WCD in Historical Context

I would not characterize the situation as a "stalemate", and one that of the objectives a "healing the wounds". Rather there was common acknowledgement of "conflict" and the need for an "independent" and "multi-sided" review of the experience of dams.

I'm uncomfortable with the term "political extremes" which is used several times in relation to WCD membership and process. Better to say "political diversity". What is "extreme" depends on who defines the "centre" - to some, the WCD itself was a compromise too far. I don't think the Commission characterized the positions of the various parties as the "political extremes" - rather there were attempts to clarify areas of differences, as well as the common ground. The language of "extremes" tends to oversimplify what were quite complicated and diverse positions of different actors.

On page 4, my recollection about the work programme was not so much around "those issues around which there was greatest disagreement" , which were clearly not to be avoided, but rather those issues around which the Commissioners agreed there was greater need for scrutiny: decision-making and governance issues. (Refer to Minutes of the 1^st Meeting of the Commission.)

Again, I'm slightly uncomfortable with the repeated use of "representation" in different ways. What was very clear was that none of the Commissioners was "representing" anybody - rather that we each understood the perspectives of the broad constituency we each came from, coupled with being "independent" . Use of the words constituency "inclusion", "presence", "access", "perspectives" capture the sense covered by the word "representation".

Regarding the World Bank's inclusion among the Commissioners: it was always seen that the way forward was for an "independent" commission to have maximum credibility. During the WCD process, I didn't see other constituencies raising inclusion of the World Bank as an issue, but many clearly saw advantages when World Bank and IUCN stepped back from early sponsorship to become similarly members of the Forum.

What clearly requires study is how members of the WCD Forum involved their own institutions/ constituencies in the WCD process, and this includes investigation of the internal World Bank process.

However, with regards acceptance of the Final report, this cannot be simplistically linked to participation/inclusion/influence over the Commission.

The present draft report seems to equate "independence" with "neutrality". The Commissioners were clearly not "neutral", but rather strived to be "open" and "inclusive" and "balanced" in the exercise of its independence. It is my opinion is that had we strived for "neutrality", we would have satisfied no one. However, it is also clear that an "independent" stance could potentially be difficult for some parties.

From the start, the Commission was clear that its report would be its own. Its research products were quite available to all parties. Neither the Commissioners, nor the WCD Forum members received the planned "intermediate products" because of the pressures of time. At the time of the Second Stakeholder Meeting, the WCD Forum members had as much information as the Commissioners. The Commissioners then proceeded with the final negotiation process, largely based on issues discussed during the WCD Forum.

Clearly, there are many areas that can be further studied and lessons learned in relation to time management of open multi-stakeholder processes. One key lesson that always arises is that democratic processes require a lot of time. By the time WCD Forum members became more aware of the results of the work programme, the Final Report was already under negotiation.

The Commission's guidance on "free, prior and informed consent" of indigenous peoples affected by water and energy development is not restricted to a precondition for resettlement, as implied on page 16 of Executive Summary. This recommendation applies to key decisions about water and energy development affecting them.

Following on, in paragraph 2 on page 17, the draft says that industry groups reacted to the "framework of "rights and risks applied to displaced people" , in fact Commission guidance covers all affected and interested parties, and not just those to be displaced.

It is inaccurate to say that " the process was not structured to facilitate direct inter-action among stakeholders" because it was. However, the process was not structured to gain consensus among stakeholders, merely to gain consensus among Commissioners on findings of global review and recommendations. It was a listening commission, but it also facilitated broader debate. Furthermore, there were attempts to gain buy-in of WCD findings during the Second WCD Forum, the Stakeholder Meetings in cases studies, and peer review of thematic papers.

p.51 - Role of civil society in Secretariat selection - not much actually

p. 95 - Mobilisation in Europe - Title of European Conference was "Damned at Home, Damming Abroad"

Congratulations for this fine effort, which required taking many complex dynamics into account. I would have liked more comment on the structural limitations to achieving "broader consensus" and resolving the conflicts surrounding dams, and by extension other controversial issues through multi-stakeholder policy processes. The reactions to the report are to some extent predictable and to be expected, and cannot all be linked to shortcomings and flaws in the WCD process. Not all issues can be resolved through talking and multi-stakeholder processes.

The draft report recognizes that time ran out for the Commission and Secretariat to complete the intermediate products, and to share more broadly with Forum members, prior to negotiating final report. There was every intention to share the intermediate products and have broader debate. After the Second Forum meeting, the Forum members had practically as much information as the Commissioners, but did not have the same chance to debate these findings, and to synthesize them towards formulating conclusions, in exchange with Commissioners. The very tight time crunch at the end of the process was regrettable, and influenced the final report. But the time pressure also helped the Commissioners to come to final consensus.