2000 January 2001 Issue
IRN (Press Release?)
25-Feb-01
5-Jan-01
30-Nov-00
31-Dec-00
27-Feb-01
11-Oct-00
25-Feb-01
31-Oct-01
16-Nov-00
30-Oct-01
26-Feb-02
16-Nov-00
1-Apr-01
25-Feb-01
25-Feb-01
16-Nov-00
20-Nov-00
16-Nov-00
31-Jan-01
16-Nov-00
This report was prepared by the DDP Secretariat and does not represent an official position of UNEP or the DDP Steering Committee
Please contact ddpinfo@unep.org for further information
Analysis of Reactions on the WCD Report – Interim Report
Stakeholder
Category
Organisation (Abbreviation)
International River Network (IRN)
InterGovernental
Organisation
Professional
Association
Professional
Association
Representative / Author / Presenter
Ms Aviva Imhof (IRN SEA Campaigner) Open
letter to ADB
International River Network (IRN)
Patrick Mc Cully, Campaigns Director, IRN. IRN
Response to WCD
River Watch East and South East Asia (RWESA)
RWESA ' Declaration endorsed by 61
representatives of NGO of 14 countries
Skanska AB
Axel Wenblad, VP Environmental Affairs, Skanska,
AB
Sondo Miriu Advocay Campaign Kenya (SMACK)
Argwings Odera, Project Co-ordinator, SMAC,
Kenya
Southern African Communities and NGOs (SAC)
Liane Greef, EMG. (Signed by 29 Communities
and NGO representatives from SA (14), Lesotho
(14)and Swaziland (1))
Zambezi Society (ZS)
Dick Pitman, Director, Zambezi Society NGO,
Harare, Zimbabwe
African Development Bank (AfDB)
Oumar Aw
Asian Devlopment Bank (ADB)
Tadao Chino, President
Asian Devlopment Bank (ADB)
Preben Nielsen, Deputy Director, Infrastructure
and Financial Sectors Dept., Region West
Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO)
Hans Wolter, FAO
The World Bank (WB)
Press release Nº 2001/119/S
The World Bank (WB)
Official Response from The World Bank
The World Bank (WB)
John Briscoe. Responding to the WCD Report: A
progress Report from The World Bank
United Nation Environmental Programme (UNEP)
Klaus Toepfer, ED. UNEP News Realease 00/129
United Nation Environmental Programme (UNEP)
Klaus Toepfer, ED
World Health Organisation (WHO)
World Health Organization
American Anthropological Association (AAA)
Louise Lamphere, President. Letter to Compliance
Advisor Ombudsman, IFC USA
International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage (ICID) Felix Reinders , ICID
International Commission on Large Dams (ICOLD)
C. V. J. Varma, President (Open Letter to WCD
Chair)
International Commission on Large Dams (ICOLD)
C. V. J. Varma, President (Final Position on WCD
Report)
International Commission on Large Dams (ICOLD)
Theo Van Robbroeck, ICOLD
International Commission on Large Dams (ICOLD)
Wolfgang Pircher
Australian National Committee on Large Dams (Australia Phillip J. Cummings, Chair ANCOLD
COLD)
Brazilian National Committee on Large Dams (Brazil
Brazilian Committee on Dams
COLD)
Burkina Faso National Committee on Large Dams (Burkina Burkina National Committee on Large Dams
Faso COLD)
(CNGB)- Burkina Assocation of Engineers and
Technicians in Civl Engineering (AITB)
Canadian National Committee on Large Dams (Canada
Canadian Committee on Large Dams (PL,GG)
COLD)
China National Committee on Large Dams (China COLD) (2) Dr. Chonggang Shen (CNCLD)
China National Committee on Large Dams (China COLD) (1) Chinese National Committee on Large Dams
China National Committee on Large Dams (China COLD) (3) Zhang Jinsheng Vicepresident CNCLD
Colombian National Committee on Large Dams (Colombia Carlos S. Ospina, Colombian Committee on Dams
COLD)
Cyprus National Committee on Large Dams (Cyprus
ICOLD Cyprus
COLD)
Egyptian National Committee on Large Dams (Egypt
Egyptian National Committee on Large Dams
COLD)
(ENCOLD)
French National Committee on Large Dams (France COLD) French Committee on Large Dams
Indian National Committee on Large Dams (India COLD)
Indian National Committee on Large Dams
(INCOLD): Er Gopalkrishnan, WCD Forum
Member
Indian National Committee on Large Dams (India COLD)
Yogendra Prasad, Chairman and Managing
Director (Natl. Hydroelectric Power Corp. Ltd.)
Japan National Committee on Large Dams (Japan COLD) Hirose Toshio, President, Japan Commission on
Large Dams
Date
20-Dec-00
25-Feb-01
24-Nov-00
16-Nov-00
25-Feb-01
23-Nov-00
25-Apr-01
26-Jan-01
22-Dec-00
25-Feb-01
25-Feb-01
26-Nov-00
1-Dec-00
25-Feb-01
17-Nov-00
25-Feb-01
30-Nov-00
7-Feb-01
25-Feb-01
30-Nov-00
16-Feb-01
25-Feb-01
8-Nov-00
28-Nov-00
31-Jan-01
1-Feb-01
8-Feb-01
31-Jan-01
15-Feb-01
29-Apr-01
22-Jan-01
15-Feb-01
29-Jan-01
15-Feb-01
15-Feb-01
15-Feb-01
15-Jan-01
This report was prepared by the DDP Secretariat and does not represent an official position of UNEP or the DDP Steering Committee
Please contact ddpinfo@unep.org for further information
Analysis of Reactions on the WCD Report – Interim Report
Stakeholder
Category
Organisation (Abbreviation)
Nepalese National Committee on Large Dams (Nepal
COLD)
Netherlands National Committee on Large Dams
(Netherlands COLD)
Norway National Committee on Large Dams (Norway
COLD)
Pakistan Indian National Committee on Large Dams
(Pakistan COLD)
Russia National Committee on Large Dams (Russia COLD)
Slovakia National Committee on Large Dams (Slovakia
COLD)
South African National Committee on Large Dams (South
Africa COLD)
Spanish National Committee on Large Dams (Spain COLD)
Swiss National Committee on Large Dams (Switzerland
COLD)
British Dams Society (UK COLD)
British Dams Society (UK COLD)
British Dams Society (UK COLD)
Representative / Author / Presenter
Nepalese Committee on Large Dams
7-Feb-01
Netherlands Committee on Large Dams
31-Dec-00
Pål Mellquist, President, Norway National
Committee on Large Dams
Illahi B.Shaikh , Secretary, Pakistan National
Committee
Mr. G. G. Lapin, Deputy Chairman, Russian
national Committee on Large Dams
Miroslav B. Liška, President, Slovak National
Committee on Large Dams
South African National Committee on Large Dams
14-Feb-01
Spanish National Committee On Large Dams
Swiss Committee on Dams
(1) Summary British Dam Society
(2) Geoff Sims, Vice-President ICOLD
(3) Dr Rodney White, Expert on Flushing Sediment
from Reservoirs,
British Dams Society (UK COLD)
(3) Peter Kite, National Strategic Services
Manager, Environmental Agency
British Dams Society (UK COLD)
(4) Alan Johnston, Past President BSD
British Dams Society (UK COLD)
(6) Rod Bridle, Chair, British Dam Society
British Dams Society (UK COLD)
(7) Jim Claydon, Yorkshire Water
United States Society on Dams (US COLD)
Arthur H. Waltz, President, United States Society
on Dams
Venezuela National Committee on Large Dams (Venezuela Venezuelan Committee on Large Damas
COLD)
(COVENPRE)
Yugoslavia National Committee on Large Dams
Yugoslav National Committee on Large Dams
(Yugoslavia COLD)
(YUCOLD)
Zimbabwe National Committee on Large Dams (Zimbabwe T. C. Cabell, Chairman, Zimbabwe National
COLD)
Committee on Large Dams (ZIMCOLD)
ICOLD, ICID, IHA
C.V.J. Varma (ICOLD), R. Lafitte (IHA), Bart
Schultz (ICID) (Open Letter)
ICOLD, ICID, IHA
CVJ Varma - President (ICOLD), Prof R. Latiffe President (IHA), Prof Dr Bart Schultz - President
(ICID)
International Hydropower Associations (IHA)
IHA (Prior to detailed analysis)
International Hydropower Associations (IHA)
IHA (Response Committee, 19 members)
International Hydropower Associations (IHA)
Raymond Lafitte, President IHA
Indian Council for Dams and Development (ICDD)
V.V. Gaikwad, Secretary and Convener
Institute of Civil Engineer UK (CE UK)
Institutte of Civil Engineers (UK) Press release
National Hydropower Association - USA
USA - National Hydropower Association News
Release
National Hydropower Association USA
NHA comment on the World Dam report. Press
release
Intermediate
Technology
Development
Group
(ITDG)
Steve Fisher, ITDG
Organisation
Intermediate
Technology
Development
Group
(ITDG)
ITDG
working on
Options
Winrock International
Bikash Pandey, Winrock Intl.
The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental
Research Management (CIWEM)
Organisations Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Facultad Ciencias
Geologicas: Departamento de Geodinamica (UCM)
Former Member, Central Water Commission & Addl.
