Jamie Pittock
Fenner School of Environment and Society, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia; jamie.pittock@anu.edu.au

ABSTRACT: Ten years ago the World Commission on Dams (WCD) report established new standards for the sustainable development of water infrastructure, but the hopes many of us had then for a new era of more thoughtful development have been attenuated by the resilience of the hydraulic bureaucracy and the emergence of new influences on the hydropower debate. Particularly important is the impact of climate change as a driver of government policies in favour of hydropower, water storage and inter-basin water transfers. As a former Director of Freshwater for WWF International and now as a researcher on the water-energy nexus, I spent much of the past decade seeking to influence the direction of water infrastructure development, and in this viewpoint I have been asked to reflect on the changes that have occurred, and the opportunities in an era of climate change to reduce the environmental and social impacts of hydropower development while maximising the benefits. Better outcomes are more likely with a renewed focus on limiting the perverse impacts of climate change policies, implementing standards for certification of more sustainable hydropower, building capacities within developing countries, and enhancing management of existing dams.

Viewpoint -€“ The role of the German development cooperation in promoting sustainable hydropower

Cathleen Seeger
Policy Advisor, German Technical Cooperation (GTZ), Eschborn, Germany; cathleen.seeger@gtz.de
Kirsten Nyman
Project Coordinator, German Technical Cooperation (GTZ), Eschborn, Germany; kirsten.nyman@gtz.de
Richard Twum
Executive Director, Volta Basin Development Foundation (VBDF), Accra, Ghana; rtwumus@yahoo.com

ABSTRACT: After long and intense discussions on the recommendations of the World Commission on Dams (WCD), large dams are back on the agenda of international finance institutions. Asia, Latin America and Africa are planning to expand their hydropower utilisation. Hydropower is a key component of renewable energy, and therefore supports protection against climate change. Water storage over the long term and flood control are the main issues discussed with regard to climate adaptation measures.

Such trends are reflected by the increasing engagement of the German Development Cooperation (GDC) in the field of integrated water resources management (IWRM) programmes on the national and regional levels. A number of projects on transboundary water management in Africa, Central Asia and in the Mekong region have been initiated. In the context of these and other bilateral water and energy projects, partner countries are increasingly requesting the GDC to advise on the planning and management of sustainable hydropower.

The German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) has for the last decade been known as a promoter of multi-stakeholder dialogues and as a supporter during the WCD process and the Dams and Development Project (DDP) of the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP). In addition, it has a reputation as an important bilateral and neutral partner. The BMZ recognises hydropower as a source of renewable energy, and acknowledges the potential and need for multipurpose usages of dams, as well as its role in global energy change. However, large dams also have to meet social and ecological requirements for their sustainable use. In this respect, the BMZ endorsed the WCD recommendations.

Germany'™s engagement in the promotion of participatory processes on dam-related issues is building on the WCD and follow-up processes, as outlined in this article. On the global level, BMZ, represented by the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ), is currently part of the Hydropower Sustainability Assessment Forum (HSAF). On the national level, one example of support is the contribution to and interaction with the Ghana Dam Dialogue, which is facilitated through two local partners: the International Water Management Institute (IWMI) and the Volta Basin Development Foundation (VBDF).

Lost in development'€™s shadow: The downstream human consequences of dams

Brian D. Richter
Director, Global Freshwater Program, The Nature Conservancy, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA; brichter@tnc.org
Sandra Postel
Director, Global Water Policy Project, Los Lunas, NM, USA; spostel@globalwaterpolicy.org
Carmen Revenga
Senior Freshwater Scientist, The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA, USA; crevenga@tnc.org
Thayer Scudder
Professor of Anthropology, Emeritus, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, USA; tzs@hss.caltech.edu
Bernhard Lehner
Assistant Professor of Global Hydrology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; bernhard.lehner@mcgill.ca
Allegra Churchill
Master'€™s Candidate, University of Virginia, Dept of Landscape Architecture, Charlottesville, VA; ac8rf@virginia.edu
Morgan Chow
Research analyst, The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA, USA; mchow@tnc.org

ABSTRACT: The World Commission on Dams (WCD) report documented a number of social and environmental problems observed in dam development projects. The WCD gave particular emphasis to the challenges of properly resettling populations physically displaced by dams, and estimated the total number of people directly displaced at 40-80 million. Less attention has been given, however, to populations living downstream of dams whose livelihoods have been affected by dam-induced alterations of river flows. By substantially changing natural flow patterns and blocking movements of fish and other animals, large dams can severely disrupt natural riverine production systems -€“ especially fisheries, flood-recession agriculture and dry-season grazing. We offer here the first global estimate of the number of river-dependent people potentially affected by dam-induced changes in river flows and other ecosystem conditions. Our conservative estimate of 472 million river-dependent people living downstream of large dams along impacted river reaches lends urgency to the need for more comprehensive assessments of dam costs and benefits, as well as to the social inequities between dam beneficiaries and those potentially disadvantaged by dam projects. We conclude with three key steps in dam development processes that could substantially alleviate the damaging downstream impacts of dams.

