A Critical Look at the Report of the World Commission on Dams in the ...

Water Resources Development, Vol. 18, No. 1, 127–145, 2002

A Critical Look at the Report of the World Commission on Dams in the Context of the Debate on Large Dams on the Himalayan Rivers

JAYANTA BANDYOPADHYAY Centre for Development and Environment Policy, Indian Institute of Management, Kolkata 700104, India. E-mail: [email protected]

ABSTRACT In the Ganges–Brahmaputra–Meghna (GBM) basin in south Asia, the Himalayan rivers offer a large number of sites suitable for the construction of storage dams to collect part of their very large monsoon run-off and generate a good amount of hydropower. A series of large dams proposed by the governments are facing strong opposition on social and environmental grounds. Additional water and hydropower supplies are needed badly to ensure economic development in this basin, where poverty is a widespread problem. The report of the World Commission on Dams (WCD) has been analysed in this paper to explore how much it can provide a new framework for decision making for these dams. It has been found that there are some important technical gaps in the WCD report, as a result of which it cannot help in answering some crucial technical questions raised by the debate on dams on the Himalayan rivers of the GBM basin. Introduction The report of the World Commission on Dams (WCD, 2000, p. ix) has been described as a “new framework for decision-making”. The process of taking decisions related to dams, especially the large dams, is not limited merely to their structural design and physical construction; there are many other important aspects associated with dams, which sometimes do not receive the attention due. The WCD has successfully drawn global attention to these broader aspects in which dams need to be seen. It has also correctly linked the process of decision making on dams with the larger policy questions related to sustainable water and energy development (WCD, 2000). Thus, in the WCD’s report, decisions on dams have been closely intertwined with sustainable water resource development. As a result, the point, that dam building decisions do not belong to the exclusive domain of the discipline of water resource engineering, has been brought to the fore. In addition to the main body of the WCD report, a number of case studies on countries as well as a few existing dams, and several thematic review papers, have been presented as annexes. The case studies and thematic papers have been contributed by a number of authors from many parts of the world and constitute the ‘WCD knowledge base’. Two country case studies, one on China and the other on India, had been written as part of the background information for the 0790-062 7 Print/1360-064 8 On-line/02/010127–19 Ó 2002 Taylor & Francis Ltd DOI: 10.1080/0790062022012170 1

128

J. Bandyopadhyay

WCD. In view of the high level of dam building activities in these countries, both existing and planned, their selection is signiŽcant and important. However, in respect of the case studies on existing dams, identiŽcation of only eight dams for detailed study, out of a total of 45 000, has attracted questions in terms of the validity of their statistical representation. It is also not clear how much the WCD has made use of this large volume of background literature, and whether these papers have the full endorsement of the WCD. Dam Building on the Himalayan Rivers A series of large dams have been planned on the Himalayan rivers, particularly in the Ganges–Brahmaputra–Meghna (GBM) river basin in Asia. Figure 1 shows the physiography and drainage pattern of this basin. The sites selected for these dams are mainly in the outer and middle Himalayan uplands of Bhutan, India and Nepal. Over the last decade, an extensive public debate on the justiŽcation or otherwise of building these dams on the Himalayan rivers has been generated. A summary of the main elements of this debate is given by Bandyopadhyay (1995a, b; 1998). Spread over an area of about 1 745 000 km2, the GBM basin has an annual run-off of about 1400 3 109 m3 (Shiklomanov, 1993). This basin drains the rivers originating in the eastern and central Himalaya and parts of the western Himalaya (Figure 1). The River Ganges drains the southern aspect of the central Himalaya and part of the western, while the River Brahmaputra drains their respective northern aspect and both the aspects of the eastern Himalaya. The River Meghna drains the non-Himalayan rivers originating in the Meghalaya plateau and the uplands of Sylhet. The present analysis being focused on dams in the Himalayan rivers, it will be limited to the Ganges and Brahmaputra sub-basin only. Dams as Development In terms of the volume of the run-off, the GBM basin stands third highest at the global level, next only to that of the Amazon and the Congo–Zaire (Shiklomanov, 1993). However, in terms of the number of people residing in a basin and depending on its waters, with a population of about 700 million, the GBM basin comes at the top. What is more important is that about one-third of this population lives below the poverty line. Thus, in the GBM basin the world’s largest number of poor people co-exists with the world’s third largest river run-off. About 75% of this large population is located in the Ganges sub-basin, which has extensive areas under intensive agriculture and has an appreciable industrial activity. This has put an enormous pressure on the quality as well as quantity of the water resources in the Ganges sub-basin. The rest of this population lives in the Brahmaputra and Meghna sub-basins, which have a much larger total annual run-off but a much lower level of economic activity. The weather pattern in the basin is dominated by the summer monsoon, under the inuence of which there is a wide variation in the level of precipitation in the various parts of the year as well as the basin. This spatial and temporal inequity presents the main challenges in water management in the basin. About 80% of the annual precipitation occurs within a span of 2.5 summer months from July to September. More precisely, about half of the total rainfall

Figure 1. The general physiographic features and drainage pattern in the GBM basin.

