[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
DAM-L LS: Asiaweek on WCD (fwd)
----- Forwarded message from owner-irn-mekong@netvista.net -----
From owner-irn-mekong@netvista.net Thu Dec 7 21:49:48 2000
Return-Path: <owner-irn-mekong@netvista.net>
Received: from DaVinci.NetVista.net (mjdomo@mail.netvista.net [206.170.46.10])
by lox.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA17134
for <dianne@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca>; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 21:49:46 -0500 (EST)
From: owner-irn-mekong@netvista.net
Received: [(from mjdomo@localhost)
by DaVinci.NetVista.net (8.10.0/8.8.8) id eB82GiX15806
for irn-mekong-list; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 18:16:44 -0800 (PST)
(envelope-from owner-irn-mekong@netvista.net)]
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 18:16:44 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <200012080216.eB82GiX15806@DaVinci.NetVista.net>
subject: LS: Asiaweek on WCD
Sender: owner-irn-mekong@netvista.net
Precedence: bulk
http://www.cnn.com/ASIANOW/asiaweek/magazine/2000/1208/as.dams.html
Asiaweek, Dec 8, 2000
Troubled Waters
As protests continue over dam-building, a landmark review calls for a reth
ink on future projects
By SHEELAH GULLION
After a wave of anti-globalization protests, World Bank president James
Wolfensohn might have
expected a demonstration or two during his tour of bank projects in India
last month. He wasn't
disappointed. In Delhi, he came up against several thousand protesters
camped outside the
institution's sleek offices, waving placards and clenched fists, demanding a
meeting with him.
The lives of these poor farmers, fishermen and tribal people are being
thrown into turmoil by the
mega-dam project on the Narmada River for which the bank had provided
initial loans.
Normally their views would never be heard. This time they were. They asked
Wolfensohn to
press the Narmada managers for an accounting of the funds - and to give an
assurance that the
bank would not reverse its 1993 decision to withdraw from the project. "We
made him listen to
us," says protest leader Medha Patkar.
Just a few years ago, chances of such a meeting taking place would have been
slim. But
international institutions such as the World Bank must now give greater
consideration to the
voices of the disadvantaged - and pay closer attention to the terrible human
and environmental
costs often exacted in the name of progress. Few of the conflicts over
development have roused
such bitter, persistent divisions as large dams.
Thus it made sense that the bank, for decades the biggest single financier
of these projects in the
developing world, should be the driving force behind a comprehensive review.
Its vehicle: the
World Commission on Dams, an organization formed in 1998 specifically to
bring together
industry representatives, governments and green activists. After two years,
four regional
consultations, eight case studies and about 950 submissions from interest
groups, the
commission unveiled its results in November in a report entitled Dams and
Development. The
conclusions are damning.
For most of the past century, dams have symbolized development, engineering
ingenuity and
national pride. And dams can make huge contributions to economic growth.
They help control
floods, supply vital water to farmers and expanding cities, as well as power
to homes and
businesses. But, according to the report, many ambitious projects were ill
thought-out and badly
executed. It concludes that all too frequently, "an unacceptable and often
unnecessary price has
been paid to secure those benefits." Up to 80 million people worldwide have
been forced out of
their homes and settled elsewhere with paltry compensation and no viable
means of earning a
living.
The list of indictments is daunting: Costs have exceeded estimates by an
average of 50%;
ecosystems were destroyed or permanently damaged; hydroelectric dams, once
held as clean,
renewable energy sources, turned out to be significant generators of
greenhouse gases given off
by decomposing vegetation in tropical reservoirs. More often than not,
projects simply failed to
deliver the benefits that proponents promised. For instance, some dams
designed to reduce
flooding actually worsened it. In hot, dry areas, salt build-up in
reservoirs has led to saline waters
that ruined farmland.
Even before the report, these icons of modernity had been losing their
allure. In the U.S., more
dams are being decommissioned than are being built. Among the latest
targets: four dams across
the Snake River in Washington state which are said to threaten the survival
of salmon. In Japan,
residents in the town of Tokushima voted by a 10 to one margin to reject the
construction of a
billion-dollar dam across a nearby river. They judged it a waste of
taxpayers' money. Taiwan's
green lobby has even managed to stop a project near southern Meinung town
that would have
flooded a valley known for its butterflies. Meanwhile, the Bakun dam in
Malaysia and the San
Roque project in the Philippines continue to draw fire from citizens'
groups.
Of the major projects already completed, Pak Mun dam in Thailand, which the
commission
studied in detail, highlights shortcomings described in the report. The $264
million project went
ahead with little consultation with local residents, and was completed in
three years (with $24
million in bank aid). But the dam generates just 20.81 megawatts of
electricity - a sixth of the
136MW capacity touted. Environmental assessments were laughable. Consultants
had predicted
fish yields in the reservoir of 100 kg per hectare each year, but villagers
netted just one tenth of
that. Downstream, catches declined markedly, too, and fish species dwindled
on both sides of the
barrage. Assurances that impact on local inhabitants would be minimal were
no more credible.
Some 1,700 households were moved instead of the 240 predicted. Then, about
6,200 families
had to be compensated when fisheries were affected during construction, and
there is no
reparation for permanently damaged fisheries. Little wonder the report
concludes: "If all the
benefits and costs were adequately assessed, it is unlikely that the project
would have been built
in the current context."
