Social and Envir Conseg of large Reservoirs.pdf

WCD Thematic Review V.2

Institutional Processes

Environmental and Social Impact Assessment for

Large Dams

Final Version: November 2000

Prepared for the World Commission on Dams (WCD) by:

Barry Sadler Iara Verocai

Frank Vanclay

Secretariat of the World Commission on Dams P.O. Box 16002, Vlaeberg, Cape Town 8018, South Africa

Phone: 27 21 426 4000 Fax: 27 21 426 0036. Website: http://www.dams.org E-mail: [email protected]

Environmental and Social Assessment for Large Dams i

This is a working paper prepared for the World Commission on Dams as part of its information gathering activities. The views, conclusions, and recommendations contained in the working paper are not to be taken to represent the views of the Commission

Disclaimer This is a working paper of the World Commission on Dams - the report published herein was prepared for the Commission as part of its information gathering activity. The views, conclusions, and recommendations are not intended to represent the views of the Commission. The Commission's views, conclusions, and recommendations will be set forth in the Commission's own report. Please cite this report as follows: Sadler, B., Verocai, I., Vanclay, F. 2000. Environmental and Social Impact Assessment for Large Dams, WCD Thematic Review V.2 prepared as an input to the World Commission on Dams, Cape Town, www.dams.org The WCD Knowledge Base This report is one component of the World Commission on Dams knowledge base from which the WCD drew to finalize its report “Dams and Development-A New Framework for Decision Making”. The knowledge base consists of seven case studies, two country studies, one briefing paper, seventeen thematic reviews of five sectors, a cross check survey of 125 dams, four regional consultations and nearly 1000 topic-related submissions. All the reports listed below, are available on CD-ROM or can be downloaded from www.dams.org

Case Studies (Focal Dams) • Grand Coulee Dam, Columbia River Basin, USA • Tarbela Dam, Indus River Basin, Pakistan • Aslantas Dam, Ceyhan River Basin, Turkey • Kariba Dam, Zambezi River, Zambia/Zimbabwe • Tucurui Dam, Tocantins River, Brazil • Pak Mun Dam, Mun-Mekong River Basin,

Thailand • Glomma and Laagen Basin, Norway • Pilot Study of the Gariep and Van der Kloof

dams- Orange River South Africa

Country Studies • India • China

Briefing Paper • Russia and NIS

countries

Thematic Reviews • TR I.1: Social Impact of Large Dams: Equity and

Distributional Issues • TR I.2: Dams, Indigenous People and Vulnerable

Ethnic Minorities • TR I.3: Displacement, Resettlement,

Rehabilitation, Reparation and Development

• TR II.1: Dams, Ecosystem Functions and

Environmental Restoration • TR II.2: Dams and Global Change • TR III.1: Economic, Financial and Distributional

Analysis • TR III.2: International Trends in Project Financing

• TR IV.1: Electricity Supply and Demand Management Options

• TR IV.2: Irrigation Options • TR IV.3: Water Supply Options • TR IV.4: Flood Control and Management Options • TR IV.5: Operation, Monitoring and

Decommissioning of Dams • TR V.1: Planning Approaches • TR V.2: Environmental and Social Assessment for

Large Dams • TR V.3: River Basins – Institutional Frameworks

and Management Options • TR V.4: Regulation, Compliance and

Implementation • TR V.5: Participation, Negotiation and Conflict

Management: Large Dam Projects • Regional Consultations – Hanoi, Colombo, Sao Paulo and Cairo • Cross-check Survey of 125 dams

Environmental and Social Assessment for Large Dams ii


Financial and in-kind Contributors: Financial and in-kind support for the WCD process was received from 54 contributors including governments, international agencies, the private sector, NGOs and various foundations. According to the mandate of the Commission, all funds received were ‘untied’-i.e. these funds were provided with no conditions attached to them. • ABB

• ADB - Asian Development Bank

• AID - Assistance for India's Development

• Atlas Copco

• Australia - AusAID

• Berne Declaration

• British Dam Society

• Canada - CIDA

• Carnegie Foundation

• Coyne et Bellier

• C.S. Mott Foundation

• Denmark - Ministry of Foreign Affairs

• EDF - Electricité de France

• Engevix

• ENRON International

• Finland - Ministry of Foreign Affairs

• Germany - BMZ: Federal Ministry for Economic

Co-operation

• Goldman Environmental Foundation

• GTZ - Deutsche Geschellschaft für Technische

Zusammenarbeit

• Halcrow Water

• Harza Engineering

• Hydro Quebec

• Novib

• David and Lucille Packard Foundation

• Paul Rizzo and Associates

• People's Republic of China

• Rockefeller Brothers Foundation

• Skanska

• SNC Lavalin

• South Africa - Ministry of Water Affairs and

Forestry

• Statkraft

• Sweden - Sida

• IADB - Inter-American Development Bank

• Ireland - Ministry of Foreign Affairs

• IUCN - The World Conservation Union

• Japan - Ministry of Foreign Affairs

• KfW - Kredietanstalt für Wiederaufbau

• Lahmeyer International

• Lotek Engineering

• Manitoba Hydro

• National Wildlife Federation, USA

• Norplan

• Norway - Ministry of Foreign Affairs

• Switzerland - SDC

• The Netherlands - Ministry of Foreign Affairs

• The World Bank

• Tractebel Engineering

• United Kingdom - DFID

• UNEP - United Nations Environment

Programme

• United Nations Foundation

• USA Bureau of Reclamation

• Voith Siemens

• Worley International

• WWF International

Environmental and Social Assessment for Large Dams iii


Table of Contents

1. Introduction and Background........................................................................................1

2. Taking Stock of EIA and SEA........................................................................................3 2.1 Definition and Delineation of EIA and SIA .................................................................................. 3 2.2 Current Status of EIA - Key Trends and Process Developments ..................................................3 2.3 Foundations of EIA........................................................................................................................4 2.4 Principles of EIA Best Practice .....................................................................................................5 2.5 A Report Card on EIA Best Practice .............................................................................................6 2.6 Emerging Models of EIA and SIA ................................................................................................7 2.7 EIA Practice -- Application to Large Scale Dams.........................................................................9 2.8 Future Scenarios - Water demands, climate change and the implications for dams....................14

3. Effectiveness of EIA and SIA of Dams ........................................................................16 3.1 Process Limitations and Deficiencies ..........................................................................................16 3.2 Quality control and Assurance.....................................................................................................21 3.3 Use of EIA and SIA as Participatory and Negotiatory Tools ......................................................25 3.4 Performance Appraisal – The Effectiveness of EIA in relationship to Project Decision Making29 3.5 The Sustainability Agenda – New Realities for Decision making ..............................................34

4. Ways Forward ...............................................................................................................43 4.1 Instilling the Basics......................................................................................................................43 4.2 Upgrading EIA Practice...............................................................................................................44 4.3 Extending and Strengthening SEA ..............................................................................................45 4.4 Sharpening EIA and SEA as Sustainability Instruments .............................................................46

References................................................................................................................................48

Annex 1: Basic Principles of EIA - Issued by the International Association for Impact Assessment and UK Institute of Environmental Assessment ....................................50

Annex 2: Participation Principles.........................................................................................52

Annex 3: Consideration of Health Impacts .........................................................................53

Annex 4: Tools and Techniques for Public Participation in EIA......................................54

Annex 5: Social Impact Assessment .....................................................................................56

Appendix I: List of Contributing Papers to the Thematic Review V.2.............................69

Appendix II: Submissions for Thematic Review V.2 Environmental and Social Assessment for Large Dams .........................................................................................70

Appendix III: Review Comments received from the Review Panel ..................................72

Environmental and Social Assessment for Large Dams iv


List of Boxes Box 1.1: Key Issues to be Addressed.....................................................................................................1 Box 1.2: Organisation of the Report .......................................................................................................2 Box 2.1: Report Card on EIA Practice...................................................................................................7 Box 2.2: Environmental Sustainability Assurance (ESA) .....................................................................8 Box 2.3: Sustainability and Types of Capital ........................................................................................9 Box 2.4: Examples of Environmentally Controversial Hydro Projects .................................................9 Box 2.5: The Sardar Sarovar Scheme, India. .......................................................................................10 Box 2.6: EIA experience in Slovakia...................................................................................................12 Box 2.7: Review of environmental impacts for dam projects funded by Asian Development Bank ..13 Box 2.8: EIA as a controversial exercise: The case of the Three Gorges Project................................13 Box 3.1: World Bank Environmental Classification System...............................................................18 Box 3.2: Shifting the Perspective from Prediction to Mitigation: The Example of the Arun III

Hydroelectric Project, Nepal.........................................................................................................20 Box 3.3: EIA Good Practice in Scoping: The Example of the St. Lawrence Hydropower Project, US-

Canada...........................................................................................................................................22 Box 3.4: The Independent Review of the Sardar Sarovar Projects 1991-1992....................................23 Box 3.5: A comprehensive approach to public involvement: the Big Chute Hydroelectric

Redevelopment Project, Canada. ..................................................................................................26 Box 3.6: Public involvement in EIA of dams in Africa: issues and examples ....................................27 Box 3.7: Public Involvement in EIA of Dams: Examples from Brazil...............................................28 Box 3.8: Some Benefits of EIA of Dams.............................................................................................31 Box 3.9: EIA, Mitigation and Capacity Building. The Example of the Yacyreta Hydropower Project

......................................................................................................................................................32 Box 3.10: Legal framework and instruments for impact management ................................................33 Box 3.11: New Aspects of Impact Assessment in the Planning Process: The Case of Amazon

Transmission System ....................................................................................................................37 Box 3.12: Regional Drinking Water Policy for Eastern Slovakia .......................................................38 Box 3.13: EIA to decommission and reauthorise dams: US experience and examples.......................39 Box 3.14: Case Study of Strategic Planning for Water Resources: Thames Waters’ Best Practicable

Environmental Programme ...........................................................................................................39 Box 4.1: Aide Memoir to WCD Guidance .......................................................................................... 44 List of Figures Figure 2.1: Steps in an environmental assessment process....................................................................6 Figure 3.1: Impact assessment and the project cycle ...........................................................................18 Figure 3.2: Quality Assurance in EIA..................................................................................................22 Figure 3.3: Trends in the Planning of Hydropower Projects ...............................................................35

Environmental and Social Assessment for Large Dams 1


1. Introduction and Background The World Commission on Dams (WCD) was established to address the main issues associated with large dams in the context of the international debate on sustainable development. As part of its work programme, the WCD is undertaking a series of thematic reviews to develop a comprehensive base of shared knowledge from which it will develop policy options and ways forward. This discussion paper of the process and practice of environmental impact assessment (EIA) for large dams forms part of the baseline information being assembled for the WCD review of institutional and governance issues. Broadly stated, the aims of this review are threefold: a) to evaluate the effectiveness of EIA and social impact assessment (SIA) in incorporating

environmental and social issues into the decision making process for dams (including the consideration of alternatives);

b) to identify ways to improve the usefulness of EIA and SIA drawing upon lessons of good practice; and

c) to recommend new approaches that could be incorporated into the planning and implementation of dams.

Specific issues and concerns to be included in this review are summarised in Box 1.1. These are taken from the WCD scoping paper on this topic and comprise the framework and focus for analysis. In addition, EIA and SIA are recognised by the WCD as providing a framework under which other findings and recommendations on environmental and social issues may be incorporated. There are also linkages to other institutional considerations and to the thematic review of options analysis. Whenever possible, we have annotated these in the paper, leaving it to subsequent discussion to develop the linkages further. Box 1.1: Key Issues to be Addressed

• How has the scope of EIAs and SIAs changed in response to increasing controversy and concerns about dams? How have these studies dealt with scientific uncertainties, “contradictory truths” and the precautionary principle?

• How effective are EIAs and SIAs as planning and mitigation tools? To what extent have EIA and SIA contributed to address adequately the issues identified in their studies?

• Have EIA and SIA processes been used to create “negotiation space” among different interests concerned with dam projects?

• To what extent have these processes contributed to efficient and effective environmental management? To what extent have they contributed to the adequate mitigation and compensation of social impacts, including resettlement?

• Have the results and conclusions of EIA and SIA been followed through to implementation? How can this be ensured? What kind of managerial, technical, and political support is necessary to achieve this? What kind of monitoring and audit systems should be put in place?

The report is organised into three main parts (See Box 1.2), broadly correspondent to the aims stated above. In undertaking the scope of work, the approach followed corresponds to the general terms of reference issued by the WCD. These call for documentation and analysis to rely primarily on existing sources of information and for consultation with interested parties to canvass different perspectives on the issues under review. In that respect, key inputs have come from the following sources: • the WCD-moderated web conference on this topic (www.dams.org/details) • a special session on EIA and SIA of dams held at the 1999 Annual Meeting of International

Association for Impact Assessment, Glasgow Scotland.



• the comments received on the initial draft of this paper (hereafter cited as comm.) The study approach is based largely upon the general literature on EIA. A companion paper by Vanclay addresses the literature on SIA (Annex 5). This paper focuses on the process of EIA as it is currently institutionalised. In most jurisdictions, the EIA process is applied uniformly to all types of projects. Of course, dam construction and operation causes distinctive environmental and social impacts and issues which must be assessed and mitigated specifically. The present paper is primarily about the process and practice of EIA; it refers to the impacts of dams but does not focus on them per se. This information can be found elsewhere in WCD materials. A number of comments on the initial draft were received from reviewers. Some of these were general and several questioned the approach taken (e.g. Bisset, comm.; Lutz et al, comm.). With the time and resources available, it was not possible to incorporate all the suggestions for restructuring the paper. Others provided specific comments and pointed out errors of fact or took issue with interpretations that were made. As far as possible, these have been addressed in this version of the paper. One final point has to do with references. Bearing in mind the purpose of this paper, the general literature on EIA is taken as read and only limited citations are given for those who may want to find their way into the subject (for a comprehensive introduction to the field see Petts, 1999). Box 1.2: Organisation of the Report

• State of the art analysis of current experience of EIA and SIA of dams including identification of key

issues requiring resolution and scenarios for future consideration; • Evaluation of process effectiveness of EIAs and SIAs as tools for:

- predicting, preventing, compensating, mitigating or offsetting adverse environmental and social impacts;

- exploiting opportunities for public participation or negotiation among parties with diverse and often contradictory interests on dam proposals; and

- contributing to informed decision making and management actions throughout the planning and project cycle for dam proposals;

• Policy directions and recommendations to improve EIA and SIA procedure, methodology and practice both immediately and in the longer term by pushing the frontier towards more integrative, proactive approaches, e.g. full cost valuation of dam proposals and options to provide a greater level of sustainability assurance



2. Taking Stock of EIA and SEA 2.1 Definition and Delineation of EIA and SIA “Impact assessment, simply defined is the process of identifying the future consequences of current or proposed actions.” (International Association for Impact Assessment) Impact assessment comprises a family of tools which are used in development planning and project appraisal (see Bronstein and Vanclay, 1995). The International Association of Impact Assessment lists over a dozen separate types or areas of application. A generic approach to impact assessment can facilitate their integration and application as a comprehensive form of project appraisal which can be applied to new proposals and to alterations to existing developments (Bos et al comm.). However, in practice, environmental impact assessment (EIA) is a process which includes certain other aspects and is widely institutionalised already. There are numerous definitions of EIA. For present purposes, EIA is the process of identifying, predicting, evaluating and managing the biophysical, social, health and other relevant effects of development proposals before major decisions are taken and commitments are made (Sadler, 1996). As typically applied, EIA is used primarily to minimise the adverse effects that large scale development schemes have on natural resources and ecosystems. Increasingly, the scope of EIA includes consideration of all potentially significant effects -- direct, indirect and cumulative. More creatively, EIA can be used as part of a broadly based planning approach to make the most of our development opportunities and options, ensuring these are adjusted to environmental potentials and capacities. Specifically, this approach is taken forward as strategic environmental assessment (SEA) of policies, plans and programmes proposals that set the context for project EIA. Social impact assessment (SIA) is the process equivalent of EIA on the human side. The SIA process focuses on the social and cultural effects of development initiatives and decisions and their consequences for human populations, communities and individuals. In many countries such as Thailand (see Apinan, 2000/INS177), SIA is undertaken as part of the EIA process and concentrates mainly or only on the impacts of development projects on livelihoods and lifestyles of people who are directly and adversely affected. Less often, SIA is undertaken as a separate, more comprehensive appraisal which extends to all of the salient social, cultural and demographic issues of development proposals and is oriented toward ensuring development meets the needs and priorities of people and maximises opportunities for their participation and inclusion. This approach is described in the companion report by Vanclay (Annex 5). 2.2 Current Status of EIA - Key Trends and Process Developments EIA is now used world-wide as an instrument for development planning and control. Recently the number of countries with an EIA process has increased rapidly, and possibly more than 100 now having some type of national system or equivalent international requirement (e.g. as a condition of lending). The diffusion of EIA has been both driven and accompanied by innovations in law, procedure and method. By comparison to its early phase, EIA today is multi-dimensional in purpose, scope and approach. However, project-level EIA is considered to be a “first generation” process, limited in its capability to examine alternatives and options by the relatively late stage of decision making to which it is applied. By comparison Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), is a “second generation” process. which incorporates the environment into the higher levels of decision making and facilitates early consideration of alternatives well in advance of project level EIA (Sadler and Verheem, 1996). SEA focuses on the sources rather than the symptoms of environmental damage; it thus addresses what the Brundtland Commission called the chief institutional challenge of the 1990s and helps to overcome one of the fundamental limitations of project EIA. To date, a limited number of countries have



established formal provision for SEA. However, others are introducing this process informally or use SEA elements. SEA practice is more diversified than was EIA at a comparative stage (circa 1980). In general, countries that have established formal SEA systems at the policy level employ flexible procedure. At the level of concrete plans and programmes, SEA draws on (or forms part of) EIA law, process and methodology. Where this process is in place, subsequent project EIAs can be tiered to SEAs, thereby helping to streamline and focus the EIA process by pre-clearing bigger picture issues related to whether or not, where and in what form development should occur. 2.3 Foundations of EIA The literature on EIA is massive; it is also increasing rapidly with reference to SEA practice. Recently, there has been increasing emphasis on establishing internationally recognised principles and standards of good practice, instilling a diverse range of guidance down to the fundamentals and basic elements. Key documents which have been relied on here include: • The International Study of EA Effectiveness (Sadler, 1996) • The UNEP Training Resource Manual (Ridgeway et al, 1996) • The Principles of EIA Best Practice, issued by the International Association for Impact

Assessment and the UK Institute of Environmental Assessment (Sadler and Brown, 1999) • The Memorandum on Established Common Elements of International Good Practice for

Environmental Assessment (Rich, 1999). The provision and requirement for EIA is usually prescribed by law or policy, and amplified in regulations, directives, guidelines, procedures, administrative orders and other institutional arrangements. Experience indicates that an “effective” EIA institutional framework is made up of the following enabling conditions: • a clear statement of purpose and principles • legal provision and requirements • procedural controls and accountabilities • understood scope of application to proposals with potentially significant impacts • prescribed process of steps and activities • opportunities for public consultation and access to information • linkage to project approval and condition setting • follow up and monitoring mechanisms. The eight components above can be taken to represent legal and institutional pre-requisites of sound EIA and comprise an initial checklist for auditing how current processes measure up. Where these basic components are in place, they do not guarantee, in themselves, good EIA practice and effective performance. However, where they are not well established, then the process is very unlikely to lead in that direction. In addition, many EIA commentators also argue that a standing mechanism for independent review of EIAs is a critical guarantee of sound practice. Examples include the Netherlands EIA Commission and the Canadian system of independent panel reviews. Other countries operate more informal or internal processes of EIA review, such as the US system of inter-agency review or the multi-stakeholder committee approach of Brazilian states which Sanchez (comm.) notes may be equally effective. Lutz et al (comm.) also make this point and recommend undertaking a comparative analysis of EIAs of dam projects with and without independent review before drawing conclusions. This was not considered within the remit of this paper. However, particular reference is made to the independent review of the Sardar Sarovar project.



In addition, Mochebelele (comm.) states that external funding to cover costs of EIA application should be another enabling condition, especially for developing nations. Other commentators from developing countries have made similar points. Sanchez (comm.), for example stresses the particular importance of adequate financing if public participation is to be effective. 2.4 Principles of EIA Best Practice The EIA systems established under national laws and the policies of the international agencies differ in a number of respects. Some of these are significant (e.g. limited versus broad scope of application, mandatory versus discretionary provisions). However, the EIA process also has widely accepted objectives, principles, elements and steps (e.g. scoping, impact prediction etc.). With certain variations, these elements and steps are universally followed internationally. As outlined in Figure 2.1, the main stages of EIA provide a framework for discussion of EIA good practice. Recently, principles of EIA best practice have been identified by the International Association for Impact Assessment and the UK Institute of Environmental Assessment for reference and use by their members. The principles comprise a broadly based framework of guidance that is applicable to all types of proposals consistent with generic EIA requirements and procedures established by different countries. The Principles are organised into two types (see Annex 1): • “Basic Principles” apply universally to the EIA process. They should be applied as a single

package, recognising that the principles are interdependent and, in some cases, may conflict (e.g. rigour and efficiency). A balanced approach is critical when applying the principles to ensure that EIA best practice has regard to the context and the circumstances to which they are applied.

• “Operating Principles” which describe how the Basic Principles should be applied to the main

steps and specific activities of the EIA process (described in Figure 2.1). Specifically, the EIA process should be implemented: ! as early as possible in decision making and throughout the life cycle of the proposed activity; ! to all development proposals that may cause potentially significant effects; ! to biophysical impacts and relevant socio-economic factors, including health, culture, gender,

lifestyle, age, and cumulative effects consistent with the concept and principles of sustainable development;

! to provide for the involvement and input of communities and industries affected by a proposal, as well as the interested public;

! in accordance with law and policy of the jurisdiction concerned The basic and operational principles of EIA are also meant to apply to SEA and SIA. However, additional considerations need to be taken into account when doing so. • In SEA, the level of generality requires modification of the EIA process and methodology, e.g. in

relation to broad policies as opposed to specific plans or programmes that initiate projects and/or fix their location.

• In SIA, there is an ongoing process to develop international guidelines and principles. These go

into considerably greater detail than the EIA principles. Of particular relevance here are participation principles, which comprise one of the keystones of EIA good practice. These are described in the companion report on SIA (Annex 5) and are summarised in Annex 2.



Figure 2.1: Steps in an environmental assessment process

Source: Ridgway et al, 1996. 2.5 A Report Card on EIA Best Practice The institutional frameworks of EIA are well established. A large tool kit, comprising tried and tested methodologies, is available for the conduct of EIA. In countries where EIA is relatively advanced and there is a considerable experience with process implementation, the strengths and weakness are well documented (see Box 3), procedure and practice. Elsewhere, EIA process and practice are at various stages of development: In many developing countries, progress is impeded by institutional



and governance constraints. These are well documented and it is open to interpretation how far leading-edge EIA practice can be applied (even where the procedures of international agencies, such as the World Bank, apply). This brief assessment of EIA practice requires qualification. Firstly, both the take up of the innovations described above and their application to day-to-day practice varies enormously. Secondly, as hinted, there are important differences in this respect between developed and developing countries; the latter have institutional and resource limitations which inhibit their capability to implement the process, other than for projects financed by foreign aid. Thirdly, the environmental risks and effects which EIA addresses today are of a different order – they are more complex, far reaching and spatially interconnected at all levels from global to local – compared to when this process was introduced almost 30 years ago. Finally, the sustainability agenda introduces new challenges and requirements, notably for more integrated, capacity-based approaches. Basic elements of good practice for the Environmental Assessment are outlined in Rich, 1999/ECO047. Box 2.1: Report Card on EIA Practice ‘Best Case’ Practice and Performance. A number of case examples demonstrate what EIA can and should do, namely: • facilitate informed decision making by providing clear, well structured, dispassionate analysis of

the effects and consequences of proposed projects; • assist the selection of alternatives, including the selection of the best practicable or most

environmentally friendly option; • support project selection and design by screening out environmentally unsound proposals and

improving feasible proposals; • predict the adverse effects of proposed activities and identify appropriate mitigation measures; • inform approval and condition-setting for project implementation; and • feed back the lessons of experience into policy, institutional, and project design. ‘Worst Case’ Practice and Performance There are many case examples that demonstrate widespread or perennial weaknesses of EIA: • inconsistent application to development proposals with many sectors and classes of activity

omitted; • ‘stand alone’ process, poorly related to project cycle and approval process; • non-existent or weak follow up process, lacking surveillance and enforcement of terms and

conditions, effects monitoring etc.; • inadequate treatment of cumulative effects, social impacts and health risks; • perfunctory and substandard public consultation -- undertaken too late and with little reference to

the requirements of affected groups; • voluminous, poorly organised and overly descriptive EIA reports and documents; • inefficient, time consuming and costly process; and • insufficient or irrelevant information provided to decision makers.

Source: Sadler (1996). 2.6 Emerging Models of EIA and SIA Towards an integrated, sustainability-orientated process In response to the sustainability agenda, there is a transition toward a more integrated approach to EIA and SIA. The process of change is slow and uneven. Current trends point to two emerging models of EIA: • Generic environmental assessment (EA) for sustainability assurance; and • Integrated policy and project appraisal for sustainable development..



Environmental sustainability assessment (ESA) is a “next generation” process; it is best described as a ‘framework approach’ to relate development proposals to the baseline condition of sustainable development. This condition is represented by the regenerative and assimilative capacities of natural systems. On the basis of existing scientific knowledge, these threshold levels cannot be determined before the fact. However, EIA and SEA could be modified and adjusted to give an enhanced measure of sustainability assurance to approvals of development proposals via the application of the precautionary principles and other steps described in Box 2.2. Integrated policy and project appraisal can be defined as a full cost analysis of the environmental, economic and equity effects of development options and proposals. This approach also could be called sustainability analysis or 3E-impact assessments, bringing together EIA, SIA, benefit-cost analysis and other forms of economic appraisal. Sustainability analysis or appraisal (SA) implies that all major development options would be subject to review against the triple bottom-lines of environmental capacity, economic feasibility and social equity. Recently, considerable effort has been made to define these bottom-lines, notably by environmental economists in terms of types of capital stock and their relationships to keeping open the opportunities for future development. In this regard, particular attention is paid to social and natural capital. As summarised in Box 2.3, these concepts point to sustainability indicators against which EIA and SIA can be conducted and (Box 2.3). Box 2.2: Environmental Sustainability Assurance (ESA) ESA means that critical resource stocks and ecological functions must be safeguarded, depletion and deterioration of sources and sinks must be kept within acceptable levels or safe margins and losses of natural capital must be made good. A first step is to establish ‘benchmark principles’ against which to test the ‘sustainability’ of development proposals and choices. This can be done by:

• elaborating the fundamental principles of sustainable development (i.e. inter- and intra-generational equity);

• electing a standard of sustainability (i.e. weak to strong version); • specifying demand and supply principles for “strong sustainability” (the arguments for

which are made elsewhere).

