A thought on the dam debate by Ch Amuba Singh

Dr Laifungbam Debabrata Roy *

Silent Rally Against The Tipaimuk Dam In New Delhi in June 2006 :: Pix - Thangja Lun

It is with immense surprise that we read the article "The Dam debate: The bias of the Forest Advisory Committee (Part- I)" authored by Shri Chabungbam Amuba Singh, the former VC of the Manipur University.

The contents of this article, which has been concluded, deserves careful thought and review, coming as it does from a respected and learned academic of stature in Manipur.

The title of the article makes an outright allegation of bias against an expert review committee (FAC) established by the Environment and Forests Ministry of India, which the author then attempts to justify in the article by referring to what he derogatorily calls the "anti-dam hype". The article is obviously written from a narrow partisan position in this so-called debate, introducing the whole issue of dams while ignoring the specific critical issues concerning the Tipaimukh Hydro-electric Project proposal that have raised public protests from 1990. The Forest Clearance application from NHPC/NEEPCO for the Tipaimukh project includes a whopping 22,777.50 hectares of land in Manipur and 1551.60 hectares of land in Mizoram. This is no mean amount by any yardstick, and certainly not an issue to be trifled with by any media exercise portrayed to be academic.

We are talking about making mammoth irreversible changes to our land, culture and environment, changes that will impact massively and adversely on future generations and development options. We are talking of persistent disrespect for indigenous land and forest tenure. Free, prior, and informed consent was sidestepped even though the dam will require many villages to relocate. When populations protested in the dramatised public hearings, additional human rights violations occurred, including state-sponsored violence.

International bodies are slowly identifying and denouncing this abuse of power.

Simultaneously, many nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) have sought change in India consistent with WCD's good-practice guidelines. A number of NGOs have tied hydro- projects to unethical greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions trade. As private and state institutions market formerly collective water and carbon resources for profit, many Indian cases identifies as CDM (Clean Development Mechanism) projects have become central to a public debate over equitable and green hydro development.

Dr. Chabungbam's naked unacceptable pro-dam bias needs no emphasis. The author refers to a World Bank internal working paper, "Good Dams and Bad Dams: Environmental Criteria for Site Selection of Hydroelectric Projects" as a landmark report. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In his pro-dam rhetoric, the author revisits the World Commission on Dams. We welcome this reference because it gives us all an opportunity to review its important findings and recommendations. The World Commission on Dams (WCD) is not "a body of individuals" only. Ironically, considering that the World Bank eventually distanced itself from the WCD and its report, the commission was set up in 1998 by the World Bank and the World Conservation Union (IUCN).

The 12 member strong commission represented a broad range of stakeholders involved in the dams question, including industry, governments, water resource managers, and people affected by dams.

Its members acted in an individual capacity, not representing the organizations or governments of which they were members. The commissioners were: Kader Asmal, Lakshmi Chand Jain, Judy Henderson, Göran Lindahl, Thayer Scudder, Joji Cariño, Donald Blackmore, Medha Patkar, Jose Goldemberg, Deborah Moore, Jan Veltrop and Achim Steiner. It was mandated to conduct an independent review of the development effectiveness of large dams, to assess alternatives, and to develop practical guidelines for decision-making. It was to measure the impacts and effectiveness of large dam development, including the effect on dam affected communities and project developers. The ultimate outcome of the WCD was to issue a final report which was launched under the patronage of Nelson Mandela in November 2000. The WCD established the most comprehensive guidelines for dam building to date and issued ten key recommen- dations.

These facts seem to have been largely glossed over by the learned author, in what he refers to as an "inessential digression" from what the author erroneously assumes as its only primary concern - the issue of uprooting of people by large dam projects.

Even looking at the resettlement issue, a recent analysis based on 50 dams documents the unsatisfactory and unacceptable impact of large dams on those who must involuntarily resettle from future reservoir basins (A Comparative Survey of Dam-induced Resettlement in 50 Cases by Thayer Scudder with the Statistical Assistance of John Gay, 2006).

