A message for the judges

By Kalpana Sharma

PERHAPS OUR Supreme Court Justices should have waited a couple of weeks before passing their final orders in the Narmada case. For if they had, they would have been privy to the important perspectives contained in the report of the World Commission on Dams, released in London on November 16. The WCD report might not be the last word on dams. But it is important for a number of reasons. It is the first comprehensive survey of large dams. It presents a balance-sheet of the benefits and adverse impacts of these capital-intensive infrastructure projects. And it sets out criteria that could govern future decisions on large dams.

Even if one were to dismiss some of the suggestions of the WCD as being unworkable within the political context that governs so many developmental decisions in many countries, including India, as a document that assesses the record of large dams it is invaluable. This is particularly so because of the composition of the WCD. This is not a bunch of anti-dam NGOs who are picking faults with existing dams and those still under construction. This is a Commission made up of people in Government, such as the Chair, Prof. Kader Asmal, South Africa's Education Minister, Mr. Goran Lindahl, President and CEO of Asea Brown Boveri (ABB), one of the largest private sector infrastructure developers, and Mr. Jan Veltrop, a former president of the pro-large dam body, the International Commission on Large Dams (ICOLD). The Commission also had its share of critics of large dams, pre-eminently Ms. Medha Patkar of the Narmada Bachao Andolan but also Ms. Joji Corino representing the issues concerning indigenous peoples and Ms. Deborah Moore, until recently senior scientist with the U.S.- based NGO, Environment Defense Fund (EDF).

In balance, what emerges from the report is not a happy picture. The 45,000 large dams worldwide have displaced 40 million to 80 million people, affected 60 per cent of all rivers, have fallen short of their irrigation targets, have failed to recover costs, have had extensive negative impacts on rivers, watersheds and aquatic systems, many of them irreversible. Further, mitigation measures, where they have been taken, have usually proved ineffective. In other words, even if one argues that large dams are necessary and that the damage that they do can be minimised by taking adequate measures, the record suggests that this is not always possible. At the same time, large dams have contributed to the spread of irrigation, generated hydro power, have been useful for flood management and have been very useful for urban water supply. The question that always arises then is: is the cost worth the ostensible benefits?

The WCD has argued that a cost-benefit calculation is insufficient in the context of large dams because of the nature of the costs. It suggests instead a rights and risks approach that accommodates the rights of those who will be adversely affected and takes into account the risks to the environment and to future generations. Such an approach necessarily requires an open and transparent decision-making system, a process that is based on full consultation with the affected groups.

This, of course, does not mean that countries should not build large capital-intensive infrastructure such as large dams. What it does mean is that the process should allow the voiceless to have a voice, that there should be fairness and justice in the way the affected communities are treated, and that if giving them the best possible compensation is not possible, the project is reviewed. In other words, the cost to the people who get no benefits from projects should not be so high that a project cannot pay it.

If one were to apply these criteria to existing projects, including those such as the Sardar Sarovar which are still under construction, they would fail miserably. There is too much evidence to suggest that in the initial design of the project, these human and environmental costs were not accommodated. And today, it is more than evident that the project cannot mitigate them in its present design. The tragedy is that despite innumerable committees - and Madhya Pradesh's recorded admission that it has no land to accommodate all those who will be affected by the SSP - there has been no serious attempt to rework the project to minimise the damage. Instead, the Supreme Court has virtually closed the door on any further discussion.

In fact, a section in the WCD report makes a point of acknowledging that ``dams in the pipeline'' constitute a special case. It suggests that evidence from its survey, which covered almost 1,000 large dams worldwide, demonstrates that ``it is never too late to improve outcomes. On this basis, the Commission proposes an open and participatory review of ongoing and planned projects to ascertain the extent to which project formulation can be adapted to accommodate the principles outlined in this report''. The SSP authorities should take note of this.

Further, it suggests to Governments that they use the opportunity of reviewing such dams that are already under way to assess the plans they have for water and energy options. ``This can serve to launch a process of internal review and modification of existing policies and legislation, and reinforcement of appropriate capacity that will facilitate implementation of the Commission's recommendations in the future.''Is that too tall an order? Considering the enormous cost over- runs of projects such as the SSP because there was resistance to any suggestion that environmental and social costs had not been covered, and given that now few projects can hope to get international finance without accounting for these costs, it makes eminent sense to stop and think before proceeding further.

Unfortunately, neither common sense nor open-ness and transparency are the hallmarks of Governments in this country, at the Centre or in the States. Large dams involve a $ 2 trillion investment worldwide. Everyday, somewhere in the world, a new dam is being commissioned. Most of these are in developing countries. Yet despite conventions on the environment, on human rights, and the international movement for the rights of people affected by large infrastructure projects, most Governments proceed with an outdated set of values and criteria that try and sneak past any need to listen to the voices of those who will be affected. The result, repeatedly, has been resistance from people, and delay in an already costly project. This alone should make Governments such as ours consider alternative approaches. It would be cost- effective, apart from being the only decent and humane way of conducting business.

The real stumbling block, however, is not just absence of logic and a refusal to face the evidence, but the benefits that accrue to a few from such large projects. As the WCD aptly points out in its report, ``As a development choice, the selection of large dams often served as a focal point for the interests and aspirations of politicians, centralised Government agencies, international aid donors and the dam-building industry and did not provide a comprehensive evaluation of available alternatives''. This statement comes from people who know how the system works.

So, to come back to the beginning, would our Supreme Court judges have paused if they had read the WCD report before they ruled in the Narmada case? The report makes a compelling case for a different approach to decision-making about large dams, and about developmental infrastructure as a whole. Its arguments are reasonable, placed within the context of internationally-endorsed environmental and human rights conventions. It argues not that no dams should be built, but that such a step should only be taken if the criteria that include social and environmental costs are fully met. If we accept even some of the criteria set out in the report, the SSP would need to be drastically modified even if it cannot be abandoned altogether. At the very least, our apex court could have thrown the project back on the drawing board. However, even if it thinks the case is over, in fact it remains wide open. The controversy over large dams will not die that easily.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Previous : The Mekong-Ganga initiative
Next     : Giving in to vandalism