Once this framework is in place, i) supply-side principles of sustainability can be used to test development proposals for their conformity with internationally accepted requirements – e.g. safeguard critical resource stocks and ecological functions, maintain biodiversity and identify limits or thresholds of ‘acceptable’ change to habitat and landscape; ii) demand-side principles of sustainability can guide the application of EIA and SEA processes for this purpose, e.g. weak or strict application of the precautionary principle depending on the level of significance of environmental values and risks; and, iii) in combination, these principles indicate necessary modifications to EIA and SEA procedure and methodology, e.g. requirement to compensate for natural capital losses for all actions or approvals taken by governments and international organisation by “in kind” compensation, either like-for-like replacement of lost habitat or resource values or, where this is not possible, a comparable offset. Applied to dams and all supporting infrastructure, this framework provides the basis for a comprehensive approach to mitigating environmental and social impacts, i.e. focussed on the maintenance of natural capital and building social or human capital (see Box 2.3) rather than simply attempting to limit or minimise impacts as far as possible or as economically practicable. This new emphasis would go a long way to addressing frequently expressed concerns about the environmental and social effects of dams, the limitations of the EIA and SIA processes and the credibility of proponents.

Source: Sadler (1999)



Box 2.3: Sustainability and Types of Capital

HUMAN/SOCIAL NATURAL/ECOLOGICAL Human capital such as knowledge, skills and capabilities, are now accepted as an important part of economic development. This form of capital is created or enhanced by investments in education, health and social welfare. A broader definition of social (collective human) capital includes community structures, civic traditions and even, institutions of governance. This “organisational scaffolding” is necessary for society to function effectively. Generally, these enabling factors are provided by citizen involvement and voluntary action as much as by government intervention. Particular emphasis is given to distributive fairness in SIA of development proposals. Sample indicators for this purpose include condition of housing and infrastructure, access to health and education services, representation of voluntary organisations, etc. Source: Sadler (1999).

Natural capital is the stock of resource and environmental assets. This form of capital represents a one-time evolutional inheritance. It comprises renewable and non-renewable natural resources (minerals, soils, air, water, forests etc.) and the ecological processes that maintain the life support system of the planet (nutrient cycles, energy flows, food chains and gene pools). As a source of raw materials and a sink for waste, the biophysical environment is the basis of development. These functions are irreplaceable by any practical measure, but difficult to value, especially if their opinion and existence (non use) benefits are included. Particular emphasis is given to resource depletion and assimilative capacity in EIA of development proposals. Sample indicators include habitat loss, fish stocks, rates of water abstraction and use, emissions and pollution loadings, etc.

2.7 EIA Practice -- Application to Large Scale Dams Dams were among the earliest examples of projects that triggered EIA application. Since 1970, when EIA was introduced, the ICOLD Register of Dams indicates thousands of large dams have been built world-wide. For instance, India and China have both built in excess of 3000 large dams for power generation, water supply, flood control, irrigation or to meet multiple purposes. Not all of these developments have been controversial; but many have. Some well-known examples are listed in Box 2.4. These projects have commanded international attention because of their impact on the environment and people, none more so than the Sardar Sarovar Scheme (Box 2.5). Many other dams have been controversial in part because EIA and SIA were not applied or because the approach was considered to be deficient in certain respects. At the core of the big dams debate are issues of both substance and process and, frequently, these are interwoven together. Boxes 8 and 9 respectively outline the EIA experiences in Slovakia and in some projects funded by the Asian Development Bank. Box 2.4: Examples of Environmentally Controversial Hydro Projects Arun Dam, Nepal. 401 MW hydro-project; small (43 ha.) reservoir; no resettlement; located in adjacent to Royal National Park. Overturned by Nepal Supreme Court in February 1994. Pangue Dam, BioBio River, Chile. First major dam project to receive IFC approval in 1992. Subject to litigation (including Chile Supreme Court) in 1993, partly because the EIA failed to address downstream impacts. Gacikovo Dam, Danube River, Slovakia. Downstream impacts subject to review by EC-appointed tribunal. Lowered water table in Hungary's prime agricultural area (yields dropped 30%) and in the lower central part of the Szigetkoz wetland. Declines reported in most Danube fish stocks. Work halted for a period during construction.



James Bay Diversion, Quebec, Canada: Massive scheme with range of environmental and social impacts on indigenous people. New York Power Authority cancelled 20-year $12.6 bn contract to buy James Bay power, reportedly for environmental (& social) reasons, in March 1992. Demand supply management in New York played a role too and is now more exploited than previously. Sardar Sarovar (Narmada) scheme, India: Subject to independent review by World Bank panel, India requested the cancellation of the outstanding $170 M loan on environmental and social grounds, partly because contractual agreement schedule was unlikely to be met on time. Three Gorges Dam, China: 1 6,000 MW project, the largest in the world. US support withdrawn in December 1993. Major criticisms directed at EIA and SIA processes. Nam Choan Dam, Thailand: 576 MW ($352 M) postponed indefinitely by the Thai cabinet in 1982 because the 140 square km reservoir would flood 4% of the 4,800 square km Thung Hai Wildlife Sanctuary. This sanctuary was (and has even more since) being actively logged and poached which the project could have halted.

Source: Goodland (1995) Box 2.5: The Sardar Sarovar Scheme, India. Background: The Sardar Sarovar Scheme includes the construction of a high dam on the Narmada River and creation of a reservoir submerging land in the states of Gujarat, Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh, and an extensive canal and irrigation system in Gujarat itself. Long-planned, construction of the dam and canal systems began in 1987. It soon became the focus of the debate in India on the importance of economic development on the one hand, and human rights and environmental protection on the other. The Project(s): The Sardar Sarovar dam is situated about 180 km from the Arabian Sea. It will impound water to a full reservoir level of 455 feet; it will submerge 37,000 hectares of land in three states: Gujarat, Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh; it will divert 9.5 million acre feet of water from the Narmada River into a canal and irrigation system and deliver drinking water to drought-prone areas of Gujarat. The main canal is 250 meters wide at its head and 100 meters wide at the Rajasthan border 450 km. distant. The aggregate length of the distribution network is 75,000 km. It will require approximately 80,000 hectares of land, more than twice as much land as the submergence area. The impact of the Sardar Sarovar Projects extends over an immense area and will affect a large population, especially tribal people. At least 100,000 people, in 245 villages, live in the area affected by submergence. In Gujarat and Maharashtra almost all of those affected are tribal people. In addition there are likely to be 140,000 families who will be affected by the construction of the canal and irrigation system. Finally, there are the people living downstream below the dam, numbering thousands more, whose lives will be adversely affected. Wider, EIA related Implications: Sardar Sarovar became – in India and many other countries – a symbol. To some it represents economic development that will bring enormous benefits to millions; others regard it as an imposition upon the land which will impoverish - culturally and economically – hundreds of thousands of people and irrevocably alter, if not destroy, the natural environment that the Narmada River supports. The project, now in its final stages, was also heavily criticised because of the deficiencies in the EIA and SIA processes which were applied. In 1992, the scheme was the subject of an independent review commissioned by the World Bank and triggered by its loan agreement with the governments involved (see Box 3.3).

Source: Berger, 1994.



Almost 25 years of experience have been amassed in the application of EIA to large dams. What does this record tell us? The following generalisations provide a starting point:

i) the environmental and social impacts of large scale dams are distinctive but not unique in comparison to other types of development proposals. Bio-physical effects of dams that are of particular concern include loss of land and habitat, alteration of hydrological regime and aquatic ecology, disruption of riverine fisheries and reservoir sedimentation with consequent backwater effects. These effects and the corresponding mitigation measures are well documented (e.g. World Bank, 1991; Dorcey, 1997) and ecosystem-level impacts of dams are considered in a separate WCD report. The most contentious social issues of large scale dams focus on the displacement of people or involuntary resettlement, particularly if this involves vulnerable ethnic minorities and indigenous peoples who follow a traditional lifestyle. A full listing of these impacts is given in the companion report on SIA. (Annex 5)

ii) the size and location of dams are key determinants of impact. These criteria are also used to

screen projects to determine whether or not the EIA process is to be applied. Understandably, the largest projects command the most time and effort and gain the highest attention in EIA and SIA. However, other than small, run-of-the-river projects and similar works, most dams cause residual environmental and social impacts. At all scales, impact significance is a relative valuation, dependent upon the quality of the affected environment, e.g. loss of habitat of rare versus common species. The spatial extent of assessment and the amount of geographical detail or “granularity” will affect this evaluation and the outcome of the EIA process (Jaoa, comm.).

iii) considerable guidance and information is available on the assessment of dams. The World

Bank’s (1991) Environmental Assessment Sourcebook is a widely used reference source. Volumes II and III respectively contain sectoral guidelines for EIAs of irrigation and drainage projects (Chapter 8) and technical guidelines for EIAs of hydroelectric projects, including dams, reservoirs and power generation and transmission facilities (Chapter 10). Now being revised, these guidelines approximate to an international standard for application of EIA, especially for use in and by developing countries. The joint IUCN/World Bank compendium of experience with the planning, design, construction and operation of large scale dams is a valuable source of updated information on environmental and social impacts (Dorcey, 1997).

iv) the current generation of mega dams are particularly controversial and have wider implications

for EIA practice (although they are not necessarily typical cases). Many of the largest schemes are located in a relatively few developing countries, predominantly China and India. Except for the James Bay scheme in Canada, there are fewer contemporary, equivalents being considered in developed countries. In the case of the Sardar Sarovar scheme (Box 2.5) and other high profile cases listed in Box 2.4, the adequacy and effectiveness of EIA and SIA process has been severely criticised. This has added to the controversy over their impact and raised serious questions regarding the impact assessment profession which are the subject of continuing debate (Box 2.8).

v) elsewhere, controversial dam proposals encompass a broad range of issues and

interdependencies which have been instrumental in broadening the scope of EIA and SIA. Specifically, the focus of concern has shifted from site-specific impacts to the cumulative effects of dams and the sustainability of water resources. This is especially the case in developed countries, where many river systems are extensively dammed and regulated, intensively utilised and under increasing environmental stress from water abstraction and discharge of pollutants from point and non-point sources. For example, in the USA, the lower Colorado River is a major system that is completely allocated to use and, reportedly, no longer discharges to the sea on most days of the year; and the Columbia River exemplifies the increasing difficulties encountered in balancing competing demands (in this case for hydro power, irrigation, salmon fisheries and recreation).



vi) under these circumstances, a narrow, project-by-project approach to assessing and managing

the environmental and social impacts of dams loses currency. In response, there is increasing use of SEA and regional-level EIA, and closer linkage of project EIA to other processes and instruments for water resource management. To date, however, case examples and practical experience are limited with regard to these developments. Looking ahead, the pressing realities of climate warming, bio-diversity loss and other global environmental changes underline the importance of the trend towards more strategic and integrated frameworks for assessing and managing the impacts of large dams.

vii) in the final analysis, the contribution of EIA and SIA to decision making is differently perceived

and valued by various sides involved in the debate on dams. Typically, dam proponents see EIA and SIA as a brake on development and as imposing an additional time and cost burden on the project. Conversely, environmental and community groups consider that EIA and SIA are undertaken as an “add-on” to the decision making process and carry insufficient weight in project formulation and design. In sum, this means that evaluations of the effectiveness and efficacy of EIA and SIA processes reflect the values, background and experience of participants and observers. Unless these are understood and addressed, the big dams debate will continue to generate more heat than light and will cloud dispassionate analysis.

Box 2.6: EIA experience in Slovakia 37 large dams have been constructed in Slovakia and the construction of a number of new ones is foreseen in the next 25 years. EIA procedures became a legal requirement in 1994 following pressure from civil society and the Ministry of Environment. Actual practice has been observed for the last six years and the authors point out the following constraints on the effectiveness of the process from the perspective of civil society, amongst others. • The EIA process requires the Ministry of Environment to define the scope of the study and to

ensure public participation in the process. However the Law gives the Ministry considerable scope to define “as appropriate” the EIA assessment needs and the details of which information should be collected are discretionary rather than prescriptive. This leads to gaps in analysis.

• In common with EIA processes elsewhere, public consultation is provided for, however the

authors point out that “involvement of the public seems to be designed more to appease public opinion than to actually involve them in decision-making “. Moreover people affected by dams projects are not familiar with the complexities of the EIA procedure.

• Where there may be violations of EIA procedure, there are no legal or administrative provisions

for review or appeal concerning EIA findings. The authors point to short-comings in the process for the Slatinka and Tichy Potok dams for which no recourse was possible.

• The small group of accredited experts and consultants doing EIAs, or advising the Ministry, are

dependent directly on the developers for funds and there may be conflicts of interest that call into question the objectiveness of “expert” advice.

Source: Havlicek, Zilincik & Zamkovsky, 1999/INS095



Box 2.7: Review of environmental impacts for dam projects funded by Asian Development Bank The Asian development bank undertook an internal review of four projects and identified the following concerns with the EIA process that led to less than satisfactory outcomes • Adequacy of baseline data led to the misidentification of impacts as new field studies were not

done and only existing databases were used. • In most cases the EIAs were done by project proponents and some preparatory documents

understated or overlooked project impacts • Some aspects of detailed studies were lost in the “summary EIA” that was a key to decision-

making. • Poor developing member country capacity to organise adequate peer review of EIA studies

Source: Asian Development Bank, 1999/INS 188 Box 2.8: EIA as a controversial exercise: The case of the Three Gorges Project Background The Three Gorges hydroelectric project on the Yangzi River has generated much controversy. The scale of environmental and social impacts is possibly unprecedented, particularly the displacement of an estimated one million people (assuming an approved normal pool level (NPL) of 175 m). Other, unofficial estimates indicate an even larger displaced population. In contrast, the feasibility study of the Three Gorges Project, completed by Canada in 1988, recommended that the dam be built to the same height as the currently approved design (crest at 185 m above mean sea level), but operated at the lower NPL of 160 m. This option would displace some 727,000 people by the Canadian estimate. Issues Many questions merit debate regarding the feasibility of the Three Gorges Project; one of them is the lessons of the feasibility study for the impact assessment profession. Specifically, the study emphasized the positive aspects of the scheme and minimised the negative consequences. Where negative aspects are pointed out, the logical conclusions to be drawn from them are not usually reflected in the general conclusions of the study which legitimate the feasibility of the dam for normal pool levels up to an elevation of 160 m. Resettlement as the Core Consideration A laudable 14-point list of criteria for establishing the feasibility of resettlement is presented at the outset of the report. Ironically, however, the more impossible it is to meet any given criterion, the less likely is the criterion to be raised as an obstacle to ratification of the plan. Problems that can be solved by spending more money, as in creating urban employment, lead to recommendations to increase the budget. By contrast, problems are ignored when they encounter inherent physical limits, such as replacing inundated land with land of equal quality or refraining from fragmenting village units when the populations are moved. When more politically sensitive matters are touched upon, as in the criterion requiring consultation of the local population and grassroots support for the resettlement plan, the study alleges that the problem has been solved. The feasibility study has as one of its stated objectives the provision of an impartial review to bolster China’s case for obtaining international financing for the dam. The conclusions of the study (although not always the data in the body of the report) serve this end well. The information provided, however, needed to be supplemented if other countries were to judge adequately whether to fund the proposed scheme. Especially lacking is an assessment of ways that events in the Three Gorges area could (indeed are likely to) unfold differently from the official scenario. These include strong indications that China would follow its previously announced plan for a two-stage filling process up to NPL 175 m, thereby exceeding the maximum of NPL 160 recommended by the feasibility study.



Three Lessons for the Impact Assessment Profession: A question of ethics. The root of the problem is not the ethics of the individuals involved, but rather the situation in which these individuals are placed. It is this aspect that the impact assessment profession must take the lead in trying to change. One common practice exemplified by the feasibility study is the anonymity of its authorship. Advocacy v. neutral approach. Perhaps a more advocacy-oriented structure for EIA is needed. As it is now, EIA reports are supposed to be unbiased, balancing pro and con information to arrive at an impartial recommendation. The reality, of course, is quite different; it is, perhaps, not realistic to expect that agencies that specialise in building large dams will produce reports recommending that large dams not be built in favour of other alternatives. An end to secrecy. The feasibility study dramatises the need for public scrutiny and debate about impacts of development projects everywhere. Even in Canada, where the feasibility study report was made available after a lengthy delay, omissions occurred. A total of 2,000 pages were deleted (Zhizhong Si, personal communication).

Source: Fearnside, 1994. 2.8 Future Scenarios - Water demands, climate change and the

implications for dams Background information on environmental trends reported in this section is taken from the Global Environmental Outlook –GEO 2000 prepared by UNEP, NASA and the World Bank . On the supply-side, water resources are finite, constrained by conflicts of allocation and subject to increasing pressures already. These pressures are likely to become limiting on development. According to the 1997 U.N. Comprehensive Freshwater Assessment, global water use has been growing at more than twice the rate of the population increase during this century. The number of regions experiencing chronic water shortages is growing. Currently, more than 430 million people live in countries considered to be “water stressed”. This number is expected to increase substantially in the next 50 years, possibly to some 40 percent of the world population by 2050. World energy consumption is expected to increase substantially in the next two decades, with most of the growth in energy demand from developing countries. Specifically, use of hydropower is forecast to double by 2020 as a search for alternative sources of energy can be expected to pick up momentum. At present, fossil fuels provide by far the most common source of energy. They are the major contributor to climate warming through the release of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. An increasing interest in hydropower schemes can be expected in the light of the CO2/greenhouse gas discussion, national reduction commitments, and the emergence of schemes for carbon trading (Lutz et al, comm.). Only two sources of energy have the potential to bridge the transition to environmentally sustainable and renewable power, namely natural gas and hydro. There are two factors that may affect the availability of hydropower. First, on the supply side, the changes that are predicted to occur in the hydrological cycle as a result of climate warming will affect potential use at least on a regional scale. Secondly, on the demand side, the poor record and reputation of hydro risks development becoming mired in protest unless a turn around in approach can be achieved through the WCD. Climate warming is also expected to alter the overall amount, frequency, and variability of precipitation around the world, making water resource management more difficult. First, climate warming will accelerate the hydrologic cycle, increasing rates of evaporation and amounts of precipitation on a global scale. Second, the regional distribution of precipitation appears likely to change, leaving some areas much wetter, and others much drier. Although projections of the regional



and local effects of climate change on water sources are uncertain all global climate models show a tendency to mid-continental warming and drying, resulting from increased temperatures and evapo-transpiration. Under these conditions, current patterns of water withdrawals may lead to and reduce flows with potentially negative effects or aquatic biodiversity and lowered water table, possibly leading to accelerated land degradation and salinisation. These potential impacts have important implications for water deficient or stressed regions. Both the timing and form of precipitation may change, making it more difficult to store sufficient water. For example, the arid south western USA, where demand-supply imbalances are problematic already, may be facing a 40% reduction in precipitation. If the variability or severity of storms increases, as stimulated in some models, current infrastructure may be insufficient to manage the supply of water and prevent flooding. This scenario has wider regional and international implications, since there have been proposals already for major inter-basin transfer schemes from other US and Canadian river systems.



3. Effectiveness of EIA and SIA of Dams Briefly, there are three “paradigms” or frameworks for evaluation of EIA effectiveness: theory – what should be done (much of the EIA literature is normative and prescriptive) practice – what actually happens ( the track record of EIA for dams is dismal although it is not clear if there are few good examples or everyone writes about the bad ones) art of the possible – what realistically can be done by pushing the envelope of best practice but accepting that legal reforms and changes to political and institutional arrangements are long term solutions. This focus is adopted here. 3.1 Process Limitations and Deficiencies The WCD Web Conference identified a range of concerns regarding EIA and SIA practices applied to dams (Casinader, 1999/INS041). With few exceptions, the examples cited, such as the Sardar Sarovar (India) projects, are worst rather than best cases. The fundamental criticism levelled at EIA and SIA is that, in far too many cases, the process has failed the basic test of addressing and mitigating significant impacts. Instead, EIA and SIA have been used to legitimise proposals and to confirm previously held positions. The EIA process limitations and deficiencies that are most commonly cited are grouped into five problem areas:

- attitudinal – proponents and development agencies resist or circumvent EIA or apply it as a pro-forma exercise.

- structural – EIA insufficiently integrated with decision making process and project cycle - institutional – the scope of EIA is narrowly applied; social, health factors and cumulative

effects are inadequately covered. - procedural – checks and balances are inadequate; leading to “user” complaints about

fairness, timeliness and quality of EIA. - technical – poor quality of EIA and unsuitable mitigation measures

Late timing of EIA/SIA processes. Many EIAs and SIAs of dams have been conducted too late in the decision making process, i.e., when the project design or engineering studies were underway or nearing completion. The opportunity is missed to build environmental considerations into initial planning, e.g. by using EIA to test concept feasibility, examine other alternatives or select the location of the dam site. In extreme cases, EIA and SIA are completed so late in the results cannot be even distributed for prior stakeholder scrutiny and comment. As a consequence, it is not possible to identify a least environmentally and socially damaging option for dam design or to prevent and mitigate adverse impacts. This defeats the whole purpose of conducting EIA and relegates it to a pro-forma exercise, which by definition will not meet any reasonable expectation of what the process should deliver. Often, considerable restraints are imposed on EIA by project schedules and costs and by attendant political and administrative pressures. Between 1960 and 1999, the Inter American Development Bank database indicates that 88 large dam projects were implemented in the Latin America region. Of these an EIA study was prepared prior to project execution in only seven cases. Brito and Moreira (2000) report that of the remainder EIAs were prepared after or during project implementation in 2 cases; no specific EIAs were prepared in 10 cases; and in 51 cases there was an insufficient basis to evaluate whether or not an EIA was prepared. There are grounds for considering this phase of EIA practice may now be ending. Certainly, many projects cited as examples of late timing and pro forma use of EIA are now nearing completion or are



operating. What is less clear is the extent to which, under current practice, EIA is undertaken at an early stage in the project cycle, consistent with standards of good practice described below. Recently, too, the use of strategic environmental assessment (SEA) has opened up a promising avenue for addressing the issue of late timing and for integrating environmental and social considerations into the early, “upstream” phases of decision making. Examples include the Nepal Power SEA and the strategic planning process undertaken by Thames Water, which includes a Best Practical Environmental Programme, a combined form of options analysis and SEA (reviewed in detail later). Institutionally, the late timing of EIA can be symptomatic of deep rooted flaws in the structural integrity of the process. These are much harder to correct, requiring legal and organisational reforms. Because large dams have long planning lead times, EIA should be undertaken from the beginning of the project cycle, with subsequent stages and activities keyed to key planning and design as shown in Box 3.1. Although attention is focussed on the preparatory phase, a life cycle approach also considers options for and issues associated with decommissioning dam projects. In practice, however, most EIAs of dams do not analyse the effect of actions which may take place in 30 to 50 years time. However, EIAs are being used increasingly for reauthorising and decommissioning dams built in an earlier era (see Box 3.14). Operationally, screening of a proposal is the key to triggering the early application of EIA and to determining the level of effort that will be required (see Box 3.1). The Africa Development Bank reports that the classification scheme in Box 3.1 has been used to successfully identify, assess and mitigate large and medium scale dam projects, e.g., the Barbara Dam project, Tunisia (Aw 1996). Most large scale dams undergo comprehensive assessment; for medium-scale projects a lower level of EIA and SIA may be sufficient. In the latter case, the prior application of SEA may reduce the level of effort needed at the project level; e.g. the World Bank SEA of the Ceara water resource development scheme (Brazil) for the construction of 30 medium-sized dams. However, in this case and others where the SEA process is weak or insufficiently developed, the project EIA process will be compromised. The long planning lead time for dams means that an earlier EIA process that was ineffective may be reopened under a new legal or policy framework or judged in accordance with more rigorous standards of sound practice. In such cases, the choice may come down to cancelling or suspending work on the project (e.g. Rafferty–Almeda), withdrawing application for international funding (e.g. Sardar Sarovar), undertaking intensive environmental supervision of the implementation phase (e.g. Yacyreta II Hydro project) or reassessment of impacts and mitigation measures (e.g. environmental flow assessment of the Mohale dam scheme as part of the Lesotho Highlands Water Project). The supervision response can be justified only where the environmental and social costs of completing the project are lower than the alternatives. However, in certain cases an EIA of implementing measures can be helpful. Sanchez (comm.) cites the example of the EIA of the Porto Primavera dam, Parana river (Brazil) which was undertaken after construction but before reservoir filling as a result of new regulations coming into force.



Figure 3.1: Impact assessment and the project cycle

Box 3.1: World Bank Environmental Classification System Category A – the project is likely to have significant adverse impacts that may be sensitive, irreversible, diverse, comprehensive, broad or precedent-setting. These impacts generally result from a major component of the project and affect the area as a whole or an entire sector. A full environmental assessment is required. Category B – the project is likely to have potential environmental impacts are site-specific in nature and do not significantly affect human populations or alter environmentally important areas, such as mangroves, wetlands, and other major natural habitat. Few if any of the impacts are irreversible, and mitigatory measures can easily be designed. A partial environmental analysis is required, curtailed to the particular environmental issues of the project. Category C – the project is unlikely to have adverse environmental impacts, or its impacts are likely to be negligible, insignificant, or minimal. EA is not required for such projects.

