by Wall Crack

Samy Vellu�s recent announcement that some 46 more dams are being planned for Malaysia was greeted with something approaching horror by those who have witnessed the way in which past and current dam projects have been implemented here. Shoddy EIAs, disastrous resettlement schemes, false promises about dam performance and costs, lack of mitigation and enforcement even of minimal standards have left Malaysia�s environment and people much, much worse off than before. This sort of experience with large dam projects is not confined to Malaysia: it is a global phenomenon. And now a major Report has been published, consolidating the evidence for and against large dam projects. Its history and recommendations are presented here.Will Malay- sian authorities take notice? Please, please let them, otherwise it will just be more of the same (disastrous consequences).

In November 16th last year, a major study on large dam projects was published. The 398-page report entitled �Dams and Development - A New Framework for Decision-making�� was the culmination of two years� work by the World Commission on Dams (WCD) and sets out the values, criteria and guidelines that could, and should, govern future decisions on dam building.

The fact is that the building of (especially large) dams had become increasingly controversial through the 1980s and 1990s, as Malaysia knows to its cost. Indeed, the original call for the World Commission on Dams came from dam-affected communities from all over the world. They gathered in Brazil in March 1997 to share their common experiences with regard to the loss of land and livelihoods as well as their efforts to fight against the vested interests which had promoted and benefited from the projects.

In a statement published from this meeting, they called for a �society where human beings and nature are no longer reduced to the logic of the market where the only value is that of commodities and the only goal profits. We must advance to a society which respects diversity, and which is based on equitable and just relations between people, regions and nations.�

They demanded that �an international independent commission [be] established to conduct a comprehensive review of all large dams financed or otherwise supported by international aid and credit agencies, and its policy conclusions implemented�.

This request became reality at the World Bank Meeting in Switzerland, where an internal evaluation of World Bank Dams was slammed as being biased and methodologically flawed. Somewhat surprisingly, the World Bank, together with the World Conservation Union (IUCN), acceded to requests for an independent study and agreed to put up seed funding (about 10 per cent of the overall budget) for the World Commission on Dams.

Aims and Evidence

This new, independent organisation was set two major aims: first, to review the development effectiveness of dams and assess alternatives for water resources and energy development and, second, to develop internationally accepted standards, guidelines and criteria for decision-making in the planning, design, construction, monitoring, operation and decommissioning of dams.

The make-up of the Commission included major names from both those who had favoured and/or had been involved in the building of large dams as well as those who had been critical. Amongst them were engineers, company representatives, members of governments, academics, economists and indigenous and NGO representatives.

The Commission took its task extremely seriously, and the Report represents a wide range of evidence. The WCD held four regional consultations in which 1,400 individuals from 59 countries made representations, took part in two hearings on large dams organised by NGOs in Southern Africa and Europe, and received 947 submissions from over 80 countries.

In addition, it commissioned eight independent case studies on large dams and two country studies (India and China). It also sought 17 thematic reviews under the following categories: social, environmental, economic and financial, options assessment and institutional.

And finally, it conducted a comprehensive global survey of 125 dams for a �Cross-Check Survey�. Altogether, 1,000 of the 45,000 large dams in the world have been examined in some detail.

Importantly, despite the diversity of views represented by the commissioners, all signed the main conclusions of the report. This in itself should encourage all of us, not least our Government, to take its evidence and conclusions extremely seriously.

The Report's Conclusions

The conclusions are not positive. The Report is very clear about the shortcomings of large-dam projects. Whilst recognising the fact that such dams have provided benefits in the form of irrigation and drinking water, flood control and hydroelectric power (globally, dams account for 19 percent of electricity generated and 12 to 16 per cent of global food production), the Report states that these have invariably been at the expense of people and environment.

It records the under-performance of large dams in providing irrigation facilities and generating hydro power. It documents the adverse environmental impacts of large dams including on river ecosystems, and the negative impact on people dependent on these ecosystems, particularly tribal and indigenous communities.

The many testimonies reported by the WCD also show that negative impacts of large dam projects are usually heavily under-estimated by dam proponents. The study found that dam building involves huge cost overruns and delays, and environmental and social impact assessments have all too often failed to identify accurately the effect of the dam(s) on environment and people. The report goes so far as to allege that �few dams have ever been looked at to see if the benefits outweigh the costs�. This might ring some bells in Malaysia.

A quarter of dams built to supply water deliver less than half the intended amount, says the Report. In a tenth of old reservoirs, the build-up of silt has more than halved the storage capacity. What is more, by stopping the flow of silt downstream, dams reduce the fertility of flood plains and invariably cause erosion of coastal deltas. Large dams have caused extinction of many fish and other aquatic species, as well as huge losses of forest, wetland and farmland.

Dams Are Not 'Green'

The Report also demolishes the idea that dams represent something of a �green� ideal. In looking at the evidence from around the world, the Report states that rotting vegetation trapped underwater releases carbon dioxide and methane, both potent greenhouse gases, and that this can cause more pollution than generating electricity by burning fossil fuels.

