South African Multi-stakeholder Initiative on
the World Commission on Dams
Scoping Report
final
22 October 2002
The SA Initiative on the World Commission on Dams Report was established by a multi-stakeholder group representing NGOs,
affected communities, government, utilities, private sector and research and finance, to consider the implications for and the
implementation in South Africa of the WCD Report
Scoping Report
Fifth Draft 27 September 2002
Table of Contents
1. Background
1.1 Taking the World Commission on Dams forward in South Africa
1.2 Terms of Reference for this Scoping Report
1.3 Structure of this Report
3
3
3
4
2. Context
2.1 Core values and approach of the WCD
2.2 Synergy with South African context and framework
2.3 Adopting a rights-and-risks approach
2.4 South Africa is in a period of transition
2.5 Specific characteristics of South Africa
4
4
3. Seven strategic priorities
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Gaining public acceptance
3.2.1 Principles and findings from the WCD
3.2.2 Trends in South Africa
3.2.3 Key issues for South Africa
3.2.4 Possible ways forward
3.3 Comprehensive options assessment
3.3.1 Principles and findings from the WCD
3.3.2 Trends in South Africa
3.3.3 Key issues for South Africa
3.3.4 Possible ways forward
3.4 Addressing existing dams
3.4.1 Principles and findings from the WCD
3.4.2 Trends in South Africa
3.4.3 Key issues for South Africa
3.4.4 Possible ways forward
3.5 Sustaining rivers and livelihoods
3.5.1 Principles and findings from the WCD
3.5.2 Trends in South Africa
3.5.3 Key issues for South Africa
3.5.4 Possible ways forward
3.6 Recognising entitlements and sharing benefits
3.6.1 Principles and findings from the WCD
3.6.2 Trends in South Africa
3.6.3 Key issues for South Africa
3.6.4 Possible ways forward
3.7 Ensuring compliance
3.7.1 Principles and findings from the WCD
3.7.2 Trends in South Africa
3.7.3 Key issues for South Africa
3.7.4 Possible ways forward
3.8 Sharing rivers for peace, development and security
3.8.1 Principles and findings from the WCD
3.8.2 Trends in South Africa
3.8.3 Key issues for South Africa
9
9
11
11
11
12
19
20
20
21
21
27
27
27
28
29
32
33
33
34
34
37
37
37
38
39
41
42
42
42
43
46
46
46
47
47
South African Multi-stakeholder Initiative on the World Commission on Dams
6
8
8
1
Scoping Report
Fifth Draft 27 September 2002
3.8.4 Possible ways forward
49
4. Priorities for action
49
5. Way forward
51
Annex 1 Participants in the 23 July 2002 Multi-stakeholder Forum
Annex 2 Summary of response sheets from the 23 July 2002 Forum
Acronyms
CMA
DDP
DWAF
EIA
EMPR
IDP
IEMF
NEMA
NEPAD
NWA
RDM
SADC
SAF
SEA
SUP
UNEP
WCD
WDM
WSSD
Catchment Management Agency
Dams and Development Project (of UNEP)
Department of Water Affairs and Forestry
Environmental impact assessment
Environmental Management Programme Report (mining)
Integrated development plan
Integrated environmental management framework
National Environmental Management Act
New Partnership for Africa’s Development
National Water Act
Resource Directed Measures (process of DWAF)
Southern African Development Community
Social Assessment Framework (of DWAF)
Strategic environmental assessment
Sustainable Utilisation Planning (procedure of DWAF)
United Nations Environment Programme
World Commission on Dams
Water Demand Management
World Summit on Sustainable Development
South African Multi-stakeholder Initiative on the World Commission on Dams
2
Scoping Report
Fifth Draft 27 September 2002
1.
Background
1.1
Taking the World Commission on Dams forward in South
Africa
“The debate about dams is a debate about the very meaning, purpose and
pathways for achieving development.”1
The World Commission on Dams (WCD), initiated in 1998, conducted the first
comprehensive global and independent review of the performance and impacts of
large dams, and the options available for water and energy development. The final
report of the WCD was released in November 2000. In addition to reviewing the
effectiveness of large dams and developing internationally acceptable principles,
strategic priorities, criteria and guidelines, the WCD report also issued a challenge to
all people: “We have told our story. What happens next is up to you.”
As a first step to taking up this challenge in South Africa, a symposium was held in
Midrand in July 2001. At this symposium, South African stakeholders declared
themselves to be broadly supportive of the strategic priorities outlined in the WCD
report, and a Co-ordinating Committee2 for the South African Multi-stakeholder
Initiative on the World Commission on Dams Report was elected. The Committee
initially comprised representatives from the following stakeholder groups:
government, NGOs, affected parties, utilities, private sector and academia, research
and finance. Labour and agriculture were subsequently recognised as additional
sectors and representatives from these groups included on the committee. In view of
the transboundary nature of watersheds, there are good reasons for the debate
conducted under this Initiative to adopt a regional approach. However, this Initiative
has of necessity sought to relate the principles and findings of the WCD Report to the
specific South African policy and legislative framework, and to influence the way we
go about water and energy resources management nationally. Thus the Initiative is
focused on South Africa, but does welcome input from regional stakeholders.
The objectives of the SA Multi-stakeholder Initiative on the WCD are broadly to
contextualise the WCD report and to make recommendations on its implementation in
South Africa. The function of the Co-ordinating Committee is to guide report
preparation, propose recommendations and seek consensus prior to presentation to the
broader multi-stakeholder forum. This Scoping Report was an initial agreed step in
the SA Multi-stakeholder Initiative process. It has been amended to incorporate
debate and comments received at and after the meeting of the Multi-stakeholder
Forum in Johannesburg on 23 July 2002, and should be seen as a milestone in an
ongoing process. See Annex 1 for a list of the participants in this event.
1
World Commission on Dams Overview Report, November 2000.
This committee was originally termed a Steering Committee but obtained a broad mandate to
reconstitute itself as a co-ordinating Committee, with additional members.
2
South African Multi-stakeholder Initiative on the World Commission on Dams
3
Scoping Report
1.2
Fifth Draft 27 September 2002
Terms of Reference for this Scoping Report
The Co-ordinating Committee of the South African Multi-stakeholder Initiative of the
WCD commissioned this Scoping Report in order to develop a tool for decisionmaking that would reflect the potentially disparate views of the range of stakeholders.
The Scoping Report is required to “analyse the issues on a broad basis, identify those
that might be contentious, identify key studies or research that is needed and
recommend the way forward for the initiative”. The Scoping Report was developed to
reflect as many views as possible and to present issues for debate and discussion at the
23 July 2002 Multi-stakeholder Forum Workshop. The report was amended to
incorporate debate and comments received at and after the Forum meeting.
The drafter was not expected to generate original work, but rather to collect, collate
and structure. Primary sources of material for this report are the WCD Report, the
report from the South African July 2001 symposium, written submissions and
presentations at the symposium, discussion and submissions made at the Coordinating Committee meeting held in April 2002, and a limited number of
interviews3 with key representatives of sectors and organisations not present at the
Symposium.
1.3
Structure of this Report
This report firstly outlines the background to the South African Multi-stakeholder
Initiative on the WCD. It then presents the core values and approach agreed to during
the global WCD process, and locates these within the South African situation.
Synergies with the South African policy and legislative framework are highlighted in
section 2. Section 3 contextualises and discusses each of the seven strategic priorities
of the WCD, under the following headings:




Principles and findings from the WCD
Trends in South Africa
Key issues for South Africa
Possible ways forward
Section 3 does not go into any detail on the guidelines proposed by the WCD. These
can be addressed once the Initiative has discussed and contextualised the strategic
priorities and their associated principles. The report concludes by highlighting
priorities for implementation of the WCD in South Africa (section 4), and setting out
the way forward (section 5) for this implementation.
2.
Context
2.1
Core values and approach of the WCD
As the WCD report pointed out, decisions on dams and their alternatives, like all
development choices, must respond to a wide range of needs, expectations, objectives
3
Telephonic, personal or email
South African Multi-stakeholder Initiative on the World Commission on Dams
4
Scoping Report
Fifth Draft 27 September 2002
and constraints. The global WCD process also highlighted that while consensus could
be found on many issues, intractable fault lines still separate critics and proponents on
a number of financial, economic, social and environmental issues. In order to develop
an approach that will build consensus around the decisions reached, a clear
understanding of the shared values, objectives and goals of development is needed.
The core values that the Commission found to be foci of concerns raised during the
Global Review were grouped under five main headings, as indicated in Box 1.
Box 1
Core values of the WCD
 Equity
 Efficiency
 Participatory decision-making
 Sustainability
 Accountability
These five core values are also aligned with international human rights norms first
articulated in the UN Declaration of Human Rights. These internationally agreed
human rights principles have been subsequently translated through related covenants
and statements, including the Rio Declaration Principles agreed to at the UN
Conference on Environment and Development in 1992.
While all stakeholders in the Multi-stakeholder Initiative appear to endorse the WCD
core values, the “faultlines” mentioned in the WCD Report are apparent in South
Africa. Many from the Labour and NGO sectors believe that a key problem of the
WCD is that it does not in any clear way challenge the overarching global
development paradigm, which, through marginalisation of the majority by means of
“unjust technologies” like large dams, is leading us on the path of unsustainability4.
Labour notes that while dams have benefited the economic and social advances of
both people and countries, the global record to date shows that tens of millions of
people have been negatively affected by dams 5. . The NGO sector has noted the
negative global effects on societies and ecosystems of the current highly industrialised
development paradigm, as highlighted by the deliberations leading up to the World
Summit on Sustainable Development6.
On the other hand, there are those who believe that increasing the amount of water
stored in Africa can and should play a role in the eradication of poverty on the
continent. The Director-General of DWAF has questioned how we can move forward
in African development if we stop the further development of hydropower.
Stakeholders from the private sector and other sectors feel that implementing all the
WCD recommendations would unnecessarily hamper economic development. Some
The term “unjust technologies” is a quotation from the comment by Medha Patkar that forms part of
the WCD Report. The quotation has been endorsed by South African Labour and NGO sectors. Patkar
notes that basic and systemic changes are needed to global power relations if we are to achieve
equitable and sustainable development.
5
The WCD Report notes that some 40 to 80 million people worldwide have been displaced by large
dams, and many of them have not been resettled or received adequate compensation (WCD, 2000, page
16).
6
The NGO sector has further highlighted that in parts of the world, the de-commissioning of dams is
occurring in the context of what may be seen as a movement towards a certain degree of ‘deindustrialisation’.
4
South African Multi-stakeholder Initiative on the World Commission on Dams
5
Scoping Report
Fifth Draft 27 September 2002
feel that dams are part of the solution for ensuring ongoing and reliable water supply
in a semi-arid country, and that any argument that even our current level of
development is sustainable without dams is idealistic and ignores the facts. Others feel
that dams are part and parcel of the problem of water scarcity, and that dams therefore
need to be relegated to being one of many possible solutions that are equally
investigated.
Notwithstanding these opposed views, the existence of the Multi-stakeholder
Initiative is indicative of a climate of mutual respect between stakeholders and a
commitment to continue to seek consensus on the optimal methods for
implementation of the WCD in South Africa.
2.2
Adopting a rights-and-risks approach
The World Commission on Dams made a clear case for rights, particularly basic
human rights, to be considered as a fundamental reference point in any debate on
dams. The five core values themselves represent a strong linkage with fundamental
human rights frameworks. The WCD in addition proposed an approach to guide future
planning and decision-making based on recognition of rights and assessment of risks,
in particular all rights at risk.
According to this rights-and-risks approach, a first and essential step is to clarify
the rights context for a proposed project (and its alternatives). This will allow for
identification of legitimate claims and entitlements that might be affected by the
project. It will also provide the basis for effective identification of stakeholder groups
that must participate in the development process. Clarifying the rights and risks
context for a development also provides the foundation for the process of negotiating
agreements related to resettlement, benefit sharing or other aspects.
Adopting a rights-and-risks approach means moving beyond the narrow definition of
the risk of the developer or investor in terms of capital invested and expected returns
(voluntary risk taker), to include the far larger group of stakeholders that often has
risks imposed on them involuntarily and managed by others (involuntary risk
bearer). The latter category has been extended to include future generations who
cannot speak for themselves. During consensus building and decision-making,
recognition of rights must be accompanied by an acknowledgement of the associated
obligations of stakeholders.
2.3
Synergy between WCD and South African policy principles
The five core values identified by the WCD accord well with key socio-political
values as expressed in South African policy, legislation, and programmes post-1994.
The overarching paradigm shift in governance in the country since 1994 has
introduced the notion of democracy through participatory, co-operative and
developmental governance.
South Africa now has one of the most progressive Constitutions in the world. Human
dignity, equality and freedom are the founding democratic values of the South African
South African Multi-stakeholder Initiative on the World Commission on Dams
6
Scoping Report
Fifth Draft 27 September 2002
state, as affirmed by the Constitution. The Constitution also introduced a rights-based
approach, underpinned by the core values of accountability and transparency in
governance7. The Presidency has stated that the new system is one of humane
governance, explained as follows:
“The new Government seeks a better life for all, by transparent means,
whereas the old order trampled on human rights, dignity and economic and
social growth of the majority of South Africans.”8
Thus the Constitution provides a strong anchor for the rights-and-risks approach
proposed by the WCD. Participation of all interested and affected parties has become
a widespread fundamental principle of numerous pieces of legislation, including two
Acts of particular relevance for dams and development. These are the National Water
Act and the National Environmental Management Act, both of which also provide for
equitable and inclusive decision-making.
The National Water Act (Act 36 of 1998) provides the principles and legal framework
for water resources management, within a framework of equitable access, beneficial
utilisation and environmentally sustainable practices. The Act introduced fundamental
and far-reaching changes to the ways into which water resources are managed. These
included removing the riparian principle which had previously granted entitlements to
water usage to landowners alongside rivers (often farmers). Reforms included
removing the entitlements of landowners to private access to the groundwater under
their land. The Act ensures that water is viewed in law as a national asset. Thus a
range of measures has been put in place to provide for the equitable and economically
efficient re-allocation of user entitlements to the water resource. The new legislation
seeks to establish a balance between a supply and demand driven approach.
A good example of the focus on environmental justice, within ecological
sustainability limits, is the “water reserve” provided for in the National Water Act,
which gives priority to water for ecological needs and for basic human needs. No
other water entitlements are guaranteed, and no allocations can be made to other user
sectors before the Reserve is met. This epitomises a progressive approach to
sustainable development that is fundamentally in line with the WCD values and
principles. The provisions of the National Water Act have been developed to ensure
that water resources management and development is appropriate for a country in
which water is considered to be a major limiting natural resource. The 1998 National
Environmental Management Act (NEMA) is the framework legislation for
environmental management. It includes environmental management principles that
must serve as guidelines for any decision in terms of the Act or any other statutory
provision concerning the protection or management of the environment. These
principles include a people-centred approach to environmental management,
transparency and access to information, and a risk averse and cautious approach.
Environmental justice and equity are strong concepts underpinning the NEMA, with a
specific principle concerning equitable access to environmental resources, benefits
and services.
Urquhart, P (2001) ‘National Governance Framework for Environmental Management’. Background
Paper commissioned by the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism for the Analytical
Review of Sustainable Development and Agenda 21.
8
The Presidency (2001):24
7
South African Multi-stakeholder Initiative on the World Commission on Dams
7
Scoping Report
Fifth Draft 27 September 2002
Both the National Water Act and the NEMA further translate the Constitutional focus
on rights and responsibilities through the inclusion of the precautionary principle, and
the environmental duty of care placed on all citizens. Taken together with numerous
other pieces of policy and legislation, there is an indisputable basis for the core values
of the WCD in the new South African governance framework.
2.4
South Africa is in a period of transition
Since 1994 several Acts have been adopted that regulate the management of water
resources. These Acts are currently being implemented through the formulation of
regulations and procedures and the establishment of the management structures
envisaged by the Act. However, full implementation of these Acts will require some
time yet. It is therefore necessary to be cognisant of policy decisions already
embodied in legislation whenever practices applicable to the development of dams are
assessed. There is thus a clear need to allow for transitional arrangements when
considering the applicability of the WCD guidelines.
In addition, large development projects take many years from inception to completion.
One perspective holds that once a project is in the process of implementation (dams in
the pipeline as the WCD report refers to these) it cannot be made compliant with
guidelines that were developed in parallel to, or even after project approval or the
commencement of implementation. However, an alternative perspective states that
this is not so, and that certain sections of the WCD Report, such as the ‘Addressing
existing dams’ strategic priority, clearly recommend taking steps to make projects
compliant with guidelines developed after the inception of the project.
2.5
Specific characteristics of South Africa
South Africa is a semi-arid country in which water is recognised as the most limiting
natural resource in the development process. The policy and legislative framework
referred to above has consequently been formulated to guide efficient, equitable and
sustainable management of South Africa’s water resources. The hydrological and
dams context of South Africa is summarised in Box 1.
BOX 1: South African hydrological and dams context
The weather and rainfall patterns in South (and southern) Africa are extremely variable in
space and time and, alongside Australia, count among the most variable in the world.
Approximately 60% of South Africa’s river flows is generated from only 20% of the land. In
the summer rainfall region of the country, more than 80% of the rain falls in the six summer
months. Inter-annual droughts are severe. As a result of building reservoirs, South Africa
presently stores about 746 cubic metres of water per person, which represents about 60% of
the mean annual river flow. In the rest of Africa these storage levels are an order of magnitude
lower.