Source: World Bank (1991) Bias and inequality of the EIA and SIA processes. The way the process is structured and implemented are perceived by some participants and observers as embodying both a presumption for development and favoring the proponent. Almost all EIA systems are based upon ‘self assessment’ by the proponent and acceptance of the burden of proof as resting on the opponents of development proposals, i.e. to demonstrate why a project should not go ahead and to argue for modifications on environmental and social grounds. However, well established EIA frameworks incorporate a set of procedural checks and balances to ensure the process is conducted as fairly and objectively as possible. If these controls are absent or insufficient, the credibility of the EIA process is put at risk. By many accounts, the past record of dams in this respect appears to be a poor one. Aspects of concern include: the poor quality of EIA studies; failure to address the concerns of people adversely affected by projects; inadequate funding for EIA and mitigation measures; low standards of work and lack of requisite ecological and social knowledge on the part of those undertaking these studies; and absence of enforcement and follow through of terms and conditions. For example, all of these deficiencies have been cited in connection with EIA and SIA studies of the Three Gorges project,



beginning with the feasibility study and the indictment of the impact assessment profession by Fearnside (1994) and others (see Box 2.8). However expressed, these reservations in combination call into question the efficacy of the EIA and SIA processes. Again, the issue is not if this situation has characterised the last decade but whether or not it is true of the present and to what extent elements of good practice apply -- as described below. Limitations of EIA as a predictive tool Uncertainty is an inherent characteristic of EIA and SIA of dams. Methodological constraints on EIA are imposed by limited scientific understanding of cause-effect relationships associated with dam construction -- as opposed to poor quality of EIA studies due to inadequate procedural controls, time, resources etc. In general, these methodological constraints are well understood. For example, impact prediction is reasonably well founded with respect to direct physical effects of dams, e.g. erosion, flow regime, etc. Mathematical and simulation models are available for this purpose and their parameters of reliability are known. This is less so for impacts of flora and fauna; and prediction becomes even more problematic with respect to second order ecological changes and their interaction with land use and water management regimes (e.g. expressed in terms of loss of resource productivity, opportunity costs and so on). A review of these issues is given by Brookes (1999) and further information on the relationship of environmental and social impacts of dams can be found in Vanclay.. (Annex 5). Use of an adaptive, “best-estimate” approach to impact identification and prediction is recommended, backed by appropriate programmes of monitoring and audit to cope with and correct unanticipated surprise. However, in many developing countries, there is an absence of primary and secondary baseline data which compounds the difficulties of impact prediction (e.g. of changes to tropical ecology). Elsewhere, a widespread failure to undertake post-approval monitoring and follow-up has amounted to a systemic weakness of the EIA process. In many cases, this is manifest at a very basic level of inadequate environmental supervision of major dam projects undergoing implementation (e.g. as reported by the World Bank as part of its second review of EIA practice). As a consequence, there is little or no guarantee that EIA-based conditions are being met (thereby reducing the process to a pro-forma as described above). There is a broad consensus among EIA professionals that insufficient attention is given to monitoring, audit and evaluation, for reasons of cost, time pressure etc. Without appropriate follow up to check on EIA practice and performance, the process lacks both a feedback loop to quality control and to continuing improvement (learning from experience). This is one reason, technically, why progress has been slow in improving the effectiveness of EIAs of dams. Some EIA specialists have argued the case for shifting the perspective from impact prediction to mitigation (Box 3.2). There are signs that this situation is turning around. An increasing number of countries and international organisations now require environmental management plans as part of condition setting for dams and other major projects. These include provision for inspection, monitoring and other implementation and follow up measures. One of the most comprehensive examples to date is Hydro-Quebec’s programme to monitor the environmental and social impacts and evaluate the effectiveness of mitigation and compensation measures for the La Grande Project. Recently, the World Bank has strengthened its procedures for incorporating EIA-recommendations into legal agreements and project schedules and budgets. The Second Ertan Hydroelectric Project (China) is widely cited as representing an important step forward in institutionalising environmental conditions.



Box 3.2: Shifting the Perspective from Prediction to Mitigation: The Example of the Arun III Hydroelectric Project, Nepal. Given short timeframes and limited budgets, EIA practitioners would be well served by shifting the emphasis to mitigation instead of producing detailed impact analyses. EIA on the proposed and now abandoned Arun III Hydroelectric Project in Nepal is a case in point. The EIA consisted of volumes of impact analysis, but the information on mitigation measures and implementation was quite generic. Decision makers could take no assurance from the EIA that the proposed mitigation measures would reduce or eliminate the environmental or social impacts as stated. Irrespective of whether or not the controversial Arun III Hydroelectric Project should have been approved, an alternative to the voluminous EIA would have been the development of a very detailed environmental mitigation plan for the project that would have covered not only its construction, but its operation for many years to come. Such a detailed plan would include specific mitigative measure and costs, including those for institutional strengthening, needed to ensure implementation and compliance.

Source: Russo, 1999. Relative lack of attention given to social impacts of dams Involuntary resettlement is the most extreme and contentious issue, locally and internationally, and it encompasses all or most other types of social impact, such as disruption to lifestyle and marginalisation as a result of loss of land. Given the magnitude and significance of these changes, the inadequacy of SIAs can have serious repercussions. An overview of SIA in relation to dams is contained in Annex 5. In four projects evaluated by the Asia Development Bank in 1999, Brito and Verocai (2000) report that the inadequacy of social assessment led to the misidentification of project impacts. Specifically, the project designers did not initiate baseline surveys; instead they used existing socio-economic databases. Only in case of Theun Hinboun (Laos) was a socio-economic survey undertaken at the preparatory stage. According to a World Bank review, projects implemented in the mid-1980s have poorly developed resettlement components. Greater importance is now given to SIA at the World Bank but there are still many questions related to the mitigation of social impacts. Health impacts of large dams are largely ignored. Despite the fact that dam projects can have profound effects on human health and well-being, relatively few international agencies or countries have requirements, principles or guidelines for health to be considered as party of EA. In developing countries, especially, certain health impacts of large dams are of primary concern, e.g. schistosomiasis, water borne parasites and mosquito vectors in resettlement areas (Birley, 1999/INS039). For example, these issues were of concern in the Pak Mun Hydro Project (Thailand). Yet health impact assessment and mitigation measures lagged behind other study components and there was a lack of co-ordination between relevant agencies. The World Bank and the implementing agency had to take corrective action to address the problems. Recently, the Bank has issued guidance on addressing health impacts (Update to the Environmental Assessment Sourcebook). The World Health Organisation (WHO) has prepared information and guidance on health impacts of dams and their assessment as part of the WCD process. For present purposes, note that health impacts can be considered as part of the EIA (or SIA) process or through a separate health impact assessment (HIA) process. In Annex 3, key questions are identified for screening health impacts part of EIA. However, it is important to recognise the EIA often addresses health risks in a sector-limited, rather than a cross-cutting manner. Because the health status of communities results from both environmental and social determinants, Bos et al (comm.) argue that HIA should have a separate status, overlapping in method, procedure and outcome with EIA and SIA and result in a specific Health Protection and Promotion Plan.



3.2 Quality control and Assurance Key measures for quality assurance and control of the EIA process address the above concerns. A total, whole-process approach to quality control is outlined in Figure 3.2. Four stages of the EIA process are widely considered to be critical for this purpose: • scoping to focus an EIA on key impacts, issues and alternatives and the information required for

decision making • evaluation of significance to guide the terms and conditions for project approval • review of the EIS to establish whether the document meets the terms or reference, and is

satisfactory • monitoring and follow up to ensure that the terms of project approval and mitigation measures

are being implemented and that performance is as expected. Where these four areas remain incompletely developed, the EIA process requires strengthening. Disciplined scoping is the launch pad of a focussed and effective EIA process (although ultimately it also is conditional upon the right institutional arrangements being in place and all parties engaging constructively in the exercise). The participation of affected groups is critical to help identify significant issues and establishing appropriate terms of reference for dam proposals. Box 3.3 provides an example of EIA good practice in scoping a dam project. Impact analysis can then address the issues that matter and identify the mitigation measures which are required to avoid, minimise and offset them. Evaluation of the significance of identified and predicted impacts takes place throughout the EIA process. As a formal stage, evaluation addresses residual impacts, i.e. which cannot be mitigated. In some case, the residual impacts may be so significant that they raise questions of the environmental acceptability of a proposed dam and whether or not it should be approved. The quality and effectiveness of EIA will largely depend on the clarity and usefulness of the information it produces. A review of the EIA report, which is the key document in relationship to decision making, is a critical quality control check and is essential for redress in cases where the process is manifestly deficient and environmentally and socially damaging (see Box 3.4).



Figure 3.2: Quality Assurance in EIA

ScopingDetermination

of significance

Review ofES quality

Follow upand

evaluationApproval

Scoping is meant toidentify as early aspossible:•· the informationnecessary fordecision making;•· the importantissues and concerns(interests);•· the significanteffects, factors andalternatives to beconsidered; and•· the appropriatecontent andboundaries of an EAstudy.

Determination ofsignificance may bemade by referenceto:•· the nature andextent of impacts(e.g. type duration);•· likely adverseeffects on thereceivingenvironment (e.g.sensitive areas, landuse, communitytraditions);•· magnitude ofimpacts (e.g. low,moderate, high); and•· options for impactmitigation (e.g.reduction,avoidance).

Pre-approval of an ESprovides a check on:•· sufficiency ofinformation provided(e.g. complete andconforms to studyobjectives);•· reliability ofanalysis orinterpretation (e.g.consistent with stateof scientificknowledge andmethodology); and•· utility for decisionmaking (e.g. cleardescription ofenvironmentalconsequences and,where appropriate,management options).

Monitoring and follow up covers:•· surveillance and inspection toensure terms and conditions arebeing followed in projectconstruction;•· monitoring to check forcompliance with standards, to testthe effectiveness of mitigation andother protective measures, and todetect potentially damagingchanges (e.g. exceeding predictedlevel);· management to respond tounforeseen events or to offsetlarger-than-predicted effects (e.g.by employing contingency plans orrevising environmentalmanagement plans); and•· auditing/evaluation to reviewaspects of EA practice andperformance and to providefeedback for process improvement(e.g. on success of mitigationmeasures or new procedures).

Feedback and improvement

Source: Sadler and Fuller (1997)

Box 3.3: EIA Good Practice in Scoping: The Example of the St. Lawrence Hydropower Project, US-Canada A good example of scoping and designing baseline surveys is the activities associated with the relicensing/reauthorisation of the 912-MW, St Lawrence-Franklin Delano Roosevelt Project Hydropower Project on the St Lawrence river, which is the international border of Canada and the USA. Scoping on this project consisted not merely a few meetings and site visits, but included monthly meetings between the hydropower operator and 39 other organizations (60-70 individuals from the USA, Canada and the Mohawk Nation) over a 14-month period. The New York Power Authority (NYPA) with the assistance of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (NYDEC), worked with all of the participants to prepare a Scoping Document, which defined the relevant issues, necessary studies to analyse impacts and specific mitigation that would meet some resource needs. The scoping process is noteworthy here, because it promoted ongoing dialogue amongst participants in special sub-committees and in the larger group. This type of process helps not only to structure the EIA, but also to focus on the necessary mitigation that would avoid or reduce impacts to environmental resources and make the project more environmentally sustainable. Baseline studies were designed by NYPA and the participants’ organizations, with special attention paid to the level of analysis and with specific attention paid to the level of analysis and what specific information was needed to define an impact and the necessary mitigation to avoid or eliminate it. Because participants reviewed the study design plans, a staged approach was agreed to. For example, if initial study results shed sufficient information on the resource issue, there would be no need to complete the entire study.

Source: Russo, 1999.



Box 3.4: The Independent Review of the Sardar Sarovar Projects 1991-1992. Background In 1985 the World Bank had entered into a credit and loan agreement (US$450 million) with India and the states of Gujarat, Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh, to help finance the construction of the Sardar Sarovar dam and canal. In 1991, in the wake of increasing controversy, the World Bank established its first independent review of the controversial Sardar Sarovar Projects (SSP) in India.. Terms of Reference (ToR) Under these agreements the Bank considered only those whose villages will be affected by submergence as “project-affected” persons entitled to be resettled and rehabilitated. The first task of the review was to consider the measures being taken for the resettlement and rehabilitation of these people. The ToR also referred to persons “displaced/affected by the reservoir and infrastructure” and included the status of resettlement and compensation for “canal-affected persons”. On the environmental side, the ToR required the review to consider measures being taken to ameliorate the impact of “all aspects of the Projects”. Modus Operandi of the Independent Review: In the course of their review, the Commissioners travelled throughout the Narmada valley, including the dam site, the submergence area, the catchment area, and the area downstream and around the command area, including the route of the canal. They also met frequently with officials of the government of India and the governments of the three states, as well as with the project authorities. In addition, they met with eminent persons on both sides of the issue in New Delhi and other major centres and visited 65 villages, tribal and peasant, throughout the Narmada valley and command area. At gatherings in those villages they heard from the inhabitants and from people from other villages. The proponents emphasis on project benefits were challenged by many critics who took issue with the fundamental assumptions upon which the Projects are based. Opponents of the dam not only urged what they regard as flaws in the Projects but also questioned the advisability of proceeding at all. In addition, the information base included research data and from government and Bank files, submissions written specially for review. The review team was able to see for themselves in tribal and peasant villages in Narmada valley and in the relocation sites in Gujarat and Maharashtra. A draft report was submitted to the World Bank in April 1, 1992. The Bank prepared an extensive critique of the analysis and findings. The review team then met with senior Bank staff and technical people. The discussions were frank. Wherever the Bank was able to persuade the reviewers they had made a mistake in fact or analysis, they were prepared to modify the report. Key Findings: i) Human Rights Norms: Resettlement and Rehabilitation At the time when the independent review was being set up, Bank directives had set the highest standards of any aid or lending organization in the world for mitigating adverse consequences to human well-being caused by involuntary resettlement. However, these standards were adopted by the Bank after the credit and loan agreements had been signed. Bank policy, in effect, requires that in any project the human rights of the oustees must be respected. According to the International Labour Organisation (ILO), these are rights not to be impaired on ground of national sovereignty or national economic interest. Such considerations may justify a project; they do not justify the nullification of these basic human rights. The issues in Sardar Sarovar were complicated. The majority of the people to be ousted by the construction of Sadar Sarovar dam are tribal people. Usually they have no formal title to the land, even though they may have lived there for generations. They are called encroachers. The state governments of Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh took the position that the encroachers were not entitled to be resettled as farmers.



Central to the Bank’s credit and loan agreements with India and the three states is the objective requiring that all oustees be enabled, as a result of resettlement and rehabilitation measures taken on their behalf, to “improve or at least regain the standard of living they were enjoying prior to their displacement”. The result of classifying encroachers as landless oustees means that people who are in fact cultivating land they regard as their own will become landless labourers. The review team decided that this was not resettlement and rehabilitation and did not meet the ILO standard or the standard required by Bank policy and the credit and loan agreements Howevwer, the Bank had not required compliance. Nor did the Bank simply fail to enforce its policy and the credit and loan agreements. In the case of the canal, it failed to obtain a covenant in its agreement with Gujarat to require compliance with Bank policy. At the end of the day the review found that the failure of India and the states to enforce the norms adopted by them and the Bank agreements and to enforce them when it had done so, meant that involuntary resettlement resulting from the Sardar Sarovar Projects offends recognized norms of human rights. ii) Environmental Protection The government of India had developed a comprehensive structure of policies for environmental protection and assessment of environmental impact. Notwithstanding this stringent regime, the history of the environmental aspects of Sardar Sarovar is a history of noncompliance. Instead of environmental impact studies being done before approval of the Projects, they were done concurrently with construction – an approach that undermines the very basis for environmental planning. There was, however, in the conditional environmental clearance, a schedule for the completion of the environmental impact studies by 1989. Most of the studies were not completed by 1989. Without proper EIA effective ameliorative measures cannot be developed. A number of environmental issues were unresolved, including:

• significant discrepancies in the hydrological data and analyses indicated that the Sardar Sarovar Profects will not perform as planned

• the backwater effect of sedimentation upstream of the dam is also an issue was ignored and a rapid, continuing and cumulative rise in water level in the river above the reservoir could cause flooding to extensive areas

• no assessment of downstream impact had been done and the implications of the Sardar Sarovar Projects for the geomorphology of the lower reaches of the river and its estuary and for the fishery and the people living in the region were unknown

• assumptions used in design of the canal and irrigation network, and on the development of mitigative measures, were questionable.

Conclusions: The independent review found that the Sardar Sarovar Projects were beset by profound difficulties which had their genesis in the earliest phase of the Bank’s involvement. They turn on the absence of an adequate data base, failure to consult with the people whose lives and environment were and continue to be affected, and a lack of a proper EIA and mitigation. The independent review illuminated flaws in the Sardar Sarovar Projects. It should not be thought that these would only be found in India or confined to the Sardar Sarovar Projects. The fragile assumptions which have supported this project can be found elsewhere. The review found it impossible to separate its assessment of resettlement and rehabilitation and environmental protection from a consideration of the Sardar Sarovar Projects as a whole. The issues of human and environmental impact bear on virtually every aspect of large-scale development projects. They concluded that unless a project can be carried out in accordance with existing norms of human rights and environmental protection – norms espoused and endorsed by both the Bank and many borrower countries – the project ought not to proceed.



Postscript: The World Bank, in October 1992, decided to give India six months in which to meet a list of performance “benchmarks”. In March 1993, India advised the World Bank that it would not be seeking disbursement of the remaining monies authorised but not yet allocated under the loan and declared that it would raise the funds itself to complete the Sardar Sarovar Projects (Holmes, 1993). Source: Berger (1994). (Mr. Berger served as Vice-Chairman of the Independent Review of the Sardar Sarovar Projects. This account has been taken from his personal account of proceedings with only minor editorial changes) 3.3 Use of EIA and SIA as Participatory and Negotiatory Tools The stated policy of International Commission on Large Dams (ICOLD) is that people displaced by dam projects should be better-off as a result of involuntary resettlement. By extension, this means that the fundamental goal of involuntary resettlement is poverty reduction or alleviation. In fact, almost all international and national agencies seek only to minimise the disruption and, at best, to restore an equivalent livelihood (essentially a no-worse-off policy). However, this is next to impossible where indigenous peoples and many vulnerable ethnic minorities are concerned. Public participation, inclusion of affected parties in the broadest sense, is a crucial means of making these linkages and of ensuring that mitigation measures address the range of impacts of dams. Although the value added by participation is widely acknowledged, the reality is that many EIAs and SIAs of dams fail to involve those affected in a meaningful way. The critical requirement of good practice is to match the objectives to the tools for consultation and ensure these are relevant to the circumstances and the people who are affected (see Annex 3). EIA legislation in developed and many developing countries specifies the requirement for public consultations. However, guidance on good practice is not always available. Also, at the strategic level, public scrutiny of water policy and plans tends to be limited, and the debate cascades into public inquiries on project EIA. Experience In Developed Countries. There are examples upon which to build good or sound practice in the use of public consultation (the distinction with participation is important) in all phases of EIAs and SIAs of dams. In Canada, for example, provision for public involvement in planning and assessment of hydro projects is a standard part of the decision making process by provincial governments and utilities, notably in British Columbia, Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba). An example of EIA good practice in public involvement is given in Box 3.5. Other comprehensive, multi modal approaches include the process followed in response to the 25-year programme of dam and reservoir construction and river diversion in the James Bay region of the province (La Grande complex). Hydro-Quebec has used SIA, public participation and direct negotiation with the James Bay Cree, whose traditional land and livelihood are affected, to try and mitigate and offset the environmental and social impacts. However, the project still remained highly controversial and subject to legal and political challenge. Often, perception of impacts and risks have proven more influential than EIA studies in shaping attitudes to dam projects. This point -- well understood in SIA theory and methodology -- underlines the importance of involving the people affected. At a minimum, progressive utilities do so to ensure that a project goes ahead with the minimum of controversy and disruption. However, the lesson of the La Grande and other hydro projects in Canada is that a long time period may be necessary to fully and properly determine the significance of impacts on the environment and community and to equitably resolve issues of mitigation and compensation. For example, under the Northern Flood Agreement, Manitoba Hydro to this in day is negotiating impact compensation arrangements with the indigenous peoples affected by the Lower Churchill dam which was completed in 1971.



Experience In Developing Countries. In many countries, public consultation on EIAs and SIAs of dams is more limited and processes are still insufficient. For example, most EIAs in Africa, including those of dam projects, reportedly have not involved the public (Kakonge 1996; 1999). Elsewhere, the EIA process often is relatively closed and relevant information and results are inaccessible. For example, the Selangor dam project (Malaysia) reportedly is one where EIA/SIA studies were in an language that often was not understandable to most ordinary people, and the public was not given sufficient time in which to comment. The EIA for the Houay ho project in Laos was not completed until the large dam was well under construction. The dam was completed in 1998 but the EIA study has yet to be made public (Brito and Verocai, 2000). At a minimum, there are four important questions which need to be considered when planning for public participation (Stone, comm.): • who are the affected people, recognising project impacts extend beyond those immediately and

directly affected; • how to identify such people; • when in the project cycle to identify these people; and • how to address their concerns and interests in the development of mitigation and compensation

programmes. There are several levels of public involvement in EIA. At the most basic level, there is a one way communication of information to the affected public. Consultation involves canvassing public input to EIA decision making. The term participation refers to a more interactive process in which public views are taken into account in decision making. In Annex 4, the tools for different levels of public involvement are described. The EIA requirements of international financing have opened the way to greater public participation in countries where democracy is evolving. However, social mobilisation is a complex issue and participation procedures and models that may work well in more developed countries are not necessarily suited to less developed ones. Public involvement methods and approaches need to be better tailored to affected or interested social groups, to reflect their cultural traditions and socio-economic circumstances. Many pre-conditions which are taken for granted in a developed country may not be present in developing countries (e.g. adult literacy). Often, considerable preparatory work is necessary to laying the ground for affected people to participate effectively in decision making. However, local tools can be used to better advantage as the examples and issues associated with EIA of dam projects in Africa illustrate (see, Box 3.6). Box 3.5: A comprehensive approach to public involvement: the Big Chute Hydroelectric Redevelopment Project, Canada. Background: In 1987 Ontario Hydro proposed the redevelopment of the Big Chute generating station, located on the Severn River. Big Chute is a high-use recreational and tourism area, primarily due to the marine railroads that are used instead of traditional “locks”. It is also part of a designated Area of Natural Scientific Interest (ANSI), listed because of the diversity of plant species. As a result, the Big Chute project was subject to formal EIA for which the proponent undertook a comprehensive public involvement process. Concept Phase: Based on previous experience, Ontario Hydro recognised that the success of any public participation programme will be directly proportional to the amount of internal organisation and other preparatory work done before the announcement of a project. This should include: • organisation of a project team representing all major interests • development of a community social profile. • training a project team on all potential public issues associated with the project • hiring local individuals or consultancies familiar with the issues and concerns



• establishment of procedures for issue monitoring and response • surveying public attitudes toward the project and to identify key concerns and issues. Definition Phase Public participation techniques are best used in combination to meet specific objectives. The Big Chute public involvement programme included the following: media programme -- adverts in local and regional newspapers, direct mailings, newsletters, handouts and issue pamphlets on specific project-related issues of concern. workshops -- involving participants from government officials and local interest groups public liaison committee (PLC) -- to provide an opportunity for continued involvement in the project correspondence-- with local residents and interested individuals presentations -- to local interest groups, local councils, EIA reviewers video -- to provide a background of the site setting and the EIA process site tours -- to convey the details of the redevelopment. information centres -- to provide specific technical and environmental information to the public. Acquisition Phase (Construction) During the course of the EIA, the issues of the heritage and aesthetic elements of the old powerhouse and associated structures on the site were focal points of public concern. The EIA process a Big Chute implementation committee was formed and commissioned a study to identify a tourism strategy. The study proposed significant changes for the site, including an information centre and theatre. Ontario Hydro agreed to partial preservation of the old powerhouse and the construction of a new powerhouse modelled visually on the old. Subsequently, this concept evolved with public input into an interpretive facility. Monitoring workshop In the middle of the construction phase, an environmental effects monitoring workshop was held. The result was an agreement on the method for monitoring whether and how the new Big Chute generating station and the changes to its operation effect the environment. A comprehensive study over a period of three years following construction was compared to the impact studies. If it is discovered that significant environmental effects can be attributed to the redevelopment, the operation of the new facility potentially could be altered to mitigate them.

Source: Schwass and Fowler, 1993. Box 3.6: Public involvement in EIA of dams in Africa: issues and examples Background Reasons why public participation in Africa has been ineffective or inadequate, include: • Lack of awareness of the EIA process. • The documents are too technical to be easily understood. • Most of the population is illiterate or semi-illiterate, thus effectively debarring their participation. • EIA and public participation are not legal requirements in many African countries • Lack of an adequate framework of institutions to allow public participation. Examples of these factors Impeding Public Participation in EIA of Dams In the case of Lesotho Highlands water project, consultation was at the level of central government rather than within the affected communities themselves. The EIA to justify public funding for the project was undertaken as a series of studies rather than as a legal requirement. The EIA for Kiambere Dam in Kenya was prepared toward the end of the project and only when its funding was threatened. No information was provided to the general public by the Tana River Development Authority.



In the case of Masinga Dam in Kenya the recommendations of the studies were not reflected in the EIA process and subsequent project design. Project authorities frequently make promises during the EIA process - of financial compensation, resettlement packages and employment for the local population – that are rarely kept. Many governments lack the necessary institutional capacity and experience to foster public participation. The recruitment of social scientists (rather than relying on engineers and economists) could have improved community participation in the Osborne Dam, Zimbabwe and Lesotho Highlands projects. A lack of transparency created mistrust and misunderstanding between project authorities and communities in the case of the EIA of the Bura irrigation project in Kenya, funded by the Dutch government; the EIA reports were never submitted to the National Environment Secretariat for approval or comment. Capitalising on Local Traditions Most African societies are divided into major groups of educated and non-educated, urban and rural, and traditional and modern. Using a variety of tools to increase public participation is therefore sensible. The educated, urban and modern groups can use ballot and suggestion boxes, campaigns and written or oral arguments to reject or support projects. Rural and traditional groups can use more of the visual and spoken methods known to be effective. Here, useful tools are field demonstrations and public gatherings, for example pitsos in Lesotho and barazas in Kenya, chaired by community elders, who are a source of information to be shared and part of the decision-making processes. To enlighten rural groups further, they should translate and simplify jargon-filled EIA documents to produce easily understood versions.

Source: Kakonge, 1996; 1999. Box 3.7: Public Involvement in EIA of Dams: Examples from Brazil In the following cases, interested parties were involved during EIA processes for contentious dam proposals: • A negotiation forum was organised to address conflicts arising during feasibility studies and EIA

review of the Salto Caxias, Iguacu river hydroelectric power plant in Parana State (which was undertaken late in the project cycle as noted elsewhere in this paper). The members are engineers of the electricity company (developer), municipal counsellors, state deputies and community representatives (70% of total participants). Based on the EIA information, the forum discussed and approved the directives and guidelines for the development of the basic project; monthly meetings were held to follow up the design of all engineering and environmental management projects and programmes. The participation process helped to reduce conflicts and to ensure that community concerns are taken into consideration.