Initiatives in the hydro sector post-World Commission on Dams -€“ The Hydropower Sustainability Assessment Forum

Helen Locher
Sustainability Forum Coordinator, International Hydropower Association; hl@hydropower.org
Geir Yngve Hermansen
Senior Advisor, Department for Energy, Norad, Norway; geir.hermansen@norad.no
Gudni A. Johannesson
Director General, National Energy Authority, Iceland; gudni.a.johannesson@os.is
Yu Xuezhong
Associate Professor, China Institute of Water Resources and Hydropower Research, China; xzyu@iwhr.com
Israel Phiri
Manager, Ministry of Energy and Water Development, Zambia; iphiri@zamnet.zm
David Harrison
Senior Advisor, Global Freshwater Team, The Nature Conservancy; dharrison@mwhw.com
Joerg Hartmann
WWF Dams Initiative Leader, WWF Germany; hartmann@wwf.de
Michael Simon
Lead - People, Infrastructure and Environment Program, Oxfam Australia; michaels@oxfam.org.au
Donal O'€™Leary
Senior Advisor, Transparency International; doleary@transparency.org
Courtney Lowrance
Vice President, Environmental & Social Risk Management, Markets and Banking, Citigroup Global Markets Inc; courtney.lowrance@citi.com
Daryl Fields
Senior Water Resources Specialist, Energy, Transport and Water, The World Bank; dfields@worldbank.org
André Abadie
Forum Chair, Sustainable Finance Ltd; andre.abadie@uk.pwc.com
Refaat Abdel-Malek
MWH Global, Inc; president@hydropower.org
Andrew Scanlon
Manager Business Sustainability, Hydro Tasmania, Australia; andrew.scanlon@hydro.com.au
Zhou Shichun
Senior Engineer, China Hydropower Engineering Consulting Group Co., Beijing, China; zhoushichun@vip.sina.com
Kirsten Nyman
Policy Advisor for Sustainable Hydropower, GTZ, Germany; kirsten.nyman@gtz.de

ABSTRACT: The World Commission on Dams (WCD) has called for developers, governments, civil society, etc. to use its Strategic Priorities as a starting point for dialogue and initiatives to address issues regarding the development of dams. One very notable follow-up initiative has been led by the hydropower industry. The International Hydropower Association developed Sustainability Guidelines (IHA, 2004) and a Sustainability Assessment Protocol (IHA, 2006), and most recently has been involved in a two-year process with governments, NGOs and the finance sector to develop a broadly endorsed sustainability assessment tool based on review and update of the IHA Sustainability Assessment Protocol. This cross-sectoral process, known as the Hydropower Sustainability Assessment Forum (HSAF), has drawn on the knowledge base and many of the findings and recommendations of the World Commission on Dams, as well as a number of other developments in the last ten years. A fundamental premise of the work of the Forum is that an industry-driven and -owned initiative has far-reaching potential to influence performance in the hydropower sector. At the same time, the potential for the use of a broadly endorsed sustainability assessment tool for hydropower by those in other sectors is well recognised and aspired to by the Forum. This paper describes the work of the Forum up to August 2009 and the contents of the Draft Protocol released publicly in August 2009, and considers some of the commonalities and points of departure between this process and the WCD. The Forum'€™s work on the Hydropower Sustainability Assessment Protocol is a work in progress, so this paper can describe but not give a full analysis of the work while it is in train.

Peter Bosshard
International Rivers, Berkeley, CA, USA; peter@internationalrivers.org

ABSTRACT: Most actors of the global dam industry primarily operate within their national borders, and are either controlled by or do most of their business with the state. Because of this, the dam industry was slow to respond to the creation of the World Commission on Dams (WCD), and did not provide coordinated inputs into the WCD process. The hydropower industry is the part of the dam industry which is most directly affected by international policy developments. Not surprisingly, the hydropower sector provided the most systematic response to the WCD report among all industry actors, initially through a defensive reaction and subsequently through the creation of the Hydropower Sustainability Assessment Forum. While the hydropower industry was largely united in its rejection of the policy principles put forward by the WCD, its proactive approach has been beset by divisions and contradictions.