For example, the billion-dollar Balbina reservoir in the Amazon rainforest was built 13 years ago to provide �green�, pollution-free electricity, but it in fact produces eight times more greenhouse gas than a typical coal-fired power station with a similar generating capacity. The rotting vegetation has generated millions of tonnes of two greenhouse gases. These are carbon dioxide and methane - a gas that, molecule for molecule, is 20 times more potent at warming the planet than carbon dioxide.

The WCD warns that this problem extends beyond rainforest reservoirs. It told UN climate-change negotiators last June that greenhouse gases bubble up from all 30 reservoirs for which measurements have been made. The message was clear: �There is no justification for claiming that hydroelectricity does not contribute significantly to global warming.�

Scientists like Vincent St Louis, of the University of Alberta, have estimated that the total contribution of the thousands of reservoirs round the world to global warming is that they produce a fifth of all the man-made methane in the atmosphere. Add in their emissions of carbon dioxide, and they make up 7 per cent of the man-made greenhouse effect. So any claim that building dams is in any way �environmentally-friendly� should now be treated with the scepticism it has always deserved. Malaysian authorities take note.

Who is Affected?

In addition to the severely negative impact on the environment, the Report also spends considerable attention in documenting the effects of dams on people. It is estimated that large dam projects have displaced up to 80 million people worldwide, a huge number.

And the Report is clear that it is almost always the most marginal members of society who are so affected. �The direct adverse impacts of dams have fallen disproportionately on rural dwellers, subsistence farmers, indigenous peoples, ethnic minorities, and women�, states the Report. It goes on: �Little or no meaningful participation of affected people in the planning and implementation of dam projects has taken place�.

Forcing so many people from their homes and lands has led to extreme economic hardship, community disintegration, and an increase in mental and physical health problems. Indigenous, tribal, and peasant communities have been particularly hard hit. People living downstream of dams have suffered from increased disease and the loss of natural resources upon which their livelihoods depended.

The Report states categorically that the benefits of large dams have largely gone to the wealthy while poorer sectors of society have borne the costs. It recommends that people directly affected by dams should have a direct role in their conception and construction as well as guarantees on compensation and relocation. This is what many people have been consistently saying with regard to dam building in Malaysia, but have consistently been ignored. The result for communities displaced by dams here has been disastrous.

So Now...A New Dawn?

The Report has been hailed as a major landmark in dam building by just about every side of the dam debate, including by dam proponents, agencies such as the World Bank and representatives of environmental and indigenous movements.

One commentator has called the Report a landmark event which marks the beginning of a huge task. �It paves the way for a new approach, one that builds on looking at all energy development options, one that recognises people�s rights from the outset, one that more truthfully assesses all risks. It also points to the importance of assessing alternatives to irrigation, water storage and hydropower.�

Indeed the WCD itself has appealed to governments and international finance institutions - notably the World Bank and export credit agencies - to determine if dams are still necessary in light of other options such as wind and solar power.

NGO and other representatives of course have been quick to urge the World Bank and other public funding institutions and governments to implement the Report�s recommendations immediately. In particular, there is a demand that public financial bodies �should place a moratorium on funding the planning or construction of new dams� until they can show they have got �the free, prior and informed consent of indigenous peoples.� Funding institutions should also make provisions to pay reparations to communities that suffer social or economic harm because of dam projects.

In urging a complete re-think of dam building, demands following the publication of the Report have included:

• The implementation of a human rights approach which recognises that no community should be forced to move, but that they should have the right to negotiate as equal partners in dam-planning and decision-making processes, which implies the right of prior and informed consent. The rights of indigenous, tribal and traditional people to self-determination and to the preservation of their resources, cultural heritage and territories, in particular, must be recognised.
• Priority should be accorded to the optimisation of existing water and energy infrastructure in any region - both in terms of increased efficiency and reduced social and environmental impact before alternative options are promoted. Basic needs should be prioritised rather than other �demands�, and more sustainable small-scale options such as rainwater harvesting, groundwater-recharging etc., should be promoted above large-scale unsustainable options. Dams should be seen as a last resort with the onus on the developer to prove there are no better options. The costs of eventual decommissioning need to be included in the costing of the dam with specific funds set aside.
• The management of local resources should be in the hands of local communities with principles of democratic governance (including transparency, accountability and participation) guiding the process. Current trends of privatisation and globalisation should not be accepted as inevitable. Where private companies implement dams they must be held responsible for the social and environmental costs involved. Companies should have to meet the same standards overseas as they do in their home countries.
• Large dams should not be seen as the answer to global warming as the evidence clearly shows that they are responsible for significant and poisonous emissions (methane and carbon dioxide, for example). Instead measures to mitigate global warming should focus first on energy conservation and efficiency - especially in the hyper-consuming countries of the West and the high-consuming classes of the rest of the world - and second on the development of sustainable and renewable forms of power generation.
• There should be a moratorium on the construction of new dams in all countries until all the problems - socio--economic, environmental and cultural - caused by completed projects in that country are resolved.