Over 60% of the large dams on the African continent are in Zimbabwe and South Africa. The
main purpose for building large dams in the northern and southern regions of Africa, which
have large arid and semi-arid zones, is irrigation. In South Africa, the main uses of most dams
are irrigation and water supply, with only 1.9% of electricity generation being hydropower 9.
9
WCD Main Report, 2000.
South African Multi-stakeholder Initiative on the World Commission on Dams
8
Scoping Report
Fifth Draft 27 September 2002
Apart from the small off-river reservoirs at the Drakensberg and Palmiet pumped storage
schemes, South Africa has not built any large dams primarily for hydropower.
In South Africa, developing a large dam is markedly different in the 21 st century than when
the first large dams were built in the 19th century. A significant portion of the country’s water
resources has been developed, the population has increased and spread out over catchments,
and the natural environment is under threat 10. Many negative technological, economic, social
and environmental impacts of large dams have been identified. It is accepted that dam
development now requires joint decision-making to ensure that the interests of various
stakeholders are taken into account. It is also accepted that construction of dams is just one
option of many to be considered in water and energy planning processes. The range of options
includes water and energy demand management, alternative sources of energy, and integrated
catchment management.
Thus in contextualising the WCD report for South African conditions it is necessary
to consider the following characteristics:



climatic conditions (and related variability in rainfall and river flows)
water requirements to meet reasonable economic growth expectations and
breaking the shackles of poverty
current level of utilisation of water resources compared to the total
resource available
Additionally, it should be noted that there are more than 500 large dams in South
Africa, of which 50 have a storage capacity of more than 100 million m3. According
to the latest projections, very few new large dams are to be initiated during the next
decade or two.
3.
Seven strategic priorities
3.1
Introduction
The five core values and a rights-and-risks approach set out by the WCD laid the
groundwork for a new approach to decision-making concerning dams as one of a
range of possible water and energy resources development options. Building on this,
the Commission identified seven strategic priorities and corresponding policy
principles to further guide water and energy planning and decision-making. The seven
strategic priorities (Box 2) are written in terms of the outcomes to be achieved.
Box 2 Seven strategic priorities of the WCD
 Gaining public acceptance
 Comprehensive options assessment
 Addressing existing dams
 Sustaining rivers and livelihoods
 Recognising entitlements and sharing benefits
 Ensuring compliance
 Sharing rivers for peace, development and security
10
Croucamp, W. Opening address at the Symposium on the WCD report on dams and development,
23 July 2001.
South African Multi-stakeholder Initiative on the World Commission on Dams
9
Scoping Report
Fifth Draft 27 September 2002
This section, which constitutes the bulk of this scoping report, considers each of these
strategic priorities within the South African context.
For each of the strategic priorities, the following areas are covered:




Principles and findings from the WCD
Trends in South Africa
Key issues for South Africa
Possible ways forward
The first section concerning principles and findings from the WCD is taken directly
from the WCD report. This section is intended to provide a summary of the WCD for
the strategic priority under consideration, without any interpretation. The ‘trends’ and
‘key issues’ sections place the strategic priority and associated principles in the South
African context, and summarise the different perspectives and interpretations of the
various stakeholder groupings involved in the Multi-stakeholder Initiative. The
discussion of key issues includes both areas of broad consensus amongst the different
stakeholder groupings, as well as issues for which there is as yet no consensus or
broadly diverging viewpoints. In the latter case, this report highlights differing points
of view to provide a basis for further debate and negotiation in the Multi-stakeholder
Forum.
The seven strategic priorities are supported in the WCD report by sets of guidelines
designed for adoption, adaptation and use by all stakeholders involved in water
resources development and utilisation. According to discussions held in terms of the
SA Multi-stakeholder Initiative to date, these guidelines are generally felt to be
generic, and in need of adaptation to the South African context if they are to be truly
useful. While there appears to be broad acceptance of the guidelines, some
reservations have been voiced concerning their implementation in South Africa. For
instance, one perspective holds that strict application of the WCD guidelines risks
causing unacceptable project delay, foregoing an otherwise attractive or preferred
development option, or even rejection of a project that may be essential to economic
growth and social development. This view further states that the WCD should not be
applied in developing countries as it will retard much-needed development.
In countering this, Minister Kader Asmal, Chair of the WCD and former Minister of
Water Affairs and Forestry, has repeatedly stated that the developing nations are in
most need of the WCD as they can least afford to repeat the mistakes made by the
developed world. This counter-perspective holds that the application of the WCD
guidelines is needed to reduce the risk of building large, expensive dams that do not
fulfil the original design perspectives and cause an array of negative and unanticipated
social and environmental impacts. This view further states that the wish to avoid
project delays has in the past been used to fast track the building of dams, preventing
sound judgement from prevailing11.
11
The example of the Lesotho Highlands Water Project Phase 1b is cited, where the World Bank
produced an extensive report of the implications of delaying decisions, including reasons such as the
contractors having to go off-site.
South African Multi-stakeholder Initiative on the World Commission on Dams
10
Scoping Report
Fifth Draft 27 September 2002
At this stage, however, the focus is firstly on building consensus and engaging in
fruitful debate on the strategic priorities. Thus this Scoping Report focuses on the
seven strategic priorities, beginning with gaining public acceptance.
3.2
Gaining public acceptance
3.2.1 Principles and findings from the WCD
The key message from the WCD is that public acceptance of key decisions is
essential for equitable and sustainable water and energy resources development.
To be socially legitimate and produce positive and lasting outcomes, greater public
participation is required. A fair, informed and transparent decision-making process is
required to give all stakeholders the opportunity to fully and actively participate. This
process should be based on the acknowledgement and protection of existing rights and
entitlements. Full and supported participation of vulnerable groups who have tended
to be overlooked in decision-making about dams will provide opportunities for water
and energy resources development to achieve high levels of equity, rather than
exacerbating existing inequalities.
The WCD states that to implement this strategic priority effectively, the following
four policy principles must be applied.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Recognition of rights and assessment of risks are the basis for the
identification and inclusion of stakeholders in decision-making on energy and
water resources development.
Access to information, legal and other support is available to all stakeholders,
particularly indigenous and tribal peoples, women and other vulnerable groups,
to enable their informed participation in decision-making processes.
Demonstrable public acceptance of all key decisions is achieved through
agreements negotiated in an open and transparent process conducted in good
faith and with the informed participation of all stakeholders.
Decisions on projects affecting indigenous and tribal peoples are guided by
their free, prior and informed consent achieved through formal and informal
representative bodies.
3.2.2 Trends in South Africa
The need for fundamental social change in post-apartheid South Africa has led to a
rewriting of policy and legislation in every sector. From an overview of policy and
legislation across sectors it is clear that the principles of equity and participation
underlie the new democracy in South Africa12. However, participation needs to be an
underlying principle not just of government policy, but also of the operational policies
and procedures of key institutions involved in decision-making around dams. As the
WCD report highlighted, while globally there has been an increasing emphasis on
Geach, B (2001) ‘Participation and partnerships’. Background Paper commissioned by the
Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism for the Analytical Review of Sustainable
Development and Agenda 21.
12
South African Multi-stakeholder Initiative on the World Commission on Dams
11
Scoping Report
Fifth Draft 27 September 2002
transparency and participation in decision-making involving large dams, especially in
the 1990s, actual change in practice remains slow13.
Furthermore, participation may be in name only, unless there is real capacity building,
information sharing, economic empowerment and skills transfer to local people. For
instance, in South Africa, rural communities, isolated by geography, lack of
infrastructure, poverty, low literacy levels and lack of higher education, find it very
difficult, if not impossible to influence policy and budgetary processes taking place at
distant venues14. Despite these challenges with participation, there is consensus that
community buy-in and ownership is essential for a successful project.
A range of different institutional mechanisms for participation in decision-making
on water resources development is evolving in South Africa. The primary mechanism
is the Catchment Management Agency (CMA), currently being established in the first
of 19 Water Management Areas in South Africa. This will facilitate the
democratisation of the development, management and utilisation of water resources in
South Africa. A further example is the Gauteng Water Cycle Management
Committee, which represents a partnership approach between various stakeholders to
address issues around the necessity, timing, nature and impact of water use
management strategies and water supply augmentation schemes.
3.2.3 Key issues for South Africa
Reflecting the emphasis throughout the current policy and legislative framework,
there is broad stated consensus amongst South African stakeholders on the need
for public participation in decision-making concerning water and energy
resource development. This consensus has also been demonstrated through the
acceptance of the WCD core value of participatory decision-making by the range of
stakeholder groupings involved in the Multi-stakeholder Initiative. However, while
there is broad agreement on the need for participation and stakeholder involvement,
there are many questions still remaining concerning implementation of this concept.
A primary issue to be considered is the question of timing of participation. It has
become widely accepted that for participation to be meaningful, the involvement of a
wide range of stakeholders must begin at an early stage of planning. This principle is
enshrined in South African policy and legislation, and in the principles of integrated
environmental management espoused by South Africa. Implementation of this
principle means that affected communities in particular need to be included at the
earliest possible stage in the planning process. A priority for this Initiative is to move
away from participation on a projects basis, to participation in a thorough process that
evaluates whether water and energy needs are legitimate, and researches the best
options to meet those needs (of which a dam may be one option).
Stakeholder involvement at a number of different levels is needed throughout the
planning process, including at the following stages:

13
14
Comprehensive options assessment and water cycle management
WCD (2000) Dams and development: a new framework for decision-making. Earthscan, London.
Geach 2001.
South African Multi-stakeholder Initiative on the World Commission on Dams
12
Scoping Report


Fifth Draft 27 September 2002
Site identification and selection
Project implementation
Some are of the opinion that the current practice in South Africa allows for
stakeholder participation way down the line, at the project implementation stage.
Communities are thus becoming involved far too late, once significant resources and
political support have been committed. Further questions have been raised as to
whether interested parties are being notified and negotiations conducted with affected
parties at the site identification and selection stage.
The Gauteng Water Cycle Management Committee is an example of participation at
the level of comprehensive options assessment and water cycle management. The
progress, pace and sustainability of the water demand management (WDM)
initiatives, which are being implemented as an alternative to premature augmentation
of the Vaal River System, are monitored by the Committee. It has been suggested that
public participation processes like this Committee and the Water Services Forum
should be formalised.
In addition to timing of participation, a key point relates to the extent to which policy
principles on participation are being translated into action during options
assessment, planning and implementation of water resources development projects.
Increased capacity to participate meaningfully on the part of affected communities
and on the part of government to manage the participation process effectively is
required. The DWAF has recently developed Generic Guidelines for Public
Participation15 that are aligned with most of the principles set out by the WCD, with
one important exception. In contrast to the WCD principles on participation, the
DWAF guidelines make a clear distinction between participation and decisionmaking. Yet is has become accepted that ‘participation’ implies taking part in
decisions that affect one’s future. If ‘participation’ stops short of this step, then it
relates more to consultation. NGOs and affected communities see this issue as being
of paramount importance, as participation is meaningless if it does not determine the
final decision. Thus these stakeholder groupings feel that options for institutional
mechanisms at the local, catchment and national level need to be explored, which
would facilitate participation and decision-making processes that would allow for
those affected to have more influence.
It is necessary for the Multi-stakeholder Initiative to clarify which of the two concepts
(participation or consultation) is desired, and whether it would be preferable for the
DWAF guidelines to be developed into regulations that apply to all institutions. An
important consideration put forward by the private sector is the principle that together
with the authority to make decisions goes responsibility for the consequences, such as
cost implications.
Secondly, is informed participation happening? This relates to awareness of all
stakeholders, and particularly affected communities, of their rights to participate in
decision-making. Informed participation also refers to improving the capacity of
people to participate through building their knowledge base concerning what is
being decided, and what the impacts and benefits will be. Labour has pointed out that
15
DWAF, Generic Guidelines for Public Participation, September 2001.
South African Multi-stakeholder Initiative on the World Commission on Dams
13
Scoping Report
Fifth Draft 27 September 2002
to ensure full and meaningful public participation, funds must be made available, as
part of project investigation, to ensure that community organisations have the
financial means both to attend public inquiries and to engage their appointed specialist
advisors. While there may be consensus that empowerment is required, many
questions still remain. How should this empowerment be carried out? Who should
foot the bill? At what stage will sufficient empowerment have been reached? For the
Levuvhu Government Water Scheme, the DWAF put in place training programmes to
ensure that people had the necessary skills to be actively involved in construction
projects and negotiations on mitigation and resettlement associated with the scheme.
There is good potential for public awareness raising and education through
participation processes in place for developing Catchment Management Agencies in
for example the basins of the Komati, Olifants and Thukela Rivers. However, with
respect to decision-making concerning dams, a perceived problem is linked to the
neutrality of information provided. Biased information can preclude informed
participation. This could become particularly problematic where consultants whose
job it is to inform communities and to manage EIAs have a vested interest in the dam
going ahead. Thus it is critical that communities have access to legal aid or to other
forms of independent support.
A number of further debatable issues concerning the implementation of this strategic
priority exist, particularly the meaning of stakeholder involvement in South Africa,
and how and when demonstrated acceptance of decisions can be said to exist.
As the WCD points out, legal and customary rights take
Key debating point:
many forms, including livelihood, resources, habitat,
social networks and cultural heritage. Thus the rightsWhat does stakeholder
and-risks approach proposed by the WCD is important
involvement mean in
as it highlights the different types of rights that exist over
South Africa? How
and above statutory rights, and thus the range of
should the rights-andassociated risks facing communities (and associated
risks method of
responsibilities). However, there is little (if any)
identifying
experience on the rights-and-risks method of identifying
stakeholders be used?
stakeholders globally, and the guideline provided in the
WCD main report is considered to be inadequate. Consequently, there is a need to
explore how this method should be understood in South Africa and how it could be
applied. The DWAF is currently compiling a database of stakeholders per
geographical area. There is a need to explore how this is incorporating the rights-andrisks approach advocated for by the WCD, and whether it will allow for the inclusion
and balancing of ancestral rights with current rights of ownership.
Discussion at the Multi-stakeholder Forum around this topic indicated its complexity,
with participants pointing out that in addition to affected communities and future
generations, taxpayers were also often involuntary risk bearers who had a right to
participate in decision-making about large capital-intensive infrastructural projects.
While water ‘rights’ (referred to in the NWA as ‘entitlements’) do exist and rest with
government as water is a national resource, they have yet to be tested in terms of the
Constitution, but this could occur. In general, participants expressed a feeling that
while there was a basis for water rights in both the Constitution and the national water
legislation, they were not being adequately implemented. However, some felt that the
South African Multi-stakeholder Initiative on the World Commission on Dams
14
Scoping Report
Fifth Draft 27 September 2002
related concept of environmental risks was not yet well-covered in either policy or
practice, and would need to be further developed.
The WCD states that demonstrable public acceptance is
achieved through agreements negotiated in an open and
transparent process conducted in good faith and with
When can it be said that
the informed participation of all stakeholders. While the
public acceptance is
WCD provides principles that define an open and
demonstrated?
transparent decision-making process, and states that
binding and formal agreements are required, it is less clear on the point at which it
can be said that demonstrable public acceptance has been achieved. One
perspective is that demonstrated public acceptance does not necessarily mean
unanimous acceptance. Thus, what should happen if unanimous public acceptance
cannot be obtained? Different options include going into a process of arbitration, or
taking an authoritative government decision. Concerning the latter, DWAF already
plays a multitude of different roles: legislator, regulator, a raw water supplier, the
developer/authorisor of large dams, and, in some cases, an (interim) implementing
agent for rural potable water supply. Thus could the DWAF reasonably play an
arbitration/negotiation role as well?
Key debating point:
The DWAF has stated that in this debate the checks and balances built into the
NWA should be taken into account and that the DWAF has already commenced an
organisational restructuring process to separate the functions of Policy and Regulation
from Operations. In addition the NWA makes provision for any person to appeal to
the Water Tribunal, an independent administrative body, against most important
decisions that can be made under the authority of the Act, including for example the
issuing of a licence. The NEMA provides for mechanisms of arbitration for disputes
concerning natural resource management issues and environmental protection, which
can be explored for their potential contribution to resolving the demonstrable public
acceptance issue. Further relevant questions include whether the test of the
‘reasonable person’ as used by the courts could apply, and whether the provisions of
the Access to Information Act and the Administrative Justice Act could be useful
here.
In discussing the point at which public acceptance can be said to be demonstrated,
the Multi-stakeholder Forum provided a number of suggestions for recognising this
point. Firstly, there was agreement that an underpinning criterion is the nature of the
participation process that has been followed: has this been timeous, included capacity
building and empowerment measures, and shared information in a neutral and
transparent fashion to result in informed participation? These process issues are
critical for achieving demonstrated public acceptance, which, it was suggested, may
be recognised when either the level of complaints has subsided, or the level of conflict
is ‘manageable’, or the community participation structure has no more ‘serious’
outstanding issues to be dealt with. It was recognised that these remain subjective
positions, and there is no easy or blueprint answer to this issue. The Utilities sector
has suggested that public acceptance is demonstrated when affected parties agree to
the proposed development. However, they feel that more research is needed on
consensus building and “the management of dissenters”. The NGO sector has pointed
out that the debate on demonstrated public acceptance needs to be located within the
South African Multi-stakeholder Initiative on the World Commission on Dams
15
Scoping Report
Fifth Draft 27 September 2002
context of comprehensive assessment of a range of different water and energy options,
and not merely on one specific development proposal.
While a number of different suggestions were made for identifying when
demonstrated public acceptance has been achieved, one of the working groups at the
Multi-stakeholder Forum meeting on 23 July 2002 has noted more fundamentally that
the term “public acceptance” implies a “top-down” approach, whereas ideally the
public should be helping to make the decision. This highlights once again the
importance of public ownership of the ‘project’, which should be seen more as a
development process.
