Twelve Reasons to ExcludeLarge Hydro from

Renewables Initiatives

Eradicating poverty and reducing global warmingare two of the biggest challenges facing the worldin the 21st century. The urgent need to addressthese challenges has led to various internationalinitiatives to promote the use of renewable ener-gies. While the overall aim of these initiativesshould be strongly supported, they could be coun-terproductive if – as the large hydro industry isadvocating – they are turned into instruments topromote hydropower megaprojects.

There are three main aims of recent renewableenergy initiatives:

■ To support sustainable development in thedeveloping world and, in particular, to helpmeet the UN’s Millennium Development Goals1

■ To reduce the environmental impact of energyproduction and consumption

■ To enhance energy security

A MAJOR EXPANSION OF LARGE HYDROWILL HARM SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

1. Large hydro does not have the povertyreduction benefits of decentralized renewables

2. Including large hydro in renewablesinitiatives would crowd out funds for newrenewables

3. Promoters of large hydro regularlyunderestimate costs and exaggerate benefits

4. Large hydro will increase vulnerability to climate change

5. There is no technology transfer benefitfrom large hydro

A MAJOR EXPANSION OF LARGE HYDROWILL HARM PEOPLE AND ECOSYSTEMS

6. Large hydro projects have major negativesocial and ecological impacts

7. Efforts to mitigate the impacts of largehydro typically fail

8. Most large hydro developers and funders oppose measures to prevent the constructionof destructive projects

9. Large reservoirs can emit significantamounts of greenhouse gases

A MAJOR EXPANSION OF LARGE HYDROWILL HARM ENERGY SECURITY

10. Large hydro is slow, lumpy, inflexible andgetting more expensive

11. Many countries are already over-dependent on hydropower

12. Large hydro reservoirs are often renderednon-renewable by sedimentation

continued on page 1

Co-published by International Rivers Network and twelve other organizations

IRN would like to thank Oxfam America and Friends of the Earth International

for their financial contributions toward this publication.

Co-published by IRN and the following organizations:

SANDRP

ENERGY WORKING GROUP OF THE BRAZILIAN FORUM OF

NGOS AND SOCIAL MOVEMENT FOR THE ENVIRONMENT

AND DEVELOPMENT

www.riosvivos.org.br

© November 2003 International Rivers Network

As this paper explains, largehydropower projects fail to meet allthree of these criteria. Large hydroalso threatens to capture the bulk ofspecial funds aimed at promotingrenewables, so hindering the spreadof clean and sustainable technologies.It is thus imperative that large hydrobe excluded from any initiatives topromote renewables, in particularfrom the Johannesburg RenewableEnergy Coalition, the “Renewables2004” conference in Bonn, and theKyoto Protocol’s carbon tradingschemes.

Background

The global push forrenewables

The most prominent global initiativesto promote renewables are theJohannesburg Renewable EnergyCoalition (JREC) and an intergovern-mental conference to be held inBonn, Germany in June 2004. JRECwas launched by the EuropeanUnion at the World Summit onSustainable Development (WSSD) inJohannesburg in September 2002. Asof June 2003, almost 80 countrieshad joined the Coalition.

Chancellor Gerhard Schröderannounced at the WSSD thatGermany would host a major confer-ence in 2004 to review internationalprogress on meeting renewables tar-gets. The Bonn “Renewables 2004”conference is billed as “a first majormilestone for reviewing the Coalitionprogress.” Regional preparatorymeetings are planned for Brazil,India, Kenya and Berlin.

Development and environmentbenefits of decentralizedrenewables

Over two billion people in the devel-oping world, mostly in rural areas,have no access to modern energy ser-vices. Eighty percent of sub-SaharanAfricans have no electricity. Access tobasic, clean energy services – includ-ing non-electrical technologies suchas biogas, improved cooking stovesand mini-hydro plants used formechanical power – is essential forpoverty eradication. These servicescan also provide major health and lit-eracy benefits. At the same time, theworld faces a climatic catastrophe ifpresent fossil fuel consumptiontrends continue.

Fortunately there are a raft of new renewable technologies (seebox) which can provide clean,appropriate and efficient energy to the world’s poorest, helping toeradicate poverty without costingthe earth. Realizing the potential ofthese “new renewables” is vital if weare to achieve the UN’s MillenniumDevelopment Goals of halvingextreme poverty and hunger by 2015 and reversing environmentaldegradation.