Secretary to the Govt. of India (RA)
Gagnon, Luc; Klimpt, Jean-Etienne; Seelos, Karin (GL)
Other
Date
15-Feb-01
23-Nov-00
10-Jan-01
15-Feb-01
15-Feb-01
15-Feb-01
20-Nov-00
20-Nov-00
20-Nov-00
20-Nov-00
20-Nov-00
20-Nov-00
20-Nov-00
26-Feb-01
15-Feb-01
15-Feb-01
13-Feb-01
13-Nov-00
9-Feb-01
16-Nov-00
7-Feb-01
25-Feb-01
26-Feb-02
20-Nov-00
20-Nov-00
20-Nov-00
25-Feb-01
27-Jun-01
Nick Reeves, Executive Director
25-Feb-01
6-Jun-01
Prof M. Ramon Llamas
14-Jan-01
R. Rangachari
26-Nov-00
Comparing recommendations from the World
Commission on Dams and the IEA initiative on
hydropower. Energy policy 30 (14, 2002) : 12991304
30-Sep-02
This report was prepared by the DDP Secretariat and does not represent an official position of UNEP or the DDP Steering Committee
Please contact ddpinfo@unep.org for further information
Analysis of Reactions on the WCD Report – Interim Report
Stakeholder
Category
Organisation (Abbreviation)
Gedion Asfaw (AG)
Prof. Lafitte
Ranji Casinader (RC)
South African Symposium (SAS)
Stockholm Water - A Water Resources Overview from
Developing Countries (SW)
The Lancet, Volume 357 (Lancet)
Representative / Author / Presenter
Gedion Asfaw, Technical Advisor, SCSE/EPA,
Ethiopia
Letter to the Editor, "Hydropower and Dams",
Issue 6, 2000
Ranji Casinader
Midrand Meeting, organizaed by SANCOLD,
DWAF, EMG and IUCN. Resolutions 1 and 2
Dr. Shrikant D. Limaye
Adrian C Sleigh, Sukhan Jackson
Date
19-Jan-01
30-Nov-00
1-Oct-01
24-Jul-01
1-Jul-01
25-Feb-01
Explanatory notes
(a) The list of reactions will be subject to further updating and review in forthcoming reports
(b) Abbreviation: as used in Annex II to identify the reaction
(c) Date: The date of issuance indicated in the document if available or that of reception/filing by WCD/DDP Secretariat,
otherwise.
This report was prepared by the DDP Secretariat and does not represent an official position of UNEP or the DDP Steering Committee
Please contact ddpinfo@unep.org for further information
Analysis of Reactions on the WCD Report – Interim Report
ANNEX II ANALYSIS OF REACTIONS
This Annex presents quotes or briefings from parts of the Reactions. They result from the methodological approach adopted, see Section 3, and are affected by a certain
degree of subjectivity, as alerted in the Preface. This subjectivity reflects in the thematic grouping adopted in the rows, in the distribution of the reactions’ contents between
the various topics and in the quotes or briefings used to transcribe particular opinions or its range within a stakeholder category. Efforts have been made to include all
distinctive comments and to avoid misinterpretations of the concepts when extracted from a more general context.
Table II.1 General Analysis
Issue
The WCD Report
Reactions
 Commend the report as a valuable contribution to further the debate on large dams and improve practices in the development of water resources, taking
into proper account social and environmental considerations (Norway, UK)
 Can help to make all implicated parties more aware, and also constitute the basis for common evaluations regarding how and to what extent it will be
possible to exploit water resources (GIEK)
 The WCD report shows the way forward to a comprehensive approach to dams issues, not only for public decision-making, but for corporate decisions
as well (BMZ).
 The report is perceived differently by different stakeholders (SDC).
 The DMCs' voices at the Workshop were critical of the WCD consultation process (ADB).
 All [consulted governments] retained concerns with the WCD Report, but many recognised that the WCD Report offers much that is useful. (WB)
 It falls short of a courageous political analysis of the root causes of maldevelopment, inequity and injustice as well as the very development paradigm
that justifies the building of large dams (NBA).
 It has not taken the opportunity to identify and unmask the private interests, national and international, moving the dam industry around the world,
particularly in the peripheral countries (MAB).
 The whole WCD process has positively contributed to raising the political profile of the challenges facing the world in terms of water and energy
security (IG)
 The report offers a unique insight into dams and their benefits and associated costs. The report proposes a sound approach to the future development of
a very old, yet important, water resource technology (H).
 Our hope is that the Commission's work can serve as a model for dealing with other types of controversial infrastructural projects.(Skanska).
 The forward process is sensible if somewhat idealistic (BBV).
 The WCD has finally given to us is not a final verdict on dams nor a rigid prescription. But it is a major step in the debate on energy supplies and water
resources development, and dams more specifically. (IUCN).
 WWF applauds the report and recommendations of the Commission and believes that the framework put forward is a good first step in addressing the
issue of dams and the needs for energy and water supply.
 The World Commission on Dams report vindicates much of what dam critics have long argued.. While IRN does not agree with all the contents of the
This report was prepared by the DDP Secretariat and does not represent an official position of UNEP or the DDP Steering Committee
Please contact ddpinfo@unep.org for further information
18
Analysis of Reactions on the WCD Report – Interim Report
Table II.1 General Analysis
Issue
Reactions
WCD report we welcome it as a major contribution to the debate on dams and to the management of water and energy resources in general.
 The Berne Declaration welcomes the WCD report as the most independent and comprehensive evaluation of large dams to date.
 We welcome the final report of the World Commission on Dams However, the report does not go far enough in its recommendations.(RWESA).
 WCD report and guidelines echoes our everyday desire. (SMACK).
 The Zambezi Society "strongly supports" the conclusions of the World Commission on Dams. The Society's position is that, as they stand, the
conclusions of the World Commission on Dams present a firm basis for future dam planning.
 The WCD Report provides a "roadmap" to move from the present, often- unsatisfactory process for planning, design, construction, and operation of
dams, to a more equitable and sustainable one (ADB).
 We welcome the report of the WCD. We understand it as a framework for responsible decision-making, not as a verdict on dams. (FAO).
 The World Bank considers the WCD Report to be a major contribution in defining the issues associated with large infrastructure in developing
countries, and in engaging a wide variety of stakeholders in the debate.
 It provides a roadmap for a leap forward in development planning, through its rights-and-risks concept. (WHO).
 I congratulate the Commission for making such a meaningful contribution to the goals of sustainable development (Executive Director, UNEP)
 We consider the WCD report simply as a useful document to generate further discussion, but absolutely inadequate, as it stands, to find the required
sustainable solutions (ICOLD-ICID-IHA).
 In my opinion, and that of most of the ICOLD National Committees, it is definitely not balanced. (ICOLD).
 We must use the advice given in the report to ensure that the processes, implementation and effectiveness of dams are improved and that the
infrastructure built in conjunction with every dam is planned effectively to ensure that it satisfies the needs of all populations. (ICE UK).
 ITDG welcomes the report of the WCD Report as a positive step towards improving performance in the field of water resource development. In
particular, the emphasis on comprehensive options assessment and in promoting a broad approach to integrating social, environmental and economic
dimensions of project planning are valuable contributions.
 Worst outcome: Recommendations are followed to the letter - resulting in bureaucratization, and in more expensive projects, delays, or long lead times
for all projects - good or bad. Best outcome: Recommendations and guidelines are internalized to country specific situations. But fundamentally to
achieve much better and measurable development outcomes.(WINROCK).
Knowledge Base:
 Will be valuable to anyone working on these issues (Norway)
 Some statements are based on inadequately researched data (Turkey)
 The Report deals with the benefits and concerns of dams without a scientific base (CHE)
 However, a careful selection of candidate dams, not confined to the more-than 25 years old dams for in-depth study could have enhanced the credibility
of the analysis Nevertheless the knowledge base is extensive and useful for further study (Nepal).
 Judgement against benefits of all dams based on an extremely small sample pool (CRMWD).
This report was prepared by the DDP Secretariat and does not represent an official position of UNEP or the DDP Steering Committee
Please contact ddpinfo@unep.org for further information
19
Analysis of Reactions on the WCD Report – Interim Report
Table II.1 General Analysis
Issue
Reactions
 Industry Group thinks that the report's global picture is not balanced. Could we really extrapolate the result of such a limited sample?
 The Commission has created a knowledge base that goes beyond what any individual organisation could possibly have compiled.(IUCN).
 WWF welcomes the WCD's Knowledge Base and encourages its further development and use as the central repository for the collection, publication
and dissemination of knowledge about the general ecological effects of dams and reservoirs
 The dams examined or subjected to in-depth study represent a tiny population, only 0.3% of the total population of large dams in the world. The choice
of dams for in-depth study does not reflect the diversity of geographical situations of dams, and does not reflect progress in dam design: most dams
studied in depth are more than 30 years old (BFCOL).
 The basic data on which are sustained the Report are very reduced. Also in these scarce cases, statistical criteria have not been followed in order to
guarantee the representativity of the sample. There does not exist any analysis of the standards, regulations and laws that exist in various countries of
the world which make the construction of dams and their operation be carried out in a sustainable and transparent manner and with the maximum
protections of the affected people.(SPANCOLD).
 Nevertheless, a great amount of data has been collected and stored in the WCD Knowledge Base (ZIMBCOLD).
 We feel that some statements are based on inadequately researched data, for example, the estimates of the number of people displaced by dams (IHA).
Role of dams
 It is clear that the overall approach is negative concerning the role of dams, generalising adverse aspects, and unsatisfactory social and economic
benefits. There is a tendency of avoiding to imply any explicit figures for benefits of dams (Turkey).
 One weakness of the report is that it gives little weight to a description of the socio-economic and welfare advantages of a dam for the population it is
intended to serve (Norway).
 What about the thousand or millions whose livelihood, and indeed whose very lives, depend on the water delivered from such projects?.(CRMWD).
 WCD´s Report clearly indicates the failure of large dams in terms of promised objectives (be it energy production, water supply, irrigation or flood
control), as well as confirms our denunciations about their unacceptable social and environmental impacts (MAB).
 The report of the World Commission on Dams is a step forward in the decades long struggle of the peoples' organizations questioning the social and
environmental impacts and their justifiability on the basis of water and power delivery services as also economic benefit (NBA)
 Industry Group thinks that the report's global picture is not balanced. The overall tone on the report is negative in regards to the role of dams, which
tends to undermine the report constructive elements
 IUCN recognises that dams will remain an important option to meet growing development needs, especially where the benefits outweigh social and
environmental costs. Hence, IUCN strongly believes that the report provides an excellent "roadmap" from the present, often unsatisfactory, process to a
more equitable and sustainable one (IUCN).
 It is recognised that storage of water will continue to be developed during this century, particularly in developing countries, because of the primordial
importance of water and because of the variability in water availability in space and time and growing demands.(WWC).
