DAM CRITICS have challenged the funders of big dams, like the World Bank and export credit agencies, to halt support for new projects until the recommendations in today's report by the World Commission on Dams are implemented.
But nowhere in the commission's 400-page report was such an idea expressed, so careful were the members not to upset each other and so reach their goal of all being able to sign a unanimous report.
What is clear from the recommendations is that many of the 42,000 big dams already built in the world would not have existed had proper planning taken place, and many of the most controversial currently on the stocks should be abandoned.
Many dams have been examined by the commission. Very few lived up to claims made for them in the planning stage: they almost always took longer to build and cost far more than the original estimates.
People affected by the dams, usually the poorest and indigenous groups without a voice, always came off worst, got little or no compensation and had their lives ruined. Those that benefited were the rich and the dam builders who were usually contractors
from the developed world backed by the World Bank and agencies with no rules about human rights or proper evaluation of economics.
There were no surprises. This is what the campaigners have been saying: but often without proper research data to back it up. Now it is official - big dams have done terrible damage to people, the environment and better alternatives have been ignored.
On the other hand, Nelson Mandela who launched the report at Canary Wharf in London, reminded everyone that dams had brought great benefits too. Although millions have suffered, millions more have made great gains in terms of water and electricity.
"The problem is not the dams," he said. "It is the hunger. It is the thirst. It is the darkness of a township. It is the townships and rural huts without running water, lights or sanitation." The point he made was that dams have often been built for the
wrong people and for the wrong reasons.
If the people who benefit from dams are the poor who would not otherwise have water or electricity, then there is a case for them. If the environment is safeguarded as much as possible, and those displaced are properly consulted and compensated, then
there is still a case for them.
If the report was backed by authority, governments would never again be able to back projects on the basis that it will provide jobs because home country contractors could do with the work.
The UK is currently "minded to back" the controversial Ilisu Dam project in Turkey by putting up £200m of export guarantees. The Ilisu would flood Kurd homelands, destroy archeological sites and give Turkey control over water to downstream states like
Syria and Iraq — both of which object. The project fails to meet any of the conditions the commission demands as vital to any dam project.
The locals have not been consulted, no plan exists for proper compensation or resettlement, alternatives have not been considered, and the downstream states have not been satisfied.
(Guardian News Service)