A Critical Look at the WCD Report 129

130

J. Bandyopadhyay

Figure 2. River discharge hydrographs for the Ganges at Hardinge Bridge and the Brahmaputra at Bahadurabad, 1981. occurs in storms spread over a total period of about 100 hours. Thus, a large part of the annual run-off ows out during the monsoon months. This temporal inequity in the ow of the Ganges and the Brahmaputra is shown in Figure 2. Figure 3 presents the precipitation pattern in the basins, and shows that intense rainfall is largely concentrated in the eastern parts of the basin and a few pockets along the Himalayan foothills. The eastern parts of the basin receive very large and intense precipitation, ranging up to about 11 000 mm per year. This results in regular monsoon oods in the Himalayan foothill areas of Bhutan, India and Nepal as well as the plains of Bangladesh. In contrast, the northern and western parts of the basin receive much less precipitation, going down to about 200 mm per year. Due to the wide media coverage of the oods, in the public mind the image of the GBM basin is characterized by excess of water and devastation by oods. However, as has been argued above, large parts of the basin are water-scarce, where a slower and less publicized devastation often takes place from drought. As a result, the basin suffers from water scarcity of varying degrees during the rest of the year, especially in the pre-monsoon months of April to June. Additional complexities to the problems already posed by nature are contributed by the fact that the GBM is an

A Critical Look at the WCD Report

131

international basin, and regional co-operation is needed for making more holistic water management strategies. The availability of this great volume of monsoon run-off has been seen by many as a vital resource base for poverty alleviation and economic advancement in the basin. There is no doubt that wise management of this large volume of water and utilization of the hydropower potential latent in them constitute a good tool for economic advancement of the region. Visionary planners and managers of water resources in yesteryear had recommended the capturing of the monsoon run-off in large reservoirs and making its economic use during the rest of the year, as the obvious step towards that direction. In realizing this strategy and transforming the economic backwardness in the GBM basin into prosperity, big dams had been seen as the appropriate mechanism. These dams were planned to convert the huge hydropower potential latent in the Himalayan rivers, provide water for extensive irrigation systems in the plains, supply water to the great number of urban–industrial areas and help mitigate monsoon oods in the Himalayan foothills (Verghese et al., 1994). The idea of linking the water-scarce southern parts of India with the rain-rich Ganges basin by a Ganga–Cauvery Link Canal was mooted by Rao (1975). However, there has been a great delay in the execution of the various projects identiŽed by such visionaries. Referring to the non-materialization of such projects in the GBM basin, Rangachari & Verghese (2001, p. 81) have made this observation: that “a region so richly endowed should remain so poorly developed is a painful paradox”. The Dams on the Himalayan Rivers The main objective for making water management strategies in the GBM basin has been the food security of the large population and its aspirations for rapid socio-economic advancement. Increasing and combined annual demands from irrigation, industry and domestic supplies as well as the need for the conservation of ecosystems have started to assume proportions comparable to the total availability of fresh water. The situation is particularly critical in the Ganges sub-basin with respect to both quality and quantity. In addition to the sensitive issue of the sharing of Ganges waters between Bangladesh and India, potential for the emergence of other water-related conicts within India do exist. Many professionals in water resource management and politicians have projected the dams as almost a divine vehicle for economic advancement in the basin. They have long proposed a series of large dams on the Himalayan rivers to store the excess monsoon run-off and to act as moderators to the annual monsoon oods in the areas adjoining the Himalayan foothills in the Indian states of Assam, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal. While the proposals for large dams come with the attractive promise of providing sufŽcient water for irrigation, a lot of hydropower for the industrial areas, more domestic water supplies for the megacities and ood moderation for the foothill areas, serious criticisms on the social, economic and environmental aspects of these dams have been systematically brought out by the numerous anti-dam movements. In addition, since the GBM basin is an international one, there is the additional aspect of inter-country co-operation in major interventions. In spite of the widespread discussions among the political leaders on the need for regional co-operation on water management in the GBM basin, very little progress has

Figure 3. The precipitation pattern in the GBM basin.