Lobbying for large hydro

At the WSSD, governments withmajor hydropower developmentplans pushed hard to have largehydro recognized as renewable. Theysucceeded in inserting the wording“renewable energy technologies,hydro included” into a sentence onenergy diversification in the summit’sPlan of Implementation.2 The largehydro industry repeatedly stressesthat the WSSD wording does not

1

Twelve Reasons to Exclude Large Hydro from Renewables Initiatives

New RenewablesCitizens United for Renewable Energy and Sustainability (CURES), an internation-al NGO network formed in October 2003 in preparation for the “Renewables2004” conference, defines new renewables as including: “modern biomass,WCD-compliant small (up to 10MW) hydro (mechanical as well as electric),geothermal, wind, all solar, tidal, wave and other marine energy. Modernbiomass includes improved use of traditional biomass such as ‘smokeless’ effi-cient cookstoves as well as electricity generation, heat production and liquidfuels from carbon neutral and low input, sustainable sources of biomass.”

Source: www.ee-netz.de/cures.html

Rural Kenyan woman holding her new PV panel.

Phot

o: S

hann

on G

raha

m

differentiate between large and smallhydro – although this distinction isusual in discussion of renewableenergies. The InternationalHydropower Association, the WorldBank, and other promoters of largehydro are now using the WSSDwording to lobby for large hydro tobenefit from renewables initiatives.3

Small vs large hydro

Every hydro plant is unique in itsdesign, location and impacts. Whilethere is no directly proportional rela-tionship between the installed capaci-ty of a hydro plant and its impacts, ingeneral one can expect higherimpacts as the size of the projectincreases.

Small hydro can, if responsiblyimplemented, be environmentallyand socially low-impact and providemany of the benefits of new renew-ables, in particular providing powerand related development benefits todispersed rural communities.

If badly implemented, however,without regard to community needsor its impacts on rivers and streams,small hydro can replicate many of thenegative consequences of largerschemes. The cumulative impacts ofmultiple small hydro schemes on

small watersheds are of particularconcern. It is thus imperative thatsmall hydro schemes be carefullyevaluated on a case-by-case basis.

The site-specific nature of hydromeans that it has been difficult toreach international agreement on asize limit for small hydro. Accordingto the International Association forSmall Hydro, however, a limit of upto 10MW capacity “is becoming gen-erally accepted.” The European SmallHydro Association and the

International Energy Agency’sRenewable Energy Working Partyalso define small hydro as less than10MW. It is therefore logical to usethis upper limit of 10MW in efforts topromote renewables. To ensure thatsmall hydro projects have low impactsand meet community priorities it isimperative that all small hydroschemes are planned, built and oper-ated in line with the recommenda-tions of the World Bank/IUCN-spon-sored World Commission on Dams.

2

Twelve Reasons to Exclude Large Hydro from Renewables Initiatives

A Note on Global Dam StatisticsNo estimates have been done for the cumulative impacts of the world’s largehydro projects, although estimates are available for the global impacts of theworld’s large dams. While large and small hydro are defined according totheir generating capacity, large and small dams are defined according to theirphysical size. The key criterion for a large dam is that it is at least 15 metershigh. The great majority of large hydro plants include a large dam – but thegreat majority of large dams were built for purposes other than electricitygeneration so are not hydro projects.

According to dam-industry statistics used by the World Commission onDams, around 5,300 (11%) of the world’s 48,000 large dams were built solelyfor hydropower. A further 13,300 (28%) were built for more than one func-tion. Many of these multipurpose dams, especially the larger ones, have ahydropower function although the exact percentage has not been calculated.Hydropower is almost always a component of the biggest dams that have dis-placed the most people and have the greatest environmental impacts.

A major expansion oflarge hydro will harmsustainable development

1Large hydro does not have the povertyreduction benefits of

decentralized renewables

The UN Commission on SustainableDevelopment has identified access tosustainable energy services as anessential element of sustainabledevelopment. The Commission statesthat to implement the UN’sMillennium Development Goal ofhalving by 2015 the proportion ofpeople living on less than a dollar perday, “access to affordable energy ser-vices is a prerequisite.”

Among the major benefits ofrenewables such as wind, solar, bio-gas and smaller hydro plants is theycan be built as “distributed power” –small, geographically dispersed unitsof capacity that are built close to theend user. This minimizes transmis-sion costs and power losses and gridreliability concerns and spreads outthe local economic development ben-efits of project construction andaccess to power. Distributed powerenables new capacity to be addedincrementally in step with risingdemand, has lower capital investmentrequirements and is quicker to buildthan big, centralized projects.

These distributed benefits, as wellas the ability of new renewables andsmall hydro to use locally availableresources, mean they are often thebest option for providing power tothe low-income, dispersed popula-tions of rural areas in developingcountries. Four-fifths of the two bil-lion people without access to electric-ity and other modern energy serviceslive in these areas.