 The Report is not "anti-dam" (ADB)
 There is little in the report about the development effectiveness of dams in regulating the world's rivers for human utilisation. It was therefore expected
This report was prepared by the DDP Secretariat and does not represent an official position of UNEP or the DDP Steering Committee
Please contact ddpinfo@unep.org for further information
20
Analysis of Reactions on the WCD Report – Interim Report
Table II.1 General Analysis
Issue
Reactions
that the Commission, while formulating their views and recommendation, should keep the imperatives of the developing world in its perspective.
(ICOLD).
 The analysis of the experiences that they present is unbalanced, addressing principally to reject the important role which they have had, and are going to
continue having the dams in the development and welfare of the nations (SPANCOLD).
 The Report is not impartial, it seems as if the dominant intention would have been to undermine the role of dams, without mentioning their important
benefits (VENCOLD).
 We do not accept the unbalanced judgement on the role of existing dams (ICOLD-ICID-IHA).
 The overall tone is negative concerning the role of dams, generalising adverse aspects, and understating the well know social and economic benefits.
Development and poverty alleviation is a core value of our association. It is not explicitly mentioned in the core values of the report (IHA).
 The WCD Report has ignored key issues and the full scale of the problem that the world faces has not been correctly assessed. Dams will in many
instances, after careful examination, be the only feasible alternative to alleviate poverty, hunger and deprivation on such a large scale.(ICE UK)
 The benefits of dams are largely under-estimated or simply ignored, particularly as regards electricity supply. Concerning affected people, the Report
speaks of resettlement, but there is no mention of stabilization of the lives of people by providing them with water and power (L).
Review of the
performance of
dams
 The vision and evaluation of the performance of large dams in the world is very biased and partial., not global. The Report deals with the benefits and
concerns of dams without a balanced perspective. The analysis of the experiences it presents is unbalanced, leading mainly to a negation of the role of
dams within the holistic approach of the water management. (CHE)
 WCD´s Report clearly indicates the failure of large dams in terms of promised objectives (be it energy production, water supply, irrigation or flood
control), as well as confirms our denunciations about their unacceptable social and environmental impacts (MAB).
 The Review section of the report is written in an over critical and biased way. In the review section there are a number of cases where serious, but
unsupported, allegations are made and others where facts shown in the figures do not support the criticisms in the text. This biased writing alters the
balance of the review.(BBV).
 The work of the Commission represents a fair and balanced assessment of both benefits and costs, with input from all constituencies through highquality reviews, public hearings and thorough information gathering. (IUCN).
 [Some members] considered the report unbalanced concerning the benefits of reservoirs as compared with the social-environmental-economic costs
(WWC)
 And like industry, the NGOs would have preferred that the WCD could have reviewed current practices with ongoing projects. Yet the Commission was
prevented from looking at the controversial dam projects (Berne).
 The historic report is the first comprehensive independent review of large dams around the globe by representatives of the hydropower industry,
government, indigenous peoples, environmentalists, academic researchers and social justice activists (ED).
 The report shows the devastating impacts of dam projects on communities and the environment, and also shows how dams have failed to deliver their
projected benefits.(RWESA)
This report was prepared by the DDP Secretariat and does not represent an official position of UNEP or the DDP Steering Committee
Please contact ddpinfo@unep.org for further information
21
Analysis of Reactions on the WCD Report – Interim Report
Table II.1 General Analysis
Issue
Reactions
 We also would have liked to see a more thorough analysis on the effects of dams on food production (FAO).
 Every government consulted expressed concerns that the WCD Report understates the benefits, does not address the counterfactual.(WB).
 The analysis of existing dams is unbalanced with a strong implication that the majority of the world's 45,000 large dams are environmentally damaging
or socially destructive. Very little attention is devoted to the many well-known benefits of carefully planned dams (ICID).
 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.(VENCOLD).
Alternatives to
dams
 Alternatives to large dams recommended by the Report as 'near-term solutions' are qualitatively interesting, but are not realistic on an adequate scale to
meet the needs. In addition to this, the social and ecological impacts of these suggested alternatives are not discussed for comparison (TURKEY).
 It would also be interesting to see an even more thorough discussion of the alternatives to building dams and of what the economic costs and
environmental and social consequences of such alternatives would be.
 WCD´s Report has pointed to the necessity of seriously developing studies on alternatives, with the participation of dam-affected populations. The
Report adopts an ambiguous language that may suggest the necessity to continue with the construction of these huge projects that have cost so much - in
financial, social and environmental terms - to the peripheral countries (MAB).
 The report is not serving development in making dams appear to be the `last resort'.(IG)
 It paves the way for a new approach, one that builds on looking at all energy development options, one that recognises people's rights from the outset,
one that more truthfully assesses all risks. It also points to the importance of assessing alternatives to irrigation, water storage and hydropower. The
WCD report identifies a range of generally realistic alternatives for meeting energy and water needs. It often promotes well-known and emerging
sensible options. More importantly, it supports a decision-making process that will allow an adequate assessment of options whose viability may vary
from region to region. (IUCN).
 Some [members] considered that certain recommended options and guidelines mat be unrealistic in application (WWC).
 Every government consulted expressed concerns that the WCD Report does not deal even-handedly with alternatives (where they exist)(WB)
 No feasible alternatives are suggested for meeting the future water, food and energy needs of the developing world (ICID).
 The Commission also utterly failed to make an objective and scientific assessment of the alternatives to large dams for water supply, power generation
and food production.(ICOLD).
 The alternative energy sources forwarded by WCD to replace future hydropower (which now covers about 20% of energy production) are rather weekly
supported possibilities of solar, wind and geothermal alternatives. (YUGCOLD).
 Alternatives to large dams recommended by the Report as 'near-term solutions' are qualitatively interesting, but are not realistic on an adequate scale to
meet the needs of an extra 3 billion people by the year 2050. Also, the social and ecological impacts of these suggested alternatives are not discussed for
comparison (IHA)
Core values
 The values in the report are shared by SIDA in principle and they are well in line with SIDA's objective of reducing poverty
 WCD s recommendations in a value-framework with equity, efficiency, participatory decision-making, sustainability and accountability goes a long
This report was prepared by the DDP Secretariat and does not represent an official position of UNEP or the DDP Steering Committee
Please contact ddpinfo@unep.org for further information
22
Analysis of Reactions on the WCD Report – Interim Report
Table II.1 General Analysis
Issue
Reactions
way to a new decision-making process, not for dams but all options in water and energy sector (NBA)
 The industry group shares the core values and principles underlying the seven strategic priorities(IG)
 The core values advocated in the report for improving decision-making, such as the rights and risks approach, the emphasis on options assessment
(including go/no-go options), the insistence on the fundamental pillars of good governance - openness, participation and accountability - form an
important and very practical contribution to development (IUCN)
 The WWC supports the core values and strategic priorities proposed in the report and notes that these have broad application for other infrastructure as
well.
 The Core Values and the Guidelines of the WCD report could be extended from water and energy planning and dams to other sectors as well (Berne)
 The countries needed more time to study the implications of the Recommendations and to compare them with their national policies (ADB).
 Broad acceptance of the WCD core values by consulted governments. In common with virtually all those consulted, the World Bank shares the WCD
core values
 The five core values can be accepted as a basis of decision-making (ANCOLD).
 The WCD has raised very important issues and it has proposed a set of core values and strategic priorities that we share in principle. The core values are
shared by the IHA, and the strategic priorities are agreed in principle (IHA)
Strategic Priorities
 The seven strategic priorities may also find acceptance in principle, though not with equal degree of enthusiasm for all the seven priorities. The problem
starts when the implementation of these strategies comes up. It should be recognized that the procedures for developing any project, more so a dam
project with multi-dimensional aspects, are specific to each country.(Nepal)
 WCD s main contribution thus is to assert the people s right to decision-making, through Prior Informed Consent in the case of tribal and indigenous
communities and Demonstrable Public Acceptance in the case of other rural / urban communities to be affected by any water / power project. Its
recommendation on option-assessment before the appropriate choice of technology, provides a unique space for non-conventional options which could
be more equitable, sustainable and hence development effective. (MAB or NBA?)
 It is in this context that we fully support the recommendations of the WCD under the Framework of assessment of risks and recognition of rights
approach in any water & energy development. The requirement for an informed & prior consent of indigenous peoples to any implementation of water
& energy projects should not be taken simply as a procedural matter, but as a respect recognition of the inherent right of indigenous peoples over their
resources & their right to self determination (CPA)
 Recognising entitlements and sharing benefits with local communities are essential preconditions for sustainable development, and the industry supports
the concept of benefit sharing (IG). The Industry Group supports several key recommendations of the report: a) affected people should benefit from the
project and their rights fully respected; b) negotiated solutions must prevail; c) compliance has to be ensured; d) a better balance has to be achieved
between technical, economic, social and environmental issues.
 WCD-derived principles promise to help in shaping work able development processes, clearing a path through the tangle of obstacles that have become
a dominant focus of dam-building initiatives (HWR)
 The strategic priorities, policy principles and guidelines for good practice are focused and provide a good checklist. They have been well received by
This report was prepared by the DDP Secretariat and does not represent an official position of UNEP or the DDP Steering Committee
Please contact ddpinfo@unep.org for further information
23
Analysis of Reactions on the WCD Report – Interim Report
Table II.1 General Analysis
Issue
Reactions
the widest range of stakeholders, including a large share of the dam constituency and the media, who have provided numerous and generally positive
comments. Nevertheless, there has been significant debate about the WCD report and disagreement remains over some of the recommendations
(IUCN).
 The WWC supports the core values and strategic priorities proposed in the report and notes that these have broad application for other infrastructure as
well
 The countries needed more time to study the implications of the Recommendations and to compare them with their national policies (ADB).
 Broad acceptance of the WCD strategic priorities by consulted governments. In common with virtually all those consulted, the World Bank concurs
with the need to promote the seven strategic priorities.(WB)
 There is a lot to be said in favour of the Chapter on Rights, Risks and Negotiated Outcomes. Also on the Strategic Priorities and the Criteria and
Guidelines.(ICOLD).
 Never before we have seen a better analysis of the process of gaining public acceptance. Another point that can be added to the aspects of
environmental policy of ICOLD (see the Position Paper) is the accent on the comprehensive options assessment, before the choice of a dam is made.