A key variable to be explored is the breadth and depth of public acceptance that is
required. Dams, as one of a possible range of water storage and supply options, have
multiple effects both upstream and downstream, and also on communities and
ecosystems outside of the river path. One example cited is the increase in the price of
water in Gauteng as a result of the Lesotho Highlands Water Project, which, on top of
reportedly negative impacts on highland communities16, may be hampering efforts to
provide affordable water to an increasing number of poor people. Another perspective
holds that water price increases in Gauteng are only allegedly as a result of the
LHWP, which has also had positive impacts by increasing the availability of reliable
water supplies to satisfy growing water demands. A related viewpoint questions what
the alternative to this is, stating that expensive water can still be subsidised but no
water cannot be subsidised. Another stakeholder is of the view that this particular
example cannot be debated without noting the provisions of the bi-national Treaty on
the project, the changes in water usage, the change in policy with respect to water
demand management and water conservation and the long implementation periods
required for mega projects. Notwithstanding the vastly differing perspectives on the
LHWP, what this example does illustrate is the breadth of the ‘public’ that are or may
be affected in some way by a large dam development. Consequently, the process to
gain public acceptance broader needs to encompass a broad enough geographical area,
as localising the debate may result in a skewed process. This refers to both the breadth
of public acceptance that is required, as well as to the nature of the institutional
mechanism that can facilitate demonstrable public acceptance.
Dams and infrastructure related to dams are listed activities in terms of the
Environment Conservation Act of 1989 and thus require environmental impact
assessment (EIA). This necessitates identifying interested and affected parties who
need to be involved in the decision-making process. One perspective holds that this
constitutes the necessary legislation to implement this strategic priority of the WCD,
and that the tools are in place in the dam profession to deal with this matter fairly. An
opposing perspective notes that EIAs are rarely treated as objective studies to inform a
debate, but rather as rubber stamps for projects governments have already decided to
build. This is exacerbated where consultants have a vested interest in the dam being
16
These communities lost their land and resources such as water and medicinal plants as a result of
reservoir construction. One perspective holds that they experienced immense problems with
comparatively short-term employment during the construction period, followed by long term
unemployment later, and have experienced further deteriorating quality of life. The Lesotho Highlands
Water Commission disputes the validity of this perspective, noting that displaced individuals and
communities receive appropriate compensation, have been resettled in areas of their choice and
provided with housing, garden land and associated infrastructure and services.
South African Multi-stakeholder Initiative on the World Commission on Dams
16
Scoping Report
Fifth Draft 27 September 2002
built. The latter viewpoint quotes the words of Patrick McCully: “governments and
dam builders have invariably turned the EIA process into a bureaucratic formality,
merely another regulatory hurdle which developers must jump before they can get
their project approved”17.
An issue for discussion is how the scope of the two categories of interested and
affected parties is defined. One perspective holds that affected people are those who
will be displaced or who stand to lose their property. However, the WCD calls for a
much broader and more far-reaching definition, to include those people who neither
lose property or are displaced, but whose livelihoods would be affected by a dam,
such as people living downstream who are dependent on floodplain agriculture18.
Other affected parties could be those who stand to benefit from the dam and will be
required to pay for the benefit. The DWAF has stated that participation of
organisations involved in the social and economic infrastructures of the whole region
in which the dam is to be constructed is necessary. One definition proposed for
interested parties includes all those who pay for the dam in cash or in the form of loss
of rights, privilege or convenience, or benefit from it, or have an interest in it. One
stakeholder grouping proposes the following definitions for interested and affected
parties. Affected parties are those who will be displaced, or who stand to lose their
properties, or whose livelihoods would be affected by the dam. Interested parties are
those who pay for the dam, or who benefit from it, or have an interest in it. A further
question relates to how to determine the weight of the various parties’ views.
Discussion at the Multi-stakeholder Forum of 23 July 2002 indicated a need for
greater clarity regarding delineation of the term ‘public’, given the scope of any largescale water resources development project, with suggestions that ‘public’ is projectspecific and the EIA concept of identifying interested and affected parties should be
used. The question, it was felt, should be phrased not so much in terms of drawing up
a list of stakeholders, but rather clarifying the issue of just how wide the public
involvement process should go: upstream / downstream / the area to which people are
removed? Deliberations indicated that the concept of public will change as the
development process proceeds
These discussions highlight a critical question: What is the nature of the
institutional structure that can facilitate participation? In the case of the Berg
River Project (dam in the pipeline on the farm Skuifraam) in the Western Cape, Civil
Society approached the Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry with a request to
participate in a multi-stakeholder review of the dam compared to other options such as
water conservation and demand management, in line with the WCD’s proposals
regarding dams in the pipeline. A commitment was given to abide by the findings of
the review. While this request was refused, it would have provided a possible
institutional arrangement for reaching an acceptable decision. The view of the
Minister was based on the urgent need to augment water supplies and in view of the
fact that investigations into the project, with public involvement, had been ongoing
for more than 10 years. The DWAF has stated that the Skuifraam Dam was viewed as
a “project in the pipeline,” as described in the WCD report.
17
McCully, P (1996) Silenced Rivers: The ecology and politics of large dams. Zed Books.
For example people living on the floodplain downstream from the Pongolapoort Dam, who lost their
livelihoods basis of floodplain agriculture after the dam was built.
18
South African Multi-stakeholder Initiative on the World Commission on Dams
17
Scoping Report
Fifth Draft 27 September 2002
Given the range of stakeholders involved in decision-making concerning the
management of water and energy resources and the potential for conflict of interest,
together with the geographical ramifications of large-scale infrastructural projects, it
seems clear that a form of joint stakeholder vehicle that combines local, regional and
national level stakeholders is required. A multi-stakeholder forum can facilitate the
process of gaining demonstrable public acceptance. What is the optimal mechanism
for ensuring demonstrable public acceptance? From several stakeholder inputs, this
is a critical area for work in the year ahead. Such a study could also look at comparing
experiences post-WCD with other parts of the world, where the WCD is19 or is not
being implemented.
One viewpoint is that there should be differentiation between the voices of those who
have the most to lose, and those who are less affected. This perspective holds that a
multi-stakeholder vehicle for gaining public acceptance should include a veto option,
based on the notion that communities should have inalienable rights to control and
manage their water, land, forests and other resources, and the right of every person to
a healthy environment. The DWAF, however, has stated that participation processes
followed should not be seen as providing a veto right to a stakeholder group,
especially with regard to ‘free, prior and informed consent’20. In elaboration of this,
some stakeholders have pointed out that a veto infringes on the rights of the
majority21, and also noted that at the end of the participation process, political
accountability must come into play and the government must take the decision. They
feel that affected people should have the right to object, but not the right to veto,
which should be an official prerogative. They also note that the right to veto may not
be acceptable for certain projects that have national significance. On the other hand,
Kader Asmal, former chair of the WCD has reiterated the WCD principle that those
adversely affected should be the first among beneficiaries. Does the veto option
provide an acceptable means to ensure this important principle?
Discussions at the Multi-stakeholder Forum indicated a further perspective on the
veto debate, which suggests an exception to the principle of parity of interests and
rights, holding that some stakeholders / issues need louder voices. In substantiation
of this position, it is felt that the non-neutrality of dam proposals, which often pit
‘heavyweight’ actors against ‘the small person’, must be factored in when making
decisions about possible veto rights, as well as what is felt to be a generally bad past
record with respect to public participation processes modifying or stopping dam
proposals globally (although this may now be changing). The two exceptions
proposed are communities with ancestral rights to land (and ancestral graves on
that land)22, and a veto option in the interests of protection of a pristine
environment (which may be linked to the implementation of the precautionary
principle). However, where both of these exceptional factors come into play, which
cause should take precedence over the other? A further viewpoint holds this question
19
Such as in countries like Thailand, Pakistan, Brazil, India and Spain where processes have been
characterised by strong community organisation.
20
Muller, M (2001) ‘Implications for South Africa’. Statement made at the Symposium on the WCD
Report, 23-24 July 2001.
21
It has also been noted that there are limitations even to the basic rights set out in the Bill of Rights (as
indicated in the Constitution), and that the attainment of some basic rights can infringe on others. The
challenge remains how to seek a balance between potentially opposing rights.
22
Or, as alternatively expressed, when no compensation can be found for cultural values.
South African Multi-stakeholder Initiative on the World Commission on Dams
18
Scoping Report
Fifth Draft 27 September 2002
reflects the setting up of a false dichotomy, when in fact the requirement is for certain
issues to be given exceptional rights, within a context of comprehensive assessment of
a range of water and/or energy options, rather than the more restricted notion of
developing a dam on site A or site B.
It has also been suggested that when there is community ownership of a development
process from an early stage, a full range of options has been explored in a
participatory fashion, and development options accompany any dam proposals, this
truly bottom-up approach will mean that there will be no need for refusal. The key is
to be flexible and to look for other options with community participation. Whatever
the outcome of the veto debate, there is agreement that the concept of negotiation and
consensus, often based on compromise, leading to binding and implementable
agreements is essential for successful development. Further, the multi-stakeholder
decision-making process will need to include provisions for dispute resolution if the
group cannot reach sufficient consensus, or agree upon who should take the final
decision. A decision needs to be taken on the nature of the dispute resolution process,
with a number of stakeholder groupings advocating for an independent body.
Finally, the notion of free, prior and informed consent of indigenous and tribal
peoples requires clarification in the South African context. Countries increasingly
realise that as historical and present injustices continue to deny indigenous and tribal
peoples the right to self-determination, these people are entitled to distinct measures
to protect their rights. The weight of international legal and other norms underpins
this realisation. Internationally dam development has resulted in the subjugation of
tribal people23. Many fear that the negative effect of dams on indigenous and tribal
people will once again be illustrated through the negative effects of the Epupa Dam
on the nomadic way of life of the Himba people. The DWAF has stated that the issue
of free, prior and informed consent is addressed under the Generic Public
Participation Guidelines24, and by means of the national Integrated Rural
Development Programme (IRDP). This is clearly an area for further exploration in
South Africa.
3.2.4 Possible ways forward
Note that all of the ‘Possible ways forward’ sections are draft and reflect suggestions
offered by different stakeholders rather than any consensus positions on the way
forward. The Co-ordinating Committee will set in place a process to decide upon the
specific action steps required for the next 24 months.
23
A commonly cited and horrific example is the murder of 378 Maya Achí Indians from the village of
Rio Negro in the submergence zone of Guatemala’s Chixoy Dam. See McCully, P (1996) Silenced
Rivers: the ecology and politics of large dams. Zed Books.
24
DWAF, September 2001.
South African Multi-stakeholder Initiative on the World Commission on Dams
19
Scoping Report
Fifth Draft 27 September 2002
The following initiatives already in the pipeline should be continued / developed
/enhanced:
 Further development of the DWAF Guidelines on Participation.
Consideration should be given to developing the ‘optional’ guidelines into
firmer requirements. These should be jointly developed using the SA Multistakeholder Forum and the National Water Advisory Council.
Input into this Multi-stakeholder Initiative has indicated that the following studies are
important first steps for improving the implementation of this strategic priority in
South Africa.
 Possible options for institutional mechanisms for obtaining demonstrated
public acceptance and dispute resolution in stakeholder participation
processes. Different institutional mechanisms will be needed for overall
water and energy resources planning and for project-level decision-making.
 Options for institutional mechanisms at the local, catchment and national
level to facilitate participation and decision-making processes that would
allow for those affected to have more influence.
 Comparison of experiences and lessons learned from other countries where
processes have been set in place to implement the WCD. The Initiative
should participate through the UNEP’s Dams and Development Project
(DDP) to share experiences with other countries. The DDP will be
sponsoring issues-based workshops on Gaining Public Acceptance and
Comprehensive Options Assessment in the near future.
 One of the above studies should explore the implications of stakeholder
veto power, as well as where the responsibility for bearing the costs of
stakeholder participation should lie.
3.3
Comprehensive options assessment
3.3.1 Principles and findings from the WCD
The key message from the WCD is that alternatives to dams do exist. To explore
these alternatives, needs for water, food and energy must be assessed and objectives
clearly defined. The appropriate development option can then be identified from a
range of possible options. It is critical that the assessment process is participatory and
that social and environmental aspects have the same significance as technical,
economic and financial factors.
The WCD states that to implement this strategic priority effectively, the following
five policy principles must be applied.
1.
2.
Development needs and objectives are clearly formulated through an open
and participatory process before the identification and assessment of options
for water and energy resource development.
Planning approaches that take into account the full range of development
objectives are used to assess all policy, institutional, management and technical
options before the decision is made to proceed with any programme or project.
South African Multi-stakeholder Initiative on the World Commission on Dams
20
Scoping Report
3.
4.
5.
Fifth Draft 27 September 2002
Social and environmental aspects are given the same significance as
technical, economic and financial factors in assessing options.
Increasing the effectiveness and sustainability of existing water, irrigation,
and energy systems are given priority in the options assessment process.
If a dam is selected through such a comprehensive options assessment process,
social and environmental principles are applied in the review and selection of
options throughout the detailed planning, design, construction, and operation
phases.
3.3.2 Trends in South Africa
There is strong support for the idea of comprehensive options assessment in the
current South African policy and legislative framework. The National Environmental
Management Act contains a set of principles that need to be taken into consideration
by all organs of state for actions that may significantly affect the environment. These
principles entrench the idea of considering the social, economic and environmental
consequences of development during decision-making. The form of integrated
environmental management adopted in South Africa has for some time placed
emphasis on consideration of alternatives, including the no-go option. All water
development projects are listed activities under the environmental impact assessment
(EIA) regulations of 1997. The National Water Act and the Water Services Act also
include provisions for EIAs. New EIA regulations are being drafted to include tools
such as risk assessment and social impact assessment.
In general, the thrust for building dams has diminished in the Department of Water
Affairs and Forestry and the focus is on a range of other options such as water
demand management, conservation and protection of water resources, and
sustainability with respect to management of water resources. Further positive
developments are occurring in terms of the Integrated Environmental Management
Framework (IEMF) being developed by DWAF, which will include the project lifecycle approach. DWAF also requires that water conservation and demand
management and integrated water resources management (IWRM) are the first
options that should be investigated before a dam development project will be
considered. Several protocols or guidelines have already been developed for
WC/WDM for the various water sectors in South Africa and the IWRM policy is also
near completion.
Yet many stakeholders raise points that indicate that implementation of these policies
still requires much work and pilot testing. Comprehensive options assessments have
generally not been carried out in the past. Prior to 1990 assessments carried out when
constructing dams have been based on narrow definitions of the environment, which
largely have not considered the social environment. In South Africa, as globally, the
environmental and social impact of dams has historically been far greater than
initially envisaged. The DWAF has not yet undertaken any audits with regard to
strategic impact assessment for environmental, social, health and cultural heritage25,
but has made this a strategic focus area for water resources management. DWAF feels
that the National Water Resource Strategy and the Catchment Management Strategies
will address this requirement, once fully developed and implemented.
25
Guideline 4 of the WCD Report concerns this issue.
South African Multi-stakeholder Initiative on the World Commission on Dams
21
Scoping Report
Fifth Draft 27 September 2002
3.3.3 Key issues for South Africa
While consensus exists on the need for comprehensive energy and water resources
development options assessment before the decision is taken to construct a new dam,
many questions have been raised and differing viewpoints expressed around how to
go about this. Of concern is the bias towards evaluating the quantitative rather than
qualitative information pertaining to the different options, and the difficulties
experienced in quantifying social and environmental impacts. Furthermore, concerns
have been raised about the extent of commitment to the comprehensive options
assessment process in the recent past. An example cited by the Wildlife and
Environment Society (WESSA) is the publicly-stated position by the former Minister
of Water Affairs and Forestry, at the time when he chaired the WCD, that he would
not allow further water supply projects to be developed in South Africa unless
convinced that water demand management (WDM) was firmly established in urban
areas and by municipalities. Yet, as WESSA highlights, authorisation was given for
the Skuifraam Dam to be built before WDM was in place in Cape Town. In
explanation of this, the DWAF has stated that this dam would fall under the WCD
term of a “pipeline project”. Affected communities have pointed out that in general,
caution should be taken not to “present development as a monster to frighten affected
communities”. Rather, communities need to be provided with a range of options, and
not to be “blackmailed by ‘the option of development’”26.
A point raised to explain the dearth of comprehensive options assessment to date
relates to institutional structures. This viewpoint notes that the corporate structures
we establish can be obstacles to investigating alternative options. For example, one
viewpoint notes that amongst its staff the DWAF includes specialist engineers whose
function it is to design dams. The focus of these engineers should be to investigate
options to meet future water demands, as this is actually the end objective. However,
the majority of the management cadre of DWAF is no longer drawn from the
engineering profession, and another perspective points out that the DWAF is now
structured to carry out its primary function of implementing the National Water Act
and the Water Services Act. Both of these pieces of legislation require multidisciplinary approaches. Nevertheless it is widely accepted that the nature of
government departmental structures and performance management systems is not yet
optimal for the holistic and cross-sectoral functioning that would need to underpin
comprehensive options assessment. Moreover, concern has been raised over the
institutional capacity and resources of municipalities to effectively implement and
sustain certain alternatives, especially Water Demand Management initiatives.