The nature of large hydro – capi-tal-intensive, slow to build, central-ized, dependent on large centers ofdemand and long, expensive andoften inefficient transmission lines –means it is particularly inappropriatefor meeting the needs of theunserved and rural areas.

In many low-income countries,especially in Africa, power ministries,supported by foreign donors, havedevoted large proportions of govern-ment budgets, aid funds and institu-tional resources and attention tobuilding and managing large hydroprojects. Meanwhile, distributionnetworks have been starved of invest-ment. Around 4% of the land area ofGhana is flooded under the world’smost extensive reservoir – yet 70% ofGhanaians have no access to electric-ity. The world’s second largest reser-voir by volume, Kariba, is shared byZambia and Zimbabwe. Yet only afifth of Zambians and a quarter ofZimbabweans have electricity.Paraguay owns half of the world’smost powerful hydropower plant,Itaipú, yet almost half of Paraguayanshave no electricity.

Because of their massive costs,huge hydro projects have entrenchedcorruption among elites in hydro-dependent countries and in manycases, especially in Latin America,are responsible for a major propor-tion of these countries’ foreign debt.In all but the largest developingcountries, the planning and imple-mentation of large hydro projectsare dominated by foreign consul-tants and contractors. The low-income majorities in these coun-tries see few if any benefits fromlarge hydro projects.

2Including large hydro in renewables initiativeswould crowd out funds

for new renewables

Large hydro plants are among themost expensive infrastructure pro-jects on the planet, with major pro-jects costing in the billions and eventens of billions of dollars. Includingsubsidies for large hydro in renew-ables schemes could thus consumethe lion’s share of funds available topromote renewables.

The project pipeline for the KyotoProtocol’s Clean DevelopmentMechanism illustrates how largehydros could capture the bulk offunds available to promote renew-ables. A single hydro project inMozambique, the 1,300MWMphanda Nkuwa dam, is proposingto sell seven million tonnes of carboncredits per year under the CDM.4

Over 21 years (the maximum periodover which supposed emission reduc-tions can be claimed) MphandaNkuwa would generate 147 millioncredits.

3

Twelve Reasons to Exclude Large Hydro from Renewables Initiatives

Twelve Reasons to Exclude Large Hydro from Renewables Initiatives

Thailand’s Pak Mun Dam has harmed the liveli-hoods of thousands of fishing families.

At current carbon prices of $3-5/tonne, Mphanda Nkuwa over 21 years would absorb $441-735 mil-lion of funds available to buy emis-sion reduction credits. By compari-son the World Bank’s PrototypeCarbon Fund, the largest single insti-tutional purchaser of carbon credits,has a maximum of $180 million tofund carbon purchases.

The 24 new renewables projects inthe process of applying for creditsunder the CDM would together gen-erate 17 million credits over 21 years.Extrapolating from the average sizeof these renewables projects impliesthat the Mphanda Nkuwa dam alonewould consume credits which couldotherwise support 206 new renew-ables projects.

3Promoters of large hydro regularlyunderestimate costs

and exaggerate benefits

The consistent underestimation ofcosts and exaggeration of benefits oflarge hydro projects makes economi-cally unviable projects appear viable,and gives an unfair advantage to largehydro when its viability is being com-pared to that of other generationoptions.

World Bank research published in1996 found that inflation-adjustedcost overruns on 66 hydropower pro-jects funded by the Bank since the1960s averaged 27%. This compareswith average cost overruns on WorldBank thermal power projects of 6%and on a sample of over 2,000 devel-opment projects of all types of 11%.5

Multipurpose projects, many ofwhich include hydro components,appear to have even greater overrunsthan single purpose hydro projects:the World Commission on Damsfound an average overrun of 63% on45 multipurpose large dams studied.There is no indication that the indus-try’s ability to estimate costs is gettingany better – the most recent of thedams studied in detail by the WCD,Thailand’s Pak Mun large hydro pro-ject commissioned in 1994, had a68% overrun.

The numbers of people requiringresettlement or compensation for lostlands, homes, jobs and sources oflivelihood have also been regularlyunderestimated. An internal WorldBank review, published in 1994,looked at a group of projects thataccording to planning documentswould cause the displacement of 1.34million people (63% of them bydams). The review estimated that theactual number evicted was almosttwo million.6

The World Bank’s 1994 resettle-ment review and the WCD’s find-ings show a consistent pattern ofexcluding important groups of peo-ple from estimates of project socialcosts. The numbers of these uncom-pensated affected groups can begreater than those officially countedas “affected.” The WCD states thatmany of the complex negativesocial impacts of dams “are – eventoday – often not acknowledged orconsidered in the planning processand may remain unrecognized dur-ing project operations.”