(NETHCOLD).
 Strategic priorities: we are in basic agreement on the principles, but their implementation requires further consideration and must always be in
accordance with national legislation in order to make it applicable.(IHA)
Criteria and
Guidelines
 The guidelines for development now suggested by WCD in their Report are wholly incompatible with our development imperatives. The
recommendations and guidelines of the WCD are not acceptable to us (India).
 Each country needs to consider its specific conditions, laws and priorities. The guidelines, in order to be acceptable, must accommodate these aspects.
Hence the need is for the guidelines to accommodate specific conditions of a country to be implementable (Nepal).
 The standards proposed by the WCD, in particular those regarding participation, are ambitious; reservations were voiced from corporate stakeholders
regarding possible negative impacts on time requirements and planning security (BMZ)
 The recommendations of the WCD, though appearing complicated is certainly do-able. Viewing the recommendations as a cumbersome process &
impossible to achieve is a weak excuse to take park in a transformational process (CPA).
 Good guidelines exist. (e.g.World Bank, IEA 2000 for hydropower).The WCD is proposing another set of guidelines, with some good, some new, some
infeasible. In their current form, the 26 guidelines do not constitute a set of operational tools for better project development, notably because: i) the need
to reach a full consensus between stakeholders is likely to hinder any project; ii) key decisions should remain in the hands of informed, elected
representatives; iii) financial and institutional consequences of the recommendations were not properly taken into account (IG).
 At Skanska, we hope that the Commission's new criteria and guidelines become accepted globally and we are prepared to actively strive toward these
being accepted among the stakeholders concerned.
 The strategic priorities, policy principles and guidelines for good practice are focused and provide a good checklist. They have been well received by
the widest range of stakeholders, including a large share of the dam constituency and the media, who have provided numerous and generally positive
comments. Nevertheless, there has been significant debate about the WCD report and disagreement remains over some of the recommendations
This report was prepared by the DDP Secretariat and does not represent an official position of UNEP or the DDP Steering Committee
Please contact ddpinfo@unep.org for further information
24
Analysis of Reactions on the WCD Report – Interim Report
Table II.1 General Analysis
Issue
Reactions
(IUCN).
 Some [members] considered that certain recommended options and guidelines might be unrealistic in application (WWC)
 The Guidelines of the WCD report could be extended from water and energy planning and dams to other sectors as well (Berne).
 Foremost of its recommendations for existing dams is a call for periodic comprehensive reevaluation of the facilities and performance of dams, and an
evaluation of dam operations every 5 to 10 years.(CCG)
 The countries needed more time to study the implications of the Recommendations and to compare them with their national policies (ADB).
 [There is] universal concern among our borrowing governments with the 26 “guidelines”. If the WCD recommendations and guidelines are taken “not
(as) a blueprint, but a starting point for good faith discussions” in countries and elsewhere (including financing agencies), then have already proved to
be very useful. If taken as a check list of requirements to be “complied with” and “conformed to” then are strongly opposed by all the governments we
have consulted. The focus of much controversy regarding the WCD Report has centred on the twenty-six "guidelines," which have been interpreted by
some proponents and critics of the Report as a proposed new set of binding standards (WB)
 The conditions proposed in the 26 guidelines for the planning and implementation of future dams are, in many instances, idealistic but not realistic.
They have no doubt been conceived with good intention but have not been verified on their applicability in practice. We feel they will have the effect of
preventing, or at least seriously delaying, future water resources projects. The ICOLD, ICID and IHA with the help of their participating member
countries around the world, for instance, have developed a variety of standards and guidelines. They have been adopted in international and professional
fora and fine-tuned especially during the last 50 years. In the WCD report only a passing reference is made to these tremendous knowledge bases, nor
have the 26 criteria that the WCD has developed been put in perspective with the developed guidelines and criteria as outlined above, nor have the
major concerned government been consulted on their process of decision making. (ICID).
 Apart from criteria, guidelines and standards for consultations with stakeholders, for the study of alternatives and for environmental and social issues,
which are very exhaustive indeed, I largely failed to find these for the planning, design, appraisal, construction, operation, monitoring and
decommissioning of dams. This could have been acceptable if the Commission had clearly stated that the criteria, guidelines and standards of ICOLD,
ICID and the various financing agencies are sufficient and had endorsed them.(ICOLD).
 Les 25 points d’arrêt proposés sont , a priori , basés sur de bons principes, mais ils rendent le processus lourd et bureaucratique pour 90% des barrages
dans le monde (FRANCOLD).
 In general, the guidelines should be in the form of a framework, within which the national interest could be. Each country needs to consider its specific
conditions, laws and priorities. The guidelines, in order to be acceptable, must accommodate these aspects. In fact, with the very complex needs and
options assessment required, no wonder if the guidelines may be seen as the perfect way to assure that no more dams are built (NEPCOLD).
 Therefore finds the guidelines to be broadly acceptable but with the following reservations: The specific circumstances of every region or country will
be different, and therefore not all of the specific guidelines can always be applied.(SANCOLD).
 It is assumed that by introducing tools for future planning of large dams the Commission is acting with the best intention. Other institutions, like the
International Energy Agency, Implementing Agreement for Hydropower Technologies and Programmes have also been working with best practise
guidelines in order to enhance development of hydropower. An important difference that should be kept in mind is that IEA is reserving their guidelines
for the national level. In other words international standards for decisions are avoided. Whatever the approach, comprehensive guidelines and
This report was prepared by the DDP Secretariat and does not represent an official position of UNEP or the DDP Steering Committee
Please contact ddpinfo@unep.org for further information
25
Analysis of Reactions on the WCD Report – Interim Report
Table II.1 General Analysis
Issue
Reactions
procedures will always represent a danger in terms of making the decision procedures less, rather than more efficient. The more detailed guidelines, the
more decision levels, and the higher risk for red tape strangling any push. Complex procedures also tend to increase the level of corruption. When
mixed with political objections these red tape procedures may represent efficient roadblocks to any development. The Norwegian procedures referred to
by the Commission have in fact very effectively stopped virtually all hydropower development in the country since the late eighties. Going back to the
Commission’s findings concerning project delays and cost overruns; the criteria and guidelines suggested in the report are likely to make this an even
more pronounced problem. Project delays, particularly due to long decision procedures, also add a risk to investors. Thus, the result of the best intention
shown by the Commission may be investments in environmentally less favourable energy resources (NRWCOLD)
 The 26 WCD guidelines as they currently stand are considered unrealistic for application (ICOLD-ICID-IHA).
 Within the 26 WCD guidelines there is often an unclear definition of the process, division of responsibilities, scheduling and financing between the
parties involved. For such detailed guidelines to be applicable to all projects in all countries, there may first have to be some degree of world-wide
standardization of national/regional political and legal frameworks. We understand that the guidelines were developed as a starting point for further
refinement, and not with the intention of them becoming laws for compliance with the recommendations. Indeed, the guidelines demonstrate many good
ideas in the Report, but also demonstrate the difficulty of adding detail to general values, while maintaining international applicability. The result of
decision-makers hastily imposing the 26 WCD guidelines (making them regulations) would be that the process of studying and constructing dams
would become extremely lengthy, costly, and even more uncertain (IHA)
 The Commission has identified five key decision points known as the 'WCD Criteria'. These do not correspond to the principal phases of development
of a project, from master planning to implementation. (L)
 I believe that the section of the report dealing with internationally acceptable criteria, guidelines and standards is its most valuable contribution to the
debate, and gives a sound basis for developing future water and energy resources projects and in fact all development projects.(RC).
 The South African Symposium believes that the guidelines need to be contextualised in the South African situation.
Decision making
and participation
 Norway supports the public participation and transparency relating to planning processes. However, Norway has a somewhat divergent opinion on how
the decision-making process should be organized. It is extremely important to establish adequate legislation and a licensing system for dam building,
and to develop national or regional plans for the utilization of water resources. In this connection, we would like to emphasize the sovereign right of
states within the framework of international law to make decisions on the use of their own natural resources based on national priorities.
 The UK welcomes the promotion of increased stakeholder participation by the WCD, as it recognises that consensus building is primarily a bottom-up
process where stakeholders are enlisted into the drawing-up of initial proposals or solutions. However, there is often great disparity between the views
of different stakeholders and the WCD report does not give sufficient emphasis to the equally important need for a decision-making process, established
by government, to mediate these different interests.
 MAB receives with satisfaction that the WCD recommends to governments, companies and multilateral agencies that no dam should be constructed
without the fully informed “public acceptance” of all stakeholders. WCD, though stating as necessary the reparation for losses and damages caused by
dams already built, has not recommended a moratorium on the construction of dams until already existing problems are solved and already inflicted
damages are repaired.
 The industry believes that if all of the guidelines and recommendations on the report were implemented they would essentially take decisions away
This report was prepared by the DDP Secretariat and does not represent an official position of UNEP or the DDP Steering Committee
Please contact ddpinfo@unep.org for further information
26
Analysis of Reactions on the WCD Report – Interim Report
Table II.1 General Analysis
Issue
Reactions
from local government, thus hindering their ability to implement direly needed water resources projects.(IG)
 Therefore, the report makes a strong case for fully participatory decision-making processes for water and energy development. Such processes would
involve all stakeholders, including local communities and indigenous people that are directly affected by the projects. They should clearly be given
more influence over decisions than has been the case so far. Improvement in participatory planning can offset the weight of economic analyses, and
better compliance by implementing agencies should lead to further reduction of negative impacts (IUCN).
 In welcoming the report and its findings, WWF strongly supports the WCD view that decision-making concerning dam construction should be a
transparent process involving all stakeholders.(WWF)
 Decision making process recommended by the Commission is unrealistic, impractical and hence unacceptable to any Democratic Set up and particularly
the Republic of India. WCD’s obsessive concern for preserving the rights of affected local people makes it distrust the entire public set up- even the
legal frame-work of the country to which these people belong.(INCOLD).