In addition to a multi-disciplinary team, comprehensive options assessment requires
greater attention to co-operative governance between levels of government and
between line departments, which is now a Constitutional imperative. One view is that
decision-making processes around dams are disjointed as local government is required
to set the development agenda, DWAF is the licensing authority and the
environmental aspects must be approved by the DEAT. An alternative view notes that
rather than indicating disjunction, the multi-departmental decision-making process
introduces healthy checks and balance. Moreover, any person can appeal to the
26
Sam Moiloa, Research on Human Rights, Environment and Development Initiative (RHREDI),
comment made at the Multi-stakeholder Forum meeting of 23 July 2002.
South African Multi-stakeholder Initiative on the World Commission on Dams
22
Scoping Report
Fifth Draft 27 September 2002
independent Water Tribunal against many of the administrative decisions taken in
terms of the National Water Act.
A fundamental issue to enable comprehensive options
Key debating point:
assessment concerns the financing of different water
and energy resources development options. The point
What needs to be done
has been raised that financial arrangements are biased
to address the
towards the funding of large dams, perhaps related to the
distortions in financing
relative ease in recouping capital, as opposed to smaller
mechanisms favouring
large dams over other
scale sustainable and cheaper alternatives. These largeoptions?
scale water infrastructure projects also tend to primarily
favour urban communities. A further viewpoint suggests
that some national governments too may have a tendency
to favour large-scale water infrastructure projects as opposed to community-based
rainwater harvesting systems that encourage communities to make independent
development choices. This, it is suggested, may be related to keeping communities
vulnerable to political pressure to obtain food (or other services) in exchange for
votes.
What should financing agencies do to address the distortions in the financing
mechanisms that favour large dams over other options for water and energy
development? Does DWAF need to go further to invest in the development of
alternative solutions? One perspective notes the absurdity inherent in the relative ease
of finding huge sums of money that lock the country into odious debt to build a dam,
as opposed to raising smaller amounts of funds for water conservation and demand
management programmes. Rand Water has demonstrated that in its area of supply,
water conservation and demand management (WCDM) has the potential to defer a
dam and other major infrastructure for 13 years. This could save R30 billion, at a cost
of R2 billion27, but funding for the alternative of WDM is not easy to obtain. Others
question whether this has been demonstrated and note that a slower than expected
socio-economic growth and the possible impact of HIV/AIDS could contribute to
reducing the need for water supply augmentation through a dam. Further research is
needed to look at developing financial mechanisms to level the financial playing field
with regard to the selection of options.
Financing of options also needs to carefully address the end consumer’s needs,
expectations and ability to pay for water services. This should be done in an integrated
manner (looking at all the costs in the supply chain), as it is no use committing to
capital expenditure and then finding out later that the consumers cannot afford to pay
for this benefit. This is a particularly important question for the sustainability of water
utilities.
The WCD stated quite clearly that social and environmental issues must be given
equal significance to technical, economic and financial factors when assessing energy
and water development options. This was not intended to indicate that the latter three
categories are not critical, but rather that decision-making to date has emphasised
Thomson, R (1999) ‘Financial viability of Water Demand Management within the Gauteng
Province’. Paper presented at the Gauteng Water Cycle Management conference.
27
South African Multi-stakeholder Initiative on the World Commission on Dams
23
Scoping Report
Key debating point:
Are social and
environmental issues
given equal weight when
assessing water
development options?
How should this be
improved?
Fifth Draft 27 September 2002
these components of sustainable development and
largely ignored the equally important social and
environmental constituents. In recognition of this, the
DWAF has stated that assessment areas currently
receiving attention nationally are the valuation of
social and environmental impacts. There is a need for
discussion on complementary methods to ensure that all
dimensions of sustainability are accorded the
appropriate weight in the decision-making process.
This WCD policy principle is being considered for new developments such as the
Thukela Water Project and for the Nandoni Dam, and the DWAF believes that in the
future, pre-commitment studies will adopt completely different approaches. However,
environmental and social considerations were not given equal weight in decisionmaking in the past, and thus, for instance in the opinion of some, the Skuifraam Dam
is about to be built without adhering to this principle. How should these past problems
be addressed in the new framework for decision-making? Civil society has contended
that social and environmental aspects should take precedence over technical,
economic and financial factors, with a critical view on long-term sustainability.
This is particularly in view of the WCD finding that the average lifespan of a large
dam is between 30 and 50 years. The water research community in South Africa, who
state that the average productive life of a large reservoir is closer to 200 years, has
contradicted these timeframes.
There is clearly the need for debate on whether, at this stage in the implementation of
the WCD in South Africa, environmental and social aspects should have more or
equal weight in decision-making, compared to technical, economic and financial
factors. Responses at the recent Multi-stakeholder Forum meeting seemed to indicate
an approximately equal number of participants who felt that environmental and social
aspects were not receiving equal attention to economic, technical and financial issues,
and those who felt this was not the case. There was however consensus that
environmental and social factors were receiving more attention during planning
and assessment of water projects than in the past, and that the challenge centred
around how to weigh up all different components during the decision-making process,
as well as ensuring ongoing monitoring to maintain the necessary balance between the
different components. However, several participants noted that in view of the
ecological bottom line, and the inextricable linkages between all the pillars of
sustainable development, environmental issues should supersede all other issues. In
the words of one working group, “Development is not sustainable if it destroys the
environment”. This is a view clearly reflected in both the National Water Act and the
National Environmental Management Act.
Further questions that need to be explored include: What mechanisms should be used
to ensure that environmental and social aspects have the same significance as
technical, financial and economic factors? Will the elevation of socio-economic
studies in the comprehensive options assessment process and ensuring that these are
carried out at an early stage be enough, or what else needs to be done? What is the
appraisal technique used to evaluate the range of possible water and/or energy
resources development options, and what is the bottomline in decision-making?
Does the technique of multi-criteria analysis currently being studied by DWAF hold
South African Multi-stakeholder Initiative on the World Commission on Dams
24
Scoping Report
Fifth Draft 27 September 2002
the answer? One perspective is that true multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA),
where value judgements can be rationally compared with technical and economic
issues, needs to be strongly promoted. Other questions raised are: Do the different sets
of aspects each have integrity of their own? Is there a point at which you draw the
line? How do we identify the points beyond which we will not go? Can one point of
view or value system be non-negotiable? One viewpoint is that an integral national
mechanism, as yet unspecified, that addresses these issues is required.
A further important issue for discussion is how to
Key debating point:
balance strategic issues with local needs during
comprehensive options assessment. How can strategic
How are strategic issues
environmental and developmental sustainability
balanced against local
imperatives be coupled with local developmental
needs during
needs in a mutually reinforcing way? South Africa
comprehensive options
has made progress with the technique of strategic
assessment?
environmental assessment (SEA), which many
consider to be the answer to this problem. Carrying out regional SEAs will limit the
development options that can be considered for a particular area and a particular river
system. However, the SEA process itself needs to be able to balance the strategic with
the local, and to be carried out in a participatory manner, if it is to avoid being seen as
an example of top-down planning. Technical, economic and financial issues must be
considered in the SEA process, in an integrated fashion with social and environmental
aspects. Furthermore, assessment processes must consider all aspects of sustainability
for the entire river course.
As eradicating poverty is central to sustainable development in South Africa,
poverty issues need to be integrated into the comprehensive options assessment
process. Past examples have indicated that impoverished sectors of society have been
paying for costly dam development projects through sacrifices made, and receiving
little of the benefits. One perspective holds that the negative experiences of the
highland communities displaced by the Lesotho Highlands Water Project, which were
cited in the previous section, are a case in point. However, the Lesotho Highlands
Water Commission holds that every effort has been made to implement an
unprecedented programme of social and rural development and income generation
initiatives in the project area.
It seems clear that balancing strategic priorities and local needs (which are not
necessarily contradictory) requires some form of participatory process. What is the
best mechanism for an open and participatory comprehensive options
assessment process that achieves maximum net benefit at strategic, regional and local
level? As the WCD and South African stakeholders have pointed out, the partnership
approach with key role-players will ensure a higher confidence level in the results of
the options assessment process and assist with maximising the sustainability of the
preferred alternative.
The DWAF has stated that the National Water Resource Strategy and Catchment
Management Strategies that take into account improvements in efficiency in order to
meet water requirements should address this strategic priority. The National Water
Resource Strategy is being developed to comply with the NWA and the first draft has
been published for comment, with an ensuing series of public meetings. The National
South African Multi-stakeholder Initiative on the World Commission on Dams
25
Scoping Report
Fifth Draft 27 September 2002
Water Resources Strategy may also play a significant role in focusing this strategic
priority, and this Initiative should participate in the development of the Strategy. How
will the process of comprehensive options assessment engage with the statutory
process to develop integrated development plans28 (IDPs) at the local level?
Policy principle five under this strategic priority states that if a dam is selected
through such a comprehensive options assessment process, social and environmental
principles must be applied in the review and selection of options throughout the
detailed planning, design, construction, and operation phases. The economic costs,
and the payment thereof, of the long-term maintenance of large dams or their
decommissioning after the end of their productive life (anything between 50 and 200
years) needs to be built into the planning process.
Areas that have not yet been tackled by DWAF are life cycle assessment and
greenhouse gas emissions due to rotting vegetation and carbon inflows from the
catchment29. Concerning life cycle assessment, there are difficulties in estimating far
future values in a developing country economy that may diminish the value of the
computations. Recent research reported by the South African Water Research
Commission has indicated that the majority of our present storage capacity will have
silted up in the next 200 years, and has indicated that one of the solutions may be
found in building smaller dams in relation to the mean river flow30. Important
technical considerations such as this need to be factored into the decision-making
process when options for water and energy resource development are considered.
Concerning greenhouse gas emissions associated with large dams, one perspective
supports the WCD statement that gross emissions from reservoirs may account for
between 1% and 28% of the global warming potential of greenhouse gas emissions,
thus challenging the conventional wisdom that hydropower produces only positive
atmospheric effects, particularly when compared with power generation sources that
burn fossil fuels. This stakeholder perspective further questions the appropriateness of
promoting hydropower in Africa in the context of climate change, as experiences to
date indicate the devastating impact of low river flows resulting in people not having
access to water or energy. In contrast, another perspective holds that the scientific
evidence is insufficient to support implementation of the WCD guideline on
greenhouse gases. Further, it is believed that urban areas have become far “greener”
as a result of dams providing support for gardens, which reduce CO2 emissions and
reduces temperatures in urban areas by reducing the impermeable surfaces. This
counter perspective hypothesises that the reduction in atmospheric CO2 through
increased vegetation may outweigh the emission of greenhouse gases as a result of
decaying matter in a reservoir, and sees hydropower as a far cleaner source of energy
to that of fossil fuels. This perspective proposes that since large dams in South Africa
do not flood forests or highly vegetated areas, this issue not be investigated further.
3.3.4 Possible ways forward
Note that all of the ‘Possible ways forward’ sections are draft and reflect suggestions
offered by different stakeholders rather than any consensus positions on the way
28
As required by the Municipal Systems Act (2000).
WCD Guidelines 8 and 7 respectively.
30
Maaren, H (2001) ‘A research perspective on Dams and Development: A new framework for
decision-making.’ Paper presented at the South African Symposium on the WCD Report, 23-24 July
2001.
29
South African Multi-stakeholder Initiative on the World Commission on Dams
26
Scoping Report
Fifth Draft 27 September 2002
forward. The Co-ordinating Committee will set in place a process to decide upon the
specific action steps required for the next 24 months.
 A paradigm shift is required towards focussing on the actual objective of
water resources development, which is to meet future demands for water to
improve people’s living standards. As this may necessitate the
restructuring of some organisations, a study should be carried out to explore
the institutional options that are optimal for facilitating comprehensive
options assessment. All options need to be carefully reviewed (pros and
cons) and the sustainability of an option needs to be evaluated before
selecting it.
 A study to explore possible options for a mechanism that allows for an open
and participatory process to assess different options for water and energy
resources development.
 A study to explore how to ensure that environmental and social aspects are
given the same significance in decision-making as technical, financial and
economic factors. This should specifically be aimed at developing a
consensus on this, and should include questions concerning the bottom line
in such processes, or how to identify the points beyond which one cannot
go. The study should aim to identify an integral national mechanism (as yet
unspecified by stakeholders) that also has sufficient flexibility for local
situations.
 A study to explore how the financing of alternatives to dams can be made
as easily accessible as the finances for dams.
3.4
Addressing existing dams
3.4.1 Principles and findings from the WCD
The key message from the WCD is that opportunities exist to optimise benefits
from many existing dams, address outstanding issues and strengthen
environmental mitigation and restoration measures. Dams and the context in
which they exist should not be seen as static over time. Changes in water use
priorities, and physical and land use changes in the river basin can transform benefits
and impacts. Technological developments and changes in public policy expressed in
environment, safety, economic and technical regulations can similarly alter benefits
and impacts. Therefore management and operation practices need to adapt
continuously to changing circumstances over the project’s life and must address
outstanding social issues.
The WCD states that to implement this strategic priority effectively, the following
five policy principles must be applied.
1.
2.
A comprehensive post-project monitoring and evaluation process, and a
system of longer-term periodic reviews of the performance, benefits, and
impacts for all existing large dams are introduced.
Programmes to restore, improve and optimise benefits from existing large
dams are identified and implemented. Options to consider include rehabilitate,
modernise and upgrade equipment and facilities, optimise reservoir operations
South African Multi-stakeholder Initiative on the World Commission on Dams
27
Scoping Report
3.
4.
5.
Fifth Draft 27 September 2002
and introduce non-structural measures to improve the efficiency of delivery and
use of services.
Outstanding social issues associated with existing large dams are identified and
assessed; processes and mechanisms are developed with affected communities to
remedy them.
The effectiveness of existing environmental mitigation measures is assessed and
unanticipated impacts identified; opportunities for mitigation, restoration and
enhancement are recognised, identified and acted on.
All large dams have formalised operating agreements with time-bound licence
periods; where re-planning or relicensing processes indicate that major physical
changes to facilities or decommissioning may be advantageous, a full
feasibility study and environmental and social impact assessment is
undertaken.
3.4.2 Trends in South Africa
The DWAF has stated that its compliance falls short of what could reasonably be
expected for this strategic priority. A process to ensure that operational rules reflect
social and environmental concerns31 is only beginning in the context of dam zoning.
Estimation of Instream Flow Requirements (IFR) as a step in determining the Reserve
is reportedly far advanced in many river systems. DWAF is developing a Social
Assessment Framework (SAF) under the IEMF policy, which allows for the
consideration of the needs and interests of directly affected communities in water
development projects. The need to improve reservoir operation32 has begun to be
addressed as a result of the National Water Act’s requirements for the ecological
Reserve. In terms of operations audits, South Africa currently has legislation that
requires periodic review of large dams from the safety performance perspective.
Emergency preparedness is a high priority requirement of this legislation. A
classification system based on perceived risk is used to exercise control of safety to
protect lives and property from disasters at unsafe dams.
Reparations have been a key trend in South Africa post-1994. These have covered a
range of fields and mechanisms, including the land reform process and the Truth and
Reconciliation Commission (TRC), and set a clear precedent for dealing with
reparations for outstanding social impacts of large dams.
3.4.3 Key issues for South Africa
There is consensus amongst South African stakeholders that there is a lot of work to
be done towards meeting this strategic priority, and some agreement that addressing
social issues, in particular compensation for loss of property and livelihood, must
have priority. There are also environmental and operational concerns around existing
dams, primarily with respect to deteriorating water quality. Some believe that
optimising the operation of existing dams can reduce costs. The first step is to
understand the extent of the technical, environmental and social problems relating to
31
32
Dealt with in WCD Guideline 12.
As proposed in WCD Guideline 13.
South African Multi-stakeholder Initiative on the World Commission on Dams
28
Scoping Report
Fifth Draft 27 September 2002
existing dams. For this reason, an audit is necessary. The results of this process will
serve as the basis for decisions on how to go about addressing the problems identified.
Given that an audit of existing dams is necessary, how
broad should this process be? People living upstream,
downstream and further afield have all been affected by
How should the
existing dams. How should the concerns of and impacts
parameters of the
upon all of these affected parties be captured in the audit?
process to audit
Should the audit focus on, for instance, dams storing 10
existing dams be
million cubic metres or more of water and situated
defined?
upstream of highly developed rural areas, rather than
smaller dams in commercial farming areas? Some believe that caution is necessary to
prevent a flood of spurious claims. The ground rules must be established prior to
beginning this process. Should a limited number of dams that are considered to be
particularly problematic be selected? What should be the timeframes for this audit?
How should one prioritise the aspects that need to be audited? How should the
objectives of the audit be clarified and agreed to? Proposed objectives for the audit
include to rectify past social wrongs, to identify and quantify existing technical,
environmental and social issues requiring attention, to find opportunities for
maximising benefits, and to learn from the past and obtain more information so that
better decisions can be made in the future. Socio-economic efficiency of dams in
South Africa should be an important aspect of the audit.
Key debating point:
The DWAF has stated that a social audit is the priority. This should capture
cumulative, indirect or interactive impacts that are not visible at the time of
commissioning projects, and allow for appropriate management plans and mitigation
measures to be put in place. Another perspective is that while the social issues are
key, other aspects also need to be included in the audit, such as the environmental,
technical, economic and financial aspects. What will be the criteria used in the
audit? Some feel that the audit should avoid comparing the dam to its objectives, but
rather assess whether the dam is performing optimally – for instance, is land use in the
catchment affecting the operation of the dam? Others feel that we should focus on
effectiveness (is the dam doing what it was intended to do?) before we focus on
efficiency (is it performing optimally?). The objectives can be redefined if the primary
use of a dam changes, for instance from irrigation to recreational use. The new use
must also ensure the financial viability of the dam.