4

Twelve Reasons to Exclude Large Hydro from Renewables Initiatives

Resettlement site for Sardar Sarovar Dam, India.

Phot

o: P

atri

ck M

cCul

ly

While costs of all types are com-monly far higher than predicted,benefits have been shown to belower. Of the 63 large dams with ahydropower component reviewed bythe WCD, 35 generated less powerthan predicted. Of the dams that mettheir generation targets, a quarterwere only able to do so at the cost ofincreasing their originally plannedinstalled capacity. (The WCD’s fig-ures are likely to give a conservativeestimate of dam underperformanceas the majority of data used in itsanalyses came from dam operatorsand were not independently veri-fied).

The WCD analyzed project evalu-ation reports carried out by the mul-tilateral development banks. Of 20large hydro dams evaluated, 11 failedto meet their economic targets. Nineof the 20 had an economic internalrate of return (EIRR) under 10%.Infrastructure projects in developingcountries are usually only judgedacceptable if they have an EIRRexceeding 10-12%. The WCD foundthat multipurpose projects tend tofall even further behind their eco-nomic targets than single purposeprojects.

Development bank evaluations are undertaken at project completionor just a few years afterwards. Theythus incorporate the effects of costoverruns and initial operating results,but not the long-term underperfor-mance that the WCD has identified.They are also likely to reflect theinherent biases of self-evaluations.Furthermore, the evaluations ignoremany of the negative social and envi-ronmental impacts of the projects.

Large hydro promoters argue thattheir projects would look moreattractive to investors and society ingeneral if the non-hydro functions ofreservoirs were included in projectassessments. Yet as the WCD hasshown, multipurpose projects showeven worse economic performancethan projects built only forhydropower. One reason is conflictsbetween the different purposes ofthe project (for example betweenneeding to store water for irrigation,but release it for power generation).Another reason is the extremely poortechnical and economic performanceof large dam-based irrigation andwater supply schemes.7

Operators of multipurpose pro-jects rarely capture any revenue fromflood control benefits they might pro-vide to communities downstream.However they are also invariablyimmune from paying the costs of theincreased flood damages that damsregularly cause due to reasonsincluding misoperation and theinability to hold back extremely largefloods.

The rapid development of newrenewables means they are nowfrequently a better option forpower generation than large hydro.Similarly, changing technologiesand attitudes mean that alternativesto large dams are now frequentlythe best options for irrigation,water storage and supply, and flood management.

4Large hydro will increasevulnerability to climatechange

The urgent need to lessen the vul-nerability of societies to a changingclimate is now receiving increasingattention from governments andinternational agencies. It is likely thatthe most serious consequence ofglobal warming for human societywill not be hotter weather, but thechanges in rain and snowfall patternsthat a warmer world will bring. Weare already experiencing an unprece-dented number and intensity ofextreme floods and droughts andthere is little doubt that much worseis on the way.

Large hydro plants are built on theassumption that past hydrologicalregimes can be used to accuratelypredict future power production andthe size of floods that could threatendam safety. This has always been adubious assumption – the main rea-son hydro plants regularly underper-form is that developers have failed toproperly allow for droughts in theirpower projections – but it is nowclearly invalid. The future will bringextremes of drought and flood out-side the historical record, continuallyworsening as the climate warms, andextremely difficult to predict.

Large hydro developers do notcurrently take climate change intoaccount in their plans. If they were todo so, dams would have to havemuch greater capacities to safely passhigh floods, and projections of powergeneration would have to allow forthe probability of new extremes ofdrought. These factors wouldincrease the costs and reduce expect-ed benefits from hydro, thus reduc-ing their expected economic viability.

5

Twelve Reasons to Exclude Large Hydro from Renewables Initiatives

Droughts bring much economicand social hardship, especially topoor countries that are heavilydependent on agriculture. Hydrodependency means that droughts alsocause power shortages at a timewhen agriculture-based economiesare already likely to be suffering foodshortages and lower export earnings.Building more large hydro will onlymake it more difficult to adapt to achanging climate.

5There is no technologytransfer benefit fromlarge hydro

A key argument for global renewablefunds and carbon trading mecha-nisms is that these can promote thetransfer of new and improved tech-nologies from North to South. Thisargument does not apply to largehydro as the technology is alreadywell established in Southern coun-tries and there have been no signifi-cant technological advances in recentdecades and none are expected.