 The basic question introduced concerns the level of planning and decision. In addition to observing some lack of coherence in this connection, the
reader may ascertain that while trying to move as much decision power from national governments to local communities as possible, the report has no
remonstrance to introduce internationally based decision procedures that will infringe on the sovereignty of the countries. As an example on what may
create political reactions are statements intended to short-cut the government level. Throughout the report it seems to have been forgotten that certain
needs arising at a national level, for instance as part of a national or regional energy policy, will need initiatives taken at a central level.(NWCOLD).
 A project of dam belongs to a strategy of development at the scale of a country, a province or a region and refers to planning made on political level like
a parliament or a government. In other words it is "a top-down" planning. This planning had to take into account the general interest and it is obvious
that at this stage of planning, some local interests could be considered as not prominent as a result of weighing the different components. The WCD way
of doing reflects a very generous but difficult method of progressing, promoting "a bottom-top" planning, leading to extensive and long discussions
during which major and minor arguments will be mixed, paralysing the assessment of guide lines and priorities for development.(SWITZCOLD).
 The WCD attempted to shift the balance of power in dam decision-making from developers and governments to the potentially affected local
population. The IHA agrees local populations should have more say in the decision-making process. However, in the pursuit of that noble goal, we
believe that the Commission went too far by proposing a de facto veto right for a small minority, which is politically unreasonable and to the detriment
of all. The Commission should have provided the parameters for arbitrating the competing rights, and should have clearly integrated the central role of
the state in the proposed five key decision points and 26 guidelines. On too many occasions, it appears that the role of governments and elected
authorities is undermined (IHA)
 The WCD proposes a set of guidelines that could delay projects indefinitely and assumes that development is possible with almost complete consensus;
by contrast, the IEA considers that governments have a key role to play in setting up an effective and efficient decision making process which avoids
endless negotiations. Furthermore, the IEA report considers that a national or state government should make final decision on large hydro projects The
WCD proposes a set of guidelines that could delay projects indefinitely and assumes that development is possible with almost complete consensus; by
contrast, the IEA considers that governments have a key role to play in setting up an effective and efficient decision making process which avoids
endless negotiations. Furthermore, the IEA report considers that final decision on large hydro projects should be made by a national or state
government, whereas the WCD report would give a strong role to international organizations. (Gagnon L et al)
This report was prepared by the DDP Secretariat and does not represent an official position of UNEP or the DDP Steering Committee
Please contact ddpinfo@unep.org for further information
27
Analysis of Reactions on the WCD Report – Interim Report
Table II.2 Global Review
Issue
Knowledge Base:
Role of dams
Sense of the reactions supporting the proposed actions
Also see 5.2 The Knowledge Base and Table II.1 General Analysis:
Knowledge Base
While recognising that a great amount of data has been collected and stored
in the WCD Knowledge Base, which goes beyond what any individual
organisation could possibly have compiled, concerns raised by some groups
deal with the representativeness of the sample of large dams use to draw the
conclusions, in terms of the relative number of dams considered, their age,
geographical distribution, etc. The analysis of the standards, regulations and
laws that exist in various countries of the world also has been referred to.
Emerging issues and topics
 Expansion of the dams database
 Dams planned and built in recent times when current standards where
adopted
 Further consideration to China dams in the dams database
 Further development and use of the knowledge base as the central
repository for the collection, publication and dissemination of
knowledge about the general ecological effects of dams and reservoirs
(WWF)
 Survey and review existing policies, regulations and laws at national and
international level concurrent with WCD proposed policy principles,
criteria and guidelines
 Survey and review of standards and guidelines concerning dam
planning, construction, operation and decommissioning recommended
by international and national fora.
Also see 5.3 The Role of Dams and Table II.1 General Analysis: Role of  Analysis of the benefits that municipal water supply has brought in
improving health and economic well being, particularly of women of the
Dams
poorer community.
Concerns expressed by the reactions are mostly related to the assessment of
benefits from dams in relation with food production and improvement of
 Assessment of the contribution of large dams to the development of
health, economic well-being and development aspects of urban and rural
urban areas and agricultural development of rural ones, ameliorating the
communities.
otherwise drought conditions in some of the chronically drought
affected areas.
 Thorough analysis on the effects of dams on food production.
 Availability of water in the world's different regions without storage and
the minimum amount of water needed to support the particular region's
population.
 Improvements in country regulations concerning environmental and
social aspects of infrastructure developments in recent years
 The role of energy and water security as prerequisites for environmental
protection.
 Increase in global storage (all types) necessary to cope with the increase
in food production, with the assumption of significant increases in water
use efficiency and emphasis in populous countries like India and China.
This report was prepared by the DDP Secretariat and does not represent an official position of UNEP or the DDP Steering Committee
Please contact ddpinfo@unep.org for further information
28
Analysis of Reactions on the WCD Report – Interim Report
Table II.2 Global Review
Issue
Review of the
performance of
dams
Sense of the reactions supporting the proposed actions
Also see 5.4 Performance of dams and Table II.1 General Analysis:
Review of the Performance of Dams
Specific concerns raised by the reactions that consider that such review has
not been balanced in terms of recognising the benefits of dams are related,
among others, to the survey of the benefits derived from dams, particularly
municipal water supplies; to the accounting of the substantial investments
in irrigation infrastructure, institution and capacity building that are
required before the water stored by a dam produces food, which explains
the time lag in accrual of benefits; to the identification of the ratios of
numbers of beneficiaries to those adversely affected; to the comparison of
the performance of single and multipurpose dams; to the way in which
pricing, economics and national policies aspects are addressed when
assessing economic performance of large dams.
On the other hand, the concerns raised by those reactions that consider that
the review confirms the failure of large dams and their unacceptable social
and environmental impacts, are related to the assessment of the role of
private interests moving the dam industry and the consideration of current
not adequate decision making practices concerning large dams
Emerging issues and topics
 Contribution of dams and other energy sources required to satisfying the
projected increase in energy, and therefore electricity.
















The influence private interests, national and international, moving the
dam industry around the world, particularly in the peripheral countries.
The influence on dam performance, of the substantial investments in
terms of irrigation infrastructure, institution and capacity building that
are required before the water stored by a dam produces food.
Current practices with ongoing projects
Role of dams on food production
Positive and negative effects of reservoirs on fish production.
Assessment and quantification of environmental benefits of dams and
those from protection against natural disasters
How lessons from inadequacies of the past have been learned and they
have been incorporated into the adopted practices, reducing risks for
their future occurrences.
Comparison of current dam performance with the "no project"
alternative, determining benefits and costs over the lifetime of the
concerned dam.
Role of dams in helping to prevent the migration of rural people to the
cities, improving livelihood and preventing or reducing the degradation
of ecosystems.
Ratios of numbers of beneficiaries to those adversely affected by dams.
Performance of single purpose dams to multipurpose dams, accounting
for the consumptive nature of irrigation water use in contrast to
generally non-consumption nature of the other sectors.
Comparison of cost overruns and delays of dams with delays and cost
overruns of other large engineering and construction projects.
Examples supporting the existence of substantive evaluation of project
performance to be provided by ICOLD, IHA and others (suggested by
ANCOLD)
Influence of pricing, economics and national policies on the economics
of dams.
Influence that insufficient water supply charges in developing countries
has in the poor financial performance of water supply dams.
Benefit that municipal water supplies have brought in improving health
This report was prepared by the DDP Secretariat and does not represent an official position of UNEP or the DDP Steering Committee
Please contact ddpinfo@unep.org for further information
29
Analysis of Reactions on the WCD Report – Interim Report
Table II.2 Global Review
Issue
Environmental
Issues
Sense of the reactions supporting the proposed actions
Concerns raised by reactions in relation to environmental issues deal
mainly with the progress that has been achieved in mitigation measures; the
recent development of in-depth scientific and technical knowledge
necessary to improve insight into water and energy options and
environmental considerations; the approach to the assessment of
greenhouse gases emitted by reservoirs, in the context of climate and
energy problems at a global scale.




Social Issues
Alternatives to
dams
Decision Making
process and
participation
Concerns raised by reactions as regards social aspects of large dams are
related, among others, to the consideration of their benefits; the extension
of the rights and risk approach to the would-be beneficiaries of dam project;
the consideration of a wider range of examples and situations; the
geographical scale required for the analysis of social benefits and
beneficiaries; the consideration of lessons learned and the most recent good
practices; the estimation of the number of displaced and resettled people;
the consideration of positive health impacts of dams

Also see 5.5 Alternatives to dams, Table II.1 General Analysis:
Alternatives to Dams and Table II.3 Strategic Priorities:
Comprehensive Options Assessment
Concerns raised by reactions as regards this issue are related, among others,
to: the responsibility of dams’ developers towards participatory exploration
of options; the objective and scientific assessment of the alternatives to
large dams for water supply, power generation and food production; the
comparison of the global impacts between the different alternatives; the
comparative performance of hydro as regards the emission of harmful gases
such as NOX, SOX and heavy metals; the capacity of small-scale, local
solutions to meet the increasing demand of water and electricity in
developing countries; the future economics of alternative technologies; the
potential of demand side management to address the basic needs of people
lacking energy, particularly in developing countries; the use of fossil fuel or
nuclear power plants as replacement option of hydro plants; the
environmental and social problems of wind and solar energy projects








Emerging issues and topics
and economic well being.
Progress in in-depth scientific and technical knowledge to improve
insight into water and energy options accumulated in the last four
decades.
Progress that has been achieved in mitigation measures in the last
decade
Efforts done by the industry to mitigate the negative environmental
impacts of dams.
CO2 savings and releases balance in typical representative reservoirs.
Inclusion of would-be beneficiaries within affected people groups
emerging from the rights and risk approach
Expansion of scale of the social performance analysis from dam site to
the regional and national level.
Review of more recent practices provided by ICOLD, IHA (suggested
by ANCOLD).
Positive impacts of dams on human health
Actual use of option assessment procedures in decision making of dams
and alternatives in the water and energy sector.
Comparative analysis of economic costs and environmental, social and
global impacts of the different alternatives for the water management
and energy sectors.
Potential and feasibility of the various alternatives to large dams to meet
the needs for water supply, power generation and food production and
the necessity of dams.