Another perspective provides additional support for the need to address technical
and environmental issues in the audit of existing dams, noting the deteriorating
water quality in existing dams and underground sources, and the increasing siltation
of existing dams that precludes their efficient functioning. Water quality is of
concern as there are approximately 50 eutrophic dams in South Africa, and even
worse water quality in the deep aquifers due to mining activities. It becomes an
expensive exercise, and in some cases unviable, to purify this water to potable water
standards. However, if a more active approach were taken to preserving water quality,
the availability of usable water could be increased and costs reduced. Almost all of the
responses at the Multi-stakeholder Forum meeting held on 23 July 2002 to the
proposition “Existing dams are optimally operated and maintained” were either
neutral or in disagreement with the assertion, further underlining the need for an audit
to assess the situation, and that the audit should examine a range of optimal operating
South African Multi-stakeholder Initiative on the World Commission on Dams
29
Scoping Report
Fifth Draft 27 September 2002
efficiencies, including whether the water resource is used optimally for local
economic development. The DWAF feels that the crux of the issue is that there is no
method in place to audit whether existing dams are in fact performing optimally, and
notes steps to remedy this situation such as the current design of a Sustainable
Utilisation Plan (SUP) for the Pongolapoort Dam33. One of the working groups
further pointed out that existing dams did not cater for the ecological Reserve, and
there is consequently much room for optimisation. Improving dam safety should be a
priority for any optimisation process.
A perspective strongly articulated by affected people and
NGOs is that a moratorium should be placed on dam
construction until problems, and in particular social
Should a moratorium
impacts, of existing dams have been addressed. Further
be placed on dam
debate will clarify the exact conditions of the proposed
construction? Until
moratorium, and find consensus around a position that
what conditions are
met? Or should we
many find comfortable. For instance, should the
ensure that
moratorium be in place until all existing dams are
committed steps are
addressed, or until there are structural mechanisms in place
adhered to?
to make decisions so that public acceptance can be
demonstrated? Should the moratorium only be placed on
new projects in the catchment? Others may stand to benefit from dams on other
catchments.
Key debating point:
Another perspective states that as widely accepted principles and procedures for
assessing options in a comprehensive and participative way are in place, a
moratorium will unfairly affect potential beneficiaries of new schemes in a
negative way for an indefinite period. Related viewpoints state that placing a
moratorium on dam construction until all social impacts have been addressed is a
negative outlook, and that such a step would adversely affect economic development
and place an enormous amount of bargaining power in the hands of those who would
receive compensation from existing dam development. However, new dam
development should not be allowed to proceed until certain committed steps are in
place. These should include comprehensive and participatory options assessment,
demonstrable public participation and sufficient public acceptance at every level, an
EIA, and payment of compensation.
During the 2001 Symposium the long-standing grievances of displaced people who
did not share in expropriation awards on the Orange River Project were brought into
focus. Given the apartheid context, Black and Coloured people affected by the
construction of the Gariep and Van Der Kloof Dams were neither notified nor
compensated, and almost completely dispossessed of their livelihoods and their
dignity in the Orange River basin. While compensation is urgently required, affected
communities also sought a national apology.
At the Southern African Hearings for Communities affected by Large Dams, a
common theme running through the testimonies was the tragedy of the Ancestors
who had been left on the land inundated by the reservoir. This was mentioned time
and again as being far worse than the loss of land and livelihoods, as the Ancestors in
33
Note that this SUP is only in terms of water surface usage for tourism and income generation.
South African Multi-stakeholder Initiative on the World Commission on Dams
30
Scoping Report
Fifth Draft 27 September 2002
some cases remained angry and this has had a daily impact on the younger
generations. Ways of appeasing the ancestors or providing ceremonies of respect are
vital to mitigate this little understood legacy of the past.
At the 2001 Symposium, the Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry undertook to
attend to the grievances. This highlights the urgency of commissioning the audit of
projects to identify outstanding social issues. Past social problems such as in the
Inanda and Orange River examples indicate that people have had rights taken away
from them through the dam development process. While many may have lost land,
the issue is broader than one of land claims, but concerns as well the beneficial use
that people have lost. Throughout the world, the question of reparations is gaining
currency. While the implementation of the land claims process in South Africa has not
been without its detractors, the principle of reparations for past inequities has been
established. One perspective holds that a social audit to identify past wrongs related to
the establishment of dams could be planned to form an independent basis against
which to assess claims. Discussions at the Multi-stakeholder Forum indicated clear
consensus that reparations for outstanding social problems are a key priority.
Affected communities also stated that the wrongs of the past cannot be righted merely
with a monetary payment, and that the community should also be integrated into the
benefits of the development. However, while addressing past inequities is a central
issue, how should this be achieved? There appears to be a growing consensus that this
should be done within the context of a general compensation / reparations policy, to
avoid a piecemeal approach to the problem, or to avoid creating a “loudest voice gets
the most” culture.
Dealing with reparations is an area where many feel that there is indeed a gap in
terms of how to apply reparations to water policy, which should be addressed in
order to have parity between different communities / individuals, as well as to retain
credibility for future water management and development. The Multi-stakeholder
Forum agreed to establish a working group to explore the issue of reparations,
which would consider aspects such as timelines, procedures and guidelines, and make
recommendations to the Minister of Water Affairs.
In addition to the social audit proposed above, the licensing of water use required by
the National Water Act provides a unique opportunity for a comprehensive review of
the performance of existing large dams. It is envisaged that additional legislation is
needed in respect of non-state dams. The DWAF has stated that there is a need to
identify the water management institutions that will manage and operate dams in the
future. It is unclear whether this would be the Catchment Management Agencies
(CMAs).
The fifth policy principle of the WCD states that all large dams should have
formalised operating agreements with time-bound licence periods; where re-planning
or relicensing processes indicate that major physical changes to facilities or
decommissioning may be advantageous, a full feasibility study and environmental
and social impact assessment should be undertaken. One perspective holds that in a
water scarce country, the notion that a dam could be decommissioned seems very
remote. Another viewpoint holds that the argument that because South Africa is water
scarce a dam should not be decommissioned is not valid, as dams in some cases create
the water scarcity. The big issue with decommissioning is the short-term life of a dam
South African Multi-stakeholder Initiative on the World Commission on Dams
31
Scoping Report
Fifth Draft 27 September 2002
compared to the long-term life of a dead dam and who pays the costs for the
inevitable structural deterioration, versus who pays for it to be decommissioned. The
suggestion for a 40-year period does find resonance in the maximum period for a
water use licence in terms of the National Water Act. Technically the State is bound
by the NWA and so the issue of water use licences for the State should be clarified.
This raises the question whether there is any value in an institution that is both
owner and regulator issuing itself with a licence. There is a need to develop policy
that more clearly defines this dualistic role, and takes up the principle of periodic
performance review called for by the WCD.
The question of trading in water entitlements is a highly contentious issue that has
been raised under this strategic priority. One perspective is that this should not be
included under this strategic priority. An opposing perspective holds that there is
already competition for water entitlements in certain river systems, and that the
principle of trading water entitlements is embedded in the National Water Act and 1st
Tier Pricing Policy, but that there are still some details that need refinement before
these principles can be put into practice. The example of Australia has been cited,
where a system of 'capacity sharing' has been implemented in some states as a means
to allow users to decide among themselves how they want to share in a highly variable
resource from a reservoir. Capacity sharing is a temporary arrangement between water
users to change the different portions of a total capacity that is used by each user, for
instance during a period of shortage. Financial compensations are an intrinsic part of
this.
Probable targets for trading of water entitlements will be within the farming sector,
which accounts for more than 50% of South Africa’s water use and obtains it’s water
at the lowest price. One perspective holds that in view of the current food shortages in
Africa, there is a need to look at African food requirements more holistically and
ensure that water trading is done responsibly, so that it does not increase the food
crisis. For instance, what becomes of vacant farming land after its water entitlements
have been sold? As large water utilities that would buy the water do not undertake
land development, this could result in large areas of vacant land. On the other hand, in
the case of the many areas in South Africa where unsuitable crops for the climatic
conditions and soil conditions of that area are being grown, the trading of water rights
could provide a cash injection into the farming sector to assist a farmer to convert to
optimal crops. The Multi-stakeholder Forum will need to consider the contentious
issue of trading in water entitlements and decide whether this should form part of this
Initiative or not.
3.4.4 Possible ways forward
Note that all of the ‘Possible ways forward’ sections are draft and reflect suggestions
offered by different stakeholders rather than any consensus positions on the way
forward. The Co-ordinating Committee will set in place a process to decide upon the
specific action steps required for the next 24 months.
 A study to review, identify and prioritise gaps in policy, legislation and
regulations concerning the addressing of outstanding issues of existing
dams. This study will need to consider the human and financial resources
South African Multi-stakeholder Initiative on the World Commission on Dams
32
Scoping Report





3.5
Fifth Draft 27 September 2002
that will need to be developed and allocated to implement this strategic
priority.
Operational analyses / audits of existing systems should be undertaken, and
should include: optimisation studies (to determine whether existing dams
are optimally operated and maintained), risk assessments, environmental
impacts and outstanding social concerns. These audits should result in a set
of operating instructions.
Timeframes need to be developed and respected for both the auditing
process and for making reparations for outstanding social impacts
Where people have not been paid compensation for relocation, or loss of
property, this compensation needs to be settled.
Action plans should be developed, on a specific resource by resource basis,
to manage the water cycle in a more holistic manner, paying particular
attention to water quality and CMA activities. A plan is needed to rectify
the eutrophic dams and contaminated underground water in an affordable
and cost effective manner.
A decision must be taken on whether the contentious issue of trading in
water entitlements should be part of the Multi-stakeholder Initiative.
Sustaining Rivers and livelihoods
3.5.1 Principles and findings from the WCD
The key message from the WCD is that rivers, watersheds and aquatic ecosystems
are the biological engines of the planet, and the basis for life and the livelihoods
of local communities. Dams transform landscapes and create risks of irreversible
impacts. Understanding, protecting and restoring ecosystems at river basin level is
essential to foster equitable human development and the welfare of all species.
Options assessment and decision-making around river development consequently
must prioritise the avoidance of impacts, followed by the minimisation and mitigation
of harm to the integrity of the river system.
The WCD states that to implement this strategic priority effectively, the following
five policy principles must be applied.
1.
2.
3.
4.
A basin-wide understanding of the ecosystem’s functions, values and
requirements, and how community livelihoods depend on and influence them, is
required before decisions on development options are made.
Decisions value ecosystems, social and health issues as an integral part of
project and river basin development and prioritise avoidance of impacts in
accordance with a precautionary approach.
A national policy is developed for maintaining rivers with high ecosystem
functions and values in their natural state. When reviewing alternative
locations for dams on undeveloped rivers, priority is given to locations on
tributaries.
Project options are selected that avoid significant impacts on threatened and
endangered species. When impacts cannot be avoided viable compensation
measures are put in place that will result in a net gain for the species in the
region.
South African Multi-stakeholder Initiative on the World Commission on Dams
33
Scoping Report
5.
Fifth Draft 27 September 2002
Large dams provide for releasing environmental flows to help maintain
downstream ecosystem integrity and community livelihoods and are
designed, modified and operated accordingly.
3.5.2 Trends in South Africa
There has been much development in policy concerning this strategic priority, much
of it driven by need as South Africa approaches the limits of new development on its
water resources and is forced to start taking precautionary measures on the existing
water resources. Provisions for the ecological and basic human needs Reserve in the
National Water Act aim to balance equity and sustainability in water management.
The Reserve is intended to protect the resilience of water resources to cater for basic
human needs, and to enable the sustainability of the ecological functions and
processes of water resources. All water users are subject to the requirements of the
Reserve and licences cannot be issued for water use without the Reserve having been
determined. Provisions in the National Environmental Management Act are also
important for sustaining the ecological functioning of rivers and placing people at the
centre of environmental management.
South Africa is moving from the resource development paradigm to an approach that
focuses rather on resource management. In addition to sectoral instruments such as the
National Water Act, a comprehensive set of instruments assists to facilitate this shift.
These include instruments to promote sound planning and investment approaches,
including environmental impact assessments. To further promote a systematic,
participative approach to decision-making, the National Water Resource Strategy and
Internal Strategic Perspectives (forerunners of the Catchment Management Strategies)
are currently being prepared. It will provide the framework for the preparation of
separate catchment management plans and strategies that will address the detailed
requirements of each catchment area.
3.5.3 Key issues for South Africa
Key debating point:
What is the optimal
process for setting
the Reserve, so that it
incorporates WCD
principles?
The requirements for the Reserve in the National Water
Act mean that there is a statutory basis, as well as
reasonable consensus, for the WCD policy principle of a
basin-wide understanding of ecosystem functioning.
Generic protocols for determining the Reserve are being
developed. These are tools that form part of the Resource Directed Measures (RDM)
process, which focuses on the water resource as an ecosystem. There is ongoing pilot
testing of the process to set the Reserve, as well as of the development of monitoring
procedures to allow for integrated water resources management. The process to set the
Reserve will need to include gaining an understanding of how community livelihoods
depend on and influence the ecosystem’s functions, values and requirements. A
question to pose is whether the process of setting the Reserve can be fine-tuned so that
social and health issues become integral to decision-making, along with ecological
issues? Will this process also be able to ensure that avoidance of impacts is
prioritised, or is this asking too much of one specific process? If so, how should these
critical factors, which are also part of the process of comprehensive options
assessment, be integrated at a strategic rather than a project level?
South African Multi-stakeholder Initiative on the World Commission on Dams
34
Scoping Report
Fifth Draft 27 September 2002
A major issue still to be investigated is how the question of cumulative effects of
dams can be understood and whether it can be factored into the determination of the
Reserve. Although seldom analysed, cumulative impacts occur when several dams are
built on the same river. Problems such as changed flow regime, deterioration of water
quality and changes to species composition may be magnified as more large dams are
added to a river system or where inter-basin transfers take place. Where the distance
between dams does not allow for recovery of water quality to natural levels, the
biology of extremely long stretches of river may be affected. For instance, on the
Orange-Vaal river system, the impacts of 24 dams may have led to a 2 300 km stretch
(63%) of the river having a modified temperature regime. The DWAF has begun to
deal with the issue of cumulative effects by looking at eco-regions and eco-typing of
water resources in catchments. The classification of river systems to ensure the
retention of those with high ecosystem functions and values in their natural state
is required by the National Water Act, which sets out general principles and makes
provision for changing classifications. The DWAF has detailed procedures for
resource quality objectives, linked to the classification of river systems. Already a
provisional classification system for river systems has been developed to take into
consideration the conditions of water resources, viz. natural, slightly modified,
modified or extremely modified. However, much remains to be done in this regard.
Cumulative impacts also link to the impact of river estuaries and the marine
environment. It is well known that many marine fish spawn in river estuaries, and the
cumulative reduction in flow or closing of river mouths has had a cumulative impact
on the marine fish stocks.
While there is consensus that setting and protecting the ecological Reserve is critical
and necessary, questions remain about how to operate river systems accordingly.
For instance, will it translate into additional storage within
Key debating
dams? What is the Reserve when a river course has been
point:
altered? If we increase the flow rate in a river and compare
Who pays for the
the ecological Reserve now, with the requirements in 20
ecological
Reserve?
years time after the vegetation has increased what will the
Reserve then be? Will we account for nature’s ability to
compensate for water stress? Apart from determining optimal methods to set the
Reserve, some stakeholders have raised the question of who should pay for the
ecological Reserve? What should be done when the ecological Reserve requires
existing users to either reduce their use or increase their costs? If the ecological
Reserve is to benefit society as a whole, how should society pay for this? As this is a
national issue, should the fiscus pay? One perspective holds that as the ecological
Reserve is required to sustain the environment, it is a national responsibility and the
infrastructure requirements should be funded by national government and not through
the water users who have a vested interest in reducing their costs. A further viewpoint
suggested that as in many cases it may be the international community who is more
concerned with the ecological status of a river than local communities, should these
interested parties not bear some of the costs associated with the ecological Reserve?
A related point to be considered is who should pay for damage to an ecological
Reserve. Are mechanisms needed, for instance, to make owners of a forestry situated
on the top of a hill pay? On the other hand, this will result in the commodification of
the ecological Reserve, which some feel is undesirable. Additionally, the placing of a
South African Multi-stakeholder Initiative on the World Commission on Dams
35
Scoping Report
Fifth Draft 27 September 2002
dam on a river affects whether providing the ecological Reserve is possible. This
needs to be factored into decision-making on new dams.
Discussion at the Multi-stakeholder Forum meeting of 23 July 2002 revealed that
while more people felt that any costs associated with re-establishing or maintaining
the Reserve (ecological and human needs) should be carried by the whole of society
rather than local users, there was little consensus on many other aspects of this
issue, highlighting the need for additional thought on this matter. Viewpoints ranged
from those that felt this to be a non-question (either as users did not carry this cost
anyway, or as there had always been a requirement to release some water from a
dam), to those who stated that there would be significant costs associated with
managing the Reserve as a larger dam would be required to store the Reserve, and that
the Reserve in fact approximated to between 15 and 20% of the capacity of a dam.
This was felt by some to be inexplicable, and they questioned what the sense would
be of constructing an unnatural environment (in the form of a dam) in order to
preserve the environment. Some felt that the Reserve would be sufficient to change
the yield and the internal rate of return of the scheme. Others felt that in some cases
the Reserve would not really be a cost, and any cost would not always be in monetary
terms. Thus, they proposed, the decision as to who should bear the costs of the
Reserve should be taken on an individual basis. Any payments that would need to be
made should be phased in. Two types of costs should be borne in mind: the actual cost
and the monitoring cost.
