Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T16:23:21.516Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A watershed in global governance? An independent assessment of the World Commission on Dams (Executive Summary)∗

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 May 2016

Navroz K. Dubash ,
Mairi Dupar ,
Smitu Kothari  and
Tundu Lissu
Navroz K. Dubash
Affiliation:
World Resources Institute, 10 G Street, NE (Suite 800), Washington, D.C. 20002 USA front@wri.org
Mairi Dupar
Affiliation:
World Resources Institute, 10 G Street, NE (Suite 800), Washington, D.C. 20002 USA front@wri.org
Smitu Kothari
Affiliation:
Lokayan Social Action Group, 13 Alipur Road, Delhi 110054 India lokayan@vsnl.com
Tundu Lissu
Affiliation:
Lawyers' Environmental Action Team (LEAT), Mazingira House, Mazingira Street, Mikocheni Area, P. O. Box 12605, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania leat@twiga.com
Get access

Extract

In mid-2000, Medha Patkar, a leader of one of the best-known social movements in India, and Goran Lindahl, the Chief Executive Officer of one of the world's largest engineering firms, participated in a meeting together in Cape Town. The two came from different worlds. Patkar was weak from undertaking a hunger strike to protest a dam on the Narmada River in western India. Lindahl arrived at the last minute on his private jet. Before their meeting, Patkar animatedly described the recent protests, showed Lindahl pictures of the villagers, and narrated their experiences.