132 J. Bandyopadhyay

A Critical Look at the WCD Report

133

actually been made in this direction. There have been collaborations, mainly on a bilateral and project basis. Unlike in other river basins shared by a number of countries, there is no institutional mechanism in place to address the issue of water management at the river basin level. At present there are a number of bilateral treaties addressing speciŽc and largely localized aspects of the broad issue of integrated water management. In this respect mention needs to be made of the Mahakali Treaty between His Majesty’s Government of Nepal and the Government of India (signed on 29 January 1996) and the Treaty between Bangladesh and India on Sharing of the Ganges Waters at Farakka (signed on 12 December 1996). In order to achieve the larger goal of river basin level co-operation, a good amount of further work is desirable at the level of both scientiŽc research and institutions for co-operation at the political levels (Bandyopadhyay & Mallik, 2001). However, neither the lack of a regional framework for co-operative management, nor the debate on the sustainability of large dams on the Himalayan rivers, has come as an obstruction to the investigation and planning for the construction of a series of large dams on the Himalayan rivers of the basin. The sites of existing as well as proposed dam projects in the GBM basin are shown in Figure 4. Verghese et al. (1994) are among the most notable proponents of the co-operative development of storage projects and have provided systematic analysis of the problems in co-operation faced by the individual basin countries. At the same time, the questions raised on the social justiŽability, ecological sustainability and economic viability of the investments in these large storage projects have largely remained unanswered. As a result of this non-engagement of the pro- and anti-dam groups, this debate has frequently emerged in the form of an open resistance movement, slowing down the progress of the projects. The proponents of the dams have constantly reiterated that the economic cost of inaction and delay in construction would be enormous. On the other hand, the opponents have warned against the enormous social and environmental costs involved in the construction of such projects. Bandyopadhyay (1995a, b) has summarized the main elements of this debate in the case of the proposed Tehri dam in the Indian state of Uttaranchal, on the Himalayan River Bhagirathi. In view of the enormity of the investments needed, and the vastness of the projected outputs, a popular and amicable solution of this debate is of great signiŽcance for the whole south Asian region. A breakthrough in policy making is, indeed, urgently needed to guide further action, wisely and proŽtably. This paper examines the usefulness of the report of the WCD as a new framework for decision making to address this unsolved policy debate on the dams on the Himalayan rivers. The Debate on Dams on the Himalayan Rivers The interests of the four countries of Bangladesh, Bhutan, India and Nepal, in the various proposals and projects for large dams on the Himalayan rivers, run along diverse directions. The sites selected for the proposed dams are all located on the southern aspect of the Himalayan range, which is the rain receiving aspect. Bhutan has plans to expand the installed capacity for the generation of hydropower, keeping an eye on the large market in the industrialized plains of India at the southern border of the kingdom. Bangladesh is interested in Himalayan dams for providing large storages for monsoon run-off, so that the

Figure 4. Some of the proposed dam sites on the Himalayan rivers in the GBM basin. Source: Bandyopadhyay (1995a) and Ministry of Water Resources (1989).

134 J. Bandyopadhyay

A Critical Look at the WCD Report

135

lean season ow in the Ganges can be augmented. India’s view is strongly inuenced by the tremendous demand of a large population for water for irrigation, industries and domestic supplies, as well as the supply of hydropower in the peak demand periods. In eastern India, the large dams have also been projected as mechanisms for the moderation of the annual monsoon oods. Nepal, which enjoys a very large hydropower potential, has to give priority to the generation and satisfaction of domestic power demands. In the case of Nepal, the priority towards a number of large dam projects has gone through ups and downs. Construction of the large dams has traditionally been at the core of political storms in that country, so much that there is a constitutional requirement that any treaty with another country relating to the use of natural resources needs the endorsement of a two-thirds majority in the parliament. Since big hydropower projects in Nepal invariably relate to India as the lower-riparian and more industrialized country that would beneŽt the most from large dams in Nepal, there are many hurdles to cross to sort out the question of beneŽt sharing. Even when the political hurdles are crossed, there will be the economic hurdle to cross, as the investment in the large dam projects cannot be made totally from local sources. The dams that have been constructed on the Himalayan rivers in the GBM basin so far are quite small in size when compared with those that are at the stage of either construction or investigation. As a result, more of the debate on dams on the Himalayan rivers has been focused on projects that have not been commissioned yet. Among the projects that have been at the core of controversies are the Tehri dam in Uttaranchal in India, the Arun III project in eastern Nepal and the Kosi high dam in Nepal near the border with the Indian state of Bihar. The locations of some of these dams are shown in Figure 4. All three dams are located in the Ganges sub-basin. The Tehri dam is under construction despite strong opposition from the environmentalists, the Arun III project has been shelved following environmental opposition and the Kosi high dam has remained at the stage of preliminary investigation for over 50 years. Nevertheless, the people of Bihar are strongly divided on the pros and cons of the proposed high dam on Kosi. As will be seen from Figure 4, not many large dam projects have been built on the Himalayan rivers in the Brahmaputra sub-basin, as of now. However, major projects like Dihang, Subansiri and Tista, etc. are under construction. Thus, from Figure 3, it is apparent that a number of dam projects on the Himalayan rivers in the GBM basin are under investigation or construction. Among the dams being constructed or planned there are many which are really high dams. For example, both the proposed Lohit and Dihang dams in the Brahmaputra sub-basin are designed to be 296 m in height. The Kosi high dam in Nepal is planned to be 269 m high. The height of the Pancheshwar dam under construction on the river Mahakali at the border of India and Nepal will be 315 m. Such large dams would need a large reservoir area and a very large investment. If the investments are made wisely, the region would enjoy rapid economic development. On the other hand, if the investments are made unwisely with narrow interests in mind, such projects could bring serious economic decline to the region. At the same time, however, the social, economic and environmental questions raised by the anti-dam movements have largely remained unanswered, though there are some initiatives. The present situation is characterized by two levels of engagement. The Žrst is that between the proponents and the opponents of the