Additional research is required to determine the releases from dams, which are
required to maintain ecosystems and cater for downstream users. Many dams
have been built to overcome devastating droughts and floods, which also have
harmful effects on ecosystems and livelihoods. There are a number of different
perspectives on the role of dams in flood control. One perspective holds that large
dams have contributed to flood control, whilst the opposing view suggests that large
dams control small floods, which gives a false sense of security and may lead to
resettlement of the floodplain. However, these dams cannot hold back the large floods
and thus the impacts when the large floods occur are that much more devastating. The
example of the recent floods in Mozambique is a case in point. It has become widely
accepted that floods are vital for natural ecosystem functioning and for floodplain
agriculture. Some promising initiatives exist such as the participatory flows
management system for the Pongolapoort Dam through the vehicle of the Phongolo
Water Committees. This was initiated to enable downstream communities to resume
floodplain agriculture, which had been curtailed as a result of the dam. The
participatory arrangement has reportedly been internationally accredited and used to
inform international guidelines on dam management. However, this has reportedly
broken down recently, due to budgetary and other reasons.
The WCD calls for a basin-wide understanding of the ecosystem’s functions, values
and requirements, and how community livelihoods depend on and influence them,
before decisions on development options are made. The impact of dams on estuaries
highlights the significance of this principle. A large number of commercially used
inshore fish species depend on estuaries for their breeding cycles. Estuaries and their
associated floodplains often exhibit high biological diversity and are also important
bird feeding and breeding grounds. Estuaries are already under development pressure
(often residential) and this is compounded by the impacts of managed reserve flows
South African Multi-stakeholder Initiative on the World Commission on Dams
36
Scoping Report
Fifth Draft 27 September 2002
from reservoirs. An example provided is the expected negative impact on the Berg
River Floodplain and estuary resulting from the construction of the Skuifraam Dam34.
One perspective notes that the connection between riverine and marine ecosystems
suggests a new category of dam-affected people – that of subsistence fishers and
others involved in or dependent on the industry generally.
3.5.4 Possible ways forward
Note that all of the ‘Possible ways forward’ sections are draft and reflect suggestions
offered by different stakeholders rather than any consensus positions on the way
forward. The Co-ordinating Committee will set in place a process to decide upon the
specific action steps required for the next 24 months.
 In view of the issues raised in the preceding section, the basis upon which
the ecological Reserve is determined should be debated and agreed upon,
and must include changes that we bring about in the environment and
nature’s ability to compensate (to a degree) for water stress.
 The determination of the Reserve for all catchments in South Africa is now
an important priority and the programme should be adequately resourced.
 The classification of river systems to ensure the retention of those with high
ecosystem functions and values in their natural state is an urgent priority
and sufficient resources need to be allocated to complete this task.
3.6
Recognising entitlements and sharing benefits
3.6.1 Principles and findings from the WCD
The key message from the WCD is that joint negotiations with adversely affected
people result in mutually agreed and legally enforceable mitigation and
development provisions. These provisions recognise entitlements that improve
livelihoods and quality of life, and affected people are beneficiaries of the project.
Successful mitigation, resettlement and development that result in improved
livelihoods for all affected people are fundamental commitments and responsibilities
of the State and the developer. Accountability for these responsibilities needs to be
ensured through legal means, such as contracts. There needs to be accessible legal
recourse at national and international level in the event of reneging on contracts.
The WCD states that to implement this strategic priority effectively, the following
four policy principles must be applied.
1.
2.
Recognition of rights and assessment of risks is the basis for identification
and inclusion of adversely affected stakeholders in joint negotiations on
mitigation, resettlement and development related decision-making.
Impact assessment includes all people in the reservoir, upstream,
downstream and in catchment areas whose properties, livelihoods and nonmaterial resources are affected. It also includes those affected by dam related
infrastructure such as canals, transmission lines and resettlement developments.
34
Letter of objection to the building of the Skuifraam Dam, from Dr Kate Jagoe-Davies and Dr Bryan
Jagoe-Davies, addressed to the Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, dated 09/07/1999.
South African Multi-stakeholder Initiative on the World Commission on Dams
37
Scoping Report
3.
4.
Fifth Draft 27 September 2002
All recognised adversely affected people negotiate mutually agreed, formal
and legally enforceable mitigation, resettlement and development
entitlements.
Adversely affected people are recognised as first among the beneficiaries of
the project. Mutually agreed and legally protected benefit sharing mechanisms
are negotiated to ensure implementation.
The policy principles in this strategic priority relate closely to those for Strategic
Priority 1 (Gaining public acceptance; Section 3.2) and Strategic Priority 4
(Sustaining rivers and livelihoods; Section 3.5) and should be read in conjunction with
those strategic priorities.
3.6.2 Trends in South Africa
Ensuring equitable involvement, tangible beneficiation and equity sharing by affected
communities in the management of water resources are overtly stated principles in the
National Water Act. To guide departmental efforts regarding this, the DWAF has
further developed a Policy for Using Water for Recreational Purposes (which includes
state dams), and a Sustainable Utilisation Planning (SUP) Procedure which focuses on
unlocking the socio-economic potential of water resources, while ensuring appropriate
benefits flow to affected communities. Plans developed using the SUP procedure
entail a participatory planning process. The DWAF will also be drafting a policy on
access, use and development of government waterworks (state dams) for recreational
purposes, which will also deal with further socio-cultural and economic uses.
Using the process of recognising rights and assessing risks as set out in the WCD to
identify stakeholders has not yet been carried out in South Africa. However, this is a
rapidly evolving field, with the DWAF stating that the first dam development carried
out with this new mindset is the Driekoppies Dam. For this dam, the loan condition
determined that the project should contribute to the upgrading of the standard of living
of the inhabitants area in which the dam is built. A new approach to compensation and
resettlement was adopted. A comprehensive social impact assessment of the dam was
carried out by the Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC), followed by a
Relocation Action Plan, which outlined the accepted policies and procedures for
dealing with the impacts of the project. During construction of the dam preference
was given to the local people in the allocation of employment opportunities. In
addition community Trusts were established to manage the property and flow of
benefits to the beneficiaries. The Nandoni Dam has also reportedly incorporated
lessons from mistakes of the past. South Africa has many examples from the past
where affected people were certainly not recognised as first among the beneficiaries,
and we also have a history of impact assessments for dam developments that have not
included all the affected people as set out in policy principle 2 above. However,
impact assessment in South Africa is evolving from a more project-based to a more
strategic and regional approach, and legislation calls for the involvement of all
interested and affected people in environmental assessments.
3.6.3 Key issues for South Africa
There is consensus that recognising entitlements and sharing the benefits of a
water resources development scheme is critical for the sustainability of the
South African Multi-stakeholder Initiative on the World Commission on Dams
38
Scoping Report
Fifth Draft 27 September 2002
project, and that affected people need to be accorded much greater attention and
priority in decision-making. However, despite positive dynamism in the South
African context, there remains much work to be done to operationalise this strategic
priority. This has been made clear from the work of the WCD concerning Southern
Africa. Examples include numerous cases where electricity lines pass over the heads
of the communities who made way for the dam. As a direct result of the inequity
between those communities who pay the costs of large dams, and those who benefit
from these same dams, NGOs and affected communities have urged that affected
communities should be first in line to benefit directly from existing dam projects. This
WCD principle has been reiterated by Minister Kader Asmal, former chair of the
WCD, who has stated that those adversely affected should be the first among
beneficiaries35.
The DWAF feels that the Nandoni and Maguga Dams both broadly complied with the
WCD principles on this issue. In the case of Nandoni Dam, a detailed Relocation
Action Plan (RAP, now more appropriately called a Compensation and Development
Plan) was compiled by the DWAF on the basis of a set of policy statements and
guidelines formulated by a Community Action Committee. Although not without
weaknesses, this plan illustrates current practice in DWAF. However, both dams are
in the process of being built and evidence around sustaining rivers and livelihoods is
often only accessible once some years have passed.
Despite these initiatives, there is as yet no general departmental policy in DWAF on
compensation, unlike the situation in China, where a certain percentage of the
electricity generated by the dam is reserved for affected people. Other countries have
had similar provisions for some time – for instance, Norway has had a policy on
sharing the benefits since 1906. What should be the bottom line with respect to
sharing of benefits and compensation? The WCD report indicates that affected people
have to be better off. . At a minimum, a different viewpoint suggests that no one
should be worse off after the dam development. This was the basic point of departure
for the Nandoni RAP, and some expect that affected people will in fact be better off.
Discussion at the Multi-stakeholder Forum probed the question of how to determine
when affected groups are better off. It was clear that there are a range of different
components to ‘being better off’, which include social, financial, cultural, educational,
health, infrastructural (i.e. facilities such as schools and clinics) and security of
lifestyle (including food security) aspects. Long-term as well as short-term benefits
and impacts must be considered. All of these must be considered through an ongoing
participatory process of information sharing and negotiation, where
compensation/mitigation is provided timeously. The process component must
include an ongoing monitoring mechanism, which must begin with a socio-economic
baseline study, during which community-defined indicators (both qualitative and
quantitative) to be monitored are identified. This debate needs to make a distinction
between the directly and the indirectly affected, although all must benefit.
Suggestions for the point at which affected groups may be said to be better off include
“when stakeholder issues have been adequately addressed”, and “when the majority of
Asmal, K (2001) ‘SA Leads the way in changing measures of success for dams’. Business Report
August 01, 2001.
35
South African Multi-stakeholder Initiative on the World Commission on Dams
39
Scoping Report
Fifth Draft 27 September 2002
affected parties feel that they are better off”. It is acknowledged that there is a certain
amount of subjectivity in this approach, and that a key success factor is that affected
communities should feel that they are in “the driving seat”, or in other words claim
ownership of the process. In this way unrealistic expectations will be able to be
discussed and negotiated until such point as the majority of affected people feel they
are better off. The Utilities sector has suggested that affected people are better off
when the quality of life of affected people is better than before, as assessed by an
independent review. A suggestion made by one of the working groups at the Multistakeholder Forum meeting of 23 July 2002 was that the courts should be used to
judge with respect to “the reasonable person”.
The timing at which compensation is paid is a further detail to be resolved. Given
the examples of communities still waiting for compensation decades after removal,
some feel that full compensation should be provided before relocation from land,
house or livelihood base. This is the case with dam construction projects currently in
progress.
The current national approach in South Africa, as stated by the DWAF, is to accept
that resettlement with development should be the norm. The debate centres on
what constitutes sufficient/optimal development. While each project engages with this
question, the policy position is not sufficiently clear, and work needs to be done on
the legal enforcement aspect of agreements. For the Nandoni Dam, there is a joint
DWAF/community-based structure in place to deal with issues as they arise, and
procedures to address grievances exist. This project-by-project basis is not considered
to be adequate and the general feeling is that it is time for the DWAF to develop clear
policy on this issue and explore a means for implementation. Another view states that
given the relatively few dam construction projects being considered and the rapid
change in the social and political environment, approaches on specific projects in fact
represent the evolving DWAF policy, whether codified or not.
How the process of impact assessment is carried out is clearly a critical factor in
equitably apportioning benefits. This process firstly needs to build on the proposed
rights-and-risk approach for identifying stakeholders and understanding their
situations so that their entitlements can be safeguarded. This aspect is discussed under
Strategic Priority 1: Gaining Public Acceptance (section 3.2). Some feel that the tools
are available in the dam planning, design and construction sector to deal with this
matter fairly, if the intention from the outset is to achieve a mutually acceptable
solution. However, it is clear from experience that these tools have not been effective
in the past, and that alternative innovative methods will need to be piloted.
A key point to be debated relates to how widely the
benefits from a large dam should be shared. Policy
principle 2 above indicates the breadth of people that
How widely should the
are affected by the construction of a large dam.
benefits be shared for a
Thinking about how to implement this principle raises
dam development?
many questions. For instance, will this approach be
feasible for every dam? What kind of process needs to
be set in place to ensure that benefits are widely shared? What kind of multistakeholder institution would be best placed to manage such a process?
Key debating point:
South African Multi-stakeholder Initiative on the World Commission on Dams
40
Scoping Report
Fifth Draft 27 September 2002
One of the major benefits of a dam is higher availability of water. However, the many
households not connected to the potable water system are not able to share in this
benefit. Infrastructure grants have been put in place to address water services
backlogs. However, it is felt that these grants are not being distributed speedily
enough to the Water Services Providers to address the backlog.
Over and above water resources development projects, the Free Basic Water policy
will assist in an equitable spread of benefits of existing water supply infrastructure.
However, this has to be backed up with additional infrastructure and with suitable
credit management policies and systems.
With respect to policy principle 3 above, there are many who agree that mutually
agreed and legally enforceable mitigation and development provisions are
required, and that accountability must be ensured through legal means such as
contracts. Others feel that in South Africa, where most dams are owned by the State
and a robust democracy now exists, there is no need for contracts against the state.
They cite too the often questionable legitimacy of individual representatives to
contract on behalf of a constituency. In these cases, they feel, the preparation of
mitigation policies and plans through the public participation process should usually
be adequate. Complainants would have recourse to the political system and to the
judicial system via the Administrative Justice Act. However, it has also been noted
that South Africa has an extremely poor record of monitoring and enforcing
compliance with the conditions of approval of EIAs in general. In addition,
assessment processes have tended to ignore the no-go option. For this reason, many
feel that additional checks and balances are needed in addition to the political
democratic system. An issue raised is that people have a right to object to a dam
being built. Is this right adequately covered in existing practices? One view is that
public involvement processes should facilitate the introduction of objections and that
the reasons and motivations for objections become integrated into the informed
decision-making process. This view holds that objectors should have no additional or
stronger influence such as, in the extreme, a veto right.
3.6.4 Possible ways forward
Note that all of the ‘Possible ways forward’ sections are draft and reflect suggestions
offered by different stakeholders rather than any consensus positions on the way
forward. The Co-ordinating Committee will set in place a process to decide upon the
specific action steps required for the next 24 months.
 A study to explore possible institutional options for a multi-stakeholder
vehicle to deal with recognising entitlements and ensuring benefits.
 A clear national policy needs to be developed on the issue of compensation.
This should clarify matters such as what the bottom line for compensation
is and the timing for compensation, and make a clear statement on the issue
of the affected being first in line to receive the benefits of large dams.
 Statutory mechanisms need to be developed to ensure that obligations of the
government and of the developer are legally enforceable.
South African Multi-stakeholder Initiative on the World Commission on Dams
41
Scoping Report
Fifth Draft 27 September 2002
 Steps need to be taken to address the backlog of services more rapidly than
at present. These should include increasing allocation of resources for this
purpose, and measures to increase the disbursement of these resources.
3.7
Ensuring compliance
3.7.1 Principles and findings from the WCD
The key message from the WCD is that ensuring public trust and confidence requires
that governments, developers, regulators and operators meet all commitments made
for the planning, implementation and operation of dams. Compliance with
applicable regulations, with criteria and guidelines, and with project-specific
negotiated agreements is secured at all critical stages in project planning and
implementation. A set of mutually reinforcing incentives and mechanisms, both
regulatory and non-regulatory, is required for social, environmental and technical
measures.
The WCD states that to implement this strategic priority effectively, the following
five policy principles must be applied.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
A clear, consistent and common set of criteria and guidelines to ensure
compliance is adopted by sponsoring, contracting and financing institutions and
compliance is subject to independent and transparent review.
A Compliance Plan is prepared for each project prior to commencement,
spelling out how compliance will be achieved with relevant criteria and
guidelines and specifying binding arrangements for project-specific technical,
social and environmental commitments.
Costs for establishing compliance mechanisms and related institutional
capacity, and their effective application, are built into the project budget.
Corrupt practices are avoided through enforcement of legislation, voluntary
integrity pacts, debarment and other instruments.
Incentives that reward project proponents for abiding by criteria and
guidelines are developed by public and private financial institutions.
3.7.2 Trends in South Africa
Establishing reliable baseline information (social and environmental) and undertaking
monitoring and assessment are important prerequisites for ensuring compliance.
These issues are afforded much attention in policy, such as in the National Water
Policy and the National Water Act. The DWAF has developed technology and
methods to support monitoring, assessment and auditing, and has set in place many
information management systems, such as the National System for Groundwater
Quality and the Flood Management System. Need a comment on the effectiveness of
these and the extent to which they are being implemented.
Many provisions for monitoring and ensuring compliance also exist in other
legislation, such as the provisions with respect to environmental protection of the
framework National Environmental Management Act. However, enforcement of
legislation in general has been identified as a weak link in the governance system.
South African Multi-stakeholder Initiative on the World Commission on Dams
42
Scoping Report
Fifth Draft 27 September 2002
3.7.3 Key issues for South Africa
In South Africa, the national government is the
implementing agency of most large dams and no
independent regulator has been established. This is a
Will the establishment
different situation to that envisaged for the policy
of an Independent
principles of this strategic priority. In the words of one
Regulator promote or
detract from
stakeholder grouping: “South Africa generally has a
compliance?
problem with the enforcement of legislation and
regulations”. A critical issue relates to the capacity to
ensure compliance. Many feel that the water sector needs an independent regulator
for ensuring compliance, not only for the WCD initiative but also to monitor
Municipal Service Delivery contracts. Will the establishment of an Independent
Regulator in the water sector promote or detract from compliance? Such a regulator
would need to have a clear Terms of Reference, which would elaborate on its basic
function of monitoring and regulating the existing regulations, as well as legislative
‘teeth’ (an enabling Act which includes punitive measures).