• Strong local opposition to the Irape dam and power plant on Jequitinhonha river, Minas Gerais

State, led to a series of meetings with community groups before the beginning of the feasibility studies. Their purpose was to spread information on the project, discuss likely impacts and monitor community demands. As a consequence, the EIA and preliminary permit application review have met with little opposition and the basic project of the power plant is now being developed in accordance with the negotiation agreements.

Policy on population displacement has evolved from mere monetary compensation for the loss of housing and other goods and assets to more comprehensive social programmes aimed at rebuilding economic activities and protecting cultural values. In principle no development project should go ahead without a demonstrated commitment to undertake consultation from the beginning of the dam



planning and EIA process and to discuss the issues directly with affected communities. In some cases, this commitment may come late in the EIA process, driven by opposition to project development. However, as Box 3.6 illustrates much can still be done to resolve issues. More proactive participatory models are reported to have been used in developing countries, such as Venezuela and Guatemala, to promote inclusive EIA and planning processes for dams and other types of projects (roads, urbanisation of shanty town, etc.) involving the displacement of low income population and ethnic groups. The common element of these models is the technical education of affected people to participate in the EIA and planning processes, a preparatory activity that, although time-consuming, is considered essential to the effectiveness of negotiation. Its main objective is to prepare community representatives to understand project implications and express and discuss their interests and concerns. Other important model elements are the establishment of information exchange mechanisms, conflict mediation and legal and financial support for the implementation of social impact mitigation and compensation measures.

Minimum conditions for public consultation include:

(i) the involvement of all interested parties not just the partial involvement of directly affected communities and ‘qualified’ groups;

(ii) full information disclosure from developers during all phases of the EIA process to all interest groups; and

(iii) early consultation with affected and interested parties to identify their views and concerns. 3.4 Performance Appraisal – The Effectiveness of EIA in

relationship to Project Decision Making Overall, the litmus test of EIA performance is the extent to which it contributes to environmentally and socially sound decision making. Strictly defined, this requires a context-specific evaluation of the results of EIA, e.g. with reference to the objectives and principles of NEPA in the case of the USA or to Operational Directive 4.01 in the case of the World Bank. Relatively few audits and evaluations of this kind have been completed. With reference to dams, Lutz, et al (comm.) suggest this aspect could be addressed by looking at “classes” of EIA legislative/administrative bases, i.e., specific countries or groups of countries, intergovernmental bodies (e.g. the European Commission) and multilateral financial institutions. However, this analysis is well beyond the scope of the paper; instead only a generic review is undertaken of EIA processes in relation to large scale dams to see if they a) inform and b) influence project approvals, terms and conditions and management actions. EIA performance can be reviewed in terms of the role of the process in relation to major questions of dam development: • whether or not to build a dam -- use of EIA (SEA) as a policy tool • what are the alternatives -- use of EIA (SEA) as a planning tool • where to locate a dam -- use of EIA (SEA) as a site selection tool • how to build a dam -- use of EIA as a design and mitigation tool • how to operate a dam -- use of EIA as an impact management tool As a policy and planning tool, to address issues of project justification (need and alternatives), EIA/ SEA has made a very limited contribution to decision making. The principle of early application of EIA (i.e. as part of project identification, as well as preparation) is widely accepted and there are



examples of its application to dams to demonstrate the benefits of consideration of technological and site alternatives. In its first review of EIA performance, the World Bank (1992) found that this aspect of performance required improvement and recommended greater emphasis on sectoral and regional assessments of borrower investment plans. Recent experience exemplifies the contribution that SEA can make as a planning tool to prescribe the environmental conditions under which a dam would go forward or not (World Bank, 1996). In the case of the proposed Kenya Energy Project, for example, a sectoral EA of the benefits and costs of development alternatives concluded that investing in the rehabilitation of existing systems and in geothermal field was environmentally preferable to hydropower. In other cases, sectoral or regional assessments of energy and irrigation programmes establish the framework for EIAs of dams and feed directly into project design. The regional assessment of the flood protection scheme for the Parana, Paraguay and Uruguay rivers (northern Argentina) contributed to screening and reduction of sub-projects to those with clear environmental, social and economic justification and linked the preparation of project EIAs to cumulative effects. Although not designated as regional EAs, a similar approach was used to establish river basin management frameworks for the Sao Paulo/Parana and Minas Gerais Projects (Brazil). All that said, however, there is a long way to go before SEA is used regularly to realise these benefits. It is sobering, for example, to note the results of the Inter American Development Bank review of the EIA of dams reported by Brito and Verocai (2000). They argue the quality of EIA and its ability to influence policy and planning outcomes are under developed; and this is especially evident with respect to policy and planning decisions (which are subject to the greatest political and administrative pressures). Of the 88 large dam projects implemented between 1960 and 1999 in the Latin America region, an EIA based on a basin wide approach was prepared prior to project execution in only two projects. As a project design tool, the contribution of EIA to decision making is most evident with respect to approval and condition-setting. The EIS or report is the key document for this purpose. Its quality, in turn, reflects the effectiveness of the process and the extent to which EIA/SIA studies and public consultation have provided value-added inputs to other stages of the decision making process as described above. The acknowledged benefits of EIA are summarised in Box 3.8 and include: examination and selection of alternatives, project preparation and modification, identification of impacts and mitigation measures, provision for supervision, monitoring and audit and the preparation of environmental management plans which incorporate these elements. In practice, however there is a considerable body of evidence to support the contention that EIA makes little difference to the approval of dams and is insufficiently taken into account in condition setting. By no means untypical, examples are cited by Brito and Verocai (2000): “the Theun Hinboun project in Laos was initiated in the early nineties..[T]he intial EIA financed by NORAD concluded that the dam will have 'significant beneficial environmental impact', while the only adverse impact of the project is reduction of flow below the dam site. (Norpower 1993:1-7). These conclusions were disputed by most parties who reviewed the document including various Norwegian government Agencies, the press and non governmental organizations in Norway and Thailand, and even the environmental advisor. NORAD was forced to concede the poor quality of the report and to pay for supplementary studies. However since the later studies were completed at the end of 1995, a year after the construction began, they had no impact on decision making process or design of the dam. As the Asia Development Bank evaluation study also points out, that due to concerns raised by different parties, about the adequacy of EIAs, more funds were made available for detailed studies and mitigation. However it also mentions that the project was not necessarily bound by mitigation proposed in the later studies”. The pressures of political nature and through project schedule are as relevant today as in the earlier decades. The 1240 MW Salto Caxias project in Brazil completed in 1999 is a case in point. The



project owner did not agree to do an environment impact assessment until the project was already approved. The EIA was of poor quality and completed in only 30 days because of political pressure from COPEL which began acquiring land for the reservoir before the study was finished. In 1994 the Norwegian Aid Minister's decision to support (co-finance) the Kihansi hydropower project in Tanzania came several months before the environmental impact assessment for that project was even started.” Box 3.8: Some Benefits of EIA of Dams a) pre-emption or early withdrawal of unsound proposals, including use of regional EA to pre-clear

environmentally sound sub-projects and to screen less suitable ones, e.g. as in the flood protection scheme for the Parana, Paraguay and Uruguay rivers (northern Argentina).

b) support for and confirmation of positive environmentally sound proposals including actions to

conserve biodiversity and protect ecologically valued habitats and species, e.g. SEA of Morocco Irrigation Project.

c) cancellation, postponement or withdrawal of funding of environmentally damaging proposals.

This a 'last resort' measure. Only a very small fraction of dam proposals are halted as a direct result of EIA, either permanently - if the impacts are demonstrated to be irreversible or unacceptable - or temporarily - if the EIS is judged to be of insufficient quality. Examples include the suspension of construction of the Rafferty-Almeda dam (Canada) and Sardar Sarovar Dam, Namarda River (India), pending completion of independent review.

d) environmental and community safeguarding by changes in planning and design of dams and

reservoirs and the identification and implementation of mitigation measures. This is by far the most common and considerable benefit of EIA and, possibly, is undervalued by many. In some cases, EIA has resulted in dams being constructed and operated in a significantly lower-impact form than originally proposed or otherwise might be the case, while still meeting their development objectives and sometimes with large cost savings over budget. Small changes in dam design can make an important environmental difference, e.g. construction of a so called “ecological sluice gate” in the Salto Caxias hydroelectric project to avoid total interruption of the Iguacu River and falls.

e) indirect benefits of EA, i.e. which are not transmitted directly into decision making on dam

proposals. These include policy or institutional adjustments being made as a result of EIA bringing to light certain deficiencies or gaps that should be addressed and institutional capacity development being undertaken as an integral part of the process, e.g. Haryana Water Resource Consolidation Project (India).

f) proponent benefits of EIA are often overlooked or discounted. They can include: ! cost-effective improvements in the design and siting of a plant

! savings in capital and operating costs if environmental problems have not been considered at the beginning and require rectification later;

! avoidance of risks, penalties and liabilities that come from overlooking important aspects of environmental performance.

Ultimately, of course, EIA performance must be judged against outcomes. The results achieved on the ground are the ones that matter and these can be measured only after completion, when a dam and reservoir are constructed and operating. Normally, this will require a systematic programme of EIA follow-up and post project analysis, including effects monitoring and environmental auditing to verify the accuracy of the predictions made, to determine if mitigation measures and safeguards are satisfactory and working as intended and to check on the overall effectiveness of the management regime which was instituted. So far, relatively few comprehensive processes of this type have been



established for dams and reservoirs which have undergone EIA and for long enough to yield a reliable body of data. As an impact management tool, the EIA should work to set up an ongoing environmental management system or programme. One example of this approach is Hydro-Quebec’s follow up programme for the La Grande Project. Since the early 1970s, reportedly more than US $30 million has been spent on follow up studies. Internationally, this is an extraordinary level of activity, although warranted by the scale of dam and reservoir engineering, river diversion and environmental alteration. For present purposes, the key lessons are about the effectiveness of mitigation, the extent to which environmental and social impacts were as forecasted and the way these stack up in terms of evaluating the contribution of EIA and the success of project design and implementation. For example, the environmental effects of reduced flows in the Eastmain-Opinaca rivers were successfully mitigated by planting and building weirs and bank stabilisation and other remedial measures helped to counteract a tenfold increase in the flow of the La Grande River. In far too many cases, however, EIA still under performs as a tool for managing the impacts of dams. As Brito and Vorecai (2000) state: “..unsatisfactory mitigation remains a hall mark of an uncomfortably large number of projects implemented in the nineties. For instance, in the ADB financed Lingjintan project on the Yuanshui River in Hunan province, completed in 1996 preparatory documents on environment were not always consistent and lacked adequate information on baseline conditions or comperhensive descriptions. The Lingjintan Project, the Wuqiangxi and the 15 proposed projects along the Yuangshui River will also have also have adverse impact on migratory fish in the river in the lake Don Ting. The available environmental documentation for the project neither adequately addresses the significance of this impact nor does it propose sufficient mitigation.” The way forward is through more systematic and legally enforceable environment management plans for dams. The World Bank (1996) notes that quality of such action plans has become more specific in recent years. In some case, these have been in response to deficiencies in the earlier EIA process and include provision for institutional capacity building (see Box 3.9). However, much greater attention needs to be given to ensuring that the actions to be undertaken are clearly scheduled and budgeted. Above all, environmental management plans need to be implemented and provision needs to be made for performance bonds and other measures to ensure that proponents carry out their commitments. This is an area where the Commission could and should exert leaverage on EIA practice and initiate significant change. Some aspects for consideration are outlined in Box 3.10. Box 3.9: EIA, Mitigation and Capacity Building. The Example of the Yacyreta Hydropower Project The 2700-MW Yacyreta Hydropower Project and associated navigation lock on the Parana River in Paraguay and Argentina exemplifies how EIA can be used to strengthen the institutional capacity of a bi-national organization to deal with both expected and unexpected impacts from the operation of a large hydropower project. The Yacyreta case also illustrates how EIA can fail to identify all impacts, especially if the project is large and controversial and environmental regulations are lacking. Despite this drawback, the use of the EIA can provide the basis for dealing with unanticipated impacts. In the case of Yacryeta,, the EIA did not predict that filling the reservoir would result in ‘floating islands’ or that highly oxygenated water flowing over the project spillway would cause nitrogen gas supersaturation and large fish kills. These two unanticipated impacts were dealt with successfully because the EIA on the project had focused on: (i) minimizing impacts through implementation of detailed mitigation plans; (ii) developing the institutional capacity in both Argentina and Paraguay to deal with unforeseen environmental situations; and (iii) using the EIA as an adaptive tool rather than just the final document to advance project approval and financing.

Source: Quintero, 1997; Russo, 1999



Box 3.10: Legal framework and instruments for impact management A legal framework supported by incentives and assurances is required to facilitate the transition from the impact assessment to the implementation of action plans aimed at prevention, mitigation and additional development opportunities. Instruments could include: • negotiated contracts • establishment of a trust fund • percentage of power revenues • performance guarantees through bonds • improving the certainty level of the outcome by other means Start-up action plans: Operationalise the Environmental Management Plan, the Health Protection and Promotion Plan and the Resettlement action Plan. Firm up required funding, contractual and institutional arrangements. Establish roles and responsibilities, and determine the ultimate responsibility. Since a wide range of organisations will be included in the implementation tasks, appropriate coordination and management structures and procedures should be in place. Implementation qualifyers: After the decision to proceed with the project has been made, the correct implementation of the mitigation management and development plans is of the highest priority. Funding of these activities must be assured and the institutional framework to implement must be clear and functional. Implementation includes government, private and non-governmental parties. It should work towards measurable indicators and include, whenever possible capacity building components. Monitoring: Monitoring and evaluation procedures and arrangements should be in place. These can include: • internal monitoring and review • external independent monitoring • external independent evaluation • panel of experts Redress: Redress procedures and arrangements should be in place. These can include: • a multi-level approach • starting at the project, then through committees to the courts Stakeholders: All stakeholders should remain actively involved throughout the implementation phase. Time horizon: It must be recognised that the project is never completed.

Source: Bos et al, comm. Summing up: In far too many cases, hindsight reviews of EIA-modified plan, design and implementation measures tend to indicate their effectiveness is wanting in terms of ensuring dams are environmentally and socially sound. Often the benefits of dams are reported to be overstated and environmental and social costs to be underestimated and borne disproportionately by vulnerable and disadvantaged peoples. This is a telling indictment of past EIA and SIA practice. However, it is important to place this record in a broader perspective by considering the trends in performance of EIAs of dams. Large scale dams come with high environmental and social costs. From the perspective of EIA, the underlying issue is whether or not improvements have taken place in their planning, assessment and design as a result of the application of this process. Specifically, are newer dams substantially better than older ones in terms of prevention, reduction and compensation of environmental and social



impacts? Major differences of opinion on this score are evident between dam proponents and opponents. Opponents point to Narmada and BioBio as examples of recent projects which have failed to address adequately environmental and social costs; proponents claim that current EIA-derived planning and design can eliminate many impacts. The first proposition is borne out by the historical record and the second is not yet proven; it rests primarily on the potentials of the evolving approach and secondly on greater attention being given to impact mitigation and follow up to EIA, including the preparation of environmental management plans, the implementation of terms and conditions and, where necessary capacity building activities as in the Yacyreta project. Based upon their review of experience with EIA of dams, Brito and Verocai (2000) conclude that EIA did not significantly influence decision making on dams and apparently was not intended to. Instead, the EIA process primarily identifies impacts and associated mitigation measures. Even in such cases, often impact assessment is inadequate and impact mitigation and management are ineffective. In conclusion, there is a considerable evidence to support the contention that EIA practice has not changed sufficiently in the current context. Although environmental policies for dams are now better developed, these have yet to be fully implemented through EIA. 3.5 The Sustainability Agenda – New Realities for Decision making The above conclusion is doubly depressing because the debate over large dams is moving on in the context of the sustainability agenda. Within a sustainability framework, new demands are imposed on dam policy-making, planning and assessment. The driving question for decision makers is how dams compare to other water supply or power generation alternatives on grounds of economic, environmental and social benefits and costs. For example, how does hydropower measure up against coal-generation to meet projected demands? Clarifying such trade-offs lies at the core of decision making for sustainable development. In the case of the Three Gorges project, for example, approximately 1 million people will be displaced and 84 billion kWh of power will be generated. This is the equivalent of burning 40 million tons of coal. The social, health and environmental effects of burning that amount of coal should be compared to those resulting from dam construction if proponents and opponents are to press their case on an informed basis (Goodland, 1995). However, it is accepted that this comparison risks simplifying the debate and overlooks the question of how the social costs and trade-offs will be estimated, including any inter-generational effects (Jayewrdene, comm.). Once the broader trade-offs are resolved, the next question relates to selection of the environmentally preferable or least impact dam site. In the case of hydropower, this will be a dam with high output from small reservoirs, e.g. with few or no displaced people and little or no loss of agriculture land or natural habitat. These criteria can be quantified to distinguish environmentally better from worse dams by applying two simple ratios: i) area of land flooded per output of electricity (e.g. ha/MW or kWh/ha); and ii) number of people involuntarily displaced per output of electricity (oustees/MW). Environmental and social sustainability will be promoted by selecting hydro sites that score well on both criteria compared to those that do not. This first approximation can be refined by specific criteria; e.g. quality of land flooded, alteration of fish habitat, vulnerability of displaced people, etc. In addition, downstream and off-site impacts (from access roads, transmission lines etc.) will need to be taken into account. Jayewardene (comm.) considers these ratios to be too ‘simple’ and suggested that other proxies should be considered, including the number of affected persons per hectare of land. EIA should include an estimate of the costs of environmental damage and any remedial actions that are identified. Lutz et al (comm.) consider this information to be mandatory to bridge the gap between environmental/social and financial analysis. Without this information, Smith (comm.) notes



that is harder to argue for changes to the project, or the consideration of alternatives. In economic terms, a cost-benefit analysis of a hydro-electric scheme which does not include environmental and social impacts also can be regarded as incomplete. As a rule of thumb, many economists regard a development project as desirable only if total project benefits, including those arising from environmental improvement, exceed total project costs, including environmental protection costs, and the costs of any remaining damage to the environment (Hufschmidt, et al 1983). A strict interpretation of sustainability requires that all residual environmental and social impacts of dams, i.e. those that cannot be prevented or mitigated, are offset in accordance with the principle of no net loss natural or social capital (refer to Boxes 4 and 5). This requires that impacts are properly compensated, either by like-for-like or equivalent enhancement measures, ensuring too that impacts do not increase over time (e.g. organic mercury release from rotting biomass remaining in the reservoir after in-fill). Under this regime, EIA becomes an instrument for sustainability assurance as described in Part 1. This approach requires an integrated approach based upon the application of the precautionary principle on the demand side and of safe minimum standards on the supply side; e.g. as specified in the World Bank’s input and output rules which require each project to be within the regenerative and/or assimilative capacity of the environment. Considerable progress could be made by a good faith effort to implement these rules in EIA. However, this approach will be difficult to implement unless EIA of dams is part of a strategic process of water resources planning and decision making. Old and new concepts of planning for hydro power are contrasted in Figure 3.3. Under the new regime, the questions of need and alternatives (whether to, what to and where to develop) are resolved in advance of EIA of dam proposals (which can then focus on how to design and implement the project). This process will also need to take into account all supporting infrastructure including transmission lines which in some cases can be very extensive. Brazil’s approach to planning the proposed Amazon Transmission System exemplifies the use of impact assessment consistent with the approach outlined in Figure 3.3 (see Box 3.11). As noted earlier, options appraisal and SEA can be applied in support of this approach, first to help identify the optimal mix of water supply or energy resources, and second, when a dam is a preferred option to screen and evaluate of alternative locations and to take early account of potential cumulative effects. The latter task is much easier where comprehensive river basin planning is in place or where national or regional energy and water sector policies and plans are established. In Box 3.12, an example is given of a tiered approach using a partial SEA of regional drinking water policy to establish the framework for an EIA of two alternative dam projects in the Slovak Republic. Figure 3.3: Trends in the Planning of Hydropower Projects

Old Planning Concept New Planning Concept A hydro project is a technical scheme to: # provide basic technical infrastructure to

improve supply of power/water

A hydro project is part of an integrated set of technical, environmental and social measures to: # cover basic needs of people in a sustainable manner

(water, light, power) # accelerate rural development to improve the welfare of

people in the region - particularly those directly affected by the project

# improve environmental and flood protection # combat global warming

Planning is government responsibility, often assisted by international development agencies

Planning involves many partners/stakeholders: # government # people affected # non-governmental organizations # private sector developers # financing institutions



Least-cost planning procedure: # identify least-cost project to cover

power/water needs # carry out unavoidable social and

environmental impact mitigation at minimum cost

# carry out detailed studies

Multi-criteria planning procedure: # project(s) must be part of sectoral development plan # rigorous study of project alternatives, including the

No-Project option # prepare comprehensive comparison matrix showing

pros and the cons of each alternative from technical, environmental, social, economic, financial, risk and political perspectives

# quantify secondary and external costs and benefits as well as risk

# reach consensus among stakeholders about overall best alternative to be developed

# carry out detailed studies Public Sector Project: # developed and owned by government # funding partly from international

development agencies

Private/Public Sector Project: # developed and owned by private sector, with or

without government participation # finance largely from commercial sources # international development agencies act as catalyst for

project funding by providing guarantees # access to semi-concessional funding if stringent

international guidelines for social and environmental impact mitigation are followed

Source: Oud (1998) A comprehensive approach to strategic water resource planning and dam project assessment is outlined in Box 3.13. It begins with demand analysis to support project need and justification. Demand analysis should be subject to critical scrutiny in order to demonstrate that all reasonable demand-side conservation measures have been applied. The onus is on water and energy companies to prove their case: first that necessary eco-efficiencies have been wrung out of the existing energy system; second that hydro is the least-cost supply alternative; third that the preferred site is optimal (best fit location compared to other candidate sites in the river basin); and fourth that the environmental and social impacts are not significant or, exceptionally, that the impacts are significant but justifiable in the circumstances. Finally, in either case, the net residual impact (i.e. after mitigation) must be low and/or fully compensated by in kind, equal or comparable offsets so that the project meets the basic test of sustainability assurance outlined above. However, a caution is in order. As Jayewardene (comm.) and other commentators note, the Thames Water example is not universally applicable. Developing countries, where the debate over big dams seems most intensive, have different a social, civil and government environment than the UK. Certainly, these differences will constrain the adaptation of lessons and conclusions to other jurisdictions, and especially the poorer developing countries. However, the Brazilian and Slovakian examples (Box 3.11 and 3.12) indicate that comparable processes are or can be applied in countries with economies in transition and many developing countries. Finally, the opportunities that existing dams and hydro projects offer for sustainable (re)development should not be overlooked. As Russo (1999) and others note, older hydro projects have altered flow regimen and water systems significantly over the course of their life. The decommissioning or reauthorisation of dams and regulating reservoirs can be used for a range of environmental as well as economic purposes. For example, the partial or complete decommissioning of a dam and all its associated infrastructure provide a means of restoring riverine conditions or augmenting particular conservation measures, e.g. in relation to fish passage and habitat creation. This is especially the case when dams are examined in conjunction with similar projects on the same river or watershed. In the USA, for example, there is an increase in the number of EIAs of existing dams which are subject to relicensing. A notable recent example is the EIA of the Edwards Dam on the Kennebec River, Maine (see Box 3.14).



Box 3.11: New Aspects of Impact Assessment in the Planning Process: The Case of Amazon Transmission System Background The main energy source for electricity production in Brazil is hydropower, supplying 95 percent of the present domestic demand. The potential for hydropower generation at a location within or adjacent to major power markets is almost completely tapped. There are however, opportunities for additional hydropower production in the remote northern region of the country (Amazon basin). In this case, transmission distances could range from 2000 to 2,800 kilometers and would cross different regions and ecosystems. The planning of such a huge transmission system is a complex undertaking from both a technological and environmental perspective. Individual projects must be integrated on a regional basis. Planning Approach: Since the early 1980s, the Brazilian electric power sector has studied the viability of this system. In 1989, the Amazon Transmission Planning Commission (CPTA) was created and charged with continuing the needed studies, examining demand and supply scenarios, transmission technologies and environmental impacts. The commission is composed of technical experts and its efforts are coordinated by ELETROBRAS, the Brazilian National Electric Company. The CPTA studies amount to a new style of planning for the Brazilian electric sector: environmental questions are being considered in parallel with technical and economic studies; and public involvement is being integrated into both the planning and environmental processes, focussing on major decision-making points. Regional Environmental Characterization: The proposed transmission system encompasses large tracts of the country, including remote and almost unknown regions. First a general overview of a complete region was obtained. As the study limits are defined, the scope of analysis will be narrowed. At the initial inventory/technology selection stage, the study area is large, encompassing all potential alternatives and their primary constraints. The objective of this phase is to identify areas willing to welcome the project and their potentials and problems. EIA Methodology: At each stage of the CPTA planning process, an EIA is needed that suits the objectives to be achieved and the level of analysis. Inherent difficulties in the impact assessment process are increased at the technology selection stage, since a programme rather than a spatially and physically defined profect is being evaluated. Methods are being developed. The focus to date has been on selecting environmental impact indicators, tools for measuring impacts qualitatively and quantitatively. These indicators will reflect the characteristics of the technologies that will influence the environment, e.g., right-of-way width, number of circuits, tower height, electric field, etc. A general description of the environmental impacts associated with each transmission technology under consideration has been developed. Final Considerations: The CPTA planning process is considered to represent an innovation in the Brazilian electric sector. The consideration of environmental issues as planning variables and the inclusion of public participation has introduced a proactive rather than reactive approach.

Source: Pires et al., 1993.