136

J. Bandyopadhyay

dams in all the countries. There is very little effective communication between them. The community of academic professionals in the countries, in general, has also not shown any signiŽcant interest in generating new knowledge to break the impasse. The second is the engagement of the governments of the region towards basin level strategy making. In this, the governmental process has been quite slow and non-governmental initiatives, described as the Track-2 initiatives, have been rather successful, as reported by Ahmad et al. (2001). It is in this perspective that the debate on these large dam projects would be analysed in the background of the WCD report, so that the future decisions can enrich themselves by the report and be more acceptable, socially, economically and scientiŽcally. The WCD Report and the Dams on the Himalayan Rivers To many readers, the WCD report has appeared to have a built-in bias against large dams. However, a closer look may reveal that the position taken by the WCD is not overtly against large dams. It is, undoubtedly true that the report has exposed the global debate on dams to a wider and multidisciplinary context, thus throwing more light on many aspects of large dams that are external to the disciplinary limits of traditional water resource engineering. From a narrow disciplinary viewpoint, this may appear to some as a stance against large dams. While recognizing the very impressive technical achievements of many dams spread all over the world, the WCD report also identiŽes some of their important and consistent negative externalities. So far, these externalities have not received the attention they deserve in the policy-making process. Some of these externalities have remained ignored and underestimated, by omission or by commission, while some others have taken time to make their mark. However, as in the scientiŽc disciplines, new observations that do not Žt in the received view are needed to be considered and examined. If these explanations are not attempted, the existing paradigm of the discipline faces a collapse, while a new paradigm emerges. The growing consciousness about the need for an unorthodox approach to the assessment of dams and to the making of new policy frameworks is an indication of an emerging new paradigm. In this way, the WCD report identiŽes a broader framework within which the debate on the dams could be placed. This framework, which has evolved through a long consultative process, identiŽes seven strategic priorities and is considered in this paper as the main platform for reviewing the debate related to the dams on the Himalayan rivers. The framework also describes the related policy principles and it is perceived that, together, these seven priorities would provide a mechanism for the utilization of the new framework for decision making. These seven strategic priorities are described below with reference to the speciŽc elements of debate associated with the various dam projects. Gaining Public Acceptance By stressing the need for gaining public acceptance, the WCD has addressed one of the most crucial issues in the process of building large dams. This problem is of particular importance in many countries of the South, in which dams often have received the status of a sacred instrument for economic development. As a result of this sacredness, incidences of widespread human deprivations result-

A Critical Look at the WCD Report

137

ing from involuntary displacement, dismal rehabilitation and resettlement, etc. have occurred systematically, as an essential price to be paid for economic development. Thus, the loss and sufferings of one group of people have been written off to record the economic advancement of another. Most frequently, it is the marginalized communities living in the upland areas which are forced to provide such indirect subsidies by accepting involuntary displacement and inadequate resettlement. The strategic priority given to ‘gaining public acceptance’ would encourage greater participation of such communities in decision making, which would, in turn, push for a more equitable distribution of the losses and gains from the dams. If this priority is given due importance in future dam projects, a substantial part of the reasons behind popular resistance against dam projects would no longer exist. The other important group whose closer involvement would do a lot of good are the independent environmental scientists, who can address the problems of disciplinary narrowness and promote inter-disciplinary evaluation of the projects. In this respect, the case of the Tehri dam may be considered. A 260.5 m high dam is being built on the River Bhagirathi just downstream of the town of Tehri. The popular movement against the dam started in 1976, when the Žrst announcement of the project was made and the people in the submersion area were threatened with displacement in a few years. Over the years the movement based on the question of displacement has gained further support from environmental opposition to the dam. The research that was undertaken by environmentalists brought out an important body of literature on the seismic risks associated with the dams on the Himalayan rivers (Gupta, 1984; Gaur, 1993). The environmental risk associated with the dam was at the core of a trend-setting public interest litigation Žled in the Supreme Court of India (Tehri Bandh Virodhi Sangharsh Samiti vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1992). In addition, the delay in the construction as a result of the litigation has greatly enhanced the cost of the project. The case of the Tehri dam has emerged as a good example for pressing for the participation of all stakeholders right from the early stages of decision making. It is through such a process that the wider public acceptance of projects can be obtained. A similar experience has been gained in the case of the Arun III project in Nepal on the River Arun, a tributary to the Kosi. In this case, the delayed participation of the stakeholders led to the project being shelved altogether after a lot of investment in preliminary investigations. In stressing the rightful participation of all the stakeholders in the decision-making process on large dams, the WCD report has been very correct. Comprehensive Options Assessment Another important contribution of the WCD report is that it has stressed the need for the assessment of dam projects in the broader context of other possible options. From the disciplinary perspective of engineering, construction of dams may often appear to be the only mechanism for addressing the question of water and energy supplies. The question of possible alternatives to dams is taken up only when a serious and popular resistance emerges against any speciŽc dam project, and often long after a lot of money has been invested in preliminary activities like survey, technical design and even preparatory construction activities. The strategic priority given by the WCD to comprehensive options assessment at all stages of planning, project development and operations provides an