Potential of small-scale local solutions to meet the increasing demand of
water and electricity.
Potential of demand side management measures to solve long-term
growth in electricity demand or address the basic energy needs.
Refer to 5.8 Decision Making and Participation, Table II.1 General
Analysis: Decision making and participation and Table II.3 Strategic
Priorities: Gaining Public Acceptance
This report was prepared by the DDP Secretariat and does not represent an official position of UNEP or the DDP Steering Committee
Please contact ddpinfo@unep.org for further information
30
Analysis of Reactions on the WCD Report – Interim Report
Table II.3 Strategic Priorities
Issue
Reactions
1. Gaining public
acceptance
Rights and risks
approach:
Identifying
stakeholders
Also see Table II.1 General analysis: Decision making and participation
 the WCD report advocates "rights and risks" approach for affected people only. This approach as well as other proposals related to affected people has
to extend to the "would be beneficiaries" of a dam project as well.(ICID)..
 Even while applying the concepts of equity and participatory decision making, WCD has restricted its attention only to the groups which are adversely
affected by a dam. It has failed to appreciate that there are much larger sections of society for whom the dam and the water supply flowing from the
dam are nothing short of life line in terms of drinking water and a source of employment and livelihood, both recognised as basic needs and human
rights by the U.N.O. While repeatedly talking about stakeholders, those sections of society which have a strong stake in a dam construction and who
stand to suffer and lose if a dam is not constructed or is delayed, are not even recognised as stake holders (INDIA COLD)
 It should also not be overlooked that 'affected people' also include those who will not receive services if the project is blocked. The interests of those
affected by non-construction of a project should also be taken into account. (IHA)
1. Gaining public
acceptance
Also see Table II.1 General analysis: Decision making and participation
 The WCD report does not give sufficient emphasis to the equally important need for a decision-making process, established by government, to mediate
the different interests.(UK)
 WCD view that decision-making concerning dam construction should be a transparent process involving all stakeholders is strongly supported
 Throughout the report it seems to have been forgotten that certain needs arising at a national level, for instance as part of a national or regional energy
policy, will need initiatives taken at a central level.
 The WCD attempted to shift the balance of power in dam decision-making from developers and governments to the potentially affected local
population. (IHA)
 Local populations should have more say in the decision-making process. However, in the pursuit of that noble goal, we believe that the Commission
went too far by proposing a de facto veto right for a small minority, which is politically unreasonable and to the detriment of all. (IHA)
 The Commission should have provided the parameters for arbitrating the competing rights, and should have clearly integrated the central role of the
state in the proposed five key decision points and 26 guidelines. On too many occasions, it appears that the role of governments and elected authorities
is undermined (IHA)
 Governments, as responsible, elected and representative bodies, must arbitrate the competing interests, where consensus is not reached within
reasonable time. Is there a veto right to each potentially affected individual? It must be very clear that even within local populations some kind of
majority rule must prevail. (IG)
 The World Bank is thus dedicated to ensuring that the views of the affected people are carefully documented and taken into account by project decision
makers, without infringing on the right of the State to make decisions which it judges to be the best solution for the community as a whole.
 “Free, prior and informed consent’ as suggested by the Commission is likely to render all major project proposals of significance subject to purely local
perspective and evaluation, negating the regional and national planning of economic development (India COLD)
 The proposal that a broad open and public debate will bring a unanimous decision is naïve. Public debates, if well managed, will clarify the particular
interests and positions of each interest group (including local people and project proponents), but the fact remains that governments will have to
arbitrate. (IHA)
Negotiated
outcomes. Prior
Informed consent:
Decision Making
process
This report was prepared by the DDP Secretariat and does not represent an official position of UNEP or the DDP Steering Committee
Please contact ddpinfo@unep.org for further information
31
Analysis of Reactions on the WCD Report – Interim Report
Table II.3 Strategic Priorities
Issue
Reactions
 Similarly, it is not clear if stating that the decision-making process must be guided by the free, prior and informed consent of indigenous and tribal
people is effectively giving a veto right to development projects. Should this be the case, it would mean giving such a right to one constituency, at the
expense of the rights of others. This contradicts the spirit of the Report's emphasis on equality. (IHA)
 Welcomes the WCD report’s emphasis on consultation and ensuring participation of all those affected by a project, but the needs and views of those
communities which currently have no access to electricity should not be ignored. (ITDG)
 There are serious barriers to overcome if the WCD attempts to impose too literally our western views of "participation" and "partnership" to all
irrespective of differences. Furthermore, when one opens the debate to "rights", we must keep in mind the present political and human rights landscape
in the world where democracies and the rule of law vary enormously. Within this context and limitations, we believe it is in the best interest of the Dam
Industry (or hydropower industry) to agree with the WCD and support participation and transparency as earliest as possible in the process. (Canada
COLD)
1. Gaining public
acceptance
 The WCD proposes a set of guidelines that could delay projects indefinitely and assumes that development is possible with almost complete consensus
(GL)
 The WCD way of doing [planning approach] reflects a very generous but difficult method of progressing, promoting "a bottom-top" planning, leading
to extensive and long discussions during which major and minor arguments will be mixed, paralysing the assessment of guide lines and priorities for
development. (Switzerland COLD)
 The creation of a stakeholders forum and intervention by Dispute Review Board/Panel of Experts in case of disagreement with developers to follow the
development of a project continuously will lead to interminable discussions and could delay a project to the extent of cancellation (NEPAL)
 Experience tells us that the requirement for complete public consensus would stall almost all progress. (IHA)
 The creation of a stakeholder forum to follow the development of a project continuously will lead to interminable discussions.(Lafitte)
 It is obvious that it is very difficult, if at all possible, to have stakeholders assessing “alternatives for the detailed layout of the dam, associated
infrastructure, and its operation (Brazil COLD)
 The suggestion of financially supporting stakeholders, including external NGO groups, throughout the planning and project cycles would create a loselose situation for the developer. It takes away the independent nature of such a group if support is given, on the other hand, the developer will be
considered negatively if the support is not given (IHA)
Negotiated
outcomes:
Time framework
2. Comprehensive See also Table II.1 General Analysis: Alternatives to dams and Table II.2 Global review: Options
Options
 In Norway, the need for a comprehensive assessment of policy choices relating to dam-building and alternatives to dam-building is met by the system of
Assessment
white papers on energy policy and other documents addressed to the Storting, together with open political discussions at local, regional and national
level. This approach may be more fruitful than carrying out this type of assessment for every proposed dam-building project, as the Commission
appears to be suggesting. (Norway)
 Needs assessment: This is basic public policy and government planning way before the energy options appear. The Needs Assessment is very openended since level of consultation is not clearly defined. The cost involved to put this system at place is tremendous.(Nepal)
 As has been suggested by WCD Report, Comprehensive options assessment is extremely cumbersome and time-consuming exercise. This could be
taken care of during master plan for a particular river basin rather than for a particular project. It is not clear at what stage the options assessment should
stop and real project preparation should start. (Nepal)
This report was prepared by the DDP Secretariat and does not represent an official position of UNEP or the DDP Steering Committee
Please contact ddpinfo@unep.org for further information
32
Analysis of Reactions on the WCD Report – Interim Report
Table II.3 Strategic Priorities
Issue
3. Addressing
existing dams
Reactions
 WCD´s Report has pointed to the necessity of seriously developing studies on alternatives, with the participation of dam-affected populations. The
Report adopts an ambiguous language that may suggest the necessity to continue with the construction of these huge projects that have cost so much - in
financial, social and environmental terms - to the peripheral countries (MAB)
 Options assessment cannot integrate representatives of all stakeholders potentially affected by an option (positive or negative) as this would include, for
electricity options, representatives from the whole population of a region / country. (equivalent to a parliament or congress.) (IG)
 Extensive, all-inclusive OA requires well-staffed, resourceful government institutions, precisely the commodity least available where the needs are
greatest. (IG)
 Multicriteria analysis must not only consider impacts but also their effective mitigation and compensation measures. (IG)
 All options must be treated at the same level and with the same degree of detail, with sufficient data available. However, the options assessment should
not be allowed to become an open-ended process, otherwise none of the options would be implemented (IHA)
 The case for all alternative energy options is developed for every project and that all those involved, from the communities affected to the donnors, are
fully informed of the impact of the different options before any decision on the sort of energy scheme is made. This may mean support will be required
to ensure that those affected can investigate options thoroughly (ITDG)
 Most OA proposals are sensible, although somewhat idealistic (CIWEM)
 The requirement of comprehensive, integrated, cumulative and adaptive periodic evaluation at interval of 5 to 10 years is neither necessary nor
affordable to developing countries Such unnecessary evaluation will divert the rare resources from the new development. (Nepal)
 The proposal, in the report, to increase the frequency of periodic evaluation, will simply create an extra burden on those dam operators, which are
already inspected, and comply with regulations, creating an additional competitive advantage to other – mostly fossil-based developers. The review
period frequency must be adapted to the problems they address. (IG)
 To review each five to ten years all operational parameters of each dam with independent review panel and full public participation is not necessary,
very costly and will deter private investment .The review period must be tied to the licensing period. (IG)
 Foremost of its recommendations for existing dams is a call for periodic comprehensive re-evaluation of the facilities and performance of dams, and an
evaluation of dam operations every 5 to 10 years. (CCG)
 The cumbersome nature of the process is further complicated by the WCD recommendation to revisit the operational parameters of a constructed dam
with all stakeholder participation at the end of each five year period. This will be viewed as adding additional risk to project development by dam
owners and financial institutions and creating additional delays. (ICOLD)
 Engineers have been calling for increased investment and attention to ensure the safety of dams as the stock ages and it is helpful to have WCD support
for this work (UK)
 With respect to existing dams, the report presents “decommissioning” as the obvious course of action for older dams. In reality, a life cycle evaluation is
the appropriate process that is applied to existing dams. (US COLD)
 The notion of optimising benefits from existing dams is coherent, but it assumes that there is still much room for such optimisation
 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 (GL)
 The industry recognises that social and environmental conditions change throughout the lifetime of the project. These changes should be taken into
This report was prepared by the DDP Secretariat and does not represent an official position of UNEP or the DDP Steering Committee
Please contact ddpinfo@unep.org for further information
33
Analysis of Reactions on the WCD Report – Interim Report
Table II.3 Strategic Priorities
Issue
Reactions
account provided the owner compensation is guaranteed. (IG)
 One area of concern for us at ADB is the WCD recommendation for remedying outstanding social impacts of existing projects
 We believe that sooner or later, industry, organizations and governments will not have a choice but to address the outstanding social issues and worse
dam cases. Principles can be designed, but it should remain limited to specific types of problems with flexibility on how each case is approached.
