Posted on January, 21 2004

The Kariba dam on the Zambezi river is one of Africa’s largest dams. With an annual electricity production of 6400 GWh and a 5500 km2 reservoir, there should be plenty of power and water for the surrounding areas. Yet a few kilometres away, the tens of thousands of people displaced by the dam in the late 1950s still have no electricity or adequate water supply. Kariba has provided benefits — but mainly to distant industries and cities.
 
Kariba is not an isolated case. Further downstream in Mozambique, the 2075 MW capacity of the Cahora Bassa dam is in principle sufficient to supply the electricity needs of all of Mozambique. However, 95 per cent of Mozambicans have no access to electricity. Instead, most of the power generated by Cahora Bassa is exported at below market price to South Africa. At the same time, reduced river flow has decimated the once lucrative shrimp fisheries in the Zambezi delta, depriving local fishermen of a valuable income.
 
Similar examples of the negative impacts of dams can be found elsewhere in Africa and Asia, where most of the world’s 1.6 billion people without access to electricity live.

Three years ago, the World Commission on Dams (WCD) found that there are too many cases where an unacceptable and often unnecessary social and environmental price has been paid. The WCD also proposed a new framework for decision-making to ensure that such experience is not repeated in the future. 
 
Some parts of the dam industry have claimed that the WCD is discredited, and criticized WWF's recent efforts to raise awareness about the commission's findings through an advertising campaign in major international publications.

However, the WCD’s strategic priorities have also found widespread support. Countries with large dam programmes such as Brazil, China, and Turkey are participating in the follow-up to the WCD. The UN Dams and Development Project and the World Bank and the International Hydropower Association sit on its steering committee.
 
So did the WCD really make such objectionable recommendations?
 
The WCD suggested that addressing existing dams should be a priority. Looking at the costs of Kariba, few would argue against the need to address the poverty affecting the thousands displaced by the dam. Attempts to do this are now finally underway, almost 45 years after completion of the dam. Clearly, recognising entitlements and sharing the benefits of dams, as called for by the WCD, would avoid such unnecessary suffering and improve the prospects of the dams industry in the future.
 
Sustaining rivers and livelihoods is another strategic priority of the WCD. Dams affect ecosystems and the livelihoods that depend on them, but careful siting and sensitive operational regimes can reduce the impacts. In Zambia, WWF is working with the Ministry of Energy and Water Development and the Zambian Electricity Supply Company (ZESCO) to release environmental flows from Itezhi tezhi dam which will benefit both wildlife and cattle farmers in the Kafue flats wetlands, with little impact on power generation. Similar flows at Cahora Bassa could restore the Zambezi delta and would have huge benefits for birds and shrimp fisheries alike.
 
The WCD also called for comprehensive options assessment of new dam proposals. Hydropower plays an important part in global electricity supply, but it is not always the best option to bring power to those who need it most. Large dams and the associated grid infrastructure are extremely expensive. With a limited ability to raise capital, how can the needs of Mozambique’s poor best be met — by spending in excess of $2 billion to build the Mepanda Uncua dam and export most of the power, or to spend that amount on small-scale renewable energy sources for rural electrification?

These are the kind of questions that need to be asked when planning to meet energy needs. This does not mean that dams cannot be part of the solution, but there needs to be a more balanced assessment of options. Too often practical alternatives to dams are not seriously considered.
 
The WCD approach is essentially one of good planning: with comprehensive needs, options and impact assessment, and public participation. Yet three years after the publication of the WCD report, new developments are still being planned that ignore these recommendations.

One example is the Spanish National Hydrological Plan which is causing huge controversy in Spain, ignoring more sensible alternatives and threatening to damage habitats protected under EU law.
 
A new direction is needed urgently. WWF believes that applying the WCD’s strategic priorities and principles is the way forward. It is not about being anti-dams, but about finding the best solutions to meet global energy and water needs, without compromising the freshwater ecosystems on which we all depend for our survival. 
 
* Dr Ute Collier is Dams Initiative Leader, WWF Living Waters Programme.

Adapted from a response to an editorial published in the International Journal of Hydropower and Dams (issue 4, 2003) which portrayed the WCD as discredited. This repsonse was published in issue 6, 2003 of the journal.