ENVIRONMENT: Mandela Spells Out Pros and Cons of Dams

By Sanjay Suri Reprint | | Print |

Sanjay Suri

LONDON, Nov 16 2000 (IPS) - The World Commission on Dams finally issued its ruling on Thursday – and it did not rule against dams.

The commission voiced at length the primary concerns of the anti- dam lobbies, but it acknowledged also that dams had their uses and that they had brought much benefit by way of irrigation and power.

The ruling which in effect amounted to a refusal to rule one way or another came as a blow to anti-dam activists who had gathered for the launch of the report in London.

The blow to the anti-dam lobby comes from the commission’s unequivocal acknowledgement that “dams have made an important and significant contribution to human development, and the benefits derived from them have been considerable”.

Former South African president Nelson Mandela who had been expected to lead a new flood of protests against dams spoke instead of how he had to sanction construction of a large dam when he was president. When Johannesburg needed water and the highlands of neighbouring Lesotho needed electricity “it meant authorisation of another large dam”, Mandela said.

Mandela said: “We knew the controversy and complexities of such an undertaking and had to carefully negotiate the political minefields and legal challenges, taking into consideration environmental, financial, social and economic impacts. A dam – a means to an end – which was one option among others, emerged as our best option under the circumstances.”

Mandela raised the question whether in retrospect he had done the right thing. “Was it our best tool? Were other options overlooked? Perhaps. I believe ours was the right choice at the time. But no one knew for sure.

“There is a part of me, and I believe of my then Minister of Water Affairs (Prof Kader Asmal who chaired the commission on dams) that resented having to choose the lesser of two evils: relocate some so that all may have water, or forgo a dam, thus slowing down human development and increasing urban stress.”

But Mandela sees the benefits of dams clearly even now. Political freedom alone is not enough if you lack clean water, said Mandela. “Freedom alone is not enough without light to read at night, without time or access to water to irrigate your farm, without the ability to catch fish to feed your family.”

Mandela said: “Some say large dams offer solutions; others say large dams create problems. The Commission, as I understand from its report, to its credit says neither.”

Mandela clearly knew he was not saying what many had expected him to. And he expressed an apology at the end of his speech to those who he said might not be satisfied with what he had to say.

The chairman of the World Commission on Dams Prof Kader Asmal, who is now minister of education in South Africa pointed out that “the truth is that no typical dam exists”. There can therefore be no one policy that covers all dams, he said.

As a minister who had approved construction of a big dam, he too raised a question about blanket opposition to large dams: “Is development paralysis the same thing as success?”

The disappointment to anti-dam activists was immediate. Medha Patkar from the Narmada Bachao Andolan told IPS at the launch of the report in London that the commission “had not recommended an immediate moratorium on dams because of its composition”. The report is only “the highest common denominator of views given its composition”, she said. That still leaves “many gaps” within the report, she said. “We could not convince each of its members.”

Patkar who was a member of the commission expressed her reservations about the finding also in a note within the report itself. But under the circumstances the report had still taken up many of the concerns of environmentalists, Patkar told IPS.

“The report brings out many of the negative impacts of the construction of large dams,” she said. “It brings out the social and environmental impact of dam building and its impact in making people destitute,” she said. “It also shows the flawed decision-making process behind the construction of many dams, and it also establishes that dams have not been as economically beneficial as planned.”

Commenting on the strong claim within the report that dams have brought benefits, Patkar said: “Benefits to whom? Power generation is not the same thing as development. We feel that dams have hardly proved to be effective in development”.

The commission’s refusal to take a position that was for or against dams was seen as an endorsement that at least some big dams can be beneficial. “At least we are not being automatically condemned by the environmental group any more,” an Indian official told IPS after the launch of the report.

The Indian government had been awaiting the report keenly, given the hot dispute over the Narmada dam project in Gujarat in western India. The report comes soon after a ruling by the Supreme Court of India giving the go-ahead for the dam project.

Prof Asmal said that the report seeks only to guide the decision- making process in making dams. The report contains guidelines on ways to cut down damage from dam construction because too often an “unnecessary price” has been paid for dam construction, Asmal said.

“So should we have new dams?” Asmal asked. “Should we have no dams? Should we improve existing dams?” The report only seeks to reveal the full costs of such decisions, he said. To reveal both the benefits and the costs.

In speaking of the considerations of equity, efficiency, participatory decision-making, sustainability and accountability, the commission has set out the factors that should guide decisions on building dams. But it did not say never build them.