Promoters of renewables alsoargue that government support isneeded to help scale up productionand bring down the unit costs of newtechnologies. This also does not applyto large hydro, which was already amature technology in the first half ofthe 20th century.

A major expansion oflarge hydro will harmpeople and ecosystems

6Large hydro projects havemajor negative social andecological impacts

According to the World Commissionon Dams, the benefits derived fromdams “have been considerable.” Yet“in too many cases an unacceptableand often unnecessary price has beenpaid to secure these benefits, espe-cially in social and environmentalterms, by people displaced, by com-munities downstream, by taxpayersand by the natural environment.”The WCD calculated that this “unac-ceptable” price includes:

■ Forty to eighty million peopleforcibly evicted from their homesto make way for the world’s 48,000large dams.

■ Many of the displaced received noform of compensation and “wherecompensation was provided it wasoften inadequate,” so that “thosewho were resettled rarely hadtheir livelihoods restored.”

■ The number who have lost land,livelihoods and access to naturalresources, and who have sufferedill-health because of downstreamand other indirect impacts of damsis unknown, but certainly in themillions.

■ “Indigenous and tribal peoples andvulnerable ethnic minorities havesuffered disproportionate levels ofdisplacement and negative impactson livelihood, culture and spiritualexistence,” the WCD notes.Women have “frequently borne adisproportionate share of thesocial costs and were often dis-criminated against in the share ofbenefits.”

6

Twelve Reasons to Exclude Large Hydro from Renewables Initiatives

Houses submerged by Sardar Sarovar reservoir, India.

Phot

o: N

arm

ada

Bac

hao

And

olan

■ Sixty percent of the length of theworld’s large river systems is highlyor moderately fragmented bydams, inter-basin transfers andwater withdrawals for irrigation.This massive alteration of theworld’s riverine habitats is a majorreason for the rapid loss of fresh-water biodiversity. Up to 35% offreshwater fishes are estimated tobe extinct, endangered or vulnera-ble. A significant but unknownshare of shellfish, amphibians,plants and birds that depend onfreshwater habitats are also at risk.

■ Reservoirs flood forests and otherterrestrial and riverine ecosystemsincluding irreplaceable habitats forendangered species. Dams “alterthe natural distribution and timingof streamflow” thus compromising“the dynamic aspects of rivers thatare fundamental to maintainingthe character of aquatic ecosys-tems;” block sediment flows, lead-ing to the erosion of downstreamriver channels and coastlines;block species’ migrations; andreduce the productivity of down-stream riparian areas, floodplainsand deltas.

7Efforts to mitigate theimpacts of large hydrotypically fail

According to the WCD, even wherethe impacts of dams are acknowl-edged by developers and mitigationplans put in place, these plans “typi-cally fail to address adequately theproblems caused by the decision tobuild a large dam.” The WCD notesthat even where compensation is pro-vided it often proves inadequate andthat even when people are recog-nized as eligible for resettlement theyrarely have their livelihoods restored.The WCD also found that:

“There is a clear relationshipbetween the magnitude of dis-placement and the ability torehabilitate and restore liveli-hoods adequately – the largerthe number of displaced people,the less likely it is that liveli-hoods can be restored.”The WCD found a similar record

on the mitigation of the ecosystemimpacts of large dams; many impactsgo unacknowledged or underesti-mated, and measures to prevent orreduce impacts that are predictedfrequently fail.

8Most large hydrodevelopers and fundersoppose measures to

prevent the construction ofdestructive projects

The WCD has developed criteria forwater and energy planning processes,which could prevent destructivehydropower projects from beingbuilt, encourage the implementationof better alternatives, and reduce theimpacts of existing projects. Sinceimplementing the WCD recommen-dations would mean building fewerdams, many hydro proponents havestrongly attacked the credibility ofthe WCD and lobbied to prevent theapplication of its recommendations.

The World Bank’s response to theWCD has been especially controver-sial. While some Bank officials havebroadly endorsed the report, othershave actively encouraged govern-ments and other lenders to oppose it.The Bank’s latest water strategy,released in February 2003, announcesthat the World Bank will reverse thedecline in its funding for large hydroprojects, yet it rejects calls to incorpo-rate the WCD’s recommendationsinto its binding policies.

Until the WCD issued itsNovember 2000 report, the main setof international norms on social andenvironmental aspects of dam con-struction were contained in theWorld Bank’s “safeguard policies.”Efforts to pressure the World Bankinto applying these policies havecaused a drop in the number of largehydros funded by the Bank in recentyears. Yet the safeguard policies, asnoted by the WCD, are insufficientin their content and application toprevent major problems with theWorld Bank’s projects. However notonly is the Bank refusing to use theWCD’s recommendations tostrengthen the safeguard policies, itis actually seeking to weaken the con-tent and application of the policies.