Key debating point:
Discussion at the Multi-stakeholder Forum raised many questions concerning the
establishment of an Independent Regulator. While no definitive consensus was
obtained, it appeared that more participants felt the necessity for an Independent
Regulator than those who did not. Questions concerned the level at which the
Regulator should function (local versus national), and the interface between the
CMAs and the proposed Regulator. Viewpoints were expressed that the CMAs could
not play this role. While they could regulate at a local level in terms of issuing
licences, they could not perform a regulatory function across catchments. It was not
felt that DWAF could be the Regulator under current legislation, when water supply
for defaulting municipalities becomes the responsibility of DWAF, the department
would then be both regulator and supplier, which is not desirable. The Department of
Environmental Affairs and Tourism was not considered to have sufficient capacity to
play the regulatory role. In general it was felt that it would be more credible to have
an Independent Regulator36, but that autonomy would need to be complemented by
capacity and powers, and a system of checks and balances would be needed to ensure
good governance. This is an issue that will require substantially more consideration,
as the establishment of an Independent Regulator would have substantial political
implications.
Financial institutions that would provide funding for
large dams minimise project risk by writing into the
contract that failure to comply with the law, guidelines,
and good practice constitutes a material breach to the
contract. This is felt to be the ultimate disincentive,
meaning that there is no need for the proposals of the
WCD with regard to entering into contracts. However,
this is not a perspective held by many stakeholders, and
in particular affected people. They note the many broken
36
Key debating point:
Are specific legally
binding agreements
needed for projectspecific technical, social
and environmental
commitments? How
should compliance be
monitored?
Although some cautioned that no Regulator was ever truly independent.
South African Multi-stakeholder Initiative on the World Commission on Dams
43
Scoping Report
Fifth Draft 27 September 2002
promises referred to in the Southern African Hearings for Communities Affected by
Large Dams, and cite these as evidence that project agreements with funding
institutions are not providing the necessary assurance. This is further supported by
Chapter 6 of the WCD Report, which cites a multitude of reasons for the lack of
compliance in dam projects. These include lack of accountability and transparency,
lack of meaningful participation at key decision points, weak or non-existent legal
recourse, as well as active disregard by government and donors. Thus additional steps
to ensure compliance with what has been agreed to in terms of social benefits are
needed. There is place for a range of measures, including legislation, specific legal
agreements, incentives for compliance, and social compacts. The particular negotiated
and agreed package for each project should be set out in a Compliance Plan. This
should be monitored and enforced through the actions of a structure set up to ensure
compliance.
Debate at the Multi-stakeholder Forum of 23 July 2002 considered whether the NWA,
NEMA and associated government policy is sufficient to ensure that undertakings
given during the planning stages for a dam are implemented during or after
construction. Voices for and against this proposition appeared to be split into
approximately equal numbers. Many felt that while the legislation was in place, parts
of the NWA are being progressively implemented as the required systems are
developed, and in general monitoring of compliance is not happening.
Representatives from NGOs and affected communities cautioned that many people on
the ground do not know about the provisions of these pieces of legislation, and need
to be informed of them. It was further pointed out that NEMA and the EIA regulations
were currently being reviewed “behind closed doors”, and therefore, in the absence of
any clarity on the amendments, it was not possible to be able to endorse the
sufficiency of these legislative tools37.
It was further highlighted that the NWA and NEMA are tools to be used if there is
non-adherence to project undertakings. A better (or complementary) mechanism
would be to have an ongoing process of monitoring by a range of stakeholders,
which would be more ‘hands-on’ and closer to the people who are affected by the
development, as well as being more iterative. However, the long lead times for largescale water infrastructure developments would complicate the monitoring of promises
made in the early stages. A further viewpoint stated that two kinds of processes were
needed: a formal process to monitor and ensure compliance, which could be the
function of the Independent Regulator; and an informal process of oversight, through
NGOs and other civil society organisations, which could exert a lot of pressure.
There is some consensus that structures to ensure compliance need to be set up
during the design phase of a project. To achieve credibility, these structures need to be
multi-stakeholder, and to include representatives of affected people, the project team
and the authorities. The optimal composition of such a structure needs to be explored
further. Different systems for ensuring compliance have been set up on a project-byproject basis. Community-based structures such as the Community Action Committee
for Nandoni Dam are felt to play a positive and valuable role in enforcing compliance
with social compacts. In South Africa, Review structures have become the norm.
The World Bank has made regular review by Supervision Teams and Panels of
37
In late September 2002, the release of the new regulations for comment was believed to be imminent.
South African Multi-stakeholder Initiative on the World Commission on Dams
44
Scoping Report
Fifth Draft 27 September 2002
Experts (multi-disciplinary) a loan condition and has in addition, upon the filing of
complaints, commissioned Inspection Panels to investigate complaints. These have
provided recourse but with limited success. Thus a further critical component is an
agreed route for grievance procedures. What examples of best practice are there in
this regard, and how should these be modified / adopted?
If an Independent Regulator were to be established, how would this national
institution interact with the project-by-project agreements? One possible route would
be if a national protocol were to be established, and used for compliance auditing on a
project-by-project basis. An example that could be developed, notwithstanding certain
problems, is the system of Environmental Management Programme Reports (EMPRs)
used in the mining sector, for which a national Aide Memoire has been developed.
The critical issue here is financial assurance for social and environmental
measures. The WCD Report’s suggestion of a performance bond (for financial
surety) is not yet integrated into current legislation. The Rehabilitation Fund required
through the EMPR mechanism could provide a starting point to explore and develop
an appropriate option for dam development.
The issue of corruption has also been highlighted as being of key concern in
Southern Africa, with the recent conviction and sentencing of the former Head of the
Lesotho Highlands Development Authority on 13 counts of bribery and fraud for
taking bribes from international consultants and contractors to induce him to further
their interests in contracts with the Lesotho Highlands Water Project. It remains to be
seen whether the World Bank will blacklist the alleged 16 international companies
involved in this corruption, in keeping with previous statements concerning any
contractors found guilty of corruption in dams that they had funded. Citing examples
such as the Lesotho Highlands Water Project corruption case, stakeholders agree that
steps need to be taken to avoid corruption. Clauses in contracts and anti-corruption
legislation are two mechanisms. Independent corruption-monitoring organisations
such as Transparency International have been used in some industries. Having
licensing occurring in the Catchment Management Agencies may also help.
South African civil society has called on financial institutions (including the World
Bank, the Regional Development Banks, the export credit agencies and bilateral
agencies where applicable), governments and relevant authorities to blacklist corrupt
companies with immediate effect38. The Labour sector has called for the prompt
disqualification of all companies and individuals found guilty of corrupt practices
from any future tendering for dam projects funded by the World Bank, the IMF or any
of their subsidiaries. Labour further states that private companies that disregard this
prohibition must themselves be made ineligible for any funding by the World Bank
and the IMF or any organ of the UN.
3.7.4 Possible ways forward
Note that all of the ‘Possible ways forward’ sections are draft and reflect suggestions
offered by different stakeholders rather than any consensus positions on the way
forward. The Co-ordinating Committee will set in place a process to decide upon the
specific action steps required for the next 24 months.
38
Southern African Call to Action, November 2001.
South African Multi-stakeholder Initiative on the World Commission on Dams
45
Scoping Report
Fifth Draft 27 September 2002
 Study to explore possible composition and workings of a multi-stakeholder
structure to ensure compliance with all commitments made for the planning,
implementation and operation of dams.
 Determine, agree to and measure key performance (and expectation)
indicators. Someone needs to ensure compliance (not the raw water
supplier) and to institute correction action in areas of non-compliance
(Regulator).
 Institute processes to eradicate corruption from planning and
implementation processes that relate to large dams in the broader context of
water and energy planning.
3.8
Sharing rivers for peace, development and security
3.8.1 Principles and findings from the WCD
The key message from the WCD is that as specific interventions for diverting
water, dams require constructive co-operation between countries. Storage and
diversion of water on transboundary rivers has been a source of considerable tension
between countries and within countries. Thus the use and management of resources
needs to increasingly become the subject of agreement between States to promote
mutual self-interest for regional co-operation and peaceful collaboration. This will
lead to a shift in focus from the narrow approach of allocating a finite resource to the
sharing of rivers and their associated benefits. States need to be innovative in defining
the scope of issues for discussion.
The WCD states that to implement this strategic priority effectively, the following
five policy principles must be applied.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
National water policies make specific provision for basin agreements in
shared river basins. Agreements are negotiated on the basis of good faith
among riparian States. They are based on principles of equitable and reasonable
utilisation, no significant harm, prior information and the Commission’s
strategic priorities.
Riparian States go beyond looking at water as a finite commodity to be divided
and embrace an approach that equitably allocates not the water, but the
benefits that can be derived from it. Where appropriate, negotiations include
benefits outside the river basin and other sectors of mutual interest.
Dams on shared rivers are not built in cases where riparian States raise an
objection that is upheld by an independent panel. Intractable disputes
between countries are resolved through various means of dispute resolution
including, in the last instance, the International Court of Justice.
For the development of projects on rivers shared between political units
within countries, the necessary legislative provision is made at national and
sub-national levels to embody the Commission’s strategic priorities of
‘gaining public acceptance’, ‘recognising entitlements’ and ‘sustaining rivers
and livelihoods’.
Where a government agency plans or facilitates the construction of a dam on
a shared river in contravention of the principle of good faith negotiations
South African Multi-stakeholder Initiative on the World Commission on Dams
46
Scoping Report
Fifth Draft 27 September 2002
between riparians, external financing bodies withdraw their support for
projects and programmes promoted by that agency.
3.8.2 Trends in South Africa
Many feel that there has been good progress with respect to this strategic priority.
Principle 11 of the National Water Policy states that there must be respect for each
country’s equitable right to water from shared resources. A perspective held is that
South Africa has good relations with neighbouring countries through the actions of
DWAF. The SADC Protocol on Shared Watercourses was adopted in 1995 and is
more extensive than the relevant WCD guideline39. This has recently been aligned
with the 1997 UN Convention on the Law of the Non-navigational Uses of
International Watercourses. While the SADC Protocol contains the principles
underpinning the WCD on sharing watercourses and includes the procedures
contained in the WCD Guideline 26, it has its own dispute resolution mechanisms.
Other developments in this regard include the establishment of the Orange-Senqu
Commission and the initiation of negotiations with Mozambique on water sharing in
the Inkomati and the Maputo rivers. Various multilateral commissions, committees
and bodies have been established to meet specific co-operation agreements, such as
the Tripartite Technical Committee between Swaziland, Mozambique and South
Africa, and the Limpopo Basin Technical Committee which involves all four basin
states. These have been established to provide for general planning and liaison in
common basins.
At the 2001 Symposium in South Africa, a second resolution was agreed between the
SADC Water Sector Coordinating Unit and the Network for Advocacy on Water
Issues in Southern Africa (NAWISA), recommending that the SADC Water Sector
Co-ordinating Unit, together with NAWISA, initiate a multi-stakeholder process to
take the WCD guidelines further in the Southern African context. The SADC Water
Sector Coordinating Unit has discussed the WCD Report and has asked member states
to formulate positions on it. A similar multi-stakeholder process is being planned for
Mozambique, whilst preliminary discussions on the way forward are taking place in
Namibia and Swaziland.
3.8.3 Key issues for South Africa
There is consensus that it is necessary to have agreements between riparian countries
about the use of water in a shared river system. While good progress has been made as
regards the SADC Protocol, the issue of basin wide impact assessments remains to be
addressed, and progress is needed on monitoring that agreements are met for a project
affecting a neighbouring country. No country can, however, prescribe to another on its
environmental legislation. Currently it is felt that very few countries in SADC have
comprehensive environmental legislation.
A view that questions whether progress is overwhelmingly positive with regard to this
strategic priority refers to the reported proposals of the Southern African Power Pool
to build large dams throughout Africa. Concerns have been raised as to how the other
strategic priorities and principles of the WCD, such as first determining development
39
WCD Guideline 26.
South African Multi-stakeholder Initiative on the World Commission on Dams
47
Scoping Report
Fifth Draft 27 September 2002
needs and objectives through an open participatory process before identifying and
assessing options for water and energy resource development, can be meaningfully
adhered to if dam sites have already been chosen. One stakeholder perspective
questions whether South African utilities should be involved in such a process, which
appears to contradict both the WCD and South African national policy principles on
participation and government based on the will of the people?
A related perspective is that South Africa has been responsible for damaging
transboundary rivers, such as the Orange/Gariep, through dam development. An
example cited is the Lesotho Highlands Water Project. Negative effects of this dam
development include impacts on the ecological status of the mouth of the Orange
River, an international Ramsar site, as well as numerous social impacts on affected
communities in Lesotho. It is proposed that the past damage caused through
development of transboundary rivers needs to be included as part of the audit
proposed as a first step to addressing existing dams. Does South Africa have a
responsibility to share these experiences so that its neighbours can make more
informed decisions concerning the building of large dams. Or does this constitute
interference in the sovereignty of neighbours?
A further key issue relates to how the WCD strategic
priorities and principles should be carried forward into the
New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD), of
which South Africa is one of the driving partners. One
perspective holds that the non-participatory manner in
which NEPAD has been formulated does not accord with
the WCD core values. How can this be taken up?
Key debating point:
How should the
WCD priorities and
principles be carried
forward into
NEPAD?
Questions have also been raised concerning the approach to participation in decisionmaking on transboundary projects. One perspective holds that when resources are
developed jointly with other countries, the relevant format and extent of public
participation will have to be agreed. Another viewpoint is that South Africa has a
moral responsibility to encourage implementation of WCD priorities and principles
concerning participatory decision-making, which are in accordance with national
policy principles.
Relating to the fifth policy principle, it is the overwhelming practice of financial
institutions to make non-compliance a material breach in the financing contract. Are
there any other viewpoints on this?
3.8.4 Possible ways forward
Note that all of the ‘Possible ways forward’ sections are draft and reflect suggestions
offered by different stakeholders rather than any consensus positions on the way
forward. The Co-ordinating Committee will set in place a process to decide upon the
specific action steps required for the next 24 months.
 Explore the role of SADC’s Water Sector Co-ordinating Unit in taking up
the key issues raised above, and facilitate the holding of multi-stakeholder
meetings in all the nation states of SADC.
South African Multi-stakeholder Initiative on the World Commission on Dams
48
Scoping Report
4.
Fifth Draft 27 September 2002
 Debate further the possibility of setting in place some form of liaison with
the NEPAD Secretariat.
Priorities for action
At the meeting of the Multi-stakeholder Forum on 23 July 2002, participants
completed response forms designed to highlight priority areas to be addressed through
the ongoing actions of the Multi-stakeholder Initiative. While these completed forms
clearly do not constitute any kind of voting procedure, they nonetheless provide a
valuable indication of the areas that appear to be most significant to the greatest
number of participants in the Initiative. See Annex 2 for a summary of the response
forms.
Concerning the key debating points identified in this report, participants indicated
what they believed to be the five most important points in the South African context,
and listed any additional topics they felt were significant. The full list of ‘key debating
points’ is contained in the following table, in order of decreasing importance as
indicated by the informal rating procedure. The column on the right indicates the
number of ‘ticks’ received by each point.
Informal ‘rating’ of key debating points
Key debating points as identified in the Scoping Report
Are social and environmental issues given equal weight when assessing
water development options? How should this be improved?
What does stakeholder involvement mean in South Africa? How should the
rights-and-risks method of identifying stakeholders be used?
When can it be said that public acceptance is demonstrated?
How should the WCD priorities and principles be carried forward into
NEPAD?
How widely should the benefits be shared for a dam development?
Are specific legally binding agreements needed for project-specific
technical, social and environmental commitments? How should compliance
be monitored?
How are strategic issues balanced against local needs during
comprehensive options assessment?
What is the optimal process for setting the Reserve, so that it incorporates
WCD principles?
Should a moratorium be placed on dam construction? Until what conditions
are met? Or should we ensure that committed steps are adhered to?
Will the establishment of an Independent Regulator promote or detract
from compliance?
How should the parameters of the process to audit existing dams be
defined?
What needs to be done to address the distortions in financing mechanisms
favouring large dams over other options?
Who pays for the ecological reserve?
No. of
ticks
Table 1
42
39
38
26
25
25
24
24
22
22
20
19
17
This informal procedure indicated three clear priorities to explore further towards
implementing the WCD in the South African context. A range of additional topics to
be considered was suggested. A number of these are in fact included in some form in
the Scoping Report, but were not specifically formulated as key debating points. The
South African Multi-stakeholder Initiative on the World Commission on Dams
49
Scoping Report
Fifth Draft 27 September 2002
most frequently mentioned ‘additional’ topic was the question of
reparations/compensation for outstanding problems from existing dams. Taking this
into consideration, the following are four clear priorities for further exploration and
action:
 Dealing with reparations/compensation for outstanding problems from existing
dams.
 Whether social and environmental issues are given equal weight to economic,
financial and technical issues when assessing water development options, and how
this should be improved
 The meaning of stakeholder involvement in South Africa, and how the rightsand-risks method of identifying stakeholders should be used
 How to determine the point at which it can be said that public acceptance is
demonstrated
While there was informal discussion on some of the draft action steps listed in the
‘possible ways forward’ section for each strategic priority, there was insufficient time
to debate these systematically and obtain consensus on the priorities. This will be a
task for the Co-ordinating Committee, as it plans the way forward for the coming
year. Possible approaches suggested at the Multi-stakeholder Forum for screening of
the ‘possible ways forward’ in order to decide on priorities is to test each of the draft
recommendations against the five core principles of the WCD to show where there is
synergy or disparity; and to consider the medium to long-term implications of each
recommendation.
