Commission on Dams (WCD)
Impacts of large dams around the world
To conduct a rigorous independent review impact of large hydro-electrical
and irrigation dams; develop recommendations on future dam building and to
propose practical guidelines for future decision-making.
STAKEHOLDERS (Commission and Forum): Multilateral
agencies; affected communities; international professional associations;
international NGOs; government agencies; utility companies; research institutes;
private sector firms in the power and engineering sector; river basin
FRAME: WCD launched February 1998, started work May 1998 - November 2000
(publication of report)
MSP CONTACT DETAILS; URL: http://www.dams.org;
complete report at http://www.damsreport.org/
Type: Informing / advisory, not judicial
Level: International; with regional inputs
WCD was established in February 1998 through a
process of dialogue and negotiation involving representatives of the public,
private and civil society sectors. It has attracted substantial interest because
of the unique way in which the different sides of the debate were brought
together, and the belief that this may form a model for resolving other
contentious development issues. It was set up and financed by Aid agencies,
industry, governments, and NGOs.
An Interim Working Group, composed of participants of a workshop facilitated by
the World Bank and IUCN in Gland, Switzerland) was tasked with establishing the
World Commission on Dams (WCD).
The mandate for the work of the Commission is the result of agreements reached
at the workshop in Gland, Switzerland, along with the subsequent preparatory
work and consultation process that followed.
History of the WCD: Started as a debate within the World Bank. The Bank used to
fund large dams to a great extent (6-7% of the WB annual budget). This caused
crises, e.g. with the Namada dam; and the Bank's involvement in dams building
was looked at by an independent inspection panel (WB Operational and Evaluation
Department's first evaluation of Bank financing of big dam projects). The bank
subsequently declined its lending, whereas coal related lending went up. NGO
campaigns called for comprehensive reviews of Bank funded dam projects.
Companies were interested in finding a way forward on dams building, e.g.
because of the criticism and the decrease in available loans by the World Bank
and other funders.
The environmental advisors within the Bank had all along discussed these issues
critically – a debate about the "green position" of the Bank. IUCN
was then asked to create an external group to discuss the issue of large dams.
The Bank's and IUCN's original idea was to set up a working group and have a 3
day conference which took place in Gland, Switzerland, in April 1997. A wider
group of stakeholders were then invited, including anti-dam groups. IUCN
contacted the International Rivers Network to get potential names and comments
on the design of the event. It was important to have representation from people
actually affected by these developments and therefore strong critics, rather
than what has been termed more "establishment-type groups", where the
power issue would have less prominent and therefore the outcome less
progressive. The process of setting up the Commission was also supported by an
NGO meeting mid-March 1997 in Curitiba (Brazil) which had issued a Declaration
calling for a international independent commission to conduct a comprehensive
review of large dams. The Gland workshop brought together 39 participants
representing governments, the private sector, international financial
institutions, civil society organisations, and affected people in a balance
later mirrored in both the Commission and the Forum (WCD 2000: 27). One of the
outcomes was the agreement reached at the last day of the Gland meeting to carry
on the work, for example, through a Commission. After the meeting, participants
were communicating via email.
In the view of some NGOs, the shape of any potential Commission – scope and
range - would have been narrower without "alternative stakeholder
input" at Gland. A joint press statement issued by the World Bank and IUCN
noted that all stakeholders were going to collaborate on a study reviewing the
effectiveness of large dams and setting standards etc. Thus all stakeholders
involved were established as central to the legitimacy of the process. The joint
WB / IUCN press release read ”Dam-builders and some of their strongest critics
agreed today…”. IUCN and the World Bank noted how they had brought together
the two sides of a highly contentious debate and forged consensus between them.
The workshop in Gland produced one recommendation: People affected by dam
building, e.g. re-settlements etc., need to be (materially) better off after the
building than before (a recommendation also put forward in the WCD report). The
principles of transparency, consultation and independence were enshrined as key
to the process.
the issues to be addressed in an MSP
To ensure the independence of the Commission, IUCN and
the World Bank have maintained their roles as initiators, but neither
institution interfered with the work programme of the Commission.