The Bank’s desire to dilute its ownpolicies is being encouraged by thelarge hydro industry. The US Hydro-power Council for InternationalDevelopment recently called for thesafeguard policies to be weakened sothat hydropower builders no longerneed to undertake “lengthy andexpensive environmental studies andmitigation.”8

Unless the WCD’s recommen-dations are followed by the WorldBank and other dam funders andbuilders there is no reason toexpect future large hydros to be anyless damaging and underperformingthan those of the past.

7

Twelve Reasons to Exclude Large Hydro from Renewables Initiatives

9Large reservoirs can emitsignificant amounts ofgreenhouse gases

Scientists have studied more than 30reservoirs, and found emissions at allof them. In tropical countries, severalof the hydropower plants studiedappear to have a much greaterimpact on global warming than natu-ral gas plants generating equivalentamounts of electricity. The globalwarming impact of hydropower out-side the tropics appears to be signifi-cantly lower than that of fossil fuel-generated electricity, but not negligi-ble as has commonly been assumed.

Reservoirs emit greenhouse gasesdue to the rotting of organic matter –the vegetation and soils flooded whenthe reservoir is created, the plantsthat grow in the reservoir, and thedetritus that flows into the reservoirfrom upstream. Gases are emittedfrom the reservoir itself and whenwater is discharged through turbinesand spillways.

Gross hydropower emissions arethose directly due to the reservoirsurface and dam. But the actualimpact of a dam on the global cli-mate depends on net emissions.These are calculated by factoring inpre-existing sources and sinks ofgreenhouse gases in the watershed.

The science of quantifying reser-voir emissions is still young and thesubject of much debate. Controversiesinclude the best methods for measur-ing emissions from the reservoir, howto measure the impact of the dam oncarbon sources and sinks throughoutthe watershed, and how to comparehydropower emissions with thosefrom fossil fuels.9

A major expansion of large hydro will harm energy security

10Large hydro is slow, lumpy, inflexible and

getting more expensive

Large hydro projects take muchlonger to build than other types ofpower plants. The reasons includetheir huge scale, the fact that everydam site is unique and thus involvesspecific design challenges, and theopposition they invariably provoke.Large hydro also usually takes muchlonger to build than feasibility stud-ies estimate. Forty-nine hydro pro-jects reviewed in a World Bankstudy published in 1990 took anaverage of five years and eightmonths to build – 14 months longerthan the average pre-constructionestimate. Wind turbines and solarpanels, by comparison, can startdelivering benefits – and repayingloans – within months of enteringconstruction.

Including the planning phase ofhydro projects would widen this tim-ing gulf with other power technolo-gies even further. The decision tobuild the Bujagali dam was taken bythe Ugandan government in 1994,yet after nearly a decade of planningand tens of millions of dollars spent ithas still not entered construction.The Nam Theun 2 dam in Laos hasbeen promoted by the World Banksince 1989, and again despite vol-umes of studies and a huge expendi-ture of human and financialresources the project has beenunable to move forward. Both pro-jects are promoted by the WorldBank as models of good hydropowerplanning.

8

Twelve Reasons to Exclude Large Hydro from Renewables InitiativesPh

oto:

Bill

Pot

ting

er

Large hydros also contrast sharplywith new renewables in terms ofwhat power planners refer to as“lumpiness.” Large hydro plants bydefinition add large increments ofcapacity to grids when completed, aparticular problem for grids with rel-atively small loads as is common inmany developing countries. Ifdemand exists for a sudden additionof new capacity this likely means thatserious power shortages will haveexisted before the hydro was com-pleted – if the shortages did not existit will likely mean that the dam’s fullgeneration is not needed when itcomes on line, tying up investment ina non-productive plant.

World Bank studies show thatdemand growth is typically overesti-mated by power planners, especiallyover the long time periods it takes tobuild a large hydro project. Largehydros have thus frequently resultedin overcapacity on grids. It is prefer-able in economic and power plan-ning terms to add capacity in smallincrements, which are easier tomatch with rising demand.

Another contrast with the benefitsof the new renewables is the inflexi-bility of where large hydro plants canbe sited. Many of the most technical-ly feasible large hydro sites are inremote areas far from the mainsources of power demand, meaninghuge expenditures are required forlong transmission lines (which alsoresult in considerable power losses).