Box 3.12: Regional Drinking Water Policy for Eastern Slovakia Introduction The Regional Drinking Water Policy for the Eastern Slovakia to the 2015 was a part of a three-tier planning process comprising: • a national water management policy, • a partial SEA to set the context for the drinking water policy on regional level, • a project level EIA to implement the regional drinking water policy. Water Management Policy of the Slovak Republic In 1994, the Ministry of Land Management prepared the “National Water Management Policy”. Non-governmental organizations proposed an alternative, environmentally-friendly policy titled “Water for the Third Millennium” and initiated a discussion about the alternative policy in the National Council of the Slovak Republic. The National Council asked the government to assess both polices according to Article 35 of the EIA Act. Subsequently, the Ministry of Environment asked 15 external experts to review the environmental impacts of both policies and a public forum organised. The final result was a proposal to incorporate some principles of alternative policy into the “National Water Management Policy”. SEA of Regional Drinking Water Policy for Eastern Slovakia to 2015 In light of the policy debate, the state water company was required by the the Ministry of Environment to prepare an alternative drinking water supply policy for the Presov-Kosice area of Eastern Slovakia to 2015. Two alternatives were proposed and subjected to SEA. The objective of both alternatives as to increase the percentage of inhabitants supplied by drinking water. Alternative 1 was to increase the percentage of the region’s population served with drinking water to 87% in 2015 by constructing new water supply reservoirs. Alternative 2 was to increase the percentage of population served by drinking water to 90% in 2015 without any new water supply reservoirs and by ecological management of the river basins. The SEA report: • compared the goals of drinking water policy with the goals of other strategies and policies • assessed their impact on the environment in relations to basic principles, criteria and indicators for

sustainable development • proposed mitigation measures for water resource protection by determining ecological limits for

each water resource, e.g. programme for water conservation • the results and recommendations from the regional policy level were the introductory base for the

EIA on the project level The Project Level EIA of two Alternatives: The first alternative was to change the function of an existing multipurpose reservoir (Velka Domasa) constructed in 1967, and to use reservoir also to supply drinking water. The second alternative was to construct a new reservoir for drinking water supplying in the upper Torysa water basin area. Three different options were submitted and assessed. Public hearings were organised in all affected municipalities. The documentation for the public hearing and review consisted of: the SEA report on drinking water policy for Eastern Slovakia, the Environmental Impact Statement for the Velka Domasa alternative, the Environmental Impact Statement for the alternative upper Torysa water basin area, encompassing three options.



Conclusion The Ministry of Environment recommended that there was no need to construct a reservoir for drinking water supply at this time and other environmentally sound possibilities should be pursued for the region.

Source: Kozova, 1997. Box 3.13: EIA to decommission and reauthorise dams: US experience and examples Background The most authoritative guidance on decommissioning is by the American Society of Civil Engineers 1997. It promotes a planning process that relies heavily on EIA to determine whether or not to decommission how to do it and what mitigation measures are required. This work was prepared by a working group of hydropower project operators, dam safety experts, environmental agencies and the major environmental NGOs in the USA. Case Example Recently, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) used EIA to assess the options for decommissioning and reauthorising the Edwards Dam Project at the mouth of the Kennebec River in Maine. One alternative involved the total removal of all project facilities. The EIS included a thorough analysis of the costs and environmental effects of removing the dam, including those related to bottom sediments, and of project refurbishment, adding additional generating capacity and constructing upstream fish passage facilities. The EIA was the basis of FERCs decision to totally remove the project (1997). Linked Opportunities Eleven hydropower projects were subject to EIA as part of reauthorisation. These projects were located in three distinct river basins and each project was characterised as a peaking or base-load plant. By examining all 11 projects across the three river basins together, it was possible to identify parts of the river systems and projects that were most valuable from a power standpoint and those other projects where mitigation would result in maximum environmental benefits. As a result, four of the marginal peaking projects continue to operate as base-load plants, while the remainder continued to produce power as peaking projects. Significant environmental mitigation benefits were identified at the marginal power sites.

Source: Russo, 1999. Box 3.14: Case Study of Strategic Planning for Water Resources: Thames Waters’ Best Practicable Environmental Programme Introduction This example demonstrates the value and elements of taking a systematic, strategic approach to water resources planning, addressing progressively the issues of justification, alternatives and best practicable environmental options for balancing supply and demand. Under this framework, the EIA of a reservoir, if warranted, takes place only when prior policy and planning issues have been resolved and the process can thus concentrate on its primary function of impact mitigation. Background UK water utilities are required to take a long term view of their customers requirements, the future demands for water and their wider environmental responsibilities. The utilities are required to submit a strategic business plan to OFWAT, and a water resource plan to the Environment Agency in order to demonstrate how they intend to meet these commitments. Specifically, the water utilities are to set



out the demand management measures by which they will reduce leakage to economic levels and achieve water efficiency criteria as defined by the Governments’ Water Summit of 1997. Current UK policy is that major new water supply projects, including reservoirs, will be entertained only when the need for them can be convincingly demonstrated and demand side measures have been fully utilised. Issues Thames Water Utilities Limited (TWUL), which supplies the Greater London Metropolitan area, anticipates that existing resources will be insufficient to meet estimated demand in the next 15-20 years, even with predicted savings from introducing leakage reduction and other conservation measures. Several factors are likely to alter the current demand-supply balance. These include: • increased levels of demand for water, likely to result from predicted increase in housing across

southern England up to the year 2016; • changes in rain fall frequency and distribution as a result of climate warming; • the need to reduce existing ground water abstraction in areas where the environment is currently

under stress through low levels and river flows. Approach In response, TWUL is undertaking a series of interrelated studies to clarify the future demand for water and to identify the best way(s) of meeting this demand. A strategic framework for this purpose has been developed (see Figure 2.1). It comprises five main steps: • needs statement, a prediction of the future demands for water and comparison with existing and

future resources; • demand management studies, to evaluate the savings possible through leakage control, metering

and other conservation measures; • best practicable environmental programme, a strategic review of the alternatives and options for

meeting any predicted shortfall in water supply; • site selection study, to review sites for a potential reservoir as one of the options under

investigation; and • EIA of a reservoir, if adopted as one of the preferred options. Best Practicable Environmental Programme (BPEP) The BPEP is currently underway. It is designed to identify the development options which can be implemented in parallel with conservation measures to meet predicted demands for water. A range of options are to be screened for their practicality and a short list of 37 site specific schemes has been drawn for assessment. These include strategic options to transfer water into the Thames catchment (e.g. via river, canal or pipeline); regional options to obtain water from within the Thames catchment (e.g. river regulation or storage reservoir, aquifer storage and recovery); and innovation options (e.g. desalinisation, imports by tanker). The methodologies are used for options assessment: multi-criterion evaluation (MCE) to compare them in terms of technical reliability; cost and environmental impacts; and environmental cost benefit analysis (EBCA) in which values are expressed as average incremental social costs (AISCs). Both methodologies were applied in accordance with available guidance and current practice, recognising their limitations. The results of the MCE and EBCA were used to compare and rank the options so as to inform water resource planning and decision making with respect to issues of technical practicality and environmental impact. Overall ranking requires care in interpretation of values and assumptions, particularly if it is derived from AISCs.



Large Scale Storage Requirement As part of the BPEP, large reservoir schemes are being considered to meet anticipated demand in the longer term. This strategic storage requirement has been estimated by Thames Water to be in the range of 75-150 million cubic metres (Mm3). A maximum figure is considered to build in an additional security of supply, sufficient to cope with a double season drought. In the BPEP, a reservoir option with that operating capacity is being assessed. Located in the Upper Thames catchment, reservoir A (or the Abingdon site) would meet anticipated supply requirements of London by regulation of the Thames River to augment storage reservoirs in the metropolitan area. The Abingdon site has been subject to detailed study already, as part of ongoing investigations of potential reservoir sites in the Thames region. These studies extend back more than 40 years. Site Selection Study A site selection study is currently underway in parallel with the BPEP. The study is being undertaken to fulfil the requirements of the UK EIA Regulations (as recently amended). For listed or specified developments, the regulations require that a proponent outline the main alternative studies studied and indicate the reasons for choice, taking into account the environmental effects. Although the precise specification of a reservoir is pending completion of the BPEP and demand projections, the site selection study is comparing alternative sites under the long term, strategic storage perimeters noted above and to minimise the environmental impact and cost by limiting storage to no more than two impoundments. The study is being conducted in three phases: 1. preliminary review of previous desk studies of potential reservoir locations within the Upper

Thames catchment; 2. closer examination of a long list of 15 sites using multi-criterion evaluation to determine potential

environmental impacts and considerations; and 3. more detailed comparative assessment of a shortlist of 8 sites identified as least environmentally

sensitive in order to arrive at a preferred reservoir site. EIA of Abingdon Reservoir – Scoping Report The final selection of a reservoir site is to be made on the basis of minimising the residual environmental impact (i.e. after opportunities for mitigation and enhancement are taken up), technical superiority over other alternatives and achieving value for money in terms of capital and operating cost. The EIA process of a possible reservoir scheme has begun in parallel with the above studies. A draft scoping report is the first output of this process. It has been sent to local authorities, regulatory bodies and other interested parties for comment. Their responses are to be taken into account in carrying out the full EIA, assuming that a reservoir is confirmed by the BPEP as a preferred option. In that event, the intent is to carry out the EIA in accordance with the “Good Practice Guide to the Preparation of Environmental Statements” (issued by the UK Department of Environment in 1995) taking into account the amended EIA Directive (91/11 EC) of the European Council. The draft scoping report contains a brief description of the scheme and the existing environment, potential environmental effects arising from the construction and operation of the scheme and a preliminary indication of possible mitigation and enhancement measures. A brief review of existing data and the survey and methodology proposed are included, with further information contained in a series of Annexes. The document is prefaced with a non-technical summary which incorporates the main conclusions. Key potential environmental effects are identified under four main headings: water and ecology, land and resources, pollutants and their effects and human activities. In addition mitigation measures to address the potential effects and their incorporation into the reservoir design are considered briefly in the scoping report. These include opportunities for environmental enhancement, e.g. use of siltation lagoons as wetland habitats. Finally the scoping report is intended to serve as a vehicle for consultation with interested parties to ensure their concerns and inputs are taken into account. The Abingdon site had been



proposed previously and there are a number of objectors to the scheme including the local planning authority. Conclusions and Lessons Currently, TWUL is implementing a process of strategic planning for water resources. It comprises a series of inter-related studies to identify future needs and requirements, to examine the best practicable environmental option(s) for meeting an estimated shortfall of supply in relation to demand, to review potential sites for reservoir if this is an option and, finally, to undertake an EIA of the preferred site. This sequence accords with the integrated approach to SEA and EIA that is widely promoted; it addresses in a phase manner the issues of why, what, where and how reservoir developments should proceed within the spatial context of a river basin and with reference to long term changes that might occur as a result of climate warming. So far so good. The realities that are encountered in implementing this approach also need to be understood to bring the lessons for practice into sharper focus. The studies have been carried out n parallel rather than in sequence. In effect, this has limited the potential of each study to inform the next phase of work. For example, a clear statement of need and demand was not ready in advance of the BPEP and the context for analysis remains uncertain still. Equally important, the EIA scoping study was completed before the results of the BPEP were available. This conveys, inter alia, an impression of pre-selection, especially given previous work on the reservoir site. In the interim, other factors have also worked to complicate the approach taken, including an evolving regulatory and policy framework. Uncertainties about the regional impact of climate warming on the hydrological cycle are endemic and likely to continue. These underscore the importance of a flexible approach, taking up measures for demand management first, then introducing small scale, low-impact supply options and finally, keeping the large scale reservoir as a strategic contingency. However, there are cost implications with this sequence for a business operating in a competitive but regulated environment. These may impose pressures to move immediately toward a long-term secure supply option, recognising the long lead times necessary to bring a reservoir into operation. Critical analyses of EIA of dams need to understand the market and institutional realities that bear upon process implementation.



4. Ways Forward In this section, a menu of options and measures is described to improve EIA of dams in relation to sustainability planning and decision making. This approach is organised as a series of building blocks, beginning with basic requirements and leading toward farther-reaching extensions of the SEA and EIA processes. A four part agenda is put forward to cover the main elements of sound practice and process development: • instilling the basics • upgrading project EIA process and practice • promoting SEA as an integral part of development policy- and plan-making • sharpening EIA and SEA as a sustainability instrument; 4.1 Instilling the Basics Much can be achieved to improve the application of EIA to large scale dams by instilling the basics, i.e. ensuring that legal and process fundamentals are in place and implemented. The institutional foundations of EIA, its laws, principles and process, are reasonably well founded. After 25 years experience, the elements of the approach are tried and tested and the enabling conditions for institutionalising the EIA process are widely agreed. These were set out earlier in Part 1 and may be used by the Commission to evaluate whether the basic requirements for effective EIA practice and performance are in place (e.g. clear mandate, legal provision, appropriate scope of application, transparency of process, requirement for public involvement, etc.). In general, these fundamentals are well established in developed countries. This is not uniformly the case in developing countries, although in the 1990s many of them have introduced EIA legislation or strengthened their existing systems, often through capacity building initiatives undertaken as part of international assistance. In the case of the poorest developing countries, where resource constraints are most severe, EIA of major dams almost invariably will take place under the procedures of lending or assistance agencies. These can or should be up to accepted international standards with respect to EIA requirements and procedure. Even so, certain aspects of EIA requirement and procedure require attention by the Commission to promote improvements in EIA process application to dam proposals. These include: • strengthen the key procedural controls for EIA quality control and assurance, taking a “whole

process” approach to linking scoping, significance, EIS review and follow up (refer back to Part 2, Figure 3.2)

• prepare “good practice” guidance to identify the standards to which EIA practice will be required to perform (many international and national systems appear deficient in this respect)

• specify explicit timelines, checkpoints of process implementation and EIA qualification for project approval, permits, conditions, licences, etc (this remains a major concern of developers)

• support independent review of EIAs of dams to ensure these meet internationally accepted standards (precedents have been set already by the World Bank review of the Sardar Sarovar scheme)

• encourage technical and financial assistance for public participation in the EIA process. Generally, these and other measures to instil the basics of EIA appear to be fairly straightforward. What can the WCD do directly to underwrite the basics of EIA and instil them as widely as possible? First and foremost, the WCD can lend its weight to ensuring the institutional arrangements that are established in leading countries are in place and implemented, everywhere. Second, the Commission, itself, should define performance standards for EIA of large-scale dams. Third, the Commission



should provide guidance as to EIA process, content and methodology answering the questions identified in Box 4.1. In particular, there should be an immediate pay off by specifying good practice requirements for impact mitigation, for the preparation of environmental management plans and for ensuring these are implemented and legally enforceable (see below). Box 4.1: Aide Memoir to WCD Guidance (1) the EIA process –

• what is the basis for the requirement to carry out the EIA? • who should be responsible for its preparation? • how should the results be monitored? • how much should EIAs of dams cost as a proportion of project preparation costs?

(2) EIA content – • how should environmental impacts be identified and assessed? • should EIAs of dams look at real alternatives, e.g. other sources of energy? • what methodologies have proven useful to address these impacts?

(3) the link between EIAs and decisions taken – • when and under what circumstances might a dam proposal be stopped? • what are the criteria for determining environmental acceptability?

Source: adapted from Lutz et al (comm.)

4.2 Upgrading EIA Practice EIA practice can be moved ahead by actions that focus on the 3r’s of rigorous analysis, responsive consultation and responsible administration. Administrative reforms should be directed at ensuring that the results of EIA are translated into all phases of decision making, into project redesign, mitigation measures and terms and conditions of project approval. There are two main controls or checks that can assist: • communicating the results of EIA to decision makers and the public in clear, user-friendly

language, making plain what are the effects, risks, consequences and trade offs of dam construction

• commitment to carry out the mitigation measures and other conditions attached to project approval.

The following should be added to EIA requirements:

! published schedule of actions, with items budgeted ! performance bonds or other financial guarantees that agreed conditions will be met must be

posted by dam developers. More than any other recommendation to governments and international agencies, this would impart confidence that EIA of dams is a meaningful exercise. Impact analysis and mitigation could be improved by the following actions: • giving more systematic attention to social, health and other key impacts of dams. Separate

recommendations on SIA are contained in the annexed paper by Vanclay and on health EIA are contained in the working paper provided to WCD by World Health Organisation (WHO)



• developing practical frameworks and methods to address cumulative effects and large scale changes associated with dam construction and operation. The “ecological footprint” of dams extends well beyond the immediate site and direct effects on upstream and downstream environments. Guidance is needed on the appropriate time and space frameworks and on methodologies and case examples of taking account of indirect and interactive effects.

The provision for public consultation in EIA law and procedure, internationally accepted, needs to be “customised to culture”. First, this principle is dependent upon the existence of democratic systems and civic traditions which are not universal. In many countries, issues of transparency of the EIA process and citizen engagement with it need to be pressed differently, building upon the prevailing ‘political culture’. Second, even where public consultation is well entrenched, the opportunity to participate is not the same as the reality of people affected by dams doing so and having their concerns taken into account in the EIA process. Ways forward to address these issues include: • tailoring the mode of consultation to the circumstances of the people who are affected by the dam.

The checklist of methods of public participation outlined in Figure 3.2 provide an aide memoir to this approach; but they are relevant primarily to OECD countries and may require modification or replacement in other countries

• paying special attention to the values and traditions of indigenous peoples, vulnerable minorities and other groups whose very culture and lifestyle may be at risk from the impacts of dams, especially if they are resettled. Their participative options are addressed in separate papers to the Commission but they will need to be translated into EIA requirements.

4.3 Extending and Strengthening SEA SEA provides a way forward to set the framework of planning, under which issues of why and what forms of development are resolved and allowing EIA of dams to address how impacts of necessary development are best mitigated. SEA is still at a relatively early stage of process development. In the context of large dams, it is seen as a key mechanism for introducing environmental considerations throughout the project cycle, from justification of the concept (need and policy), through the examination of alternatives and options (demand and supply-side measures), to the mitigation of effects, if a dam is the preferred means of water supply or energy generation. The case study in Part II indicates how options appraisal and SEA can provide a systematic framework for the project level EIA of a dam; so that the best practicable environmental option has been subject to prior analysis and public consultation. In particular, the SEA process has been applied by the World Bank and national agencies to sectoral and spatial plans and programmes which initiate or fix the location of projects and concrete activities. To date, however, this approach has been limited relative to project EIA. Its use needs to be increased and extended to other countries which currently do not apply SEA. Key areas of SEA practice which require strengthening include: • use of appropriate easy-to-apply methods and procedures (avoiding the methodological over-

elaboration that sometimes occurs at strategic levels); • definition of appropriate role and types of public involvement in SEA (recognising that

interactive processes, including stakeholder negotiations may be productive at this level) • guidance on how to address cumulative and large scale effects in sectoral and regional SEAs

(using World Bank experience as a starting point)



• clarifying the best information format(s) to assist strategic level decision making (specifying that trade-offs should be clarified)

• establishing the arrangements for relating the results and decisions of SEA to ongoing requirements for project planning, EIA of dams (tiering) etc. (using the framework outlined in the case study as a starting point)

• confirming the importance of an integrated approach to dam development, in which issues of demand need and management and best practicable resource supply alternatives and options, including the environmentally preferred one, are addressed in advance of undertaking regional EIA for site selection of a dam, if this option is selected.

By doing so the WCD can make a material contribution to ending the sterile component of the big dams debate which revolves around the inadequacy of EIA, when in fact the real process issue is the absence of other policy instruments to give effect to the notion of the project cycle. In this regard, SEA is a vector for change of approach, as well as a useful instrument in its own right; its application also should be seen in relation to other emerging policy tools, such as options appraisal and full cost, sustainability analysis. 4.4 Sharpening EIA and SEA as Sustainability Instruments Looking ahead, EIA and SEA should form part of an integrated, sustainability driven approach to water resource planning that is directed toward providing assurance that environmental considerations are taken into account on par and at the same time as socio-economic factors. By articulating this model, the WCD can exemplify how to meet what the Brundtland Commission called the chief institutional challenge of the 1990s. In most countries, EIA and SIA continue to be applied largely as tools for impact minimisation and mitigation. Optimally, however this approach should aim to maximise development options and opportunities consistent with internationally agreed principles of sustainability. These are variously defined and elaborated but typically require environmental and equity considerations are systematically addressed at the same time and on par with economic factors. The Brundtland Commission called this the chief institutional challenge of the 1990s; to date, it has not been systematically taken up. All of the elements and instruments necessary to meet this challenge are available (as hinted in the case study). However, these are seldom brought together institutionally or in practice to plan, assess and implement dam projects in the context of the sustainability agenda. This requires an integrated approach, what might be called 3E impact assessment to clarify the trade-offs between economic, equity and environmental criteria which comprise the “bottom lines” of sustainable development. EIA and SEA function already as sustainability mechanisms. A range of actions can be undertaken to sharpen them as a tools for sustainability assurance. By sustainability assurance, I mean that depletion and deterioration of environmental sources and sinks must be kept within “safe margins” and residual damages associated with dams must be compensated by environmental enhancement. This means, in effect, that EIA and SEA are applied with explicit reference to the precautionary principle and the notion of no net loss of natural capital. Key steps in that direction involve: • providing guidance on the use of sustainability concepts and principles in EIA and SEA (e.g. to

take account of biodiversity considerations ) • incorporating relevant criteria and indicators into screening, significance and other EIA checklists

(e.g. related to loss of habitat, ecological and wetland functions)



• relating EIA and SEA to environmental bottom lines (e.g. by identifying rules of thumb for source and sink capacity)

• specifying requirements for in-kind compensation for residual impacts (e.g. depending on criticality of damage).

Ultimately, the effective deployment of EIA and SEA in support of sustainable development can only be achieved as part of larger policy and institutional reforms to decision making. In the interim, more integrated approaches can be promoted by: • developing practical frameworks for applying "best estimate" impact science, e.g. to: - address uncertainty; - avoid irreversibility; and - keep risks 'as low as reasonably practicable'. - link ecological functions and socio-economic values • establishing better modes of integration of EIA and other forms of impact assessment, e.g.: - cross-impact matricies; - information technologies; - decision-aid (expert) systems. • identifying options for structural integration of EIA and SEA with other policy instruments as part

of comprehensive water resources and river basin planning, e.g.: - environmental accounting/state of environment reporting, - sustainability stategies - land and resource use planning.

These types of approach are widely supported in principle but remain to be put into practice on systematic and widespread basis. For this to happen requires a new political culture of decision making in which the ground rules for doing things differently are clearly spelled, backed up by a new regime of international accountability. As long as a business as usual approach is acceptable, the use of EIA, SIA SEA and other instruments will not, indeed cannot, realise their potential and the improvements listed above will amount to little more than tinkering at the margins.



References American Society of Civil Engineers. 1997. Guidelines for Retirement of Dams and Hydroelectric Facilities. New York. Aw, O. 1996. Integration of EIA in development projects: the ADB Experience. Impact Assessment. 14, 2: 133-154. Bos, R., P. Morant and M. ter Woort commentary on draft paper. Brito, E. and I. Vorecai. 2000. Review of EIA of dams. Input to this paper. Summary is on internet at: www.erin.gov.au/net/eianet.html Bronstein, D. and F. Vanclay, eds. 1995. Environmental and Social Impact Assessment. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, U.K. Brookes, A. 1999. Environmental Impact Assessment for Energy Projects, in V.Petts, ed., Handbook of Environmental Impact Assessment. Vol. 2. Blackwell Science, London, 405-430. Dorcey, A. ed. 1997. Large Dams. Learning from the Past; Looking at the Future. IUCN/ the World Bank, Gland, Switzerland. Fell, A. and B.Sadler. 1999. Public Involvement in Environmental and Assessment Management – A Preview of IEA Guidelines on Good Practice. Environmental Assessment, 7,2: 36-39. Fearnside, P.M. 1994. The Canadian Feasibility Study of the Three Gorges Dam Proposed for China’s Yangzi River: A Grave Embarrassment to the Impact Assessment Profession. Impact Assessment, 12, 1: 21-57. Goodland, R. 1995. “The Environment Sustainability Challenge for the Hydro Industry”, in Hydropower and Dams, 1: 37-42. Goodland, R. 1994. “Environment Sustainability and the Power Sector”, Impact Assessment, 12, 3 and 4. Hufshmidt, M., D.James, A.Meister, B.Bower, and J. Dixon. 1983. Environment, Natural Systems and Development – An Economic Valuation Guide. The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London. Joao, E. commentary on draft paper. Kakonge, J.O. 1996. Problems with Public Participation in EIA Process: Examples from Sub-Saharan Africa. Impact Assessment. 14, 3: Kakonge, J.O. 1999. Environmental Impact Assessment in Africa, in J.Petts, ed., Handbook of Environmental Impact Assessment.Vol.2. Blackwell Science, London, 168-182. Kazova, M. 1997. “Strategic Environmental Assessment in the Slovak Republic. Case Study: Regional Drinking Water Policy for the Eastern Slovakia”, in Environmental Assessment in Countries in Transition, Papers and Proceeding of the Central European University Workshop, Budapest. Oud, E. 1998. "Integration of EIA in Hydropower Planning". International Hydropower Association Environment Committee, Working Group: Environmental Impact Assessment Vision Statement.



Petts, J. ed. 1999. Handbook of Environmental Impact Assessment. 2 Vols. Blackwell Science, London. Pires, S., G. Pimentel, L. Pires, B. Araujo and E. LaRovere. 1993. New Aspects of Impact Assessment in the Planning Process: The Case of Amazon Transmission System. Impact Assessment. 11, 3: 321-332. Quintero, J. 1997. EIA, a plea for an adaptive tool for environmental assessment and management: The case of Yacyreta Binational project, in Abstracts, 17th Annual Conference of the International Association for Impact Assessment, New Orleans. Radka, M. commentary on draft paper. Rich, B. 1999. "Established common Elements of International Good Practice for Environmental Assessment", Background Memorandum for a presentation before the OECD Trade Directorate Working Party on Export Credits and Credit Guarantees Paris, October 26, 1999. Ridgeway, B., McCabe, M., Bailey, J., Saunders, R., Sadler, B. 1996. Environmental Impact Assessment Training Resource Manual. Prepared for the United Nations Environment Programme by the Australian Environment Protection Agency. Nairobi, Kenya. Russo, T. 1999. Environmental Impact Assessment for Energy Projects, in J.Petts, ed., Handbook of Environmental Impact Assessment. Vol 2. Blackwell Science, London, 351-376. Sadler, B. 1996. Environmental Assessment in a Changing World. Final Report of the International Study of the Effectiveness of Environmental Assessment. Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and International Association for Impact Assessment, Ottowa, Canada. Sadler, B. and Fuller, K. 1997. Quality Assurance in Environmental Assessment. Environmental Assessment. 5,1: 13-16. Sadler, B. and Brown, K. 1999. Principles of EIA Best Practice: UK Release. Environmental Assessment.7,2: 40-41; also served as separate leaflet by International Association for Impact Assessment and the UK Institute of Environmental Assessment. Sadler, B. and R. Verheem. 1996. Strategic Environmental Assessment: Status, Challenges and Future Directions. Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment Publication no. 53, the Hague. Sanchez, L. commentary on draft paper. Schwass, R.D. and B. Fowler. 1993. Public involvement throughout the Big Chute Hydroelectric Development Project. Impact Assessment. 11, 4: 417-434. Smith, D. commentary on draft paper. World Bank. 1991. Environmental Assessment Sourcebook. 3 Vols. Environment Department, The World Bank, Washington D.C. World Bank. 1992. First Environmental Assessment Review. Environment Department, The World Bank, Washington D.C. World Bank. 1996. The Impact of Environmental Assessment. The World Bank’s Experience. Second Environmental Assessment Review. Environment Department, The World Bank, Washington D.C.