138

J. Bandyopadhyay

opportunity for exploring other possible approaches or technical options for meeting the water and energy needs of a society on a sustainable basis. In addition, while the dam projects give a supply side solution, the comprehensive assessment provides the option for exploring possible solutions on the demand side, like efŽciency enhancement or recycling of water resources. Further, in the case where dams are built to control or moderate oods, the conservative engineering viewpoint sees dams as a powerful upstream mechanism to confront oods by obstructing the ow of a river. The construction-oriented thinking often misses the point that, depending on the local geomorphological characteristics, a downstream solution in the form of removal of obstructions to drainage may be a cheaper alternative. In view of the fact that a comprehensive assessment of possible options would need continuous research activities, such a decision for the assessment of diverse options would also have beneŽcial effects on the advancement of scientiŽc, technological and economic analysis of water resource projects. To understand such inability or unwillingness to seriously explore several possible options, reference can be made to the Arun III project in Nepal, which was a proposed run-of-river project. “The history of Arun-III began in October 1982 when … Japanese consultants began a basin-wide master plan study for the development of … the Kosi basin in eastern Nepal” (Gyawali, 1990). Gyawali (1990) has pointed out that, following the study by the Japanese consultants on Arun III: … investigation studies of other promising projects have been shelved. West Seti (105 MW), Kali Gandaki (90 MW), Mugling (90 MW), Sapta Gandaki (225 MW) are all promising run-of-river projects which have been allowed to wither. On the other hand, several expensive studies have been conducted which have bent over backwards to justify Arun III. Gyawali & Dixit (1999, p. 557 ) further report that: … the Sapta–Gandaki run-of-river hydroelectric project found the site of its powerhouse and desilting basin given away to a private medical college … It was speculated that this was done to remove these projects from the list of contenders to Arun III. This case is a good indicator of how other possible options in dams are neglected, when one dam project starts to get the ofŽcial push. The WCD report, thus, has rightly put this aspect of comprehensive options assessment as a strategic priority. Addressing Existing Dams While most debate on dams is linked with the dams to be built and many resistance movements have emerged against proposed dams, the performance of the existing dams has a lot to contribute to the formation of a new framework for decision making. Accordingly, the WCD has given due attention to the functioning of the existing dams to respond to the outstanding issues, like those related to the mitigation of social and environmental impacts. While the WCD has tried to see the dams in the context of changing water use priorities and new trends in public policy, etc., one important gap has been left. This is the context of the continued generation of new scientiŽc knowledge from the operation of

A Critical Look at the WCD Report

139

the existing dams. This includes new knowledge on environmental impacts, new observations on the rates of sedimentation, the actual economic performance of the project in comparison with the one that was projected and new innovations in the institutional structure for the management of the dams, etc. Stress on these items of research is necessary, especially in the countries of the South, where the local scientiŽc capabilities for environmental research and management need strengthening. Note may be taken of the need for accurate estimation of the sedimentation rates in the reservoirs on the Himalayan rivers. This is of special signiŽcance because of the unconsolidated nature of the mountain landmass and the very high intensity of the monsoon rainfall. Bandyopadhyay & Gyawali (1994) have reported the high sediment load carried by the Himalayan rivers. The scientiŽc understanding of the processes of sediment formation, transportation and deposition in the Himalayan rivers is quite inadequate. However, the dam projects have not been of much use in generating peer-reviewed and open data on the sediment load, with the help of which a more accurate and scientiŽc assessment of the economic life of dams on the Himalayan rivers can be made. For example, when Chitale (1997) mentioned the importance of the siltation rates in a paper related to another large dam project, no reference to any scientiŽc literature was made available for the reader. The crucial need for the correct understanding of the sediment process in the Himalayan rivers has been highlighted by Bandyopadhyay (1995b) in the case of the Tehri dam. As will be discussed later, innovative, scientiŽc and open understanding of the whole process of sediment generation and movement should be a research priority, if the ecological sustainability and economic viability of dams on the Himalayan rivers are to be assured. In a similar direction, completion of the record of rehabilitation and resettlement of people displaced by the existing dams constitutes another priority in research on the existing dams Sustaining Rivers and Livelihoods By identifying this aspect of dams as a strategic priority, the WCD has given a much overdue recognition to the integrity of the river basins and the aquatic ecosystems. Storage or diversion of the ow of a river by a dam would surely change the nature of water availability and the level of risk of the downstream population. In addition to the social and economic dimension of this change, there is the dimension of ecological change, which cannot be assigned a market value. The case of the estuaries and the Žshing communities is of particular importance in this respect. When the cost of the natural ecosystems as well as the livelihood of downstream people have to be internalized in the beneŽt–cost calculations of a dam project, there will be a broader justice to both the environment and the society. This will drastically alter the approach to the impact studies and the methodology for the selection of dam sites. As and when this strategic priority is put into practice in dam building, a number of factors that would otherwise have the potential for generating environmental opposition to the dams would already be taken care of. In the case of the Himalayan rivers of the Ganges basin, this aspect of sustaining the river and the livelihoods has already become an important factor for management. It may increasingly assert itself, in case more reservoirs are built and Žlled up in the drier western