Issues for the initial Gland meeting were identified by WB and IUCN. After that,
issues were identified by participants, the Interim Working Group and
subsequently the Commission and the Forum, and via input from regional hearings
/ meetings and via expert and stakeholder background papers.
Relevant stakeholders were identified before the
initial conference in Gland by the World Bank and IUCN.
Involvement of NGOs: The issue of whether to participate was considered
carefully, given the scarcity of NGO resources and time, and the issue that the
usual power balance might happen and decisions would be favourable to the
industry. Dam critics noted that there would be less chance of this happening if
the commissioners had integrity and the process was transparent.
Selecting the Commissioners was no easy process as
some people felt the suggested lists did not include adequate representation of
people affected by dam building.
The Commission was composed of a chair and 11 members, balanced by regional
representation, expertise and stakeholders. Commissioners are members in their
individual capacities, not representatives of organisations. Ensuring
inclusiveness, independence and transparency were the goals of the process.
“As an international commission, our process has been unique in taking on
board a range of interests and opinions previously held to be
irreconcilable" (WCD 2000).
The WCD Forum is a consultative group consisting of 68 organisations, acting as
a 'sounding board' and advisory group for the WCD. It is a mix of participants
at the initial Gland meeting, new stakeholders
and interest groups. Selection criteria were relevance, balance and
representation of a diversity of perspectives, interests and regions. The Forum
is a mechanism for maintaining a dialogue between the WCD and the respective
constituencies of the Forum members. Members of the Forum provide ongoing input
into the Commission, play a key role in outreach and most likely in the
the goals of an MSP
The Interim Working Group negotiated the form and
mandate of the Commission. This group had been part of the Gland meeting and
represented all stakeholders.
The WCD addressed the conflicting viewpoints within the debate on large dams
large part of the Commission’s work involved a broad and independent review of
the experience with large dams. The resulting WCD Knowledge Base includes 8 in
depth case studies of dams, several country reviews, briefing papers, Thematic
Reviews, Cross-Check surveys as well as the result of public consultations,
including regional, and 947 submissions made to the WCD.
Meetings were held; otherwise: huge email traffic.
Form Gland meeting on: NGOs were very thoughtful and business too in-the-face,
which made the NGOs more powerful. Some business people have been 'converted' by
this process. And some NGOs changed their views, too (comment from WB and NGOs).
“The experience of the Commission demonstrates that common ground can be found
without compromising individual values or losing a sense of purpose” (WCD
2000, Executive Summary).
“Those groups facing the greatest risk from the development have the greatest
stake in the decisions, and therefore must have a corresponding place at the
negotiating table” (WCD 2000: 209).
The WCD report aims to encourage “improved
decision-making processes that deliver improved outcomes for all stakeholders”
(WCD 2000, Executive Summary). The Commission grouped the core values that
informed its understanding of the issues under 5 main headings: equity;
efficiency; participatory decision-making; sustainability, and accountability.
“Only decision-making processes based on the pursuit of negotiated outcomes,
conducted in an open and transparent manner and inclusive of all legitimate
actors involved in the issue are likely to resolve the complex issues
surrounding water, dams and development" (WCD 2000, Executive Summary).
Regarding gaining public acceptance: “Acceptance emerges from recognising
rights, addressing risks, and safeguarding the entitlements of all groups of
affected people. (…) Decision-making processes and mechanisms are used that
enable informed participation by all groups of people, and result in the
demonstrable acceptance of key decisions” (WCD 2000) (e.g. bringing about
change will require planners to identify stakeholders through a process that
recognises rights and recognises risks).
process: procedures of agreement
[On Commission decision-making: More information needed]
At Forum events, there were usually no formal voting or endorsement procedures,
but reports reflecting the sense of the meeting were produced.
The Commission identified that they were not
constituted to implement the recommendations and indeed did not have the mandate
or authority to do so. One key aspect is development finance; the Multi- and
Bi-Lateral Agencies have been tasked with responding to the recommendations.
