Large Dams

By: Sophie Goodman, Hassan Yarow, Cynthia So, Kristina Bell, Kimberly San, Irene Fang, Michelle Huang, Stella Fang

Table Of Contents1. Environmental Effects (Stella)

2. Economics Aspects (Kim)3. Social Aspects

a. Social Effects (Cynthia)b. Indigenous Populations (Hassan)

4. Case Studiesa. Local Case Study (Kristina)b. International Case Study (Irene)

c. Cross-Border Water Management (Michelle)5. World Commission on Dams (Sophie)

Environmental Effects of Large Dams

By: Stella Fang

Global-scale● Humans currently use

50% of the global accessible freshwater runoff, estimated to be 70% by 2025

● Global effects on biodiversity, ecosystem processes, greenhouse gas emissions

Upstream● Reservoir stratification:

○ Decreased water quality

○ Anoxic layer can kill fish

● Stagnant:

○ Aquatic vegetation and

mosquito proliferation

leading to spread of

infectious disease

Upstream

● Drowning wildlife for dam can lead to

local and even global extinction

● Loss of eggs and young in drawdone

zone

● Methane release in drawdown

● Change precipitation patterns

● Seismic activity

Downstream

● Sediment blocked from flowing:

○ Beach erosion

○ Loss of trees at banks

○ Loss of spawning gravels

Downstream● Water diverted from waterfalls and other rivers

● Dam as a physical barrier

● Flow colder in the summer, warmer in the winter

● Loss of inorganic/organic nutrients from upstream

● Gas-bubble disease

● Alter flood peaks and seasonal distribution

● Saltwater intrusion in rivers

● Decrease in oxygenation and dilution of pollutants

Economics of Large Dams

By: Kimberly San

Background

● Pre-1970s - Well supported by the World Bank and Regional Development Bank

● 1990-2000 - Increasing Pressure from NGOs and activists. Large decreases in funding from the World Bank and Regional Development Bank (90%)

● Development and financing later became the responsibility of the private sectors and corporations

Overview of Costs

● Pre-development feasibility studies● Land acquisition and access to site● Stakeholder consultations● Construction (civil works and equipment)● Operation and Maintenance Costs● Socio-Economic Costs● Environmental Mitigation Measures

Large hydropower dams on average cost 1800 million with an installed capacity of 630 MW

Project Development

Budgeting Scheduling Efficiency Longevity

● 75% of large dams experience cost overruns in development

● Overruns on average are 50%

higher than estimated

● Large dams take 8.6 years to build on average

● 80% are likely to experience a schedule overrun

● Average power generation in the first year is 80% of the targeted value

● Large dams are expected to continue even after 30-40 years of operation. Cost recovery has not been a substantial problem

Energy Pricing

Demand: estimated to double between 2010-2035. Required global electricity capacity is forecasted to increase from

5.2 TW to 9.3 TW

Electricity Price vs LCOE

LCOE – Levelized Cost of Electricity - indicator (ie. benchmark) price of electricity required for a project where revenues would equal costs. Also includes a return of capital invested equal to the discount rate or WACC

Energy Pricing - Hydropower

Installed Cost: 1535/kW

Capacity Factor: 0.48/kW

LCOE: 0.05/kWh

Based on global weighted averages, USD (2017).

Energy Pricing - Onshore Wind

Installed Cost: 1477/kW

Capacity Factor: 0.30/kW

LCOE: 0.06/kWh

Based on global weighted averages, USD (2017).

Energy Pricing - Solar PV

Installed Cost: 1388/kW

Capacity Factor: 0.18/kW

LCOE: 0.10/kWh

Based on global weighted averages, USD (2017).

Socio-Economic ServicesBenefits Risks

Electricity Generation Physical Displacement

Flood Control Flood Vulnerability

Irrigation Sediment Erosion

Increased urban water supply Dam Failure

Recreational Opportunities Habitat Loss

Inland Water Support Inequitable Profit Distribution

Job Creation Unemployment

Socio-Economic Performance● Irrigation - Majority fell short of targets in economic terms

● Delivering Hydropower - Variable over and under performers, but

generally meets financial targets.

● Supply (Industrial and Municipal) - Poor financial cost recovery and

performance.

● Flood Control - Provides important health benefits. However, also

increases vulnerability to flood hazards.