140

J. Bandyopadhyay

areas of the basin, ignoring its integrity and the livelihood requirements of the downstream people (Swain, 1996). The ongoing inter-state river disputes in drier parts of India are also an indicator in this respect. Recognizing Entitlements and Sharing BeneŽts The WCD report has stressed that, for dam projects, successful mitigation, resettlement and development are the fundamental commitment and responsibility of the state and the developer. Instances are aplenty where some stakeholders have not addressed their responsibilities effectively or seriously. This has resulted in long periods of suffering, for example, for the displaced population. From that point, the WCD has paved the way for a process of dam building, which, if taken up, would help people negatively affected by the dam projects to Žnd themselves to be the beneŽciaries, in due course of time. Indeed, if such strategic priorities are to be put into practice, it may be necessary in many countries to change the laws related to land acquisition to a more equitable direction. This aspect of entitlements and beneŽt sharing is very important for the Himalayan rivers, because of the high density of the population and the lack of available land for rehabilitation. This problem also has important political ramiŽcations. Major dam projects, especially those which are located in the outer Himalaya, where the density of population is high and the resident population enjoys powerful political connections, are sure to face substantial resistance, unless a more attractive beneŽt sharing arrangement is arrived at. Ensuring Compliance The WCD has observed that in the past public trust and conŽdence in governments or the developers have been frequently breached by instances of open non-compliance of commitments made in the case of the dams. This has been the case especially in the context of rehabilitation and resettlement. The discontent on the issue of inadequate rehabilitation and resettlement has fuelled social movements against dams. In this way, dam projects as a whole have been defamed and suffered a loss of faith among the people. Undoubtedly, the WCD has been sensitive to this loss of respectability of dam projects in many parts of the world. This has pushed the WCD to identify ‘compliance’ as a strategic priority, which would be guided by legal means, such as contracts and accessible legal recourse. Mechanisms such as the appropriate mix of regulatory and non-regulatory measures have been recommended as a solution. However, the GBM basin area has certain characteristics in respect of the functioning of the institutions of law, which cannot be ignored. Referring to laws in India related to environmental matters, Divan & Rosencranz (2001, p. 1) have observed that “India employs a range of regulatory instruments to preserve and protect its natural resources. As a system for doing so, the law works badly, when it works at all”. The situation is quite representative of the GBM basin countries. That is why, even for getting adequate rehabilitation and resettlement that is rightfully due, people displaced by dam projects often have to come out in open movements. This is one single factor that has discredited the dam projects the most. Quite independently of the justiŽcation of dams or otherwise, the future of dam building in the GBM basin

A Critical Look at the WCD Report

141

is critically dependent on how the issue of compliance is handled to bring back the conŽdence of the people in the organizations promoting and building dams. Sharing Rivers for Peace, Development and Security With almost half of the terrestrial area of the Earth now belonging to transboundary river basins, construction of dams, more frequently than otherwise, constitutes an area fraught with tension and friction among the co-riparian nations. Policy making in the other half of the land area covered by the national river basins is no less problematic either, with states within a country frequently conicting over their share of the river waters. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Non-navigational Uses of International Watercourses does provide an indirect instrument for addressing dam building activities on international rivers. There is little doubt that, in order to promote river basin co-operation, dam projects in trans-boundary river basins need to have the support of all the countries affected by the project. While international rivers have often been projected in the past as the sources of conicts and wars, with the present availability of remote sensing and fast communication of data they do offer new avenues for co-operation to the co-riparian nations. The WCD has, in this way, given a fresh push for collaborative decision making on dams in the international river basins. Together with the remarks of the WCD on dams in general for the promotion of peace, development and security in international river basins, the speciŽc opportunities and limitations faced by water diplomacy in the GBM basin need to be seen. The water of the Ganges sub-basin has been the reason for mistrust at the political level. This is a big stumbling block for peace and regional co-operation. In order to address the common regional target of economic decline and poverty, water diplomacy in Bangladesh, Bhutan, India and Nepal has to undergo some fundamental cultural metamorphosis. This is easier said than done, as has been exempliŽed by Gyawali & Dixit (1999) in their analysis of the Mahakali Treaty between India and Nepal. They show how treaties that have been arrived at after long negotiations get paralysed and undermined by narrow political interests. However, there is strong pressure on the regional governments from concerned professionals and non-governmental actors in all the countries of the basin. The compulsions of the processes of liberalization and globalization have added to this pressure. As a result, the classical approach to water diplomacy is increasingly transforming itself as a part of a broader framework for regional co-operation and trade. Thus, in the years to come, inter-country negotiations on water resources of and dams on the Himalayan rivers may take place in a less sensitive environment and in a broader framework of regional co-operation for development and poverty alleviation. The Missing Element in the WCD Report In the background of the above, the seven strategic priorities identiŽed by the WCD, when applied for a more comprehensive understanding of the social and political implications of dams on the Himalayan rivers, will undoubtedly prove to be useful in clarifying their desirability or otherwise. However, some glaring gaps are noticed in the report when it is used to address a few other important elements in the debate on the Himalayan dams. The report has been criticized