However, it should not be extended at large to all dams solely by principle. It should apply only to "problematic" dams and future dams. (Canada
COLD)
 IHA recognizes that major past grievances must be addressed through dialogue and negotiation between governments, dam owners and operators and
affected parties based on scientific studies and equity principles
 The WCD report recommends "re-Iicensing dams after 30 years, but is silent on whether re-Iicensing is for safety (which one would expect), or also
relates to PAPs, as defined under ~ later-prevailing resettlement and environment standards (ADB)
 It is not understood how license conditions should make provisions for re-planning studies for a group of projects and for changes in operating
conditions for a project. Who should compensate a developer for losses incurred due to change in operating conditions? (Nepal)
 The report advocates strongly the practice of “time-bound licences for all dams, whether public or privately owned”. This proposal has merit but there is
no evidence given on how such licences operate in practice. (UK COLD))
 Dams are evaluated every 25 or 50 years at re-licensing or refurbishment, or earlier if specific issues arise, and this has worked well in most countries
where such procedures are in place. (IHA)
4. Sustaining
rivers and
livelihoods
 The requirement in section 4.1 reads" A basin-wide understanding of the ecosystem's function, values and requirements and how community
livelihoods depend on and influence them, is required before decisions on development options are made" is an invitation to the guaranteed
postponement of any project, as it takes generation to understand the ecosystem. (Nepal)
 Requirement 4.1 is a moratorium on all water-related development. We are concerned by the length and the cost of the baseline studies. Today only
developed countries have accumulated part of the required knowledge .The WCD recommendations will require developing countries to begin to
accumulate a knowledge base : a major funding by the multilaterals. There is a need to better define the minimum knowledge that is required at each
step of the process. (IG)
 Ecosystemic knowledge is necessary, important and has been improving gradually over the last 30 years, but to make such all encompassing knowledge
a pre-condition for development is equivalent to a moratorium on every water resource project. (IG)
 While there may be many anticipated and unforeseeable likely impacts, the base line survey should be restricted to potential impacts only. This may
ensure meaningful studies that can conclude in a defined time frame (India COLD)
 We support the avoidance of significant impact on endangered species but decisions must be made using multicriteria analysis (IG)
5. Recognising
Entitlements
and Sharing
Benefits
 If entitlements and sharing benefits becomes a part of negotiation process with all affected people, it will be too legalistic process and land in a web of
legal procedures, the resolution of which may lie in a prolonged legal battle, diverting the resources from the just beneficiaries. (Nepal)
 Recognising entitlements and sharing benefits with local communities are essential preconditions for sustainable development. The Industry group
agrees.
 We question the feasibility in some countries of having resettlement with: land for land, as a community, close to the original habitat. (page 242) (IG)
 However, the industry is concerned about the practicality of all affected people being part of the negotiation process. The industry disagrees with the
This report was prepared by the DDP Secretariat and does not represent an official position of UNEP or the DDP Steering Committee
Please contact ddpinfo@unep.org for further information
34
Analysis of Reactions on the WCD Report – Interim Report
Table II.3 Strategic Priorities
Issue
6. Ensuring
Compliance
Reactions
proposed legalistic strategy in the Report with multiple binding contractual agreements. (IG)
 We are concerned by the decision role that is given to the stakeholder forum. This forum can bring valuable proposals but cannot be a decision body
(IG)
 Another controversial WCD proposal is that project sponsors should conclude legally binding agreements with the affected people --before construction
starts. This process is perceived by some to be lengthy and expensive and above all, risky, since an alternate project may eventually be selected, and
sponsors' sunk costs would be totally lost. (ADB)
 The creation of a stakeholder forum and intervention by dispute resolution mechanism in case of disagreement with developers to follow the
development of a project continuously will lead to interminable discussions (Nepal)
 There is a real danger that too much power in the decision-making process is given to people who may wish to gain unwarranted benefits from the
compensation exercise, perhaps supported by various external pressure groups (Zimbabwe COLD)
 IHA supports the concept of benefit sharing. However, we are concerned about the practicality of all affected people being part of the negotiation
process. The approach is a heavily legalistic process with binding contractual agreements (p.242-243). Master contracts and performance contracts, with
communities and families, binding the government(s) and developer(s). The intent is noble, but the end result would be a lawyer's dream, diverting
resources from the just beneficiaries.
 It should also not be overlooked that 'affected people' also include those who will not receive services if the project is blocked. The interests of those
affected by non-construction of a project should also be taken into account. (IHA)
 The proposal that the state authority could be controlled by an international organization is unrealistic. (Lafitte)
 Profit Sharing is definitely not extendible to all contexts it needs to be further debated and put in context before making it a principle. It depends on the
cultural, social, political and even legal circumstances. Entitlements seem more promising (Canada COLD)
 With regard to ensuring compliance as rather frequently suggested in the report, the proposed development of 'international legal recourse' may not be
acceptable around the world, particularly in developing countries, where it could be regarded as interference in their development strategies (DSI)
 Industry believes that the need for compliance is absolutely necessary. Therefore ensuring compliance must target dams in areas defined above, and
prioritise compliance mechanisms: e.g. (a) safety, (b) health, (c) environment etc.The industry recognise that most of the time the compensation and
resettlement programs are managed by national or local authorities and that compliance is a political and resource problem in some countries (IG)
 The Report's requirement to create compliance plans also is an unnecessary burden. Compliance should be under the auspices of relevant government
authority and not subject to independent panel review. (Nepal)
 The report calls for an independent review of compliance. We believe it depends on the context. Where the government or other agencies have the
capacity to do so, they should review themselves (Canada COLD)
 Compliance should be under the auspices of the relevant competent government authorities, and in the event that such an authority does not exist, it
should be created (ICOLD-ICID)
 The approach by the Commission is quite different: It proposes an all-encompassing solution, the creation of Compliance Plans, for something that
might really affect only a fraction of projects. This is, again, an unnecessary burden imposed on all, including those who quite willingly already comply
(IHA)
 We endorse the recommendation in the Report for incentives for those organizations which have a positive track record in compliance. (IHA)
This report was prepared by the DDP Secretariat and does not represent an official position of UNEP or the DDP Steering Committee
Please contact ddpinfo@unep.org for further information
35
Analysis of Reactions on the WCD Report – Interim Report
Table II.3 Strategic Priorities
Issue
7. Sharing Rivers
for Peace,
Development
and Security
Reactions
 The reader may ascertain that while trying to move as much decision power from national governments to local communities as possible, the report has
no remonstrance to introduce internationally based decision procedures that will infringe on the sovereignty of the countries.(Norway COLD)
 The problematic proposal is that authority of Independent Panel is put above that of state. Existing treaties between countries should guide the
requirements regarding the use of trans-boundary rivers. Other guidelines can not supersede the provisions of such treaties. (Nepal)
 This policy principle [7.3 Riparian veto] gives the "independent panel" an unreasonable power, above that of both States. (IG)
 The scope of the World Bank's policy for projects on international waterways is not as broad as the recommendation of the WCD in this regard. (WB)
 This problem must be solved, above all, by multi-national treaties. (ICOLD-ICID)
This report was prepared by the DDP Secretariat and does not represent an official position of UNEP or the DDP Steering Committee
Please contact ddpinfo@unep.org for further information
36
Analysis of Reactions on the WCD Report – Interim Report
Table II.4 Agenda /The Way Forward
SH
3
4
5
7
8
Reactions / Recommendations
 A structured international follow up to the WCD report is highly desirable and should lead to broad acceptance of standards for dam projects (BMZ)
 The WCD's report will constitute important reference material to review existing rules and policies and adapting them where necessary (BMZ-SIDA)
 Important to support a structured follow-up to the World Commission on Dams, in particular to keep the dialogue among stakeholders alive in the post-report phase
and to facilitate further work (BMZ)
 The WCD recommendations should be considered a constructive contribution to sustainable development, not as imposed conditionality (BMZ)
 Demand institutionalisation and practical adoption of the WCD recommendations (MAB)
 Democratisation of the decision making processes (MAB)
 Call for moratorium on large dams (NBA)
 Review of existing water policy (NBA)
 Halt the funding of large dams by any bi- multinational agency (NBA)
 Ensure dissemination of report to the people who really need it and who can be empowered by such a report, by having meeting in various regions, having articles in
media, publishing translations and extracts of the report (NBA)
 Will try to influence dam developers to adopt the WCD recommendations. (NBA)
 Immediate implementation of the WCD recommendations by all the stakeholders (CPA)
 Move forward by engaging and collectively working to implement the WCD recommendations (CPA)
 Translation and distribution of the Report to dam affected communities; (CPA)
 Hold workshops encourage constructive dialogue for implementation of WCD recommendations and guidelines (CPA)
 Call on public financial institutions to refuse funding to water and energy projects for which consent of peoples/communities was not obtained (JBCN)
 Public International Financial Institutions to implement stricter guidelines for water and energy projects, halt projects not complying with guidelines and to fund
reparation mechanisms or otherwise address the consequences of projects on the people and communities affected by them (JBCN)
 Financial Institutions need to work with borrowers to ensure sufficient financial resources available to address issues associated to the “Addressing existing dams “
priority. (IG)
 Educate and help to identify the various issues and constituents whose rights and risks are at stake, and allow them to help facilitate the strengthening of existing
guidelines (IG)
 Will work within an improved framework that will lead to sustainable development (IG)
 Continuing to work to "socialise" the results of the WCD process, to ensure that its recommendations are heard (RBF)
 Intends to apply the guidelines recommended by the WC Dams for major hydropower projects (SKANSKA)
 The members of the WCD Forum, and especially the World Bank and IUCN as the founders of the WCD, have a special responsibility to ensure that the report is
properly followed up in a way that leads to the full and rapid implementation of the recommendations (IUCN)
 Dams in the IUCN Programme: any follow up of the Commission must use the successful WCD multi-stakeholder approach; IUCN is committed to supporting this
unit in those areas of work where IUCN offers a comparative advantage. The current IUCN Programme provides a good basis for acting proactively in support of
the WCD recommendations. IUCN will play an important role in fostering implementation, adaptation and testing of the WCD recommendations by working with
the main dam stakeholders, several IUCN Commissions, a large diversity of members and the secretariat.