Annex 1: Basic Principles of EIA - Issued by the International Association for Impact Assessment and UK Institute of Environmental Assessment Environmental Impact Assessment should be: Purposive – the process should inform decision making and result in appropriate levels of environmental protection and community well-being. Rigorous – the process should apply “best practicable” science, employing methodologies and techniques appropriate to address the problems being investigated. Practical – the process should result in information and outputs which assist with problem solving and are acceptable to and able to be implemented by proponents. Cost-effective – the process should achieve the objectives of EIA within the limits of available information, time, resources and methodology. Efficient - the process should impose the minimum cost burdens in terms of time and finance on proponents and participants consistent with meeting accepted requirements and objectives of EIA. Focused – the process should concentrate on significant environmental effects and key issues; i.e., the matters that need to be taken into account in making decisions. Adaptive – the process should be adjusted to the realities, issues and circumstances of the proposals under review without compromising the integrity of the process, and be iterative, incorporating lessons learned throughout the proposal’s life cycle. Participative – the process should provide appropriate opportunities to inform and involve the interested and affected publics, and their inputs and concerns should be addressed explicitly in the documentation and decision making. Interdisciplinary – the process should ensure that the appropriate techniques and experts in the relevant bio-physical and socio-economic disciplines are employed, including use of traditional knowledge as relevant. Credible – the process should be carried out with professionalism, rigor, fairness, objectivity, impartiality and balance, and be subject to independent checks and verification. Integrated – the process should address the interrelationships of social, economic and biophysical aspects. Transparent – the process should have clear, easily understood requirements for EIA content; ensure public access to information; identify the factors that are to be taken into account in decision making; and acknowledge limitations and difficulties. Systematic – the process should result in full consideration of all relevant information on the affected environment, of proposed alternatives and their impacts, and of the measures necessary to monitor and investigate residual effects.



Operating Principles of EIA The EIA process should provide for: Screening – to determine whether or not a proposal should be subject to EIA and, if so, at what level of detail. Scoping – to identify the issues and impacts that are likely to be important and to establish terms of reference for EIA. Examination of alternatives – to establish the preferred or most environmentally sound option for achieving the objectives of a proposal Impact analysis – to identify and predict the likely environmental, social and other related effects of the proposal. Mitigation and impact management – to establish the measures that are necessary to avoid, minimise or offset predicted adverse impacts and, where appropriate, to incorporate these into an environmental management plan or system. Evaluation of significance – to determine the relative importance and acceptability of residual impacts (i.e., impacts that cannot be mitigated). Preparation of environmental impact statement (EIS) or report – to document clearly and impartially impacts of the proposal, the significance of effects, and the concerns of the interested public and the communities affected by the proposal. Review of the EIS – to determine whether the report meets its terms of reference, provides a satisfactory assessment of the proposal(s) and contains the information required for decision making. Decision making – to approve or reject the proposal and to establish the terms and conditions for its implementation. Follow up – to ensure compliance with the terms and conditions of approval; to monitor the impacts of development and the effectiveness of mitigation measures; and, where required, to undertake environmental audit and process evaluation to strengthen future EIA applications and mitigation measures and to optimise environmental management.



Annex 2: Participation Principles • Utilise local knowledge in siting decisions for dams, quarries, service towns etc. • Be prepared to negotiate with the local community over issues that might cause impacts. • Pay attention to local power relations and social structures, and respect lines of authority. Go

through the appropriate gatekeepers in the community. • Give careful consideration to local cultural sensitivities and protocols. • Ensure that sufficient time and resources are available for participation, and ensure that

participation is actively encouraged primarily by changing the manner of participation to suit the specific circumstances and the cultural context. This may require different participation strategies and different media.

• Provide multiple opportunities for local people to express their concerns and to interact with project design so that participation processes do not just become venting exercises where residents express their anger.

• Be as open and transparent as possible. • Don’t renege on agreements. • Have dispute management and mediation processes in place. • Realise the importance of true public participation and the consequences that might arise from a

lack of participation. • Recognise the existence of diversity within communities, and involve the diverse publics as soon

as possible. • Develop processes that lead to social inclusion and reject processes that lead to social exclusion. • Maximise the involvement of local people in: (a) assessment processes; (b) project design; (c)

project implementation; and (d) operation, monitoring and evaluation of the project. • Use local language in communication with local people. • Consider the vulnerability of certain groups. • Identify and involve marginalised peoples. • Identify under-representation by people who are potentially affected and either seek to change

participation processes so that they will not be under-represented or ensure that their interests are considered.

Source: Vanclay (see Annex 5).



Annex 3: Consideration of Health Impacts Generally, two tasks are helpful to aid health impact prediction and interpretations: • classification of potential impacts (e.g. adverse/beneficial, short term/long term, direct/indirect);

and • identification of scenarios or circumstances for potential health effects (e.g. routine operations v.

accidental) The World Health Organisation has identified three main categories of mitigation measures for health effects: • mitigation through control of sources (e.g. pollution standards, safety standards); • mitigation through control of exposure (e.g. planning requirements, public health measures); and • mitigation through health service development (e.g. health education, provision of medical

services). Questions to consider in Assessing Health Impacts Screening • Is the project likely to present health concerns, based on current knowledge and experience? Scoping • What health issues should be addressed in the EIA? • How should they be addressed and in what depth? • Who should be involved in the health EIA? Impact Analysis • Which populations, groups or communities are likely to be affected by the project? • What is the current health status of the potentially affected populations, groups or communities? • What are the project’s likely effects on health and well being? Significance • Is the project likely to cause serious adverse effects on health and well-being? • If so, are the effects justified? Mitigation and Follow Up • How can any significant adverse effects on health be mitigated? • Is there a need for any follow-up activities to ensure that health and well-being are adequately

protected and/or enhanced?



Annex 4: Tools and Techniques for Public Participation in EIA

Technique Description and use Advantages Disadvantages Level 1. Education & Information Provision Leaflets/ Brochures Used to convey

information. Care should be taken in distribution.

Can reach a wide audience, or be targeted.

Information may not be understood or be misinterpreted.

Newsletters May involve a series of publications. Care should be taken in distribution.

Ongoing contact, flexible format, can address changing needs and audiences.

Not everyone will read a newsletter.

Unstaffed Exhibits/ Displays

Set up in public areas to convey information.

Can be viewed at a convenient time and at leisure. Graphics can help visualise proposals.

Information may not be understood or be misinterpreted.

Local Newspaper Article

Conveys information about a proposed activity.

Potentially cheap form of publicity. A means of reaching a local audience.

Circulation may be limited.

National Newspaper Article

Conveys information about a proposed activity.

Potential to reach a very large audience.

Unless an activity has gained a national profile, it will be of limited interest.

Site Visits Provides first hand experience of an activity and related issues.

Issues brought to life through real examples.

Difficult to identify a site which replicates all issues.

Level 2. Information Feedback Staffed Exhibits/ Displays

Set up in public areas to convey information. Staff available.

Can be viewed at a convenient time and at leisure. Graphics can help visualise proposals. Groups can be targeted.

Requires a major commitment of staff time.

Staffed telephone lines

Can phone to obtain information, ask questions or make comments about proposals or issues

Easy for people to participate and provide comments. Promotes a feeling of accessibility.

May not be as good as face-to-face discussions. Staff may not have knowledge to respond to all questions.

Internet Used to provide information or invite feedback. On-line forums and discussion groups can be set up.

Potential global audience. Convenient method for those with internet access.

Not all parties will have access to the Internet.

Public Meetings Used to exchange information and views.

Can meet with other stakeholders. Demonstrates proponent is willing to meet with other interested parties.

Can be complex, unpredictable and intimidating. May be hijacked by interest groups.

Surveys, Interviews and Questionnaires

Used for obtaining information and opinions. May be self-administered, conducted face-to-face, by post or telephone.

Confidential surveys may result in more candid responses. Can identify existing knowledge and concerns.

Response rate can be poor. Responses may not be representative and opinions change.



Level 3. Involvement & Consultation Workshops Used to provide

background information, discuss issues in detail and solve problems.

Provides an open exchange of ideas. Can deal with complex issues and consider issues in-depth. Can be targeted.

Only a small number of individuals can participate. Full range of interests not represented.

Focus Groups/ Forums

Used to gauge the response to proposed actions and gain an understanding of people’s perspectives, values and concerns.

Provides a quick means of gauging public reaction.

Some sectors of the community may be excluded, groups require facilitation, time consuming.

Open-House Location provided, e.g. at a site or operational building, for people to visit, learn about a proposal and provide feedback.

Can be visited at a convenient time and at leisure.

Preparation for and staffing of the open house may require considerable time and money.

Level 4. Extended Involvement Community Advisory/Liaison Groups

People representing particular interests or areas of expertise, e.g. community leaders, meet to discuss issues.

Can consider issues in detail and highlight the decision-making process and the complexities involved.

Not all interests may be represented. Requires on-going commitment from participants.

Citizen Juries Group of citizens brought together to consider an issue. Evidence received from expert witnesses. Report produced, setting out the views of the jury.

Can consider issues in detail and in a relatively short period of time.

Not all interests may be represented. Limited time may be available for participants to fully consider information received.

Visioning Used to develop a shared vision of the future.

Develops a common view of future needs.

Lack of control over the outcome. Needs to be used early in the decision-making process.



Annex 5: Social Impact Assessment This section was prepared by Frank Vanclay A.1. Introduction This briefing paper on social impact assessment (SIA) has been prepared for the World Commission on Dams. The objectives of this paper are to: • Assess the way SIA has been used (in decision making processes) in the past – specifically what it

captured and what it missed; and what were the principles, procedure and method of SIA; • Consider how social impact assessment of large dams could be improved; • Highlight best practice recommendations and general principles of social impact assessment that

are relevant for large dams. This paper does not intend to be exhaustive or definitive. It is also not necessarily referring to any dam or dams in particular (although various dams may be mentioned as examples). It presents general issues that need to be considered in social impact assessment of large dams. While impact assessment applied to a dam represents another application of the methodology, and therefore the objective of improving the impact assessment process and procedure in relation to dams is enhanced through general improvement of the methodology, there is so much other literature addressing improvement of SIA (and impact assessment generally) (see Burdge & Vanclay, 1995; Vanclay, 1999a), that it is more appropriate in this paper to concentrate on the application of SIA to dams rather than to discuss general issues about SIA. Nevertheless, because from a SIA perspective dams are not particularly different than many other developments that affect local peoples, some generalities will be given. A.2. A quick overview of Social Impact Assessment A.2.1 What is social impact assessment Social Impact Assessment (SIA) is the process of assessing and managing the impacts of a project, plan, program or policy on people (Vanclay, 1999a). Although SIA is narrowly defined with the National Environmental Policy Act of the USA (see Interorganizational Committee, 1994), and this limited understanding of SIA does pervade other national legislation, most SIA professionals consider SIA to be more than a methodology, and that it is philosophy about development and democracy. As such, it considers pathologies of development (i.e. impacts), goals of development (such as poverty alleviation), and processes of development (e.g. participation, capacity building) (after Goodland, 1999). There is no reason why SIA, as a disciplinary entity rather than as a methodology, could not be involved in assisting communities to determine their development priorities (c/f Goodland, 1999). Although there has been some debate over the precise meanings of terms such as Social Impact Assessment, Social Analysis, Social Assessment, Social Appraisal, and even Social Soundness Analysis, most of the debate about these terms has been within the World Bank (see discussion in Goodland, 1999), and has had little bearing on the SIA discipline. Amongst the international professional community interested in SIA, although there is not a generally agreed definition, there is widespread agreement about the concept in principle. I will define that concept as:

“Social impact assessment is the process of analysing (predicting, evaluating and reflecting) and managing the intended and unintended consequences on the human environment of interventions (policies, plans, programs, projects and other social



activities) and social change processes so as to create a more sustainable biophysical and human environment” (Vanclay, 1999b).

The important features of this definition are that: (1) SIA is understood to include adaptive management of impacts, projects and policies (as well as

prediction, mitigation and monitoring) and therefore needs to be involved (at least considered) in the planning of the project or policy from inception;

(2) the SIA process can be applied to a wide range of interventions, and undertaken at the behest of a wide range of actors, and not just within a regulatory framework;

(3) it is implicit that social and biophysical impacts (and the human and biophysical environments) are interconnected; and finally,

(4) the overall purpose of all impact assessment is to bring about a more sustainable world, and that issues of social sustainability and ecological sustainability need to be considered in partnership.

SIA is also understood to be an umbrella or overarching framework that embodies all human impacts including aesthetic impacts (landscape analysis), archaeological (heritage) impacts, community impacts, cultural impacts, demographic impacts, development impacts, economic and fiscal impacts, gender assessment, health impacts, indigenous rights, infrastructural impacts, institutional impacts, political impacts (human rights, governance, democratisation etc), poverty assessment, psychological impacts, resource issues (access and ownership of resources), tourism impacts, and other impacts on societies (Vanclay, 1999b). A convenient way of thinking about social impacts is as changes to one or more of the following: • people’s way of life – how they live, work, play and interact with one another on a day-to-day

basis; • their culture – shared beliefs, customs, values and language or dialect; • their community – its cohesion, stability, character, services and facilities; • their environment – the quality of the air and water people use; the availability and quality of the

food they eat; the level of hazard or risk, dust and noise they are exposed to; the adequacy of sanitation, their physical safety, and their access to and control over resources;

• their health and wellbeing – where health is defined as “a complete state of mental, physical and social wellbeing, not merely the absence of disease or infirmity”, and is applied to individuals and to the society in which they live; and finally,

• their fears and aspirations – their perceptions about their safety, their fears about the future of their community, and their aspirations for their future and the future of their children (Vanclay et al, 2000 – based on an idea from Audrey Armour).

A.2.2 Social Impacts and Social Processes One confusion in the SIA literature relates to the lack of distinction between social changes processes that are caused by projects such as dams, and social impacts that are actually experienced. In this conceptualisation, an impact must be an experience (either real or perceived) of an individual, family or household, or a community or society. Resettlement (relocation of a community), for example, is not a social impact, but causes social impacts such as anxiety and stress, uncertainty, disruption to daily living, potential change to family structure, as well as impacts such as homeliness. Similarly, an (even rapidly) increasing (or decreasing) population, the presence of seasonal workers, and/or weekend residents, are not impacts in themself, but they cause other impacts, such as breakdown of the social fabric of the community, cause existing residents to experience changed perceptions about their community, and may stress the community physical infrastructure. Alcohol or other drug use are not social impacts, but are processes, which, depending on the context of their use, may cause social impacts such as family violence and economic hardship. All of the variables must be understood in their sociological context, and, of course, in their local cultural context. Homeliness, for example, does not mean the physical quality of the house, but the social relationships among the occupants of



the building, and between them and the building. It is a subjective concept relating to the meaning and experience people attach to the place where they live and build their home (Vanclay, 1999a). Because many of the SIA writers have confused issues of social change processes and social impacts, partly because demographic processes such as changes in the size and/or composition of the population are more easily measured than the experienced impact, it is worthwhile presenting here a list of potential social change processes, and a full list of social impacts. The list of social change processes is incomplete, because the potential number of social change processes is potentially infinite, and the processes vary widely according to the activity being planned. The list of impacts, however, is arguably definitive, although some disagreement may exist about the precise wording and categorisation of impacts. In this scheme, impacts are classified according to the level of experience of impact – that is, whether they are experience at an individual or household level, or whether they are experienced by the community or society as a whole. Of course, impacts on society as whole may translate into impacts that affect individuals as individuals. The list is not intended to be used as a checklist, but is provided to display the full range of potential social impacts, and to assist people not familiar with SIA to become aware of the full extent of SIA. It is important to appreciate that some impacts make be caused directly by an activity, while other impacts may be caused indirectly. And the experience of an impact can then cause other processes to take places which then cause second order impacts. Because of people’s dependency on the biophysical environment, changes to the biophysical environment can create social impacts, and social processes which are the direct result of a project, or the result of the experience of a social impact, can also cause changes to the biophysical environment (see Figure 1). Figure A.1: Interconnection of biophysical and social impact

activity

social impactsbiophysicalimpacts

social changeprocesses

biophysicalchanges

landscape filter

2nd order2nd order

indirect

directinvoked2nd order

Source: Slootweg, van Schooten & Vanclay (1999)



A.2.3 A partial list of Social Processes Demographic Processes Increase in population size (in-migration) Decrease in population size (out-migration) Presence of newcomers (perceived or real cultural differences) Presence of (temporary) construction workers Presence of seasonal residents Presence of weekenders Presence of tourists (involuntary) resettlement rural to urban migration urban to rural migration Economic processes Conversion of economic activities Conversion of landuse Diversification of economic activities Increase in food production Decrease in food production Impoverishment Inflation Fluctuation in currency Increase in economic activity Decrease in economic activity job creation job loss concentration of economic activity (dependency of singular economic activity) globalisation (the incorporation of the local into the global) – global market-oriented production tourism Geographical Processes Urban sprawl (expansion of urban areas into rural areas) Urbanisation (growth of villages into cities) Increased transportation and rural accessibility Physical splintering (such as caused by major

roads)

Institutional Processes globalisation (the incorporation of the local into the global) – loss of autonomy of decision making at the local level land tenure changes institutionalisation and bureaucratisation Political Processes democratisation totalitarianisation concentration of power to an (urban) elite loss of grass roots political autonomy Socio-Cultural Processes globalisation (the incorporation of the local into the global) – loss of cultural identification; macdonaldization, coca-cola development; cultural hegemony

emancipation and empowerment (the process of facilitating the integration of disadvantaged groups in civil society) marginalisation and exclusion (the process of creating marginal groups in society, which as a result are denied access to services) segregation (the process of creation of social difference within a community) Other Processes Prostitution excessive alcohol and drug use gambling risk taking behaviour resentment opposition noise making pollution (air and water) dust making litter traffic vandalism and graffiti activism

Source: Vanclay et al, 2000.



A.2.4 A definitive list of social impacts Individual and Household Level Community and Institutional Level

1. death, death of family member 2. arrest, imprisonment, detention, torture, intimidation,

or other abuse of human rights inflicted on an individual

3. reduced availability of food and adequate nutrition 4. reduced control over fertility (loss of availability of

contraception, and gender dis-empowerment to make decisions about birth control)

5. reduced level of health and fertility (ability to conceive)

6. reduced mental health, increased stress, anxiety, alienation, apathy, depression

7. uncertainty about impacts, development possibilities, about own life as a result of social change

8. loss of aspirations about the future for self or children 9. reduced actual personal safety, increased hazard

exposure 10. experience of stigmatisation and deviance labelling 11. reduction in perceived quality of life, subjective well-

being, self esteem, self image 12. reduction in standard of living, level of affluence 13. worsening of economic situation, level of income,

property values 14. decreased autonomy, independence, security of

livelihood 15. change in status or type of employment, or becoming

unemployed 16. decrease in occupational opportunities, potential

diversity, flexibility in employment 17. moral outrage, blasphemy, religious affront, violation

of sacred sites 18. upsetness (objection/opposition) to project, NIMBY 19. dissatisfaction due to failure of a project to achieve

heightened expectations 20. annoyance (dust, noise, strangers, more people) 21. disruption to daily living, way of life (having to do

things differently) 22. reduction in environmental amenity value 23. reduced perception of communityness, community

cohesion, integration 24. loss of community identification, connection to place

(do I belong here?) 25. changed attitude towards local community, level of

satisfaction with the neighbourhood 26. disruption to social networks 27. alteration in family structure, family stability, divorce 28. increased family violence 29. deteriorating gender relations within the household 30. changed cultural values 31. worsening perceptions about personal health and

safety, risk, fear of crime 32. reduced leisure opportunities 33. reduced quality of housing 34. reduced feeling of homeliness 35. increased density and crowding 36. reduced aesthetic quality, outlook, visual impacts increased workload, amount of work needed to be undertaken to survive/live reasonably

1. death of people in the community 2. violation of human rights, freedom of

speech 3. reduced adequacy of physical

infrastructure (water supply, sewerage, services and utilities)

4. reduced adequacy of community social infrastructure, health welfare education libraries etc

5. reduced adequacy of housing in the community

6. increased workload on institutions, local government, regulatory bodies

7. diminished cultural integrity (continuation of local culture, tradition, rites)

8. loss of rights over, and access to, resources

9. destruction of, or other negative influences on, heritage and other sites of archaeological, cultural, or historical significance

10. loss of local language or dialect 11. profanisation of culture 12. increased inequity (economic, social,

cultural) 13. increased concern about social justice

issues in relation to minority or indigenous groups

14. worsening gender relations in the community

15. decreased economic prosperity 16. increased dependency, reduced

autonomy, reduced diversity, decreased viability of the community

17. increased unemployment level in the community

18. loss of other options (opportunity cost) 19. increased actual crime 20. increased actual violence 21. increased social tensions, conflict or

serious divisions within the community 22. increased corruption, decreased

credibility or integrity of government 23. decreased level of community

participation in decision making, loss of empowerment

24. impact on the social values about heritage and biodiversity

Source: Vanclay, 1999a (updated)



A.3. The Lifecycle of a Dam Project A.3.1 Stages in the Lifecyle of Projects There are four stages in the lifecycle of any project that always need to be considered to gain a full awareness of all impacts. Each of the four phases has its unique impacts relating to the nature of the activities associated with the project at that stage. The impacts vary according to local conditions, and also according to the planning of mitigation to reduce impacts. The four phases are: Planning, Construction, Operation, and Decommissioning (Interorganizational Committee, 1994; Burdge & Vanclay, 1995). In thinking about dams, recognition of these four phases is important to consider the full range of impacts. A.3.2 Original Conceptualisation and Planning The original conceptualisation and planning of dams causes one set of impacts, typically fear and uncertainty amongst the potentially affected publics. An important additional impact is speculation which may lead to a wide range of other processes and activities. People may move to the affected area or buy up land that may be inundated in order to benefit from potential compensation. People may move to the area in search of work, or to establish a business (such as to service the construction workforce) even long before construction has started. Conversely, people wishing to sell land or houses may find it difficult and/or may suffer a reduced return because interest in their property may have diminished because of fears about the project. Speculation, and the negative impacts from speculation, are fuelled by inadequate information, and especially in situations where corruption exists and certain people are able to access information and thereby capitalise on that information. Such corruption extends to cronyism where officials illegally disclose (leak) information to their friends and relatives so that they reap benefits from rezoning and compensation etc. A.3.3 Construction Construction of large dams can take up to ten years, and sometimes more. Some of the worst impacts occur during the construction phase, and this is also the time when the majority of associated activities happen – when relocation of peoples occur and so on. Construction of the dam implies a wide array of related activities including the construction of access and other roads, electricity transmission corridors, water pipes for city water supply, and irrigation channels; the operation of quarries to supply rock fill for the dam wall and associated works; the use of explosives and heavy transport. There may be an influx of workers, as well as construction of a service centre to house these workers. Many of these activities cause dust, noise, and create hazard. All of these operations need to be considered and not just the dam wall. In addition to the impacts associated with construction of the dam and associated works, a dam has upstream and downstream impacts. River flow is reduced, and there will be many biophysical changes upstream and downstream as a result of the dam. These changes will have considerable biophysical and social impacts. The social impacts may be direct or indirect. A direct social impact might be that the boatmen who ferried passengers across the river are now unemployed because the reduced width of the river meant that people can cross by other means. An indirect impact might be that that the reduced flow and/or increased turbidity has changed fish breeding habitats and there are no longer fish to catch, severely affecting people who depended on fishing. Another indirect social impact might be that the reduced flooding of downstream floodplains has led to major ecological and hydrological changes which have caused salinisation of the downstream plains. This salinisation has then reduced agricultural productivity, or has necessitated a change in crop type, which has had economic and/or cultural changes.



Changes in river flows can have ecological health impacts, especially for vectored environmental diseases, and especially in tropical countries. While it is the philosophy of this document that health impacts are social impacts, a qualified health impact assessment expert is needed to thoroughly examine the health impacts that are likely to occur as a result of these changes. For irrigation projects, agricultural land must be redeployed. This may involve appropriation of the land from existing owners or users of the land (such as indigenous peoples). Irrigated agriculture is usually for cash crops for export rather than subsistence crops, and consequently that whole range of flow-on effects occur which relate to the change in the nature of agricultural production. There are three categories of people who are potentially displaced in a dam project and who potentially require resettlement: (1) people whose houses are submerged; (2) people whose agricultural lands are submerged and therefore have lost their livelihoods; and (3) people whose lands are appropriated for agricultural development (whether or not they had legal control over the land). People who are displaced must go somewhere. Whether they are relocated by an agency (involuntary resettlement) or whether they leave the area to be inundated by themselves, inevitably they wind up as newcomers somewhere else, where they in turn cause social and biophysical impacts on the host community. In some respects, the host community of relocated people are also inundated, especially in situations where many thousands of people are relocated. Some social impacts relate directly to the construction process. The experience of noise and dust are obvious, but more serious may be the increased risk of injury from the frequency of heavy transport hauling rockfill to the dam construction site. The use of explosives presents a certain degree of risk to people in the near vicinity. Other social impacts relate to the interaction of locals with the construction workforce. The construction phase of a dam involves far more workers than the operation maintenance stage, and because appropriate infrastructure and management procedures are often not in place, the impacts at this time can be extreme. Construction workers tend to be separated from families, work long hours at hard work, and consequently develop a subculture which manifests itself in behaviours that are often disapproved of by the local community, especially the long term residents of small communities. These perceived antisocial behaviours can be exacerbated by being in conjunction with the large quantities of alcohol, and occasionally other drugs, that these workers tend to consume. Demand for, and establishment of, prostitution services to cater for workers can cause social and health impacts. Long term residents may experience increases in price for housing and local services, and community infrastructure may become over-stretched in order to cope with the influx of workers. There could be increased uncertainty about the future, and a change in residents’ feelings about their community. These impacts may lead to resentment and friction between established residents and the incoming workers and other newcomers who are attracted because of the dam. While it is impossible to mitigate all social impacts during the construction phase, much can be done to reduce impacts during this phase. Adequate information and community participation in planning can reduce much of the fear and uncertainty associated with the dam. Construction practices can be managed to reduce impacts. Consideration can be given as to whether it is better to separate or to integrate workers and the local community. A general rule of thumb is to maximise the use of local labour. For long term projects, and where there is little cultural difference between incoming workers and the local community, workers should be fully integrated into the existing community. For short term construction, and/or where there are large cultural differences between workers and the local community, the workers should be kept separate. Special effort must be made to provide the services that workers demand/expect, such as prostitution and alcohol, at the construction camp, so that workers do not seek these services in nearby villages, which inevitably will provide those services because of the economic differential between workers and locals.