142

J. Bandyopadhyay

for being technically inadequate or for taking an ‘anti-large dam’ and anti-development position. Navalawala (2001, p. 1008) has commented that the WCD “has ignored deliberately a number of critical issues related to development”. Commenting on the WCD knowledge base, he adds that the WCD has “relied on a bunch of ill prepared reports instead of systematic studies” (p. 1008). The complaints of Navalawala (2001) are not merely his; many others have seen the WCD report as biased against large dams. While accepting the WCD report as a “comprehensive and lucid document, with far reaching consequences on the future of existing and proposed large dams”, Limaye (2001, p. 6) has observed that “the lobby of promoters of large dams is preparing to counter the Žndings of the report”. On the other hand, some of the supporters of the WCD have taken up a polemical defence of it being described so (see, for example, Iyer, 2001). In the interest of the growth of integrated water resource management, it will be important to explore why this impression has got currency. In the global debate on dams, criticisms of the lack of ‘systematic studies’ have frequently been voiced. These have often originated from the water resource experts who are in charge of the water technocracies in the various GBM countries. On the other hand, those who are opposing dam projects on social, economic or environmental grounds have described the viewpoint of the water technocracies as reductionist. They see this limitation as a block to the ability of the water technocracies to understand the broader public interest issues related to dams. It is this perceptional divergence that has routinely obstructed any meaningful exchange of opinions between the proponents and opponents of dam projects on the Himalayan rivers. This important drawback of the WCD report stems from its inability to address some of the crucial technical aspects related to dam building, especially when the dams are located in water-rich but very fragile mountain environments like the Himalaya. Accordingly, as far as the text of the main body of the WCD report is concerned, there is ample room for Žnding it technically inadequate. This weakness is crucial. The present global debate on the dams, to a fair extent, is rooted in the limitations of the narrow and disciplinary knowledge base of water resource engineering. A shift in the paradigm of water resource engineering has been on the horizon for some time. A number of water resource professionals have consistently argued for an expansion of the narrow and reductionist knowledge base and the establishment of a new inter-disciplinary one for providing the basis for decision making on water resource development (Biswas, 1976; Falkenmark, 1986; Lundquist & Gleick, 1997; Dixit, 2001). The main thrust of these initiatives operates at two levels. First, traditional water resource engineering needs to expand its knowledge to the social, economic, political and cultural aspects of water, at all stages of the hydrological cycle, from precipitation to the stage of its drainage into the oceans. Secondly, the technical studies on water need to be ecologically informed. For this emerging body of ecologically informed inter-disciplinary knowledge on water resources, the term ‘ecohydrology’ is being coined. Consequently, integrated water resource management constitutes the holistic strategy for water resource management supported by this inter-disciplinary knowledge base. The WCD report does not express much sensitivity to the need for such a new paradigm of knowledge. It needs to be stressed here that a new framework for decision making on dams cannot be effective without the general acceptance of a new paradigm of knowledge. For example, the question of decision making on the Kosi high dam may be

A Critical Look at the WCD Report

143

taken up. The issue of the appropriate technological choice for the control or mitigation of the monsoon oods in rivers such as the Kosi, Kamla and Bagmati, etc., which enter the Indian state of Bihar from the Nepalese uplands and cause severe monsoon ooding, has been discussed for about a century now. After discussing the options at length, a decision was taken in 1954 to build embankments as a measure of ood protection, not a high dam. Mishra (1999) has made a systematic analysis of the results of these efforts through building ood protection embankments in an area of high water table. These embankments have grown in length from 160 km in 1952 to 3465 km in 1998. He has shown how the application of the reductionist knowledge on water resources has reduced the intensity of oods in these rivers, while putting large areas under semi-permanent waterlogging, seriously affecting human health and agriculture, and thus adding to the economic backwardness of the region. Heavy silt load in the river, which is naturally brought down by the monsoon downpour from the Himalaya, over the past decades, has reduced the water carrying capacity within, and ood control ability of, the embankments. Now, the proposal for building a 269 m high dam on the river Kosi is coming up again, as a more effective measure against the monsoon oods. Needless to say, such choices are not based on a conŽdent, open and scientiŽc analysis of the experiences gained. An inter-disciplinary understanding of the origin, transportation and deposition of the sediment load in the Himalayan rivers is a prerequisite for designing a dam that would serve a reasonably long economic life. Next there is the analysis of seismic risk associated with high dams in the Himalaya. While the engineering geologists and the seismologists take opposing viewpoints, there is no clearly identiŽed and widely accepted method for determining the level of safety that needs to go in the design of the dams as protection against earthquakes. Thus, for the dams on the Himalayan rivers, as with the social and political dimensions, the scientiŽc and economic dimensions of the design need no less new insight. A lot of new knowledge is essential in sorting out such crucial questions for all dams on the Himalayan rivers. The WCD report does not, as a result, help much in addressing the future challenge of generating a new framework for decision making for all dams on the Himalayan rivers, like the proposed Kosi high dam. Needless to say, the emergence of an inter-disciplinary knowledge base will help in the identiŽcation of a more diversiŽed set of options for assessment. The formulation of a new framework for decision making on dams in such situations badly needs the support of an inter-disciplinary knowledge base. In many countries of the North, the process of cognitive integration has progressed quite well, and it has created pressure for policy changes (see, for example, Beard, 1995). However, in many countries of the South, water technocracies still work with a strongly conservative frame of thought, and with very little active interaction with the professional research community. Their decisions are reinforced by the urgent needs for economic development and poverty alleviation, which lessen the signiŽcance of the social and environmental implications of the concerned projects. As a result, the global controversy over dams, in particular large dams, has been focused more on the projects in the countries of the South. The Three Gorges in China, Sardar Sarovar in India, the Selangor in Malaysia and Bui in Ghana are only some of the many discussed by anti-dam groups, the world over. The urgent need for an inter-disciplinary knowledge base to guide water