While this report was not required to be analytical, but rather to reflect the range of
different perspectives concerning the further implementation of the WCD in the South
African context, it is nevertheless clear that for each of the seven strategic priorities,
institutional issues are emerging as a clear cross-cutting issue for the further
implementation of the WCD principles and proposals. This concerns two main
institutional issues, which are merely noted here for further discussion by the CC is
deemed necessary. The first of these relates to institutional capacity at the local level.
As the focus in South Africa shifts to implementation of the new policy and
legislative framework, the overriding challenge is to achieve effective local
government that serves to enhance quality for life for the people on the ground. This
is clearly important for the management of water resources at the local level. The
second related institutional issue concerns the nature of the multi-stakeholder
institutional mechanisms required at different levels that will be needed for taking
both the WCD and South African policy principles forward.
5.
Way forward
This report has been revised to incorporate the debate and comments received at and
after the 23 July 2002 Multi-stakeholder Workshop. This workshop also provided a
preliminary prioritisation of the priority areas to be addressed in the next 24 months,
as highlighted above. Further discussion on the part of the Co-ordinating Committee
will result in some decisions on the action steps that will need to be implemented
within the priority areas addressed. One of the actions already agreed is to establish a
South African Multi-stakeholder Initiative on the World Commission on Dams
50
Scoping Report
Fifth Draft 27 September 2002
Working Group on Reparations, which will explore mechanisms, timeframes and
procedures for addressing the issue of outstanding reparations for existing dams in
South Africa. The Multi-stakeholder Initiative and this report were presented at the
Water Dome during the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg,
South Africa in August – September 2002, in the spirit of mutual sharing of lessons
with other countries under UNEP’s Dams and Development Project (DDP).
At the Multi-stakeholder Forum meeting, there was unanimous support that the South
African Initiative to contextualise the WCD Report should continue. There was strong
support for the presentation of the Scoping Report at the Water Dome, and for the
effectiveness of the system of dividing the stakeholders into eight sectors each with
two representatives. Representatives for the CC are still being sought for Labour and
for small-scale agriculture. The ongoing process needs to ensure that there is a
commitment from all stakeholders to adhere to certain milestones in this Initiative.
Deliberations of the Co-ordinating Committee will identify the specific studies or
action steps that need to be undertaken. The end product is not the result of those
studies, but rather the implementation of the recommendations of the studies. The
outcomes of the studies and activities undertaken after further consideration by the
Co-ordinating Committee will be reported back to another gathering of the Multistakeholder Forum within 12 months, or when the Co-ordinating Committee decides
that there is sufficient substance.
It is fitting to conclude this Scoping Report with the words of Kader Asmal, chair of
the WCD. Speaking of the South African Multi-stakeholder Initiative, the Minister
states:
“So it appears South Africa is not rejecting the recommendations of the
Commission but rather taking the lead in demonstrating that there is a
better way forward - leaving the tragic tales of impoverished livelihoods
and fragmented ecosystems behind us, learning from our mistakes and
developing locally appropriate ways of delivering on our promises”40.
This is the promise for a more sustainable future that the Multi-stakeholder Initiative
holds. The deliberations of the Multi-stakeholder Forum and subsequent actions must
proceed with every possible effort to attain this potential.
Asmal, K (2001) ‘SA leads the way in changing measures of success for dams’. Business Report,
August 1 2001.
40
South African Multi-stakeholder Initiative on the World Commission on Dams
51
Scoping Report
Fifth Draft 27 September 2002
Annex 1
SOUTH AFRICAN MULTI-STAKEHOLDER MEETING ON WORLD COMMISSION ON
DAMS REPORT
MULTI-STAKEHOLDER FORUM
RAND WATER – JOHANNESBURG 23 JULY 2002
ATTENDEES
NO
1
v Baalen
SURNAME
Leoni
NAME
ORGANISATION
Rand Water
P O Box 2526
Vereeniging 1920
2
Amashao
Eddy
3
Ashe
Bryan
4
Bird
Jeremy
58 Loop Street
5th Floor HyCastle
House
Cape Town
5
6
Budde
Cabanelas
Hannes
Vanessa
de Lenos
Rand Water
Livavingo
Maputo Mozambique
CP 3699
Maputo
7
8
9
10
11
12
Cew
Clanahaw
Clarke
Courtney
Croucamp
de Villiers Leach
R
Robin
Christopher
Trevor
Willie
Sarah
DWAF
Afri Dev Association
IUCN
Eskom
DWAF
Rand Water
(Facilitator)
13
14
15
16
Dor
George
AIDC
Dowlile
Patrick
WESSA
du Preez
Gillman
Hein
Steve
Rand Water
Umgeni Water
P O Box 9
Pietersmaritzburg
3200
17
Greef
Liane
Environmental
Monitoring Group
P O Box 13378
Mowbray 7705
18
19
Hall
Hollingworth
C
Brian
Rand Water
DBSA
20
Human
Lourens
Water Eng Div of
SAICE
P O Box 1127
Johannesburg
2000
21
Kibi
Mirriam
GAVADWEN
P O Box 1157
Colesberg
7795
BKS (Pty) Ltd
P O Box 3173
Pretoria 0081
Gauteng
Earthlife Africa
Durban
The SA Initiative on the World Commission on Dams Report was established by a multi-stakeholder group representing NGO’s,
affected communities, government, utilities, private sector and research and finance, to consider the implications for and the
implementation in South Africa of the WCD Report
Scoping Report
Fifth Draft 27 September 2002
22
Kroon
Jaap
DWAF
P/Bag X313
Pretoria 0001
Gauteng
23
24
25
Lang
Legge
Lenka
Andy
KR
Mabusetsa Jacob
LHWC
26
27
28
29
Letsela
Louwinger
MA
Maaren
Obed
FA
Magagula
Hugo
Lesotho Highlands
Eskom
30
Mabanda
Innocent
Maluta
Nandoni Dam
P O Box 4824
Thohoyandou 0950
31
Mabele
Hosea
Youth For Work
23 - 9th Avenue
Alexandra 2090
32
Magagula
A
CVG
P O Box 1427
Nelspruit 1200
Driekopies
33
Makaloza
Noma
Wildlife Society
(WESSA)
Box 30145
Western Cape 7966
34
Mander
Jennifer
Institute of Natural
Resources
P/Bag X01
Scottsville, 3209
35
Maning
Rosalie
TCTA
P O Box 10335
Centurion, Gauteng
0046
36
Manzana
Vukile
GAVADWEN
P O Box 1157
Colesberg 7795
37
Mariba
Kgosi
Mmatoti Community
Dev Forum
P O Box 374
Siyabuswa 0472
38
Matu
Abednego
ACCS
23 - 9th Avenue
Alexandra 2090
39
Mbalula
Sarah
GAVADWEN
P O Box 1157
Colesberg 7795
40
Mdluli
Funekile
G (Dr)
41
Meyiwa
Maxwell
Environmental & Resettlement Man
Komati Basin Water
Authority (KOBWA)
p o Box 678
Piggs Peak, Mbabane
Swaziland
Inanda Dam
DWAF
Transformation Resource Centre
Box 1388
Maseru 100
Driekopies Dam
Private Bag X03
Gezina, 0031
The SA Initiative on the World Commission on Dams Report was established by a multi-stakeholder group representing NGO’s,
affected communities, government, utilities, private sector and research and finance, to consider the implications for and the
implementation in South Africa of the WCD Report
Scoping Report
Fifth Draft 27 September 2002
42
Mitchell
Steve
Water Research
Commission
P/Bag X03
Gezina 0031
43
Mncina (Rev)
Jameson G
Ekuvinjelweni
P O Box 504
Piggs Peak
Swaziland
44
45
Moiloa
Mothepu
Sam
Mahlare
RHREA
46
47
Motshwari
Mwaka
E-Mang
Beason
48
Namba
Mhleli
Kat River Valley
Catchment Forum
Box 16
Seymour 5750
49
50
Ndawonde
Ngcobo
Sandile
Sindisiwe
Green Network
NAWISA
P O Box 13378
Mowbray, Western
Cape 7705
51
Nthako
Sethunya
Lesotho Highlands
Dev Authority
P O Box 7332
Maseru Lesotho
52
Nyathi
Zeph
Lubombo Waterways
Programme
P/Bag X546
Mkuze, 3965
53
O'Keeffe
Jay
Rhodes University
Box 94
Grahamstown 6140
54
Owen
Phillip
SAWaC
P O Box 14842
Nelspruit 1200
55
56
57
58
Phumlami
Sepeng
Nerve
Cathy
EED
DBSA
Sibanda
Jabulani
Bergman Ingerop
Smooh
Dolf
Kwezi V3 Eng
P O Box 36158
Menlo Park 0102
Gauteng
59
Stevens
Frank
Durban Unicity
Wastewate
60
Taylor
John
61
Thomson
Roy
Sustainable Water
Forum
P O Box 4978
Tygervalley
Cape
Rand Water
Lesotho Highlands Dev
Authority
RHEDI
DWAF
P/Bag X313
Pretoria 0001
Gauteng
The SA Initiative on the World Commission on Dams Report was established by a multi-stakeholder group representing NGO’s,
affected communities, government, utilities, private sector and research and finance, to consider the implications for and the
implementation in South Africa of the WCD Report
Scoping Report
Fifth Draft 27 September 2002
62
Tshifhina
Tshlololi
Nandoni Dam Project
Box 7210
Thohoyandou
Limpopo
63
Turton
Anthony
Richard
Pretoria University
African Water
64
65
Urquhart
Penny
Independent
Uys
Mandy
Laughing Waters
Aquatic Research
Consulting Media
P O Box 752273
Gardenview 2047
66
van den Berg
Ockie
DWAF
P/Bag X313
Pretoria 0001
Gauteng
67
van der Berg
Jan
Petrus
(Pierre)
Jones & Wagener
Cons
P O Box 1434
Rivonia 2128
68
van der Merwe
George
69
van Staden
Joan
70
Viljoen
Liesl
TCTA
P O Box 10335
Centurion, Gauteng
0046
71
Wagener
Fritz
Jones & Wagener
Consultants
72
Wallace
Pamella
UNEP: DDP
73
Watermeyer
Chistopher
(Chris)
74
Weston
Derek
Merman Eng Enterprises CC
P O Box 2293
Pinegowrie
(Randburg)
DWAF
P/Bag X313
Pretoria 0001
Gauteng
75
76
Willis
Wojciechowski
TH
Wojtek
TCTA
P O Box 10335
Centurion, Gauteng
0046
Rand Water
Driekopies Dam
DWAF
P/Bag X313
Pretoria 0001
Gauteng
Annex 2
Summary of Response Sheets from the 23 July
2002 Multi-stakeholder Forum
The SA Initiative on the World Commission on Dams Report was established by a multi-stakeholder group representing NGO’s,
affected communities, government, utilities, private sector and research and finance, to consider the implications for and the
implementation in South Africa of the WCD Report
Scoping Report
Fifth Draft 27 September 2002
Topic: The scoping report (first plenary)
Please complete this sheet during the morning plenary and hand in during tea break
Does the Scoping Report adequately place the World Commission on Dams report in
the South African context? Please indicate
Completely
2
Well
31
Adequately
19
Not quite
5
Poorly
0
13
14
19
20
21
25
26
29
30
34
36
37
41
TICK THE FIVE “KEY DEBATING POINTS” (AS IDENTIFIED
IN THE SCOPING REPORT) THAT YOU BELIEVE ARE THE
MOST IMPORTANT IN THE SA CONTEXT
What does stakeholder involvement mean in South Africa? How should the rights-and-risks
method of identifying stakeholders be used?
When can it be said that public acceptance is demonstrated?
What needs to be done to address the distortions in financing mechanisms favouring large dams
over other options?
Are social and environmental issues given equal weight when assessing water development
options? How should this be improved?
How are strategic issues balanced against local needs during comprehensive options assessment?
How should the parameters of the process to audit existing dams be defined?
Should a moratorium be placed on dam construction? Until what conditions are met? Or should
we ensure that committed steps are adhered to?
What is the optimal process for setting the Reserve, so that it incorporates WCD principles?
Who pays for the ecological reserve?
How widely should the benefits be shared for a dam development?
Will the establishment of an Independent Regulator promote or detract from compliance?
Are specific legally binding agreements needed for project-specific technical, social and
environmental commitments? How should compliance be monitored?
How should the WCD priorities and principles be carried forward into NEPAD?
What additional topics do you think are important (use back of sheet if necessary)
The SA Initiative on the World Commission on Dams Report was established by a multi-stakeholder group representing NGO’s,
affected communities, government, utilities, private sector and research and finance, to consider the implications for and the
implementation in South Africa of the WCD Report
TICK
Page in Scoping
Report
Please make proposals for improving the Scoping
Report (use separate sheet if necessary))
39
38
19
42
24
20
22
24
17
25
22
25
26
WCD MULTI-STAKEHOLDER FORUM: JOHANNESBURG: 23 July 2002
RESPONSE FORM
2
Your Name (optional )
Please indicate the
sector with which
you most closely
identify
Government
NGO
Labour
Agriculture
Affected
community
Research
Finance
Utility
Private
Sector
GENERAL TOPIC: RIGHTS, BENEFITS AND PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE
(First Breakaway)
Please complete this form after the plenary discussion of the first breakaway and hand in during lunch
Proposition No1
The rights and risks approach is adequately recognised in SA in the dams and development
context
Strongly agree
7
Agree
Neutral
28
9
Disagree
6
Strongly disagree
4
Proposition No 2
Communities with ancestral rights to land should be able to refuse to have a dam project
constructed on their land
Strongly agree
11
Agree
Neutral
11
5
Disagree
22
Strongly disagree
10
Proposition No 3
Reparations for outstanding social problems are a key priority
Strongly agree
21
Agree
Neutral
28
7
Disagree
3
Strongly disagree
0
Proposition No4
How do you determine when affected groups are better off? (use back of sheet if necessary)
Proposition No5
Public acceptance is demonstrated when (complete with up to a few sentences)…………
Additional remarks (use back of sheet if necessary)
The SA Initiative on the World Commission on Dams Report was established by a multi-stakeholder group representing NGO’s, affected
communities, government, utilities, private sector and research and finance, to consider the implications for and the implementation in South
Africa of the WCD Report
2
WCD MULTI-STAKEHOLDER FORUM: JOHANNESBURG: 23 July 2002
RESPONSE FORM
3
Your Name (optional )
Please indicate the
sector with which
you most closely
identify
Government
NGO
Labour
Agriculture
Affected
community
Research
Finance
Utility
Private
Sector
GENERAL TOPIC: ENVIRONMENT, TECHNICAL AND REGULATION
(Second Breakaway)
Please complete this form after the plenary discussion of the second breakaway and hand in during tea
Proposition No6
Any costs associated with re-establishing or maintaining the Reserve (ecological and human
needs) should be carried by the whole society rather than local users
Strongly agree
11
Agree
Neutral
23
8
Disagree
9
Strongly disagree
0
Proposition No7
In South Africa, economic, financial and technical issues are receiving greater attention than
social and environmental issues when dams are considered
Strongly agree
13
Agree
Neutral
11
9
Disagree
20
Strongly disagree
1
Proposition No8
South Africa should set up an independent regulator for water resource development
Strongly agree
12
Agree
Neutral
22
7
Disagree
11
Strongly disagree
2
Proposition No9
The NWA, NEMA and associated government policy is sufficient to ensure that undertakings
given during the planning stages for a dam are implemented during or after the construction
Strongly agree
4
Agree
Neutral
24
7
Disagree
19
Strongly disagree
2
Proposition No10
Existing dams are optimally operated and maintained
Strongly agree
2
Agree
Neutral
4
17
Disagree
25
Strongly disagree
6
Additional remarks (use back of sheet if necessary)
The SA Initiative on the World Commission on Dams Report was established by a multi-stakeholder group representing NGO’s, affected
communities, government, utilities, private sector and research and finance, to consider the implications for and the implementation in South
Africa of the WCD Report
3
WCD MULTI-STAKEHOLDER FORUM: JOHANNESBURG: 23 July 2002
RESPONSE FORM
4
Your Name
(optional )
Please indicate
the sector with
which you most
closely identify
Government
NGO
Labour
Agriculture
Affected
community
Research
Finance
Utility
Private
Sector
GENERAL TOPIC: CONTINUING THE INITIATIVE (CLOSING PLENARY)
Please complete this form after the plenary discussion on the way forward & hand it in on the
way out
Proposition No11
The South African Initiative to contextualise the WCD Report should continue
Strongly agree
Agree
30
Neutral
24
Disagree
0
0
Strongly
disagree
0
Proposition No12
The Scoping Report should be finalised and presented at the Water Dome during the
World Summit on Sustainable Development
Strongly agree
Agree
20
Neutral
26
Disagree
3
2
Strongly
disagree
0
Proposition No13
The system of dividing the stakeholders into eight sectors each with two
representatives is effective
Strongly agree
Agree
5
Neutral
38
Disagree
5
0
Strongly
disagree
0
Proposition No14
The South African Initiative should be integrated with similar initiatives in SADC
Strongly agree
Agree
13
Neutral
31
Disagree
4
1
Strongly
disagree
0
Proposition No15
During the next 18 to 24 months of the Initiative the full Multi-stakeholder forum should meet
Every 6 months
4
Every 12
months
18
At end
As CC decides
Other
0
29
2
The SA Initiative on the World Commission on Dams Report was established by a multi-stakeholder group representing NGO’s,
affected communities, government, utilities, private sector and research and finance, to consider the implications for and the
implementation in South Africa of the WCD Report