Conflict at Pak Mun has not eased over the years. If anything, relations
have deteriorated between
villagers and EGAT, the state utility that built and operates the
multi-purpose facility in Ubon
Ratchathani province. Now peasants are demanding that the dam gates be
opened to allow
migrating fish to spawn and repopulate the river. Just two days after the
dam commission's
revelations, thugs linked to the utility attacked village protesters camped
at the dam crest and
burnt down their shelters. "Previously, we were often threatened, but it was
not too violent. [The
recent incident] was the worst," says activist Somparn Khuendee. After
initial denials, EGAT
eventually owned up: The attackers were in their employ. The men had been
instructed to
"politely" ask the protesters to leave, but the confrontation turned
violent, Boonlert Mongkolwit,
assistant PR chief of the utility, said. But he is unapologetic. "[The
protestors'] presence has
obstructed our work and their shacks on our property are an eyesore."
Track records in China and India, the two nations reviewed in the report,
are little better. The
Asian giants account for 26,291 dams, 55% of the world's total. China has
built 22,000 since
1949 - almost one for every day since Liberation. But this "rush to
construct so many - and
such large - dams in so short a time has also led to serious safety concerns
and a costly
program to address these issues," the report notes. Some 12 million people
have been displaced
in that period. Yet China's irrigation and water-supply problems persist.
The report does not specifically examine two of the most notorious dam
projects in the world:
China's Three Gorges Dam, which the bank declined to fund; and the Sardar
Sarovar scheme,
which involves 30 large dams, 135 medium ones and 3,000 small ones along the
Narmada river
in India. No project comes close to the Three Gorges Dam in ambition - and
controversy (see
story below). Despite deepening criticism internally and abroad, Chinese
leaders pushed ahead
with the project. Consultation is not part of the Communist Party of China's
vocabulary. But, as
the report notes, decisions are similarly arbitrary in India. Planners are
often ignorant of non-dam
alternatives. People facing resettlement have no recourse to resolve their
grievances.
The commission's report comes as a timely boost for Indian dam opponents.
Villagers waging a
12-year struggle to block the Narmada project suffered a serious setback in
October when the
Indian Supreme Court ruled that construction could go ahead. With its
emphasis on civic
participation and holistic evaluation, activists cite the report as
vindication of their cause. All the
same, many people in Gujarat state, which suffered its worst drought of the
century this year,
welcome the court ruling. For them the dam carries the vision, held out by
government leaders,
of transforming the parched land into lush wheat fields.
That goal may turn out to be a mirage. Protestors insist the project will
not meet the water needs
of Gujarat, which is on the periphery of irrigation grids. Rather, the
scheme favors big farmers
and water-guzzling industries downstream. "The ruling elite has planned
water resorts and other
such entertainment parks. How will the poor benefit from all this?" asks
activist Sripad
Dharmakhidary. The Narmada movement is standing its ground, not least
because indifferent
state governments have declared that there is no land for resettlement of
the estimated 41,000
families who face eviction.
But the purpose of the World Commission on Dams was to provide a framework
for evaluating
future dam proposals. Its conclusion was that if a dam is to be genuinely
successful there must
be openness and transparency in decision-making throughout the process.
Everyone affected
should have the chance to voice his or her views, at each step of the
process. And perhaps most
importantly, social and ecological impact should be given as much weight as
economic
considerations.
Unfortunately, those are worthy but very broadbrush ideals. As a hybrid
organization, the World
Commission on Dams has been careful to tread the middle ground. "The
commission spent time
researching just how to view indigenous peoples' human rights," says
secretary general Achim
Steiner of Germany. "We believe that we provide a basis for negotiation and
protection of
interests for people who find themselves in a disadvantaged position."
Pie in the sky? Perhaps. Some politicians welcome the recommendations as
support from for
"bottom-up decision making." But can dam advocates and opponents ever come
to a
compromise? How far will governments and development agencies adopt the
recommendations?
Or will banks and dam builders end up just paying lip service to social and
ecological
considerations?
Signs are the logjam won't be loosened anytime soon. The International
Commission on Large
Dams (ICOLD), a leading industry group composed of professionals and
engineering
companies, expressed reservations about the report even before it was out.
ICOLD complained
that it was not given a chance to vet the document before it was approved.
Thai utility EGAT
rejects the findings on Pak Mun as "distorted." Villagers seeking
compensation for lost fisheries
are plain lazy, says its assistant PR chief Boonlert. "Wherever you have the
water source, you
have fish, but the villagers didn't want to work. They just hope to get more
money from us." So
much for community spirit and compromise.
Still, some dam builders, like the Swedish construction group Skanska, have
embraced the
guidelines. The commission's work is "a major stride for sustainable
development . . . we are
prepared to actively strive toward these [new criteria] being accepted,"
declares Skanska's
vice-president of environmental affairs, Axel Wenblad. "There's more than
one voice within
ICOLD," notes James Workman, a senior World Commission on Dams media
adviser.
But some citizens' groups are equally skeptical about the commission's work.
After all, it has no
power to enforce changes or to adjudicate disputes. "When you talk about
dams, both sides at the
table will agree on the policy," says Wanida Tantivittayapitak. of the Thai
activist group
Assembly of the Poor. "But nothing is discussed about what has to be done to
resolve the
problem."
Still, Wolfensohn believes no country can ignore the impact that the report
brings to a global
rethink on dams. "There are a lot of places where you can apply pressure,"
he said after its
launch. Projects need financiers and construction companies. "You cannot
just have a single
decision-maker in a country saying 'To hell with it, I am going to ignore
these
recommendations.'" Try telling that to Chinese President Jiang Zemin.
Wolfensohn and the
World Bank must pay more attention to the demands of local interest groups.
But until leaders in
developing nations become more accountable to their citizens, massive,
over-priced dams will
continue to be the dream of national politicians and the nightmare of local
inhabitants.
With reports by Sanjay Kapoor/Delhi and Jennifer Gampell/Bangkok
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to majordomo@netvista.net
with no subject and the following text in the body of the message
"unsubscribe irn-mekong".
----- End of forwarded message from owner-irn-mekong@netvista.net -----