This may initiate some form of institutionalising of the WCD
WCD urged all groups to study their report and its recommendations, “bearing
in mind that it results from consultations that, in terms of inclusiveness and
breadth of scope, are beyond the reach of any individual interest group” (WCD
2000: 311). “Capacity must be built if good outcomes are to be achieved,
including strengthening civil society and particularly empowering women to make
their voices heard” (WCD 2000: 313).
The report is being studied by individual governments, some have in some way or
the other adopted it. Further steps are under discussion.
The mandate of the Commission expired with the
publication of the report in November 2000. Another WCD Forum meeting was held
in February 2001 to assess and discuss follow-up, which might include a strategy
of feeding the results into governmental decision-making, establishment of
regional commissions and setting up a follow-up group. The February 2001 Forum
meeting was prepared by the Secretariat and a Forum Liaison Group comprising
representatives of IUCN and World Bank, two of the civil society Forum members,
and two of the industry, government and operators Forum members.
/ institutions of the MSP
WCD Secretariat; Capetown, South Africa. SG (until
March 2001): Achim Steiner.
Website at www.dams.org
Publication of the WCD report in November 2000, described by Commissioners
as a ‘consensus document’. It "..sets out to distil more than 2 years
intense study, dialogue and reflection by the Commission, the WCD secretariat,
the WCD stakeholders’ Forum and literally hundreds of individual experts and
affected people on every aspect of the dams debate" (WCD 2000 Executive
WCD describe the report not as a blueprint but “as the starting point for
discussions, debates, internal reviews and reassessments of what may be
established procedures and for an assessment of how these can evolve to address
a changed reality”.
to non-participating stakeholders
The WCD has entered into partnerships with various
organisations, networks and international agencies. These collaborations have
led to exciting opportunities for sharing, reviewing, and disseminating
information of common interest.
Some NGOs comment that a negative charge of eliticism could be placed against
the process - despite its claims of inclusiveness – as almost all WCD
documents used the English language, and without Internet access it would have
been hard to get hold large amounts of the documentation. (The reason given was
the tight time frame for their task.)
to the general public
Website, publication, press releases, big public
launch events in all regions (publicity via involving celebrities like Nelson
into official decision-making process
There are linkages via individual governments; many
governments are currently reviewing the report. Government interest increased
over the course of the Commissions work period.
For example, Brazil decided to do their own WCD for Brazil (individual
commission); Sweden decided to build no more dams (Dec 2000); Germany is
reviewing the WCD report; etc.
Further linkages, for example into the Earth Summit 2002 process, are under
The World Bank and IUCN undertook to secure the
initial core resources for the Commission to be created and to implement its
work program. IUCN provided the initial administrative support system to
facilitate the work of the Commission and the Secretariat.
The Gland meeting funded by Swiss Development Corporation, and a contribution
from the WB. The Commission then engaged in fundraising activities, ending up
with a large number of funders for the Secretariat and the Commission, including
17 governments and government agencies, 20 private sector firms, 12 NGOs and
foundations, and 4 multilateral agencies.
The WCD has thereby implemented a new funding model involving all interest
groups in the debate. Funding was
sought from the public and private sectors as well as from civil society.
Contributors had pledged funds equal to more than three-quarters of the
Commission's total projected budget of about US $9,9 million.
Information / Remarks
The Global Public Policy Project which is sponsored
by the UN Foundation to explore the potential of public policy networks for
increasing the effectiveness of the United Nations, recognised the value of the
WCD as a tri-sectoral process (public, private, civil society). The process took
on board all the different interests and moved the debate forward. The WCD
report acknowledges the conflict and ‘stalemate’ that was developing around
the dams controversy benefited no-one: “A new way had to be found”.
Understanding the WCD process is important because it is being hailed as a
precedent for dealing with other controversial global policy issues (e.g. by the
World Bank and others).
Monitoring of the follow-up is necessary – there is a need to learn from this
experience. It is unclear as yet who could fulfil that monitoring role.
Some NGOs believe that amongst the many process-related factors that allowed
such a welcome report is the fact that governments and international agencies
were marginalised from the process, and the private sector dam industry wasn't
as strong as it could have been.
Some say that the whole process and report raises much more issues for countries
than just dams - that is,
governance issues in general.