A.3.4 Operation and Maintenance The operation and maintenance stage of a dam occurs after all construction is complete, and the construction workforce has left. Although there may have been profound change to the community, and there may exist some remaining maintenance staff, it is a time when communities return to a period of ‘normalisation’. With appropriate planning and the implementation of mitigation and monitoring procedures, negative social impacts during this time can be minimised and benefits maximised. With large dams, because the construction phase can be for so long, it is important to prepare communities for life after construction. For example, the economic impact of large number of construction staff with relatively high disposable incomes (and the associated economic multiplier and associated social impacts) will no longer occur. A.3.5 Decommissioning and Closure Although the concern of the World Commission on Dams may be more with the implementation and operation of new dams, it is important to realise that the social impacts associated with decommissioning of a dam may be substantially reduced by planning early on. Most dam decommissioning is temporary, and occurs when large scale maintenance or strengthening is required, or when accumulated silt needs to be removed. In some countries, e.g. the United States, some smaller dams are being removed altogether where there is no longer a reason for their existence. It would seem unlikely that this will happen to the current generation of large dams. In social impact terms, a form of social impacts similar to those experienced with decommissioning can also occur when a dam project that was scheduled to go ahead and that has been expected for some time is cancelled. Impacts here are associated with the speculation that took place, and indicate the care the must occur during the planning phase (Burdge & Vanclay, 1995). A.4. Key Issues in the SIA of Dams The overwhelmingly key issue in the SIA of large dams, is the issue of resettlement of people who need to be relocated because of inundation of their houses. Related to this is the issue of people who have lost agricultural land, and the issue of the relationship between resettled people and the host community where they are relocated. Robert Goodland recognises that “Most of the [World] Bank’s ‘problem projects’ are so-called precisely because they have massive and unsuccessful resettlement” (Goodland, 1999, 7-8). Although the World Bank has Resettlement Guidelines, it is not clear to what extent they have been fully implemented, and there are few examples of truly successful dam developments. The second key issue relates to the failure to appreciate the truly social and cultural nature of many social impacts. Western engineers have been pre-occupied with material well-being that the physical standard of living of people, putting this ahead of people’s concerns about their obligation to their departed ancestors, or their attachment to a particular house (in which they and their parents may have been born). Improving the standard of living of people often accelerates the social processes that lead to social impacts because they are often facilitated by that standard of living. Improved transportation and roads hastens community disintegration, through increased contact with the outside world, which in turn, through the mixed blessings of globalisation may lead to loss of local language or dialect, changed cultural norms, loss of skills in local art and music forms. The third key issue is related to the second, but refers to the special vulnerability of certain groups or communities. Dams in remote areas may affect indigenous peoples or people of certain ethnic minorities. Relocation of such people may have greater psychological and social impact on these people than on other people in the society. Increased contact with outsiders may also have devastating influences on the integrity of their culture and traditional practices. With identification of the



existence of such groups and careful planning, impacts can be minimised. Strategies of cooperative social development, or complete isolation and separation, should be established through negotiation at a very early stage. The final key issue worth mentioning is the integration of the biophysical and social environments. In developing countries, especially, people are inherently interconnected to the physical environment. Changes in water quality or river flow regimes can have considerable social impacts. All biophysical impacts are ultimately experienced as social impacts. Because dam construction is manipulating the physical environment, the potential for harm is considerable. In tropical countries, the presence of many water-associated vector organisms for disease is considerable, and considerable health impacts of dam developments are inevitable. A.5. Identification of Stakeholders One of the failings of many impact assessments is inadequate participation of all stakeholders. Sometimes that arises from a failure to consider the full range of potentially interested and affected parties. Failure to include all stakeholders can lead to poor scoping of impacts. Below is a checklist of potential stakeholders for most large dam projects: • Residents who will be displaced; • People from the host communities where displaced persons will be relocated; • Nearby communities as well as upstream and downstream residents (including indigenous

peoples) whose livelihoods may be threatened/affected as a result of the dam; • People who will be affected by the irrigation channels, roads, transmission line corridors and by

other associated works; • Construction workers and their families; • People in communities near where construction workers will be located; • Non resident Indigenous peoples who may have spiritual attachment to the land/river and/or

native title to land near to the construction site; • Local, national and international conservationists who may be interested in the ecological values

that may be threatened by the dam. In addition to these stakeholders who all might be potentially negatively affected by the project, there is the developer and associated contractors, regulatory agencies, local regional and national government, funding or development agencies, as well as the people who stand to benefit from flood control, irrigation water, urban water supply, and/or electricity generation. Some recreation opportunities may also exist on the lake created by the dam (usually these opportunities are only available to rich people). A.6. Some Recommendations for Dam Projects The following recommendations were developed in a series of workshops facilitated by Frank Vanclay as part of the process of developing International Guidelines and Principles for Social Impact Assessment. A.6.1 Principles that relate to the consideration of ALL social impacts • Always consider the gendered nature of impacts. • Appreciate the existence of spiritual worldviews and the potential existence of sacred places. • Consider the quality of life (social wellbeing) of people and not their standard of living.



• Always consider the second order impacts, and the upstream and downstream impacts. • Consider impact equity – the differential distribution of impacts. Make sure that the same people

do not experience all of the impacts. A.6.2 Principles relating to the integration of social and biophysical environment • Appreciate that all impacts are social impacts and that people experience the physical

environment in human terms. • Always extrapolate from changes in the biophysical environment to their human implications. • Appreciate seasonality and the implications of this for people and their activities. A.6.3 Participation principles • Utilise local knowledge in siting decisions for dams, quarries, service towns etc. • Be prepared to negotiate with the local community over issues that might cause impacts. • Pay attention to local power relations and social structures, and respect lines of authority. Go

through the appropriate gatekeepers in the community. • Give careful consideration to local cultural sensitivities and protocols. • Ensure that sufficient time and resources are available for participation, and ensure that

participation is actively encouraged primarily by changing the manner of participation to suit the specific circumstances and the cultural context. This may require different participation strategies and different media.

• Provide multiple opportunities for local people to express their concerns and to interact with project design so that participation processes do not just become venting exercises where residents express their anger.

• Be as open and transparent as possible. • Don’t renege on agreements. • Have dispute management and mediation processes in place. • Realise the importance of true public participation and the consequences that might arise from a

lack of participation. • Recognise the existence of diversity within communities, and involve the diverse publics as soon

as possible. • Develop processes that lead to social inclusion and reject processes that lead to social exclusion. • Maximise the involvement of local people in: (a) assessment processes; (b) project design; (c)

project implementation; and (d) operation, monitoring and evaluation of the project. • Use local language in communication with local people. • Consider the vulnerability of certain groups. • Identify and involve marginalised peoples. • Identify under-representation by people who are potentially affected and either seek to change

participation processes so that they will not be under-represented or ensure that their interests are considered.

A.6.4 Impact management and minimisation principles • Promote active impact management and the ability of SIA to assist in mitigation. • Avoid relocation/resettlement if at all possible. • Provide training programs to allow locals to take on jobs rather than importing outsiders. • If newcomer workers are culturally similar to the local community, integrate them into the

community, whereas if they are culturally different, keep them separate. • Encourage ownership of decision making and outcomes by all parties, and maximise commitment

by all to the agreement.



• Monitor the workforce (especially the construction workforce) to ensure compliance to agreed standards of work practice, noise, operating hours etc.

• Avoid compensation payments in cash. • Ensure that people are not made worse off. A.6.5 Community development principles • Consider the needs of vulnerable, at risk, groups and/or ethnic minorities and/or indigenous

peoples. • Focus on poverty reduction and always seek to improve the position of the worst off members in

society. • Recognise and preserve the existence of social diversity. • Maintain community integrity and viability. • Develop enhancement programs that stimulate a range of activities in the community and

encourage diversity of economic, cultural and social activity even if it requires cross-subsidisation from other activities.

• Develop mechanisms for capacity development and use project planning as an opportunity to foster civil society.

• Avoid development of a dependency syndrome or hand-out mentality among affected groups by providing compensation in a form that ensures that meaningful activity is undertaken – do not provide compensation in the form of cash payments.

• Plan for the bust that follows the boom, or life for the community in the future after the proposed/current project ceases.

A.6.5 Institutional and procedural principles • Recognise that SIA should be a process of navigation rather than prediction. • Develop adaptive management processes. • Use appropriately qualified social scientists as necessary depending on the issues. • Ensure that there is ‘arms length’ independence between the proponent and the SIA and other

impact assessment consultants. • Ensure appropriate evaluation of consultants’ reports. • Ensure the adequacy of time and resources for thorough impact assessment. • Ensure transparency of process, method, and decision making. • Start Impact Assessment processes early and integrate with project design processes. • Define what constitutes a significant change for each impact in terms of the local context. A.6.6 Data integrity principles • Consider/validate the legitimacy of official data by cross checking with community and/or NGO

and/or local authorities. • Consider the role of local knowledge in the project; • Respect the intellectual property rights of local people. • Focus on the things that really count, and not those that are just easy to count. • Apply the Precautionary Principle to social issues as well as technical issues. • Conduct further studies when uncertainty exists/remains. A.7. Conclusion Branch and Ross (1997) consider that there are only ever three issues to consider: they ask is a project equitable?, is it sustainable? and is it acceptable to the community at large? Perhaps these questions



can be used to guide any decision. Determining the answers, of course, is not necessarily straight forward. The equitability requirement is addressed if the dam improves the position of the worst-off members of society, and if resettled people are better off after relocation. However, if the purpose of the dam is to generate energy to be used by an urban elite either to bask in electronic consumer goods (air-conditioning etc), or to undertake economic activities that lead to an increasing wealth differential in the society, it would be difficult to conclude that the equity criterion was satisfied. Is a dam contributing to sustainability? Hydroelectricity might not contribute to global warming by manner of its production, but the construction of dams and power stations requires considerable energy investment, usually of fossil fuels before production of even one kilowatt. It make take many years of production for a power station to get a positive energy balance, and before cost recovery occurs. What about the drowned valleys which may have included rare or endangered species? Finally, how sustainable are the activities that the energy is being produced for. Perhaps their production of greenhouse gasses makes the global warming that might have been produced by coal trivial. And for irrigation projects, how sustainable is the agriculture that usually requires many other forms of artificial inputs? And how sustainable is the hydrological basis on which the irrigated agriculture occur. Does cash cropping increase food security of a nation, or decrease food security by increasing risks associated with monocultures and dependency on inputs? While some dams may contribute to economic growth in a nation, does such economic growth increase human and social capital, or does it go to further economic indebtedness by elite consumption of imported goods. While most of these questions can not be answered definitively, they do question the sustainability of large dams. Finally, are large dams acceptable to the general public? Usually not to the people who need to be relocated. If the wider public knew about the impacts experienced by the affected communities, would they regard that as acceptable? Perhaps in some cases, but probably not when thousands of people need to be relocated. Certainly it is clear that according to this requirement, social impacts need to be mitigated, and affected people need to get a better deal. References Branch, K. & Ross, H. 1997. “The Evolution of Social Impact Assessment: Conceptual Models and

Scope”, paper presented to the annual meeting of the International Association for Impact Assessment, New Orleans.

Burdge, R. & Vanclay, F. 1995. “Social impact assessment”, in Vanclay, F. & Bronstein, D. (eds)

Environmental and Social Impact Assessment, Chichester: Wiley. Goodland, R. 1999. “Social and environmental assessment to promote sustainability”, paper presented

to the annual meeting of the International Association for Impact Assessment, New Orleans. Informal draft available from Environment Department, the World Bank.

[US] Interorganizational Committee on Guidelines and Principles for Social Impact Assessment 1994.

“Guidelines and Principles for Social Impact Assessment”, Impact Assessment, Vol 12(2): 107-152.

Slootweg, R., van Schooten, M. & Vanclay, F. 1999. “Function evaluation as a framework for

integrating of social and environmental impact assessment”, paper presented at the meeting of the International Association of Impact Assessment, Glasgow, and to be published in Becker, H., Vanclay, F., & Wolf, C. (eds) Conceptual and Methodological Advances in Social Impact Assessment, in preparation.



Vanclay, F. 1999a. “Social impact assessment”, in Petts, J. (ed) International Handbook of Environmental Impact Assessment (Vol 1), Oxford: Blackwell Science.

Vanclay, F. 1999b. “Summary of workshop on International Guidelines and Principles for Social

Impact Assessment”, report to the closing session of the meeting of the International Association of Impact Assessment, Glasgow.

Vanclay, F., van Schooten, M., & Slootweg, R. 2000. ‘Social impact assessment’ in Briffet, C. & Obbard, J. (eds) Environmental Assessment in East Asia, Singapore: Institute of South East Asian Studies (in press).



Appendix I: List of Contributing Papers to the Thematic Review V.2 Note: materials from these contributing papers were incorporated directly into the text and annexes or provided necessary background information for the authors of the thematic. Iara Verocai Environmental and Social Impact Assessment for Large

Dams – Thematic Review from the point of view of Developing Countries



Appendix II: Submissions for Thematic Review V.2 Environmental and Social Assessment for Large Dams The WCD is committed to an open and consultative process. To broaden the scope for participation and input from all interested groups and stakeholders the Commission invites submissions on all aspects related to its work programme. As they were received, submissions were classified according to the area(s) of the work programme to which they were relevant. Therefore the submissions used here are those that have been identified as applicable to the Thematic Review (V.2) on EIA & SIA. Submissions arrive in parallel to the drafting process of the WCD’s reports. Those listed here are the 35 submissions specifically for TR V.2 which were received by March 31, 2000. Note that submissions are listed alphabetically by author and are therefore not numbered sequentially. Every submission has been read carefully. Some are informed individual perspectives on which the WCD can not to mediate. For example, there are some submissions that seek the endorsement of the WCD, and the WCD’s mandate is neither to adjudicate nor to mediate on specific dams or disputes. Therefore, the submissions received for Thematic Review V.2 have been used as background information. Many have been cited as references throughout the text. Others have been used as part of a text box to illustrate a point. All submissions have informed the WCD as to the different positions on the dams debate. Serial Author country Title INS168 Il-sun, Park Korea The Environmental, Social Impacts of the Chungju

Dam OPT081 Abu-Zeid,

Khalem M, Bayoumi, Mohammed N & Wagdy, Ahmad

Assessment of Environmental Impacts for Irrigation Projects, a Decision Support System

INS035 Antares Malaysia Proposed Selangor Dam EIA Report: Pulling Wool over the Eyes of the Sheep

INS177 Apinan, Vipada Thailand Problem and Practice on Environment and Management of Dam in Thailand

ENV058 Armando Llop, Maria Valeria Mendoza

Argentina Assessing the Environmental Impact of Large Dams on the Agricultural Sector in Southern Mendoza, Argentina

INS188 Asian Development Bank

Philippines Special Evaluation Study on the Social and Environmental Impacts of Selected Hydropower Projects

ENV052 Binnie, Chris Pakistan Ghazi-Barotha HydroPower Project: Environmental Assessment

INS039 Birley, M UK Health Impacts ENV194 Bridle, Rodney UK Environmental Assessment-legislation and

Planning Requirements within the European Framework

INS146 Brink, Elizabeth USA Environmental Aspects of Project Evaluation OPT111 Brink, Elizabeth USA Environmental Assessments for Proposed Dam

Removals INS101 Bucuane, A Mozambiqu

e Cabora Bassa Dam and Ecosystems: Assessing and Managing Environmental Impacts

INS041 Casinader, R Australia Principle Consideration in the Execution EIAs and SIAs



INS045 Casinader, R Australia Timing of EIAs and SIAs CAS006 Cori, L &

Martone, F Italy Large-scale Dams, People's Rights and the

Environment INS057 Fearnside, Philip

M. Brazil Political Benefits as Barriers to Assessment of

Environment Costs in Brazil's Amazonian Development Planning: The Example of the Jatapu Dam in Roraima

ENV070 Grethel Aguilar Rojas

Costa Rica Impact Assessment and Hydroelectric Dams in Central America. A Legal Perspective

INS149 Hammar, Johan and Ljungqvist, Nina

Sweden The Suorva Dam: Lessons Learned from a Northern Case Study

INS093 Havlicek, Roman Slovakia Proposals to Restore the Original Purpose of EIA Procedures and to Improve Their Effectiveness

INS095 Havlicek, Roman Slovakia Environmental and Social Impact Assessment of Large Dams in Slovakia

OPT063 Jellali, Mohammed

Morocco Large Dams in Morocco: Experience and Perspectives for the Future

INS157 JICA Japan Executive Summary of the Report of the study on Development and the Environment in the Mekong River Basin

INS036 Joao, E UK Scale of EIAs ENV101 Kalitsi E. A. K Ghana Dams and Ecosystems: Assessing and Managing

Environmental Impacts (Ghana's Experience) INS148 Kalpavriksh India The Narmada Valley Project - Development or

Destruction INS102 National Society

for Human Rights Namibia Assessing and Managing Environmental Impacts

on Epupa Water Project in the Kunene Region of Namibia

INS170 Omar, Rosli Malaysia Large Dams and their Problems: The Case of Malaysia

OPT131 Rana, Pawan India Need for National Water Management Policy for Himalayan River Basins

ECO047 Rich, Bruce Established Common Elements of International Good Practise for Environmental Assessment

INS034 Rydgren, B Sweden Response to: Principle Consideration in the Execution of EIAs and SIAs

INS037 Senecal, P Canada Conclusions on EIA Effectiveness INS040 Vladut, T Canada A List of Dam Interferences (Environmental,

Social and Economic) INS042 Vladut, T Canada Enhance the Impact Assessment Process for ESE

(Environmental, Social, Economical) for DAMS. Suggestions for ways to improve the EI process.

INS033 White, W South Asia Making Environmental and Social Assessment Relevant for Dams

INS194 Wood, Rebecca Turkey Case Study: The Ilisu Dam, Turkey



Appendix III: Review Comments received from the Review Panel Participation and input from interested groups and stakeholders, the Commission invited specialists, centers of excellence and WCD Forum members to prepare comments on the thematic drafts. Comments were received throughout the progression of the thematic review. The comments were incorporated to the extent possible into subsequent drafts of the thematic. Every comment has been read carefully. Some are informed individual perspectives on which the WCD can not mediate. For example, there are some comments that seek the endorsement of the WCD, and the WCD’s mandate is neither to adjudicate nor to mediate on specific dams or disputes. Others may go beyond the scope of the individual thematic review. Please note that section numbers referred to in individual commentaries will have changed in the final version of the report. I: Comments on Circulation Draft of February 2000 a) Mark Radka United Nations Environment Programme, Division of

Technology, Industry and Economics b) Alex Weaver CSIR, South Africa c) David Smith United Nations Environment Programme d) Mark Butler Critical Resource, South Africa e) Luis Enrique Sánchez Escola Politécnica – PMI, Universidade de São Paulo, Brazil f) Maria Rosario

Partidario New University of Lisbon, Portugal

g) R. Jayewardene Asian Development Bank h) Reatile Mochebelele Lesotho Highlands Water Project, Lesotho i) Lutz Blank European Bank for Reconstruction and Development,

Environmental Appraisal Unit j) Ron Bisset CORDAH, Scotland a) Comments by Mark Radka General Comments 1. Overall this is a sound review of the EIA of large dams. It presents the reader with a sound,

balanced summary of the history and major issues confronting the ‘practice’ today. 2. Despite the good roadmap in the introductory section, parts of the paper are a bit disjointed in this

early draft. Perhaps this is because there is still work to do in pulling sections prepared by different authors together into one clear, coherent whole. Some tightening of the structure is warranted and would benefit the reader.

3. As the paper contains many acronyms and ‘terms of trade’, it would be helpful to prepare a

glossary of important terms and acronyms. 4. One topic that might be explored, even briefly, is whether EIA/SIA requirements are successful in

stopping very bad projects simply because of a hurdle effect. That is, the mere existence of the EIA requirement discourages proponents of certain projects from even considering them further. Such projects are never proposed, much less get to the EIS stage, simply because the hurdles are too great and the chances of winning approval so slim.



5. UNEP places great emphasis on the need to see EIA as a one of the first elements in a comprehensive environmental management process. A good EIA should help screen projects, identify changes in the early planning and design stages, and eventually be incorporated into an on-going environmental management system that is itself an organic and evolving tool for managers. Part of the problem with EIA, as the authors point out, is that it has too often been applied to late to affect projects, or is only applied to the planning and design stages. Further elaboration of how EIA/SIA links to the to the operations and decommissioning aspects of dams would be useful.

6. In general, I find that the paper gets more specific and useful in the later sections. It might be

possible to eliminate prune considerably the earlier sections, or bring some of the theoretical elements into the latter sections as side-bars rather than devote an entire section or sections to them.

Specific Comments 1. Section two would benefit from a tighter linking of general issues related to EIA and large dams.

Although the section is intended to be general, providing some specific examples of the points made regarding large dams would make the discussion less theoretical or tie it more to the specific overall goal of the paper.

2. Regarding box three, I have seen instances where EIA was used as a tool by regulators to extract

bribes or otherwise coerce project proponents. Although this applies more to private sector projects, in such instances EIA then becomes yet another tool of corrupt officials and ultimately undermines public faith in government in general and its environmental regulatory or oversight function in particular.

3. Section 2.6 in general has a great many terms, the subtle distinctions between which might be

important to specialists but which mean little to even the educated lay reader. It is necessary either to explain some of the concepts in greater detail or to collapse some of the sections, eliminating what is not critical to the main argument.

4. In Box 2.3, I believe the reference in the last sentence of the second column should be to ‘option

value’ not ‘opinion value’. 5. In Box 2.4, the James Bay Diversion, it is noted that the NY Power Authority cancelled a contract

to buy 1000 MW of power. The units should be checked. Was this capacity or 1000 MWh/yr over the 20 year contract?

6. Box 2.5 might be more strongly tied to the text as it now dangles a bit. In the fourth bullet the

‘user’ should be specified. Who exactly is the ‘user’ of dam EIAs? 7. Annex 1 is useful. Perhaps it could be brought into the paper as a text box. 8. If the Commission is particularly interested in ‘checks and balances’ then Appendices 2 and 4

might receive further elaboration. Public participation and review is a powerful check or balance but often requires particular effort to undertake successfully in developing countries.

b) Comments by Alex Weaver What follows are some comments on this draft paper. I need to preface them by saying that I have not had the opportunity to review the document in any great depth, so the comments are fairly superficial. Although much of the content is based on a generic overview of EIA and SIA effectiveness, I believe that this is a valid approach as much effort has gone into reviewing effectiveness over the past decade.



Because of the long time frame between planning and construction of large dams and the rapid rate at which EIA and SIA have spread internationally, much of the available dam linked EIA and SIA work is somewhat dated in terms of good practice. I have made several enquiries in South Africa and it seems that very few of our large dams have been exposed to EIA / SIA. This is simply due to the fact that the legislation has only been in place for the past 2½ years whereas many of the large dams were built in the 60's and 7O’s. I suspect a similar situation in other developing countries. I also suspect that many of the more recent improvements in EIA / SIA effectiveness like the issues focussed approach, improved public participation, biodiversity impact assessment vs species loss, health impact assessment, etc did not feature in the earlier EIAs / SIAs done on dams. In terms of your specific queries around checks and balances I think the report should spell this out in more detail. The question of accountability should also be clearly spelt out with respect to the decision maker, the independent consultant, the implementer and, where appropriate, the funding agency. I also think that far more emphasis needs to be placed on the role of Interested and Affected Parties at ensuring that an "honest", issues focused process is run. At what stages of the process should they be involved and how can they most effectively be involved at that stage. I have tried to get a good example of a scoping report for you but for the reasons quoted above I have not been able to get a "large dams" example. The attached one is for a fertilizer plant. Perhaps the water supply aspects could be lifted out. I think the attached scoping report is one of the best I have seen. I am still trying to get you a dam example. I think that the authors should pay some attention to trends in Integrated Catchment Management (ICM) which has been described as "SEA at a catchment level" .I believe that within ICM we have the basic platform to sharpen EIA and SEA as sustainability instruments. Within the ICM framework we can do better EIA as many of the " big picture" questions which dog project specific EIAs are answered within the broader framework provided by ICM. On a more specific point, I think it would be useful if you could develop Figure 2.1 a bit further. Take the typical life cycle of a dam, use dam building jargon to describe this and provide dam-Iinked examples to describe the impact assessment activities. I attach an example from the mining industry. c) Comments by David Smith This is a good draft report that could be improved by, inter alia: 1 Bringing more discussion of the links between sound economic decision-making and EIA 2 Including more on integrating EIA into the project development & policy formulation cycle 3 Including reference to the inclusion of environmental and sustainability in decision-making

by means other than that of a formal EIA. That is, embedding environmental considerations into the project appraisal and policy formulation process.