Type
Harrison Symposium I
Information
Politics and the Life Sciences , Volume 21 , Issue 1 , March 2002 , pp. 42 - 62
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Politics and the Life Sciences 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.See, for example, WCD Newsletter No. 3, June 1999. Online at: www.dams.org/newsletters/newsletter3.htm (23 August 2001). External audiences have echoed this framing of the WCD. SeeBaur, Jörg and Rudolph, Jochen, “A Breakthrough in the Evolution of Large Dams? Back to the Negotiating Table,” D+C Development Cooperation, No. 2, March/April 2001, p. 9–12. Online at: www.dse.de/zeitschr/de201-3.htm (23 August 2001); Seckler, David and Steiner, Achim, “More Crop per Drop and Dams on Demand? Implications for the 21st Century.” Report given at the ODI-OAS Meeting Series, 9 February 2000. Online at: www.oneworld.org/odi/speeches/water3.html (23 August 2001).Google Scholar
2.World Commission on Dams, Dams and Development: A New Framework for Decision-Making (London: Earthscan, 2000).Google Scholar
3.SeeFox, Jonathan and Brown, L. David, eds. The Struggle for Accountability: The World Bank, NGOs and Grassroots Movements (Boston: MIT Press, 1998); Wade, Robert, “Greening the Bank: The Struggle over the Environment, 1970–1995,” in The World Bank: Its First Half-Century.Kapur, Devesh, Lewis, John P., and Webb, Richard, eds. (Washington: Brookings Institution, 1997).Google Scholar
4.Hemmati, Minu et. al. “Multi-stakeholder Processes: A Methodological Framework,” 2nd Draft Project Report, UNED Forum, April 2001. Online at: www.earthsummit2002.org/msp/report/draft_framework.htm (23 August 2001).Google Scholar
5.For instance, at the meetings of the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) the results of the multi-stakeholder dialogues at the beginning of the sessions are summarised by the CSD Chairperson. These summaries are presented to negotiators the following week and assume the status of an official document. The delegates choose paragraphs from the summaries in formulating the formal decision. Personal communication with UNED Forum staff, 30 July 2001.Google Scholar
6.SeeFlorini, A., ed. The Third Force: The Rise of Transnational Civil Society (Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2000); Shelton, Dinah, ed. Commitment and Compliance: The Role of Non-binding Norms in the International Legal System (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000).Google Scholar
7.World Bank Operations Evaluation Department, World Bank Lending for Large Dams: A Preliminary Review of Impacts, OED Précis, September 1996.Google Scholar
8.On March 14 1997, a coalition of civil society groups issued the“Declaration of Curitiba: Affirming the Right to Life and Livelihood of People Affected by Dams” (www.irn.org/programs/curitiba.html, 23 August 2001) which called for an independent review of large dams. This call echoed an earlier statement by civil society opponents of dams issued in India, the “Manibeli Declaration Calling for a Moratorium on World Bank Funding of Large Dams,” September, 1994 (www.irn.org/programs/finance/manibeli.shtml, 23 August 2001).Google Scholar
9.The proceedings of the meeting and the immediate follow-up process were captured in an IUCN-World Bank publication entitled Large Dams: Learning from the Past, Looking to the Future (Gland: IUCN, 1997). Online at: www.dams.org/publications/publication1.htm (23 August 2001).Google Scholar
10.The Commission derived this specific set of objectives based upon its interpretation of the six-point Terms of Reference developed by the stakeholders at Gland.Google Scholar
11.Later reduced to 125 because of incomplete survey forms.Google Scholar
12.World Commission on Dams, “Strategy and Objectives: June 1998-June 2000,” Cape Town.Google Scholar
13.The Three Gorges Project is planned to have a 18,200 MW installed capacity and 39.3 109 m3 reservoir capacity. It is forecast to produce 84.7 109 kWh in annual energy. Fuggle, R.; Smith, W. T.; Hydrosult Canada Inc.; and Agrodev Canada Inc. 2000. Large Dams in Water and Energy Resource Development in The People's Republic of China (PRC), country review paper prepared as an input to the World Commission on Dams, Cape Town, www.dams.org/studies/cn (23 August 2001).Google Scholar
14.Electricité de France and ISAGEN-Colombia.Google Scholar
15.Volta River Authority and Lesotho Highlands Development Project.Google Scholar
16.Interviews with Forum members, September 2000 and November 2000. Email correspondence with Forum member, January 2001.Google Scholar
17.In interviews and public settings during the Forum meetings, government representatives expressed reservation about the extent of NGO and social movement participation in the WCD process. Also interview with government representative, April 2000.Google Scholar
18.McCully, Patrick, “How to Use a Trilateral Network: An Activist's Perspective on the World Commission on Dams.” Paper presented at Agrarian Studies Program Colloquium, Yale University, 19 January 2001. Online at: http://www.rivernet.Org/general/wcd/other_ngo.htm#how (23 August 2001).Google Scholar
19.World Bank internal document, “Talking points from Government of China discussion with World Bank,” 15 January 2001.Google Scholar
20.Based upon interviews with government and agency officials at the WCD consultation in Egypt, December 1999, and focus groups and interviews in Tanzania, Kenya, and Uganda in November 2000.Google Scholar