While some industry actors are trying to strengthen the environmental norms which are being applied in the sector, others do not see a need for this. Trying to balance such diverging views, the hydropower industry would like to establish norms that can create predictability through the certification of projects. Yet it is not prepared to accept binding minimum standards which would confer new obligations to the hydropower industry.

Desiree Tullos
Assistant Professor, Biological and Ecological Engineering, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, US; tullosd@engr.orst.edu
Philip H. Brown
Associate Professor of Economics, Colby College, Waterville, ME, US; phbrown@colby.edu
Kelly Kibler
PhD student, Water Resources Engineering, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, US; kiblerk@engr.orst.edu
Darrin Magee
Assistant Professor, Environmental Studies, Hobart & William Smith Colleges, Geneva, NY, US; magee@hws.edu
Bryan Tilt
Assistant Professor, Department of Anthropology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, US; bryan.tilt@oregonstate.edu
Aaron T. Wolf
Professor of Geography and Chair, Department of Geosciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, US; wolfa@geo.oregonstate.edu

ABSTRACT: Following the principles and priorities outlined by the World Commission on Dams, managers are increasingly considering a greater variety of impacts in their decision making regarding dams. However, many challenges remain in evaluating the biophysical, socioeconomic and geopolitical impacts of dams, including the potential diversity of stakeholder perspectives on dam impacts.

In this analysis, we surveyed representatives of non-governmental organisations, academics and hydropower and government officials in Yunnan Province, China, to better understand how stakeholder group views on the size (magnitude) and importance (salience) of dam impacts vary. We applied the technique defined by the Interdisciplinary Dam Assessment Model (IDAM) to simulate three dam development scenarios: dams in general, a single large dam and multiple small dams. We then surveyed the experts to measure their views on the magnitude and salience of 21 biophysical, geopolitical and socioeconomic impacts for the three scenarios.

Survey results indicate differences in the perceived salience and magnitude of impacts across both expert groups and dam scenarios. Furthermore, surveys indicate that stakeholder perceptions changed as the information provided regarding dam impacts became more specific, suggesting that stakeholder evaluation may be influenced by quality of information. Finally, qualitative comments from the survey reflect some of the challenges of interdisciplinary dam assessment, including cross-disciplinary cooperation, data standardisation and weighting, and the distribution and potential mitigation of impacts. Given the complexity of data and perceptions around dam impacts, decision-support tools that integrate the objective magnitude and perceived salience of impacts are required urgently.

Kirsi Mäkinen
Researcher, Finnish Environment Institute, Helsinki, Finland; kirsi.makinen@environment.fi
Shahbaz Khan
Chief, Water and Sustainable Development Section, UNESCO, Paris, France; s.khan@unesco.org

ABSTRACT: Emerging concern over greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from wetlands has prompted calls to address the climate impact of dams in climate policy frameworks. Existing studies indicate that reservoirs can be significant sources of emissions, particularly in tropical areas. However, knowledge on the role of dams in overall national emission levels and abatement targets is limited, which is often cited as a key reason for political inaction and delays in formulating appropriate policies. Against this backdrop, this paper discusses the current role of reservoir emissions in existing climate policy frameworks. The distance between a global impact on climate and a need for local mitigation measures creates a challenge for designing appropriate mechanisms to combat reservoir emissions. This paper presents a range of possible policy interventions at different scales that could help address the climate impact of reservoirs. Reservoir emissions need to be treated like other anthropogenic greenhouse gases. A rational treatment of the issue requires applying commonly accepted climate change policy principles as well as promoting participatory water management plans through integrated water resource management frameworks. An independent global body such as the UN system may be called upon to assess scientific information and develop GHG emissions policy at appropriate levels.