● Resettlement Programs - compensation is usually inadequate, and

many affected were not enumerated

Other Considerations

● Methods of Estimation● Case Studies● Valuation of Services

Social Effects of Large Dams

By: Cynthia So

Benefits

● Recreation● Flood control ● Water storage● Irrigation ● Hydropower ● New road network ● Tourism – short term employment opportunities

Uses of Dams

Effects of Displacement

● Displaced communities affected by the construction of: ○ Dams ○ Infrastructure for the dam and tunnel system ○ Roads○ Employee “camps”

● Eviction from homelands & destruction of culture heritage

● Threat of further appropriation by developers● Unaffordable cost of water and electricity

Encroachment by Outsiders

● Aboriginal communities are forced to go to court to protect their titles to the unceded land

● Disruption in land tenure system, the abundance and distribution of fish and wildlife resources

● Partial remedial action & poor compensation to communities occur after construction begins

Effects on Rural Economy

● Impairment to subsistence-oriented communities● Access to hunting, fishing, trapping, forest foraging areas

is more difficult & dangerous● Loss of access to essential resources● Impact on traditional knowledge● Loss of arable agricultural lands ● Limited economic alternatives

Effects on Health

● Leading cause of mercury contamination (methylmercury)

● Rise in deadlier waterborne & vector-borne diseases● Rise in sex work ● Exposure to violence ● Emotional trauma ● Periodic controlled releases can damage flood-recession

agriculture & fishing

Effects on Culture and Gender

● Increased workloads & decreased nutritional status reported by women

● Social tension between groups● Few & poor employment opportunities, especially for

women ● Gender inequality ● Racial inequality● Impact on marital relations ● Reduced social cohesion

Big Picture

● Estimation that 40-80 million people in the world have been displaced by dams,

● Women and indigenous peoples have suffered disproportionately from displacement.

● Landlessness, joblessness, homelessness, marginalization, food insecurity, increased morbidity, loss of common resources, and loss of social and cultural resilience”

Indigenous Populations

By: Hassan Yarow

Dispossession of land and resources

••

•

•

Cultural Alienation

High risk of cultural detachment● Sardar Sarovar Dam, India.

● “The surest way to kill us is to separate us from our part of Earth… We will either perish in body or mind and build a foreign prison around our indigenous spirits.”

Forced assimilation

● Over time, we lose our identity and eventually die as we are stuffed under the name of ‘assimilation’ into another society”

Inadequate or lack of compensation

● Compensation – if provided at all – is typically inadequate○ Eg. Ambukalao & Binga dams built with no compensation

● Common resources such as grazing lands & forests are rendered ineligible for compensation

● Less cash payouts● Less & low quality land issued for land-for-land compensation

Low Living Standards

● Loss or destruction of important sites for livelihood activities○ “We live in fear and sometimes we are

almost drowned by frequent floods. We want our natural river returned to us.”

● Resettlement leads to economic hardship

● Low paying jobs with increased islam dwellers.

More than 2 million people displaced by China’s Three Gorges Dam live in islams (IRN, 2003).

Lack of Consultation

● No informed prior consent until construction begins or eviction notices released.

○ Kutku dam, India.● Marginalized voices.● Strong power dynamics to facilitate easy displacement.● Deliberate misinformation about the impacts and compensation

Gender Inequalities Exacerbated

● Disproportionate impact on woman ● Compensation made only to male headed households.

○ SSC project● Larger dependence on common resources that are rarely eligible for

compensation makes women ineligible for payouts.● Improper behavior and self-exploitation due to financial struggle.

Social Exclusion

● Deeply rooted social exclusion in the dominant society.● Indigenous people can’t get title deeds for their lands.● Pressure from national assimilation that does not acknowledge ethnic

diversity.● Frequent discrimination and difficulty to fit into the mainstream society

Human Right Abuses

● Denial of land ownership rights after dislocation.● Violation of Indigenous People’s basic human rights.● Illegal incarceration and rape.● Mass killings of innocent lives to instill fear if they resist eviction.

Case Studies

Local Case Study: Muskrat FallsChurchill River, Labrador

By: Kristina Bell

Located in Newfoundland & Labrador on the lower Churchill River.

Why the Lower Churchill River?

● Muskrat Falls a 15m natural waterfall

● Best untapped hydroelectric source in North America!

● Newfoundland & Labrador’s (NL) other main source of energy, Holyrood proving insufficient

● Hydropower as leading renewable non-carbon resource in the world

● But a well-known spot; many environmental and social implications

About the Project● An 824 megawatt (MW)

hydroelectric generating facility.

● Second-largest hydroelectric

facility in the province.