1 Sound economic decision-making: Economic costs and benefits and EIA In this draft report, most references are to environmental and social impact analysis. (E/SIA). However, if an EIA does not include an estimate of the costs of environmental damage, it is harder to argue for changes to the project, or the consideration of alternatives. If decision-makers are more aware of the economic costs (and measurement of economic costs includes the environmental and social impacts), then it is more likely they will take steps to reduce these impacts. If the cost-benefit analysis of a hydro-electric scheme does not include environmental and social impacts, then the cost-benefit analysis is incomplete. ‘In economic terms, a development project is desirable only if total project benefits, including those arising from environmental improvement, exceed total project costs, including environmental protection costs, and the costs of any remaining damage to the environment.’ (Hufschmidt, Maynard M., James David E., Meister, Anton D., Bower



Blair T., and Dixon John A 1983. Environment, Natural Systems and Development - An Economic Valuation Guide. The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London). Therefore, I recommend that this report contain some reference to the use of EIA to help improve project decision-making. This would also reinforce the points made in the report the need to have an EIA carried out early enough to be a part of the project design and decision-making process. This may mean that an early, scoping EIA is more important than a later full scale EIA. 2 Examples of Integrating EIA into project appraisal and policy formulation. (Or perhaps the reference should be to ‘Integrating environmental impacts into project appraisal and policy formulation’, to decrease the tendency to view EIA as a separate exercise). A diagram of an example of how to do this for a development project will be faxed. But in general terms, I think it would be useful to put more emphasis on integrating environmental considerations into the project appraisal in the text. 3 Inclusion of environmental and sustainability impacts in decision-making by means other than that of a formal EIA. The text points out that the EIA is often carried out too late and separate from the project or policy development exercise. Often an EIA is the only formal way that environmental considerations enter into the project or policy design and decision-making process. A reason for the less that satisfactory consideration of environmental impacts by governments can be referred to as a ‘machinery of government’ problem. That is, when a Department(s) is considering a project or policy with environmental implications, these are not discussed properly before the decision is taken by Cabinet. If government project and policy making processes required environmental implications to be considered from the start, this would be a big advance. For example, with some governments the office of the head of the government requires that initiatives with significant environmental impacts be referred to the Environment ministry for comment before they are considered by Cabinet. An option is that the Environment ministry is included in an interdepartmental committee set up to consider initiatives with potentially significant environmental or sustainability implications. If such Environment ministry involvement is not obtained, and the proposal cannot be referred to Cabinet for decision, it is a powerful incentive to consider the environmental implications from the beginning. d) Comments by Mark Butler Overall impression is that it’s a very good, quality paper.

One broad comment to make is that the paper makes no comment about underlying development frameworks (which would come into play especially at the Strategic Environmental Assessment level) but this is probably beyond the scope of the paper anyway. The only other things that came immediately to mind were:

1. An uneven treatment of ‘participation’ - but this is the same ground covered in my response to the earlier paper on participation itself

2. The annexes for good practice from the IAIA etc. are a lot weaker than the arguments and proposals in the text itself.

There are quite a few editing issues that should be dealt with in the text and the numbering and referencing of boxes and figures is also incorrect.



e) Comments by Luis Enrique Sanchez The document is a very good synthesis of the application of EIA to dams. The authors managed to put a lot of information and analysis in a relatively short paper. I have very few comments and they are restricted to details. I think the structure and organization of the paper is adequate. On page 4, the section on “foundations of EIA” concludes with the good examples of Canada and The Netherlands. Authors state that “most other countries operate a more informal or internal process of EIA review”. Is the US interagency review an “internal process”? It seems that they imply that Canadian and Dutch systems are superior, thus they could serve as a model. Maybe the authors didn’t want to say that, but I think that the conclusions can be interpreted in this way. If so, I disagree that Canadian or Dutch approaches should be “sold” as models: Canadian panels only make recommendations, their decisions are not binding; this is different from, for example, the French licensing system, or the approach taken by many Brazilian states, where decisions are made by a multistakeholder committee. If the Canadian and Dutch systems may appear to work well this is perhaps due to the political culture of these countries, but in a document intended as international in scope this sounds as a recommendation or endorsement of Canadian or Dutch independent review process. This may not be the best universally. Figure 2.1 is quoted in the beginning of section 2.4. The figure itself appears on page 16. It is taken from World Bank publications and it would be better to quote its source. This project cycle may be appropriate for the Bank but I see no reason why it should be appropriate for other situations. I think that a figure relating the basic steps of an engineering and feasibility study to the basic steps of the EIA process would be more illustrative. In addition, linkages could be established between the project cycle and SEA. (In fact, I cannot understand a project “cycle”: projects have a beginning, many have an end, others have an indefinite life span.) I don’t see the purpose of the figure on page 11 and I don’t know what it intends to illustrate. A case from Thames Water is referred to in another section, but even if related to the case study it is difficult to see the usefulness of this figure. On page 13, in the Bio-Bio river dams, maybe it could be said that the projects received very much opposition from native communities. What is DSM, quoted in the James Bay entry? On page 15, there is one interesting case in Brazil of late timing EIA in which a project began before regulations on EIA were in place, physical works had been suspended because of financial constraints, when they have been resumed, new regulations were applied and the proponent had to comply with them: this meant preparing an EIS and implementing mitigation measures before reservoir filling. EIA was neatly and add-on, but it played a role in mitigating and compensating negative impacts. The case is Porto Primavera dam, on Paraná river. On page 19 authors call ICOLD “the internationally big dams lobby”. They are not wrong, but it would sound more appropriate for a WCD document simply to explain the meaning of the acronym. Regarding section 3.1 I wonder if the authors could find an example of good practice in which the proponent gave up (perhaps because he has been convinced that the impacts are unacceptable). I understand that in a negotiation all parts are supposed to move from their initial positions, and to reach an win-win agreement, but if proponents accept to negotiate in a candid mood, this could happen. Did it? On page 31, in the paragraph immediately after the Box 2.7 , I suggest to state “Key conditions for participation, still to be met in MOST developing countries.”



I became curious about the participatory models used in Guatemala and Venezuela. I find it would be interesting if the authors could provide more detail. Perhaps this could be done in a box. On pages 23-24 the issue is EIA follow-up. Could the authors provide at least one example (besides La Grande projects) in which this has been done in a commendable manner? I feel that some conclusion is lacking (and would be welcome) at the end of section 3.2: why is EIA not as effective as it could potentially be? By exploring the main hurdles, be them cultural, political or economic, a clue could be found to enhance EIA effectiveness. On page 29 I think the authors need to briefly explain what is a scoping report, as this term may not be familiar to many readers. On page 31 authors present a list of requirements to improve EIA processes around the world. I firmly believe - and would like to suggest this for consideration - that the provision of technical and financial assistance to facilitate public participation is a very important f) Comments by Maria Rosario Partidario General comments: The document is too general and lacks practical insight. Many of its sections could be applied to any other kind of sector major project rather than dams. The document establishes a framework for review of current practice but seems limited on evidence provided, both in terms of criteria, techniques and actual practical examples of how concrete cases have happened. The format used in Box 3.1 should be frequently used to provide current experience/evidence on each of the issues required in the Scope of Work. The document contains extremely interesting theoretical perspectives regarding the concepts of EIA and SEA, its evolution, principles, methodologies and its overall contribution to decision-making. It also addresses extensively the issue of sustainability, and the importance of addressing such issue, and also that of global impacts related to water management and energy issue and the relevance of those issues to be considered in the approach to EIA and SEA on large dams. However, it lacks practical advice on how that could be achieved. It is also too limited on substantive issues regarding actual impacts of dams, rather than listing what these are in a diagram that essentially can be used for a variety of other projects. It lacks a support basis for the identification of assessment of significance of impacts, identification of alternatives and assessment criteria, mitigation measures and most especially environmental management issues. It namely misses to address the different issues, and respective approaches, that need to be addressed for dams projects in developing versus developed countries, in dry versus humid regions, where dams are single or part of a water basin system of several dams, where dams are single or multi-purposed. There are examples given, most of them on an illustrative basis throughout the text, from the USA, Canada, China and other Asian countries (e.g. Malasya, Thailand, India), Kenya and Latin America, providing a world perspective, however they are put in a very general form, very few describing actual practical evidence. Concrete examples are limited to Latin America, and there is one good development on one case in the UK, offered in Box 3.1. That would be the kind of detail information that I understand would be required in this report, but obviously covering a wider range of situations around the world, with evidence on different problems and opportunities, subsequently supported by the respective analysis



required. Such an approach could provide better evidence on the particular issues that this report could be addressing and would respond better to what a practitioner would be expecting to see. Having just finished the co-coordination of a major dam in the North of Portugal, I could gain very little practical advice from this document. Issues such as: What does it mean “institutionalising environmental conditions”? How could EIA really serve as an impact management tool? What criteria could be used to show whether sustainability issues are being addressed, or could be addressed? are just examples of questions that I suspect the report should be answering, rather than only raising as issues that must be addressed in a EIA or SEA of major dams. Annex 2, 3 and 4 are among the most useful elements of the report as far as practical advice is concerned, although again can be used in other sectors’ impacts. The following table intends to summarize my assessment on the review required. I sincerely hope it responds to what was required, if not please let me know, as I should be back in Portugal on the 27th March. Regarding practical examples, there has been two EIA of major dams in Portugal, that could provide insight examples (the Alqueva project and the Baixo Sabor project), which include a strong social impacts component, but they are only available in Portuguese. Scale: Low 1 – High 5 CRITERIA FOR REVIEW OF DOCUMENT

EVALUATION

1. Current experience Scope of EIA + SEA re. broad social concerns Uncertainty Contradictory truth Precautionary principle

3 2 2 4

2. Effectiveness of EIA + SEA in addressing:

Prevention, compensation, mitigation, offsetting social and environmental impacts Explore opportunities offered by dams

3 1

3. Creation of negotiation spaces among social interests

2

4. Performance as basis for environmental management actions

2

5. Recommendations for modifications in the use of EIA + SEA: Conclusions follow through implementation Kind of support: managerial, financial, technical political Monitoring and audit systems

2 2 1



g) Comments by R. Jayewardene 1. Firstly, EIA and SIA should not be dealt with together. Social Impacts of dams are large and complex and should be dealt with separately from the EIA. 2. The document is rather confusing and interchangeably deals with EIA/SIA and therefore inadequately addresses the social impacts. I suggest the two be de-linked and no mention be made of SIA as part of the EIA. Due to time constraints and since the document primarily refers to EIA, I did not cover it thoroughly. I am not an environment specialist but a resettlement specialist therefore, the document by Vanclay would have been more relevant. Unfortunately, it is not appended, otherwise I would have been happy to comment. 3. As a general comment, the document does not adequately deal with existing legislative and policy frameworks, budget and finance, absorptive capacity and institutional capacity. These are key factors that influence the process. The document is long on description and short on analysis. 4. In the dams debate, due to the often high social costs and the difficulties in adequately mitigating social costs, I do not believe the 3E analysis should include social equity. 5. Figure 2.1, what is the source? If it is developed by the authors, it could be improved, be more focused and again not include social and environment together. At feasibility, reference could be made to critical interventions to the design to minimise social impacts, key interventions could be included in the figure. 6. There is reference to the technical education of affected people to participate in EIA, who will do this. If not carried out by an impartial party, it is unlikely that people will be given the necessary information and appropriate education. I cannot see the project proponent expounding on the negative impacts! 9. 3.3, the Sustainability Agenda, the Three Gorges comparison attempts to simplify the debate by setting off social costs against burning 40 million tons of coal and the consequent adverse effects. The issue is how will social costs be defined, it's not just cost but effective rehabilitation,impacts on not just the first but the second generation? This attempt at 'trade-off' has inherent risks for affected persons. The two 'simple' ratios are also too' simple', land per output of electricity and type of land is not adequate, it should also consider number of affected persons per ha of land and the key is 'significance' of impact. 10. I am afraid the Thames Water example, is not universally applicable. The assumptions inherent are too many to list. Developing countries where the future of dams seem to lie function in a totally different social, civil and bureaucratic environment than the UK. Furthermore, the issues related to for example, indigenous people are of a different scale. 11. The ways forward are a bit thin and the recommendations to WCD to" lend its weight to ensuring institutional arrangements that are established in leading countries are in place and implemented everywhere" are somewhat naive. 12. I hope the comments are helpful to further the important work of the commission.



h) Comments by Reatile Mochebelele General Comments • The question of people’s participation in so far as it relates to the local knowledge and how this is

incorporated into their meaningful participation in the project should be flagged and highlighted throughout the project cycle.

• A number of examples have been cited throughout the document. These should be properly

referenced, with dates, so that it is clear whether reference is being made to a current situation or a historical issue.

• Although the EIA best practice and relative advancement in the developed as compared with the

developing countries is a documented reality; the degree of democratization in a country is a major determining factor of how effectively the EIA can be applied.

• Figures quoted in the document do not have their sources provided thus making it difficult to

check on their validity. Page 3: 1.1 Definition and Delineation of EIA and SIA First sentence, of the first paragraph:

The EIA has been defined as “the process of identifying, predicting, evaluating, and managing…the effects of development proposals before major decisions are taken and commitments made.” Traditionally, the EIA has been used as a tool to help in the decision making to determine whether a project should go ahead or not. This seems to be a new concept because the issue of management has been introduced. Page 4: 2.3 Foundations of EIA 2nd paragraph:

External funding to cover the costs of EIA application should be another enabling condition, especially for developing nations Page 6: Box 3 “Worst case” Practice and Performance

6th Bullet: The EIS and EA acronyms have not been expatiated before being mentioned in the document. For the EIA to be acceptable, effort needs to be taken to have a balanced and objective assessment by both sides – that is, the proponents and other stakeholders.



Page 7: Box 2.2 Environmental Sustainability Assurance (ESA) Last sentence: As indicated in the paper, “in kind” compensation is not always possible. For instance, in our situation for the “land for land” resource compensation it is even more difficult to have a comparable offset. Page 8: 2.7 EIA Practice – Application to Large Scale Dams 1st Paragraph, 2nd sentence: The figure cited for dams built since 1970 is very low. The ICOLD Register of Dams indicates that the number of large dams built in this period is much higher. For instance, India and China have both built in excess of 3 000 large dams. We suspect that the figure of 2 000 refers to large dams financed by the World Bank. Page 9: (vi) Increasing uses of SEA and regional-level EIA: There is a trend now for increasing use of the SEA and EIA at regional level. However, water resources developments have implications for management of inter-country basins as opposed to catchments. There are usually inter-country issues to surmount before dealing with basin management. Hence SEA and regional-level EIA applicability are constrained. Page 12: 2.8 Future Scenarios – Water Demands, climate change and implications for dams

1st paragraph:

Several statements have been made without proper reference and bibliography, to help enhance credibility of such statements. Statements such as, “Currently, more than 430 million people live in countries considered to be ‘water stressed’. This number is expected to increase substantially in the next 50 years, possibly to some 40% of the world population by 2050”. Page 13: Box 2.4: Examples of Environmentally Controversial Hydro Projects Again appropriate references and bibliography have to be added, and editing of the numbers done as follows:

• Under James Bay Diversion, 2nd line it should read “in March, 1992”. • Under Three Gorges Dam, China, the 1st line should read, “16 000 MW”.



Page 14: 3. Effectiveness of EIA and SIA of Dams Box 2.5: Typology of dams: In the 1st bullet, attitudinal problems extend even to the opponents of the project. The EIA should be objective and balanced, because the opponents of the project can also resist or circumvent the EIA to support their position, or use the EIA to blow issues out of proportion. Page 15: 3. Effectiveness of EIA and SIA of Dams 2nd Paragraph: The management incompetence can also contribute to the “deep rooted flaws in the structural integrity of the process”, translating into the late timing of the EIA undertaking. Page 19:

3. Effectiveness of EIA and SIA of Dams 4th Paragraph: Health impacts: because of the intensity of health impacts associated with large dam developments, the EIA studies currently cover this area adequately. May be the paper relates to historical experiences. Based on our experience of the Lesotho Highlands Water Project, we consider this to be of historical reference and not what is currently happening. Use of EIA and SIA as Participatory and Negotiation Tools 1st Paragraph: ICOLD is not a big dams lobby, but advocates sustainable socio-economic development for all projects affected persons whether involuntarily resettled or not. In this regard ICOLD Position Paper on Dam and Environment should be consulted. Page 26: Figure 3.3: Trends in the Planning of Hydro power Projects

Least Cost planning procedure: To be competitive, the concept of “Least Cost” should still be embraced, but must include all costs associated with project development including environmental and social impact mitigation and compensation. Page 28: Box 3.1: Case Study of Strategic Planning for Water Resources: Thames Water’s Best Practicable Environmental Programme



Best Practicable Environmental Programme (BPEP): Typographical error of the acronym for Environmental Cost Benefit Analysis (ECBA) and not “EBCA” as rendered in the text. Page 31: 4.1 Instilling the Basics Some guidelines for the Precautionary Principle need to be developed where capacity to undertake the EIA is deficient. 4.2 Upgrading EIA Practice 2nd paragraph: Inclusion of the In-stream Flow Requirement assessment needs to be part of the EIA process to consolidate the downstream impacts of dam developments.

1st paragraph:

The annexes mentioned in the third bullet do not appear in the document. i) Comments by Lutz Blank Summary Critique "Environmental and Social Impact Assessment for Large Scale Dams" The authors of this paper are obviously knowledgeable regarding the development and state-of-the-art of Environmental and Social Impact Assessment on an international scale as evidenced by the content of Chapter 2 titled, "Taking Stock of EIA and SEA" which is the most thoroughly researched and coherent section of the paper. The major drawbacks of the paper as a whole, however, are • it is much more about EIA and SIA in general than the way in which these decision

making/planning tools have actually been applied to dam projects and can, in a practical way, be used for future developments. Indeed, even in section 2.7 "EIA Practice -- Application to Large Scale Dams," the reader has the impression that the generalisations drawn could apply to any other sector to which EIA has been applied (e.g. transport, industry, power etc) and that they are not "dam specific." (The specific examples of "environmentally controversial hydro projects" (Box 2.4, p.13) are very sparse, i.e. one or two descriptive sentences per example. Much more detailed information both on the projects and the EIAs carried out on them will be needed to give credibility to the report's conclusions and recommendations.)

• it is unclear as to who is the intended audience/user of this paper - Developers ? International

Financial Institutions ? Regulators ? NGO ? EIA, SIA and SEA practitioners ?. It is critical that this question is being addressed upfront, as different audiences may have different requirements and expectations. Alternatively, if the paper is intended to be of use to all, it may end up being of little use to any, unless specific issues are being addressed (e.g. in annexes).

• it is not always easily understandable. In fact, some chapters are overloaded with jargon and

require serious pruning and translation into plain English. It reads, over long stretches, very much like an academic review rather than a practical, user-friendly document.



• it lacks financial information, important for a developer and an institution like EBRD. There should be an indication of the cost of EIAs, SIAs and SEAs, using examples to back up general estimates.

• there are a number of factual errors in the paper which need to be corrected, e.g. "natural gas" is

not a renewable energy source as implied on page 12 and the Gacikovo Dam is in Slovakia, not Slovenia, as indicated on page 13.

• some slightly strange formulations in the paper have to be changed to conform with commonly

used terminology. The one which particularly struck are the references to "climate warming." One usually speaks either of "climate change" or "global warming" but not "climate warming".

The following relates to specific sections of the draft. Chapter 3 In this section ("Effectiveness of EIA and SIA of Dams") one would hope for a more comprehensive framework for analysis (e.g. what are the specific criteria for effectiveness?). By the same token, one would expect a more rigorous empirical basis than that which is provided by the present (albeit, initial) draft. The opening sentence of Section 3.2 on "Performance Appraisal – the Effectiveness of EIA in Relationship to Project Decision-Making" states that "overall, the litmus test of EIA performance is the extent to which it contributes to environmentally and socially sound decision making. Strictly speaking, this requires a context-specific evaluation of the results of EIA e.g. with reference to the objectives and principles of NEPA in the case of the USA or to Operational Directive 4.01 in the case of the World Bank." Strictly speaking, that is correct. The issue could be addressed, however, by looking at "classes" of EIA legislative/administrative bases, i.e. specific countries or groups of countries, intergovernmental bodies (e.g. the EC) and multilateral financial institutions. The paper, however, takes neither of these approaches, deciding instead to undertake a "generic review." The results (as spelled out in pp 22-24) are fairly general and much less useful than they could be. What would be useful to see in this chapter is a much more structured approach which could, for example, begin by looking at specific approaches (and corresponding case studies) in terms of (1) the EIA process -- what is the basis for the requirement to carry out the EIA? Who is responsible for its preparation? How are results monitored? and, very important for an IFI like ourselves, "How much do EIAs of dam projects cost and how long do they take to carry out? (2) EIA content -- How are environmental impacts identified and assessed? Do EIAs of dams generally look at alternatives, i.e. alternative sources of energy? What methodologies are used and how effective have they been? (3) What has been the link between EIAs and decisions taken? Do they stop, hinder, delay, change or improve decision-making? If so, how and why? Specific examples/'statistics would be most useful. Chapter 4: There is nothing one would object to but, it mostly looks like good "common sense" suggestions, but where is it based on a thorough analysis of experience in this field to date ? As an additional point, the effectiveness of EIA will largely depend on the clarity and usefulness of the information it produces. An EIA that manages to bridge the gap between environmental/social analysis and financial analysis of a proposed project will be of maximum use and will thus have the highest impact. It is necessary (if not mandatory in the context of sustainability) that EIAs and SEAs put a price on environmental and social impacts and any remedial action. This should be spelt out clearly in Section 4.



Independent Review Function One of the specific proposals put forward in this regard (and one for which Jamie Skinner has specifically asked for our views) relates to the "independent review" function. It is difficult, if not impossible, to take a view on this based on the information in the paper. What the authors should do is present cases of EIAs of dam projects with and without independent review; draw some comparisons and make some conclusions. One could, for example, look specifically at North America where, we suspect the majority of "dam EIAs" have actually been carried out. The Canadian EIA procedure is generally viewed as one with an "independent review" based on the individual, "tailor-make" EIA panels which are established on each project submitted to assessment. In the US, on the other hand, because the review is carried out primarily by the Environmental Protection Agency and other federal, state and local authorities, it is generally not seen as "independent." It has never been clear to us if this difference in approach has made any difference in outcome. It would be helpful if the Commission were to undertake a comparative analysis of these (and perhaps other) approaches before forming a view. j) Comments by Ron Bisset General Issues The Terms of Reference (ToR) specifies the work to be done and the time allocated. The time period (April-October) was very short in terms of conducting an analysis of dam experience and meeting the objectives of the study. Given the delays that have occurred I assume that de facto more time (and resources?) has been available to the study. However, it is realized that this may not have been the case. The ToR does not outline a study approach or method, nor is one presented in the Review. This is a major weakness given the aims of the study (see suggestion under "Future Work" below). The ToR refers to linkages to case studies (3.1 of ToR), but there is little evidence that this work has been done. The apparent lack of a systematic and focused method may explain the skewed balance in the Review between the discussion on EIA in general and dam-related EIA experiences in particular. The general EIA discussion (10 out of 36 pages) is excellent although perhaps too succinct and complex for certain readers. However, it could have been written by any international specialist in EIA with no knowledge of EIA in dam design and implementation. The basis for many of the EIA-related statements is not backed up by dam experience except for a few very limited examples (with too much attention paid to an example from the UK). The dam-related basis for the conclusions reached is weak. It is stated that the source for dam-related EIA experience is the WCD moderated web conference page and a session of the 1999 IAIA Conference. To use outputs from these sources only is very limiting and inadequate. IAIA is dominated by academics (the reviewer has been an IAIA member over many years and attended the 1999 IAIA session) and the contributors to the Web discussion are unlikely to be representative of the main stakeholders in terms of the "dam debate". Given the recognition of the importance of multiple perspectives (see page 9 [vii] of the Review) it is important that the Review justifies its sources of information on the efficacy of EIA in dam design and implementation. If this is not done then WCD may be exposing its reputation to damaging criticism. The title of the Review is misleading as there is very little discussion on SIA. We are informed that it is contained in a separate document. It would seem sensible either to merge the two documents or change the title of the Review. The SIA parts of the current Review lack rigour and are not convincing e g. reference is made to the differences between consultation and participation, but these



terms are not used consistently, nor are the differences explained properly and the implication for EIA and dams made clear. The Appendix on Participation is a rag-bag of "dos and don'ts" with no real explanation as to what is meant or guidance value to the dam planner or EIA specialist. In fact, the Appendices seem to be "fillers" rather than substantive and considered contributions to the Review. The Health Appendix is verging on the woeful and needs considerable improvement. Finally, it can be said that the questions posed in the ToR have not been answered, by the current draft of the Review, on the basis of dam-related EIA experience. Nevertheless, this reviewer believes that the authors are basically correct in their diagnosis and prognosis for EIA in dam design and implementation, but would have been more comfortable had the Review's conclusions been justified by more adequate reference to dam experience. Also, the recommendations for EIA practice in the future are good in terms of the general picture, but are weak on specific issues vis à vis dams. They need to be sharpened up and related more specifically to the realities of dam design, decision-making, construction and operation. Specific issues The text needs careful editing to ensure proper cross-references to Boxes/Figures (many do not link to the text). Some of the language is not at all clear e g. Box 2.2. Gabcikovo dam is not in Slovenia. If it is to be allocated to a specific country it should probably be Slovakia. The reference to ICOLD should perhaps be rephrased! The Role of "Independent EIA Review" Independent review can have a significant part to play in ensuring that an EIA is focused and does not omit important matters. The review can be done by stakeholder involvement at key stages (e g. scoping and draft EIA Report) and/or by an expert panel. These can be combined to ensure a greater degree of "quality control". All EIAs for large dams (project-level) should have at least one of these elements in place. Difficulties occur in SEA work (may not be covered by any legislation requiring either of these to be in place), when broad options are being considered, and in dam approval decision-making and implementation of EIA recommendations. In these situations, legislation could be adopted requiring SEAs to be implemented in a manner identical to project-level EIAs and that US-style "Records of Decision" are produced. In the absence of such legislation then ICOLD, WCD and the multi-lateral IFIs should agree on a set of guidelines incorporating best practice to try to ensure the maximum amount of independent review in all assessment processes, and at all stages in the project life-cycle, without infringing accepted government perogatives. Future Work Given that the Review still seems to be at an "initial analysis" stage (e-mail from Jamie Skinner of 14/02/00) it will be possible to improve the input from dam-related experiences by a cost-effective, structured approach. One possibility might be to identify key areas in the dam project life-cycle and identify one/two good and bad examples of EIA practice (focusing on these areas of the cycle), compare them critically, and then draw out lessons for future EIA practice. In this way the recommendations could be justified to all stakeholders as being grounded in specific dam experience. Written case studies exist and can be accessed through the international EIA network (some were mentioned at the IAIA session). An analysis of these studies would involve the need to review the materials and interview key individuals. Perhaps time and budgetary constraints precluded this possible approach in its entirety. If so, an examination of case study material alone would provide useful insights.

Social and Envir Conseg of large Reservoirs.pdf

Documents

Transcript of Social and Envir Conseg of large Reservoirs.pdf