Large hydropower is also sufferingfrom the problem of “site depletion”– the “best” dam sites have generallyalready been developed over the pastcentury of large hydro construction.Unlike the new renewables, whoseunit costs are fast declining, largehydro appears to be rapidly increasingin cost. The World Bank’s 1990 studyof hydropower economics found thatconstant dollar costs of hydroelectricfacilities were increasing at 3.5-4%per year.10 The study concluded thatsite depletion was the main reason forthis inflationary trend.

11Many countries are already over-dependent

on hydropower

Worldwide, large hydro contributes10% or more of total generation in113 countries. It contributes at least20% of generation in 91 countriesand more than half of total electricitysupply in 63 countries. Almost all ofthese 63 countries are in the globalSouth and ex-Soviet Union. Evenwith our existing climate, many of thehydro-dependent countries arealready experiencing energy short-ages when drought strikes. Yet also itis in the already hydro-dependentcountries where the bulk of newlarge hydro capacity is planned.

Countries that have suffereddrought-induced blackouts and ener-gy rationing in recent years includeAlbania, Brazil, Chile, Colombia,Ecuador, Ghana, Guatemala, India,Kenya, Peru, Sri Lanka, Tajikistan,Thailand, Vietnam, Zambia andZimbabwe. Norway, New Zealandand parts of the US are also experi-encing power supply problems due tolow hydro reservoir levels.

The WSSD’s call for countries toincrease their energy diversificationand security will best be met throughdemand-side management and rapid-ly increasing the use of new renew-ables from their currently small pro-portion of total supplies.

Targets for increasing the propor-tion of electricity generated fromrenewables are typically set at levelsof 10-20% of total generation fromrenewables over the next decade orso. Yet for many countries thealready high proportion of theirgeneration from large hydro makesit nonsensical to include large hydroin their renewables targets.

9

Twelve Reasons to Exclude Large Hydro from Renewables Initiatives

12Large hydroreservoirs are oftenrendered non-

renewable by sedimentation

The World Energy Council definesrenewables as “forms of energy whichare not exhausted by use.” The reser-voirs used by large hydro plants fre-quently are “exhausted by use” due tothe loss of storage capacity to sedi-ments. The World Bank has calculat-ed that every year some 0.5-1% ofglobal reservoir capacity is lost to sedi-mentation (meaning that 240-480 newlarge dams would have to be complet-ed every year just to maintain globalreservoir capacity). An increasing vol-ume of sediments in its reservoir willeventually seriously impede or endthe ability of a hydroplant to operate.

The great majority of annual sedi-ment loads are typically carried dur-ing flood periods. The higher intensi-ty and frequency of floods due toglobal warming are therefore likely toincrease sedimentation rates andexacerbate their already difficult-to-predict nature. Changes in watershedvegetation due to the changing cli-mate will further complicate effortsto predict future sedimentation rates.

Techniques are available to reducethe rate of reservoir sedimentationand to remove sediments that havealready settled in reservoirs. Thesetechniques, however, have seriouslimitations for reasons including thatthey only work for specific reservoirtypes, they are prohibitively expen-sive, and they reduce the dam’s abili-ty to generate power.

Large hydro should also not beconsidered sustainable due to its irre-versible impacts, in particular theextinction of species, and destructionof ecosystems and human cultures.(Some of the impacts of large hydro,for example the blocking of fishmigrations and trapping of sediment,can be considered reversible if thedams are to be decommissioned).

10

Twelve Reasons to Exclude Large Hydro from Renewables Initiatives

Notes1 See www.developmentgoals.org.2 Para 19 (e): “Diversify energy supply by developing advanced, cleaner, moreefficient, affordable and cost-effective energy technologies, including fossilfuel technologies and renewable energy technologies, hydro included . . .”3 See e.g., World Bank (2003) Water Resources Sector Strategy, pp. 4, 17, 22.4 See CDM Investment Newsletter, No. 1-2, 2003, p. 9.5 Bacon, R.W., et al. (1996) “Estimating Construction Costs and Schedules,”World Bank Technical Paper No. 325, p. 29. Average overruns would haveexceeded 27% if four “outlier” dam projects with exceptionally large overrunshad been included. See also WCD (2000) Dams and Development: A NewFramework for Decision-Making, p. 41.6 World Bank (1994) Resettlement and Development: The Bankwide Review ofProjects Involving Involuntary Resettlement 1986-1993, p. 2.7 See e.g., WCD (2000), pp. 42-49, 56-58.8 Stone, D. (2002) “Untapped Resources,” Electric Perspectives.9 Canadian researchers estimate gross emissions from hydropower (withoutconsidering turbine and spillway releases) to average 10-200 grams of CO2-equivalent per kilowatt-hour generated in Canada; and 200-3,000 gCO2-eq/kWh in the tropics. By comparison a modern coal plant releases around1,000 gCO2-eq/kWh. See Duchemin, E. et al. (2002) “HydroelectricReservoirs as an Anthropogenic Source of Greenhouse Gases,” WorldResource Review, Vol. 14, No. 3, p. 334. Also see WCD (2000) DamReservoirs and Greenhouse Gases: Report on the Workshop held on February24 & 25. Hydro-Quebec, Montreal. Final Minutes.10 Morrow, E.W. and Shangraw, Jr., R.F. (1990) Understanding the Costs andSchedules of World Bank Supported Hydroelectric Projects. World BankIndustry and Energy Department, p. 22.