 IUCN Statement on WCD Report: The WCD report and findings need to be widely disseminated, especially to government bodies that have the mandate to review
existing procedures and regulations, including licensing.. Summarise report for greater impact. Materials in local languages and extension work will be needed.
This report was prepared by the DDP Secretariat and does not represent an official position of UNEP or the DDP Steering Committee
Please contact ddpinfo@unep.org for further information
37
Analysis of Reactions on the WCD Report – Interim Report
Table II.4 Agenda /The Way Forward
SH




9




10


9
Reactions / Recommendations
Comprehensiveness of Knowledge base can be improved. Some more reviews could be undertaken to further understanding of the performances (and potential
benefits) of old and new dams in both developing and developed countries, together with a thorough characterisation of regional and national contexts. Additional
case studies on affected people, especially those located downstream from dams, on ways to improve impact prediction, on environmentally and economically
viable alternatives for meeting energy, water and food needs, and on monitoring and evaluation procedures would certainly form new and important contributions to
the existing knowledge base. The decision-making framework will need to be further developed, tested, and amended in the light of real-life situations.
The WWC welcomes, encourages, and wishes to contribute positively to follow up dialogue and to assessing the needs for other follow up work. The WWC Task
force will continue operation to facilitate the Council’s contribution to this process. The WWC will also continue its contribution in related areas, such as rapidly
developing dialogue on water, food and nature and on subjects such risk mitigation, energy drinking water and sanitation.
WWF Position Statement: WWF endorses the WCD's call urging all groups to "study the report and to discuss how to adopt and adapt its recommendations". 1)
National level dialogues; 2) Code of Practice for funders; 3) Funds for WCD implementation; 4) Monitoring mechanism for WCD implementation; 5)
Comprehensive Options assessments; 6) Alternative energy solutions; 7) Ecosystem rehabilitation and livelihoods; 8) Decommissioning; 9) Influencing the
international debate. In addition other steps are recommended concerning application of criteria and guidelines by governments and private sector; evaluation of
status of operation o existing dams and decommissioning of those dams that do not function satisfactorily; OECD countries commit not to construct any further
large dams (over 15 m) at least for the next 2 decades and interest groups pledge not to enter into construction of mega-dams
Adopt the Commission's Guidelines, and to engage in a structured follow-up process (BERNE)
Public financial institutions should: 1) adopt WCD recommendations and integrate them into their policies. No project should proceed without "free, prior,
informed consent" and demonstrable public acceptance; 2) establish independent, transparent and participatory reviews of planned and ongoing dam projects;
projects preparation and construction should behalted while review is undertaken 3) Institutions which share in the responsibility for unresolved negative impacts
should immediately initiate process of reparation; 4) all public financial institutions should place a moratorium on funding planned construction of new dams until
compliance to recommendations can be demonstrated. (BERNE, IRN, RWESA, EMG et al)
Stakeholder processes and discussion of WCD recommendations must not result in endless debate with little impact on real world of dam building (IRN)
Incorporation of the criteria and guidelines into Banks Technical guidelines to support Integrated Water Resources Management policy (Af. Dev. Bank)
Internal distribution of report and funding of regional meetings. Review of own procedures and determine to what extent they need to change in light of WCD
recommendations, encourage member countries to do same (ADB)
Testing WCD recommendations in good faith, done in real World. Let's works together to apply these rules, assess realistically any option, look for alternatives,
design methods to limit damage and mitigate adverse effects. The most important step now is to take the issue to the local level. (FAO)
Will use the Report as a valuable reference to inform its decision-making process; will continue to support economically well justified dams which are
environmentally and socially sound; will support planning processes to evaluate options and alternatives when requested; Will not adopt the 26 WCD guidelines,
but will review how can be individually used in specific projects; will continue to strengthen its safeguard policies; will develop a “Dams Planning and Management
Action Plan”9 to strengthen its work in water and energy sectors; will continue to disseminate and discuss the WCD report with borrowers (WB)
1) UNEP is committed to disseminate the results and recommendations of the WCD to a wider audience, particularly among the United Nations agencies. 2) the
concept of environmental flows must be incorporated into policies; 3) develop a demonstration of activities to carry out an option assessment for national energy or
The Plan comprises six complementary areas: Working with borrowers to move "upstream", so that all energy, water supply and flood and drought protection options are
assessed; - Continuing to emphasize institutional reform for more efficient use of water and energy; - Effectively implementing the World Bank's existing safeguard policies; Continuing to support borrowers in improving the performance of existing dams; - Practicing a proactive and development-oriented approach to international waters; and
continuing to support innovative approaches and capacity building for dealing with complex dam-related management and technical issues.
This report was prepared by the DDP Secretariat and does not represent an official position of UNEP or the DDP Steering Committee
Please contact ddpinfo@unep.org for further information
38
Analysis of Reactions on the WCD Report – Interim Report
Table II.4 Agenda /The Way Forward
SH




11








12



Reactions / Recommendations
water supply policy, also integrating demand-side management. 4) Before designing specific projects, environmental implications of water, energy and
environmental policies at national and basin levels should be assessed and analysed. 5) Will address impacts of large dams on coastal areas will be assessed. UNEP
believes that a mechanism should be established to continue the dialogue that the WCD has started. It should involve all stakeholders. The “mechanism” or ‘forum’
should be neutral, flexible and draw on existing expertise of various organisations, and able to monitor the progress in the implementation on the follow-up
activities; establish mechanism to ensure continued dialogue started by WCD
The "real work" must now begin. This work includes reducing the broad findings of the Commission into practical, implementable policies and practices (HRW)
As during the WCD process, our organizations are available to contribute to your work in refining the guidelines and criteria. However, we like to stress that this
should also be done in close consultation with those who are really in charge of decision making on dams and guidelines should not be imposed on them through
indirect channels (ICID)
Each country should consider the WCD recommendations and the ICOLD guidelines. However, each country must also consider its prevailing conditions, traditions,
laws and needs. The WCD recommendations are not universally applicable and should not be considered as such by anyone, including funding institutions Lack of
capacity may constrain process, may need assistance.
Most wanted ICOLD to take up the activities suggested by WCD, which include consultations with NGOs and other groups to learn lessons from dam projects and
apply them in future. Adapt working methods to conform to WCD guidelines will require effort and training. Success will be measured by smooth implementation
of projects (ICOLD UK).
ICOLD will co-operate with instances such as World Water Council and some financing agencies, however will not collaborate with attempts to perpetuate the
commission in whatever form it is resurrected.
Ideas of WCD must be incorporated with discernment in future approaches to avoid past mistakes. The validity and accurateness of the components of knowledge
base should be consulted or verify systematically and their limits assessed. (Burkina Faso COLD)
General guidelines put forth by the WCD are yet to be merged into respective guidelines/design criteria of nation dam building industry, the disputable aspects as
well as the pro-developmental aspects should be incorporated into the WCD guidelines/criteria (INDIACOLD)
Isn’t it worthwhile to consider establishing a new strategic committee to answer the question on how to implement the WCD report and the position paper on
ICOLD decision making, design, construction and after care.
Good guidelines exist in many countries and financial agencies, IHA will be able to contribute to these by assisting in refining the guidelines if required.
IHA recommends that World Bank take the lead in forming a working group that will try design a fair and feasible process to select, design, build and operate new
dams with real involvement of local population. IHA is ready to participate with the World Bank in developing realistic guidelines
We believe that plans for the period following the Commission should strengthen the availability of resources and advice on economic, environmental and social
factors to be considered in assessing options. This should include smaller-scale approaches and other technologies. (ITDG)
A neglected area within the objective of achieving better outcomes relates to conflict management. For approaches to gain public acceptance, mediation between
parties who may have strikingly different perspectives is vital. This is a key element of achieving participation between parties who may have different levels of
power in a process. Putting this into practice will involve establishing a register of individuals or organisations who would be able to contribute to conflict
management in this field (ITDG)
Through our own energy and water programmes and consultancy support to clients, we will advocate for the adoption of the Commission's framework for decisionmaking. In supporting the outcomes of the WCD process, we will continue to work for practical testing, acceptance and implementation of the Commission's
proposals. ITDG would be willing to participate in any initiatives to support or to monitor the adoption of the proposals presented by the Commission in its report.
How to get core values and strategic priorities adopted in decision making in countries without undue bureaucratisation? (WINROCK)
The process of incorporating the WCD Guidelines into existing water development policies in the country, itself through a participatory process, is a long-term
This report was prepared by the DDP Secretariat and does not represent an official position of UNEP or the DDP Steering Committee
Please contact ddpinfo@unep.org for further information
39
Analysis of Reactions on the WCD Report – Interim Report
Table II.4 Agenda /The Way Forward
SH
14
Reactions / Recommendations
project that I and my organization Winrock International look forward to playing an important role in.
 Recommend that SADC Water Sector Co-ordinating Unit, together with NAWISA, initiate a process and include various stakeholders
 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.
 This Symposium supports the process of taking the WCD guidelines further in the Southern African context. We recommend that the SADC Water Sector Coordinating Unit, together with NAWISA (Network for Advocacy of Water Issues in Southern Africa), initiate such a process and include the various stakeholders in
that process.
This report was prepared by the DDP Secretariat and does not represent an official position of UNEP or the DDP Steering Committee
Please contact ddpinfo@unep.org for further information
40