● The deal was made in 2010 with

Nalcor energy and Emera.

● Construction started in 2014.

● Project behind schedulehttp://thechronicleherald.ca/canada/127568-lawyers-to-fight-muskrat-fall

s-hydro-development-in-labrador

The Economy and Cost

● Original Budget: $6.2 billion

● Final Cost: $12.7 billion

○ Including finances and other expenses

● Citizens energy bills double

● Project finished late, will not provide energy till 2020

The Economy and CostPros

● Hydropower = less money on oil

● Stable energy prices

● Project as investment

● Reduce dependence on Quebec

● Link to energy grid for exports

Cons

● Project went over budget

● Huge project costs for the province

● Destabilized energy prices as citizens pay off project

http://aptnnews.ca/2017/08/03/fight-against-muskrat-falls-continues-as-transformers-arrive-on-site/

Environmental AspectsUpstream

● Physical Flooding● Risk of methylmercury

contamination

Downstream

● Disrupts erosion and sediment cycles

● Disrupts fish migratory patterns● Contaminated water to

communities

*Carbon emissions reduced for the province

Social Advantages

● Jobs: creating almost 3000 during construction alone

● Green Energy: 98% of NL to be powered by green energy

● Exports and Connection: Linking NL, NS, and the

Maritimes to the North American energy grid

Social Impacts● Increased energy prices

● Originally an iconic recreational area

● Located in Labrador, while they receive less energy

● Indigenous communities displaced

● High cost of living in Labrador, but living off the land helps

○ This is jeopardized

Resistance● The Nunatsiavut Government, started

the ‘Make Muskrat Right Campaign’

● Methylmercury a huge concern to the

public and Lake Melville

● The Government created a study to

prove the threat

● Protesters and campers

● Hunger strikes

Summary: Muskrat Falls

● Muskrat Falls = huge energy source

● A valuable project for the economy and renewable energy goals

● But largely over budget: $12.7 billion

● Reduction in carbon emissions, but also great environmental

impacts

● Socially connecting the provinces to energy grid, but local

communities threatened and displaced

International Case Study: The Three Gorges DamYangtze River, China

By: Irene Fang

The Three Gorges Dam (TGD)

● Stretches more than 2km

across the Yangtze river● Height: ~200m● Volume: 40 million cubic

meters● Reservoir:

○ ~600km long

○ Has a storage capacity of

~40 billion cubic meters

About

Map

History1986

The Chinese ministry of water resources and electric power asks the Canadian Government to finance a feasibility study

1919

First mention of the TGD by Sun Yat-sen

1953

Mao Zedong proposes the dam again to control the flooding

1992

construction was recommended and approved by the Canadian-World bank

1994

Building started

1997

Yangtze river is dammed

2003

First electricity produced

2006

Dam completed but improvements and additions continued

Cost

Estimates for the major parts of the dam ranges from $25-60

billion yuan

Benefits

● Flood Control

● Navigation● Tourism● Clean power

Ship lock system at the Three Gorges Dam

Relocation

● Estimates of number of people needing to be relocated ranged from around 1million at the early stages of the project to more than 6 million people at the later stages of the project

● Poor planning and local government corruption

● >14000 hectares of agricultural land submerged

● 100 archeological sites submerged

Environmental Impacts

● Seismic activity

● Landslides● Sediment flow● Droughts● Fish and plant species

Changes in sediment transport at major monitoring stations from 2003 - 2007

Cross-Border Water Management: Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD)

By: Michelle Huang

The Upstream of International Border

● Being able to pass some of the inherent cost of the dam to downstream neighboring countries

● The total capacity of dammed reservoirs nearly doubles and dam height increases by about 59 percent when an area is upstream of an international border.

Potential Issue

● Biodiversity● Regional Conflicts

Nile River

Water Security in Nile Basin

Colonial-Era Treaties

Water Security in Nile Basin Cooperative Framework Agreement (CFA)

Size & Power

Height 155 m

Length

Power

1,780 m

6,450 MW

GERD Site C 3 Gorges

Height 60 m

Length

Power

1,050 m

1,100MW

Height 181 m

Length

Power

2,335 m

22,500MW

GERD project vision

Ethiopia

● Regional energy exporter

● Potential customer: Sudan, Kenya

Sudan

● Power importation

● Prevent floods

● Increase water consumption & agricultural output

Conflict

Egypt:

● Reduce water supply

● Affect Egypt Aswan Dam

● “We will defend each drop of Nile water with our blood if necessary” - Mohamed Morsi, the president of Egypt