Sources

“Renewables 2004” conference: www.renewables2004.de

Johannesburg Renewable Energy Coalition:forum.europa.eu.int/Public/irc/env/ctf/home

International Association for Small Hydro: www.iash.info

European Small Hydro Association: www.esha.be

World Commission on Dams: www.dams.org

United Nations Environment Programme Dams and Development Project:www.unep-dams.org

Citizens United for Renewable Energy and Sustainability:www.ee-netz.de/cures.html

11

12

For more information

International Rivers Network1847 Berkeley WayBerkeley, CA 94703USAwww.irn.org

Campaign to Reform the World Bank, ItalyProgramma di Mani TeseVia Tommaso da Celano 1500179 RomeItalywww.crbm.org

CDM WatchJl Hayam Wuruk 179Denpasar 80235Bali, Indonesia www.cdmwatch.org

CEE Bankwatch NetworkKratka 26Praha 10 100 00 Czech Republicwww.bankwatch.org

Energy Working Group of the Brazilian Forum of NGOs and Social Movements for the Environment and DevelopmentEmail: energia@riosvivos.org.br

European Rivers Network8 Rue Crozatier43000 Le PuySouthern Francewww.rivernet.org/ern.htm

Friends of the Earth InternationalP.O. Box 191991000 GD AmsterdamThe Netherlandswww.foei.org

Intermediate Technology Development Group (ITDG)The Schumacher Centre for Technology & DevelopmentBourton HallBourton-on-DunsmoreRugby CV23 9QZUnited Kingdomwww.itdg.org

Network for Advocacy on Water Issues in SouthernAfrica (NAWISA)P.O. Box 18977Wynberg 7824South Africawww.emg.org.za/pages/WaterNawisa.htm

Oxfam America1112 16th Street NW, Suite 600Washington, DC 20036USAwww.oxfamamerica.org

Rios Vivos CoalitionRua Carlos Trein Filho, 13Porto Alegre – RSBrazilwww.riosvivos.org.br

Rivers Watch East and Southeast Asia (RWESA)c/o Cordillera People’s Alliance P.O. Box 9752600 Baguio CityThe Philippineswww.rwesa.org

South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers and People (SANDRP)53B, AD BlockShalimar BaghDelhi 110 088 Indiawww.narmada.org/sandrp

Prin

ted

on r

ecyc

led

pape

r.

A MAJOR EXPANSION OF LARGE HYDRO WILL HARM SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

1. Large hydro does not have the poverty reduction benefits of decentralized renewables 2. Including large hydro in renewables initiatives would crowd out funds for new renewables3. Promoters of large hydro regularly underestimate costs and exaggerate benefits4. Large hydro will increase vulnerability to climate change5. There is no technology transfer benefit from large hydro

A MAJOR EXPANSION OF LARGE HYDRO WILL HARM PEOPLE AND ECOSYSTEMS

6. Large hydro projects have major negative social and ecological impacts7. Efforts to mitigate the impacts of large hydro typically fail8. Most large hydro developers and funders oppose measures to prevent the construction of

destructive projects9. Large reservoirs can emit significant amounts of greenhouse gases

A MAJOR EXPANSION OF LARGE HYDRO WILL HARM ENERGY SECURITY

10. Large hydro is slow, lumpy, inflexible and getting more expensive 11. Many countries are already over-dependent on hydropower12. Large hydro reservoirs are often rendered non-renewable by sedimentation

Co-published by IRN and the following organizations:

SANDRP

ENERGY WORKING GROUP OF THE BRAZILIAN FORUM OF

NGOS AND SOCIAL MOVEMENT FOR THE ENVIRONMENT

AND DEVELOPMENT

www.riosvivos.org.br

Twelve Reasons to Exclude Large Hydro from Renewables Initiatives