Introduction

iGreens have a lot of sympathy with the criticisms of large dams contained in the recent world dam report. Governments have funded most large dam projects especially in developing countries. The forced removal of local people which dams usually require would not be possible for private companies without them paying much higher levels of financial compensation. The discovery that the projects underestimated the harms they caused and benefited voters in cities at the expense of rural peasants is exactly what we would predict of these sorts of large government projects. However some criticisms of the report have from developing countries deserve to be listened to. In brief they allege that the hidden agenda of the report is to promote environmental concerns at the expense of economic development for the poor.

He claims that the Report raises a fundamental issue with regards to how and who should be making global public policy in the areas of sustainable development. The Commission's 12 members were meant to reflect regional diversity, expertise and stakeholders perspectives but actually had a bias towards hard line environmentalists. As he says.

"The first objective of the WCD "to review the development effectiveness of large dams and assess alternatives for water resources and energy development" shows their pre-determined intent to condemn large dams and o look for alternatives. Why could they not in an open way "review the development effectiveness of large dams and assess the lessons learned for future sustainable development?"

"Given the wide gap between the rich and the poor, the perspective from which large dams were reviewed affects the outcome. Wealthy countries who already control and use a large percentage of their water resources cannot be put on the same level as poor countries which currently use only a fraction of their water resources. It is very difficult for a person who consumes over 400 litres per day to understand the plight of millions of women in developing countries who trek miles daily for a jug of unwholesome water. When the cause of these human sufferings is mal-distribution of water, which could be corrected by dams, it is difficult for people in developing countries to appreciate the arguments against large dams.

The WCD Report puts very high value in participatory decision making. Mr Asfaw rightly wonders how many women trekking long distances in search of water participated in the deliberation of the WCD.

"A number of specific points illustrate the WCD bias. The report states that "we believe there can no longer be any justifiable doubt about the following" and bullet point 3 states "Lack of equity in the distribution of benefits has called into question the value of many dams in meeting water and energy development needs when compared with alternatives." As Mr Asfaw rightly says.

"What does the source of water and energy have to do with equity in the distribution of benefits. Whether the source of water or energy happens to be solar, wind power or small dams, equity issues can only be addressed by considering different principles, nothing to do with dam size or type of water and energy source."

"The seven strategic priorities set out by the Commission are based on the right to development and a healthy environment. However in countries such as Ethiopia these rights can not be practically achieved with out the wise use of their water resources. The seven guiding principles all make dam building difficult and cumbersome.

"The degree of involvement of the public in water and energy resource development varies from country to country and depends on the political environment and cultural factors. In most developing countries "informed participation by all groups of people" will take years to fully put in practice. The development of water resources cannot be held hostage to this.

"It is claimed that alternatives to dams often exist. Ethiopia has over 110 bmc mean annual flow in its rivers of which 75% flows straight out of the country. Less than 20% of the population has access to potable water and less than 5% access to modern energy. There is very little chance that other options will fare better than small, medium and large dams to achieve our development objectives.

"Optimising benefits from existing dams and addressing social and environmental issues are all very well but in developing countries we have very few dams to optimise. What incremental benefits can be generated from optimising the existing eight large dams in Ethiopia compared to the over 6500 dams in the USA?

"I sometimes wonder how the great aqueducts of the Roman Empire, the great pyramids of Egypt, the Great Wall of China, the magnificent rock-hewn churches and steles of Ethiopia built without the financing of multilateral banks. The dams we are talking about are not as complicated as these wonders of the world. The time has come for developing countries to opt for self-reliance and embark upon regulating their water resources with their own resources and for the benefit of their own people.

"In contrast with the WDC Report I find the following inspiring.

The Nine Dams of Tennessee River

"I wish I could say the same for Ethiopia's Awash, Abay, Baro Akobo, Wabe Sheble, Tekeze, Genele Dawa and Omo Valleys."

These critics are not confined to Africa. Another is the Deputy Chairman of the Russian Committee on Large Dams, Mr. G.G. Lapin. He accuses the authors of the report of attempting to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries. The report was initiated by well off countries, which have built a great number of dams. For example the USA: 6575 dams, Canada 793, Japan 2675 and Brazil 594 while Russia has only 236 large dams and many developing countries many fewer. And now these countries with many dams from which they have already benefited tell others to "slow dam construction, debate the subject, argue pro and cons, in case youl find it harmful". He suggests that the WCD is driven not by the interests of the poor people of Africa or Russia but by the desire to keep the great and well-off countries great and prosperous as long as possible while native tribes should remain in their pristine state". Precisely.

iGreen comment

There are at least two huge tensions in the building of large dams. The first is between the poor local people who will be displaced by the dam, and those who will benefit from the irrigation and power it produces. The second lies between the need for economic development in general and the desire of some people, typically developed world elites, to maintain pristine environments.

The ideal solution to both dilemmas would be to give secure property rights to the poor landowners who might be displaced by the dams. If governments could not expropriate them, dam building companies and environmental groups would have to compete to buy their land rights. The price they would be able to pay would be proportional to the economic and environmental benefits. The market would achieve a just solution.