144

J. Bandyopadhyay

resource development is, thus, felt more acutely in these parts of the world. To be precise, many movements against the environmental impacts of dams can be interpreted as the result of the struggle for a shift in the paradigm, from a reductionist to a holistic knowledge base on water resource engineering. While several observations made in the WCD report have a direct link to the absence of such a knowledge base, there is hardly any clear and direct recognition in the report of the need for generating it. This lack of recognition is reected in the fact that no thematic paper had been commissioned to record and analyse the very important dynamics of the recent growth of the inter-disciplinary knowledge base for water resource engineering. From this point, it can be said that, while the WCD report has shown a strong social–anthropological sensitivity, it could have been more sensitive to the equally important need for a new and inter-disciplinary scientiŽc knowledge base for decisions on dam building in future. This leaves some options for interpretation, in an indirect way, as a veiled ‘anti-dam’ posture of the WCD as well as a ‘technical weakness’. The report leaves important scope for continued debate and uncertainty in the formulation of policies and decisions on future dams. The WCD report, in this way, can make only a limited contribution as a source for a new framework for decision making on the series of proposed dams on the Himalayan rivers in the GBM basin. References Ahmad, Q.K., Biswas, A.K., Rangachari, R. & Sainju, M.M. (Eds) (2001) Ganges–Brahmaputra–Meghna Region: A Framework for Sustainable Development (Dhaka, Dhaka University Press). Bandyopadhyay, J. (1995a) Water management in the Ganges–Brahmaputra basin: challenges for the 21st century, International Journal of Water Resource Development, 11(4), pp. 411–441. Bandyopadhyay, J. (1995b) Sustainability of big dams in the Himalayas, Economic and Political Weekly, 30(38), pp. 2367–70. Bandyopadhyay, J. (1998) Dams for the third millennium, Himal: The South Asian Magazine, 11(3), pp. 24–27. Bandyopadhyay, J. & Gyawali, D. (1994) Himalayan water resources: ecological and political aspects of management, Mountain Research and Development, 14(1), pp. 1–24. Bandyopadhyay, J. & Mallik, B. (2001) Book review, Water International, 26(4), pp. 605–606. Beard, D.P. (1995) US Bureau of Reclamation: dealing with changes and new Realities, paper presented at the Fifth Stockholm Water Symposium, Stockholm, 13–18 August. Biswas, A.K. (1976) Systems Approach to Water Management (Tokyo, McGraw Hill). Chitale, M.A. (1997) The Narmada project, International Journal of Water Resource Development, 13(2), pp. 169–179. Divan, S. & Rosencranz, A. (2001) Environmental Law and Policy in India (New Delhi, Oxford University Press). Dixit, A. (2001) Basic Water Science (Kathmandu, Nepal Water Conservation Foundation). Falkenmark, M. (1986) Freshwater: time for a modiŽed approach, Ambio, 15(4), pp. 192–200. Gaur, V.K. (1993) Earthquake Hazards and Large Dams in the Himalayas (New Delhi, Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage). Gupta, H.K. (1984) Seismicity in the vicinity of dams in the Himalayan rivers, Journal of the Geological Society of India, 25(2), p. 85. Gyawali, D. (1990) Arun-III impasse: is there an escape from this blind alley?, Rising Nepal, 13 July. Gyawali, D. & Dixit, A. (1999) Mahakali impasse and Indo-Nepal water conict, Economic and Political Weekly, 34(22), pp. 553–564. Iyer, R.R. (2001) World Commission on Dams and India: analysis of a Relationship, paper written for Workshop on WCD Report, Osmania University, Hyderabad, 16–17 June. Limaye, S.D. (2001) To dam or not to dam? A water resource overview from developing countries, Stockholm Waterfront, 2, pp. 6–7. Lundquist, J. & Gleick, P. (1997) Sustaining Our Waters into the 21st Century, Background Paper 4,

A Critical Look at the WCD Report

145

Comprehensive Assessment of the Freshwater Resources of the World (Stockholm, Stockholm Environment Institute). Ministry of Water Resources (1989) Major River Basins of India—An Overview, Publication No. 50/89, pp. 11–20 (New Delhi, Central Water Commission). Mishra, D.K. (1999) The embankment trap, Seminar, 478, pp. 46–51. Navalawala, B.N. (2001) World Commission on Dams: biased, Economic and Political Weekly, 36(12), pp. 1008–1010. Rangachari, R. & Verghese, B.G. (2001) Making water work to translate poverty into prosperity: the Ganga–Brahmaputra–Barak region, in: Q. K. Ahmad, A. K. Biswas, R. Rangachari & M. M. Sainju (Eds) Ganges–Brahmaputra–Meghna Region: A Framework for Sustainable Development (Dhaka, Dhaka University Press). Rao, K.L. (1975) India’s Water Wealth (New Delhi, Orient Longman). Shiklomanov, I.A. (1993) World freshwater resources, in: P. H. Gleick (Ed.) Water in Crisis (Oxford, Oxford University Press). Swain, A. (1996) The Environmental Trap: The Ganges River Diversion, Bangladeshi Migration and Conicts with India, Report No. 41, Department of Peace and Conict Research (Uppsala, Uppsala University). Verghese, B.G., Iyer, R.R., Ahmad, Q.K., Pradhan, B.B. & Malla, S.K. (Eds) (1994) Converting Water into Wealth (Delhi, Konark). WCD (2000) Dams and Development: A New Framework for Decision-making (London, Earthscan).