Critiques- Accountability

● Location: high temp. & low precipitation ● High hydropower dependency v.s. Increasing extreme

climate (decreased rainfall and higher frequency of droughts)

● “EEP has made efforts to step up generation mix nationwide to curb the challenge and continues construction of power projects from Hydro, Wind, Geothermal as well as solar.” - CEO of Ethiopian Electric Power

Critiques - Capacity

● According to the rate of flow, the logical power output should be 2800 MW

● The EIA has not been completed yet (63 % of the project is finished)

Critiques - Environment

● Degradation● Change of hydrological cycles (flooding, drought, &

mudslides) ● Water supply reduction -> seawater intrusion to the river

system (salinization) ● Threaten agriculture (soil fertility of the downstream),

fishing, and ecology

Critiques - Finance

● A portion of citizens’ salaries is deducted annually without their consent (worker’s right violation)

● Manipulating citizen into purchasing bonds ● Grand Renaissance Dam Lottery with a $ 450,000● Change of livelihood ● Temporary, unskilled jobs

Critiques - Equity

● Few citizens benefit from the project● 85% Ethiopians live in rural area, 2% of them have

access to electricity ● Involuntary resettlement (incl. Indigenous)

World Commission on Dams (WCD)

By: Sophie Goodman

Background on the WCD

● International commission established in 1998 ● Launched by the World Bank and IUCN ● Formed in response to mounting concerns on the impacts

of large dams● Established in Capetown, South Africa● Led to the creation of a final report - “Dams and

Development: A New Framework for Decision-Making”

Mandate

❏ Review the development effectiveness of large

dams and assess alternatives for water resources

and energy development

❏ Develop internationally acceptable criteria,

guidelines and standards for the planning, design,

appraisal, construction, operation, monitoring and

decommissioning of dams

Final ReportNovember 2000

Core Values:

❏ Equity❏ Efficiency❏ Participatory

Decision-Making❏ Sustainability❏ Accountability

Final Report Findings● Failure to include affected peoples in

dam-planning processes globally

● Appraisal often found solely through

economic parameters

● Conflict increased as a result of social and

environmental impacts being neglected

● Recommends dam development be supported if aids in human welfare, or not supported if other options are more favourable

Strategic Priorities for Decision-Making 1. Gain public acceptance - recognize rights and acknowledge associated risks

2. Conduct comprehensive assessment of alternatives -

assessment is ongoing and includes affected stakeholders

3. Manage existing dams - operations and assessment should be adaptable

4. Sustain rivers and livelihoods - protect and restore ecosystems at river

basin level

5. Recognize entitlements and shared benefits - recognize land

entitlements to improve qualities of life

6. Ensure compliance - have clear guidelines that stakeholders adhere to

7. Share rivers for peace, development, and security - water

management requires constructive global cooperation

Five Key Decision Points

For Water and Energy Planning:

1. Dam development needs

assessment.

2. Analyze alternatives to

determine the preferred form

of development.

For when Dams are assessed and preferred:

3. Verify agreements before

construction begins.

4. Confirm compliance before

commissioning.

5. Adapt to changing contexts

once in operation.

Critiques of WCD

❏ “Global Corporatism”- Seen as a strategy for

global norm formation - Representation issues:

who is included/excluded in the WCD process?

❏ Questioning the democratic process of the WCD

- Claims resting upon self-determined legitimacy

❏ Canadian response (UNEP)

- Critical of evaluation - Goals geared

towards ‘developed’ nations

- Suggested reviewing WCD database

Current Status of the WCD

● The final report

signified the end of the

Commission

● After 2001 the WCD

formally dissolved

● Dam development is an

increasingly global

issue

Questions to Think About

● Would you still consider dams to be an environmentally friendly way to

generate energy?

● Do you see the WCD final report as a net positive or negative? Why?

● Do you consider the building of the dams of the three case studies justified?

Why or why not? If not, what are other alternatives that could be considered

for these areas instead.

● Can you think of examples where other infrastructures for energy have been

successfully implemented?

● How can competing resource demands and cultural concerns be equitably

addressed without marginalizing any specific parts of the affected social

groups?

● Who should negotiate with indigenous peoples with respect to projects and

policies that affect them and to what extent should their interest receive

special considerations?

● LCOE takes into account equipment costs, installation, performance

(capacity factors), operation and maintenance, and weighted cost of capital.

Knowing this, do you think this is a good index to compare renewable costs?

Why or why not?

Thank-you