The survey found no significant difference in outcomes between dams causing the resettlement of over 25,000 people and those causing the relocation of much smaller numbers. 19 of the 50 dams were in Asia, 13 in Africa and the Middle East, 10 in Central and South America, 7 in North America, and 1 in Europe. Coincidentally that distribution roughly reflects the regions in which most future dams will be built.

Impoverishment risks were especially important in explaining failure of dams, the frequency with which they most important occur is itself a condemnation of the nature of resettlement outcomes in connection with the 50 dam sample. Landlessness was a problem in 38 (86%) of 44 dams that had sufficient and valid data. Joblessness was a problem in 33 (80%) of 41 cases that qualified for the analysis. Related to landlessness and loss of common property resources, food insecurity was a problem in 33 (79%) of 42 cases.

Marginalization is defined as occurring "when families lose economic power and spiral downwards; it sets in long before physical displacement, when new investments in the condemned areas are prohibited" (this is happening in Churachandpur and Tamenglong districts where major investments are being withheld due to the fact the large areas of these two districts are condemned by the Tipaimukh Hydro-electric Power Project proposal for the last more than two decades!).

Marginalization is often accompanied by social and psychological marginalization, expressed in a drop in social status, oustees' loss of confidence in society, and in themselves. 33 (76.7 percent) returned marginalization as a problem out of 43 cases included. Failure of planners to consider the importance of common property resources was also a significant variable in helping to explain adverse outcomes (Table 18).

Granted the high proportion (relative to their number in the national population) of relatively poor ethnic minorities undergoing resettlement, as well as of other poor households, common property resources that provide access to arable land (as along the drawdown area of soon-to-be dammed rivers as well as in inland areas), grazing, fuel, building materials, and edible and medicinal plants can play a major role in a people's livelihood to the extent that their loss can be expected to increase impoverishment. 77 percent of the cases had Planners unaware or with inadequate knowledge of Common Property Importance.

The work of the WCD was continued by the Dams and Development Programme (DDP) of the prestigious United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). The International Hydropower Association (IHA) accepted the WCD core values and strategic priorities, even though it differed with some of the detailed recommendations. The WCD guidelines and recommendations are presented for readers to decide for themselves how controversial or objectionable they are.

WCD Guidelines and Recommendations

The WCD recognizes the following steps for decision makers considering dam construction:
1) First assess the real needs
2) Review and select from a number of alternatives
3) Where a dam project emerges as the preferred development option, then:
4) Ensure that all agreements are clearly formulated before tendering
5) Ensure that the project is compliant in all respects before commissioning
6) Monitor dam operations to take account of changes in the context.

WCD's main recommendations relate to strategic priorities (chapter 8) for decision-making and include:

1) The need for clear public acceptance, including the provision of reliable information to enable stakeholders to make informed decisions and participate effectively in decision-making. With regard to indigenous people, this must include prior informed consent.
2) A comprehensive assessment of all the options ensuring, in particular, that social and environmental aspects are giving equal weight alongside technical factors.
3) A post-project review of existing dams, both from a technical and social point of view.
4) The development of a basin-wide understanding of the aquatic ecosystem and of ways of maintaining it.
5) The recognition that the benefits of dams should be widely shared.
6) Checks and balances to ensure that at all stages and procedures comply with agreed standards.
7) Special reference to cross-border impacts.

The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) fully supported the WCD and still sees the WCD report as the main reference document on dams issues. According to WWF, its implementation across the board would greatly improve the environmental performance of dams.

The government of India would do us all a great service to revisit the WCD report of 2000 while it is fasttracking its priorities in hydropower generation for the future of the country. Let us face the scenario today honestly.

The author seems to be unduly peeved by the decision of the FAC, but nobody is talking about no dams here, but about strategic priorities and democratic decision-making. The decision by the Forest Advisory Committee is a well considered one, no doubt. The committee's recommendations and arguments imposes a high moral authority as it should and compels the project proponents to re-think the options, and follow established norms and policy commitments of the government of India regarding biodiversity, climate change, the Millennium Development Goals and sustainable development.