Nepal'€™s constructive Dialogue on Dams and Development

Ajaya Dixit
Chairman, Nepal Water Conservation Foundation, Kathmandu, Nepal; adbaluwatar@ntc.net.np
Dipak Gyawali
Research Director, Nepal Water Conservation Foundation, Kathmandu, Nepal; dipakgyawali@ntc.net.np

ABSTRACT: This paper describes a consultation process that took place in Nepal from January 2003 to July 2004 involving dam builders, dam managers and dam critics. It discusses the key findings of the review and reflects on the differences between dams built with domestic designs and funding that suffer no controversy and ongoing dam projects involving international agencies that are mired in dispute. The paper concludes that Nepal must continue with the deliberative process which characterised the period immediately after the WCD Report was released if it is to end the policy impasse that plagues the development of hydropower in the country.

The government of Nepal, like the governments of its neighbours India and China, unequivocally rejected the recommendations of the World Commission on Dams (WCD) Report soon after its release in November 2000. Later, more considered reactions revealed more complex sentiments among Nepalis inasmuch that social activists welcomed the recommendations as valid and necessary, while the dam building community, including the official hydrocracy, held that they were impracticable. The then government, assessing that the business-as-usual dam building approach would face an impasse and not help meet Nepal'€™s growing need for water and electricity, concluded that the country could ill-afford to reject the WCD'€™s findings. It took a policy initiative in December 2002 to engage with the report more aggressively, comparing the WCD recommendations with Nepal'€™s own national laws, acts and policies in order to explore the contours of an alternative approach. Lessons from the consultative and inclusive global review effort that the WCD represented needed to be thoroughly internalised by Nepal so that no bad dams would be proposed for funding and only good dams built.

The consultations of 2003-2004 revealed that many Nepali laws were already robust and did, in fact, incorporate the WCD recommendations adequately. A second cycle of consultations identified many second-generation problems, including those related to ensuring compliance, gaining public acceptance, recognising entitlements, sharing benefits and conducting comprehensive options assessments. The major limitation to Nepal'€™s ability to take up the WCD recommendations turned out to be less in the laws themselves and more in the implementation of, and compliance with, these laws.

The findings of the two consultative reviews meant little to either subsequent governments of Nepal or to the international aid industry, despite the opportunity for change that the dramatic democratic movement of 2005/2006 offered -€“ government hydrocracy and the political parties guiding it, as well as international donors, continued to favour the conventional model of dam building. Their silence about the review is inexplicable, especially in light of the flaws in, and controversy surrounding, the ADB-funded Kali Gandaki A and German-funded Middle Marsyangdi dams, both of which followed conventional practice. A new electricity act currently tabled in the parliament also fails to take into account many of the lessons that should have been learnt so easily from past mistakes.

John Dore
Water Resources Advisor, Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID), Mekong Region; john.dore@dfat.gov.au
Louis Lebel
Director, Unit for Social and Environmental Research, Faculty of Social Sciences, Chiang Mai University, Thailand; llebel@loxinfo.co.th

ABSTRACT: Gaining Public Acceptance (GPA) was a strategic priority recommended in the final report of the World Commission on Dams (WCD). GPA remains a central, thorny challenge for all parties interested in how society makes decisions about the development of water resources, the provision of energy, and the maintenance of ecosystems, whilst striving for social justice. The WCD'€™s GPA is largely about issues of procedural justice (e.g. inclusion and access) and proposes process-related principles. Distributional justice is also important (e.g. equitable sharing of benefits; and, avoiding unfair and involuntary risk-bearing).

Several key lessons are emerging from past initiatives to gain public acceptance through participatory exercises. Differences in development and sustainability orientations are obvious in debates on dams and need to be explicitly considered and not glossed over. Politics and power imbalances pervade participatory processes, and require much more attention than they receive. Ultimately, the accountability and legitimacy of state and non-state actors are crucial but complex as there are many ways to build public trust.

To earn legitimacy and more likely acceptance of important public decisions we suggest a comprehensive set of 'gold standard' state-society attributes for improving governance. Multi-stakeholder platforms (MSPs) can help deliberation to become routine, enabling complex water issues to be more rigorously examined. The combination of increased public trust, earned by the state, and high-quality MSPs to assist more informed negotiations, we see as being key to the gaining of public acceptance.

Sharing the benefits of large dams in West Africa (Skinner, J.; Niasse, M. and Lawrence, H., 2009).
Jean-Philippe Venot

Dam (Turpin, T., 2008).
Carl Middleton

Native peoples and water rights: Irrigation, dams, and the law in Western Canada (Matsui, K., 2009).
Hana Boye and Richard Paisley

Water war in the Klamath basin: Macho law, combat biology, and dirty politics (Doremus, H. and Tarlock, D., 2008).
Philippus Wester