21.For example, the Dublin Principles agreed upon by governmental representatives in 1992 in the run-up to the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development recognised that “[the] pivotal role of women as providers and users of water and guardians of the living environment has seldom been reflected in institutional arrangements for the development and management of water” as one of four overarching principles. Principle Three of The Dublin Statement, International Conference on Water and the Environment: Development issues for the 21st century, 26–31 January 1992, Dublin, Ireland. The WCD's final report documents some of the effects of dam-related development and displacement on women, but its guidelines and recommendations incorporate only a passing mention of gender issues.Google Scholar
22.Derived fromCorporación Participa, Environmental Management and Law Association, Thailand Environment Institute, and World Resources Institute, “Framework for Assessing Public Access to Environmental Decision-Making,” 2001.Google Scholar
23.This recommendation is contained in a paper by an early advisor to the Commission, Dorcey, Anthony, “Institutional Design and Operational Modalities for the Proposed Large Dams Commission,” Stockholm Draft 6, August 1997 (mimeo).Google Scholar
24.Including French, Russian, Hindi, Polish, German, Chinese, Japanese, and Portuguese.Google Scholar
25.Brazil—Tucurui Dam and Amazon/Tocantins River; Norway—Glomma and Lågen River Basin; Pakistan—Tarbela Dam and Indus River Basin; Thailand—Pak Mun Dam and Mekong/Mun River Basins; Turkey—Aslantas Dam and Ceyhan River Basin; United States—Grand Coulee Dam and Columbia Basin; Zambia and Zimbabwe—Kariba Dam and Zambezi River Basin. Country Reviews: China, India, Russia. Pilot Study: South Africa Gariep and Van der Kloof Dams and Orange River Basin.Google Scholar
26.World Commission on Dams, “World Commission on Dams Project & Financial Report,” May 1998–April 2001.Google Scholar
27.For detailed reactions to the final report, seewww.dams.org/report/followups.htm (6 September 2001). This site is updated on an ongoing basis, and includes new material that has been posted since the authors completed the WCD assessment in May 2001. All of the responses described here are posted onwww.dams.org/report/reaction.htm except as noted.Google Scholar
28.For example, International Rivers Network and the Berne Declaration, with 109 additional signatories from NGOs around the world, “From Commission to Action: An NGO Call to Public Financial Institutions,” 16 November 2000; East, Rivers Watch and Asia, Southeast, “Call to Dam-building agencies in East and SE Asia upon the release of the World Commission on Dams final report,” 29 November 2000. See also World Wide Fund for Nature position statement, February 2001. Online at: www.panda.org/livingwaters/pubs.html (14 September 2001).Google Scholar
29.SeeWilliams, Philip, “Lies, Dam Lies,” The Guardian (22 November 2000). Online at: http://society.guardian.co.uk/societyguardian/story/0,7843,400894,00.html (23 August 2001). Philip Williams is the founder and former President of IRN.Google Scholar
30.For example, Southern African communities and nongovernmental organisations, “Southern African Call to Action,” 23 November 2000; James Bay Cree Nation and the Pimicikamak Cree Nation, “Statement on the occasion of the release of the World Commission on Dams final report,” Undated; Narmada Bachao Andolan (Struggle to Save the Narmada River), “World Commission on Dams Report vindicates unjustifiability of large dams,” 20 November 2000. See also Brazilian Movement of Dam-Affected People, “The Brazilian Movement of Dam-affected People (MAB) and the World Commission on Dams (WCD),” 9 February 2001. Online at: www.rivernet.org/general/wcd/other_ngo.htm#bra (23 August 2000).Google Scholar
31.Personal communication with Brazilian activist, January 2001.Google Scholar
32.Briscoe, John, “Responding to the WCD Report: A Progress Report from the World Bank.” Presentation at the WCD's Third Forum Meeting, Cape Town, February 2001. John Briscoe is a Senior Water Resources Advisor at the World Bank.Google Scholar
33.Asian Development Bank, “ADB's ongoing and planned responses to the WCD's strategic priorities, best practices, and institutional responses.” Internal ADB draft, February 2001.Google Scholar
34.Iyer, Ramaswamy R., public letter to Professor Asmal on the proceedings of the ADB consultation with client governments in Manila, 22 February 2001.Google Scholar
35.United Nations Environment Programme, “UNEP chief welcomes new report on impacts of dams as major contribution to future energy and water resource policymaking,” News Release No. 00/129, 17 November 2000.Google Scholar
36.World Health Organization response to the WCD's final report, “Risks, Rights and Negotiated Agreements,” World Health Organization, 30 November 2000.Google Scholar
37.Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Statement at the WCD's Third Forum Meeting, 25–27 February 2000.Google Scholar
38.Interviews with industry representatives on the WCD Forum, 28 February 2001.Google Scholar
39.These views were captured in official letters from the National Water Agency of Brazil and the Government of Nepal to the World Bank, February 2001.Google Scholar
40.As in the formal response of the Ministry of Finance, Government of China to the World Bank, February 2001.Google Scholar
41.Response of the Government of India to the WCD Report and initial response of the Government of Nepal, as distributed to the WCD Forum, 25–27 February 2001. Response of the Government of Ethiopia. Memo by the Chinese Ministry of Finance to the World Bank on the WCD Report, February 2001.Google Scholar
42.WCD press release, “South African Symposium endorses WCD recommendations,” 24 July 2001. Online at: www.dams.org/press/default.php?article=1324 (24 August 2001).Google Scholar
43.Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “Norway's Comments on the Report of the World Commission on Dams,” June 2001.Google Scholar
44.World Commission on Dams, 2000, p. 319.Google Scholar
45.Finnemore, Martha and Sikkink, Kathryn. Autumn, 1998. “International Norm Dynamics and Political Change.” International Organization 52(4): 887–917.Google Scholar