Page 2

Para

The historical…..arenas

This para does not reflect a neutral Independent Assessment. The main argument on the very constitution of the WCD Commissioners stemmed out of the fact that it was not having any balance! There were more "anti-dam" lobbyists than "pro-dam" one. "Dams Debate" could have been identified as a ripe one at the time of World Commission on Dam's constitution. But the debate was not undertaken in a balanced way and reflected ultimately the views of the Group of "anti-dam" lobbyists relegating positive aspects in totality.

After-all the fact remains that main activity of "dam building" in the current decades are in a few countries like India, China, Turkey and other developing / under-developed nations. A bold WCD process initiation should have aimed at a proper consultation with National Governments such as India who are the major Dam Builders. This was not done and the initial process was itself flawed. Not only this, the inclusion of two Commissioners from India both of whom were well known for their leanings for 'anti-dam' is somewhat surprising as any final outcome from such skewed constitution would necessarily be biased; Ms. Medha Phadkar, Commissioner chosen from India had filed a writ in Supreme Court at the time of the WCD process initiation.

The deliberate non-consultation with Governments, like India in choosing a participant from their country who had adequate expertise of the issues could not be brushed aside as without motives. The knowledge of India in terms of its rich experience on 'Dams' which the Government of India could have provided to the rest of the world would have yielded better contribution to the 'knowledge-Base' of WCD. As it is, the 'knowledge-Base' (sic) is flawed.

Para 2

WCD was formed …. ….directed primarily at the World Bank.

The WCD was formed, apparently not only directing primarily at funding agencies but also against developing Nations like India & China who are the primary Dam builders. The net impact of their programme of Dam building, if allowed unimpeded, could challenge the advantageous position that the advanced nations enjoy after developing all their exploitable water resources (in some cases even more than their need). One should not forget the timing of the entire activism, getting their inspiration from areas which had exploited every bit of their water in all conceivable manner.

The WCD's initial attempt to bring the drama of so called hearing close to the scene of act is a typical pointer in this regard. Was it to impress & prevail upon the judiciary in India which was in the process of hearing on Sardar Sarovar Project? The two WCD Commissioner were too much committed negatively on this Project which was well known. Was it shear exhaustion that a mechanism of exerting pressure from outside, using the Global placard and inspiration from Resources from Rich Nations? Perhaps the constitution of WCD at Gland was conceived as a tool to further these ulterior motives.

Para 3 & Para 4

2^nd para

Last sentence on selection / background of Commissioners and MSPs

The formation of World Commission of Dams(WCD)

Box 2 in Executive Summary

WCD could not have done a better drama than it did in the process of 'Stakeholders' involvement! Not only did it choose, for its consultation, a majority of 'anti-dam' lobbyists but also it sidelined the 'pro-Dam' lobby, if one may call so. A typical example is relevant to demonstrate this point!

For the 'Stakeholders' meet' at Madras and later 'Delhi' where WCD floated their consultants' versipon of 'India Country Report' for discussions in February and March 2000, the participants and even floor-management was skewed. While hardly 3 speakers dealt with the positive impacts on Dams the 'pick and choose' invitees numbering over two dozen spoke on 'anti-dam- chore in Chennai meeting. The 'multi-stakeholder process'(MSP) was made a farce. Had WCD been genuine in having a real dialogue the process should have been chalked in an unbiased manner giving time and opportunity to

1. peruse their draft by all concerned agencies devoting their energy on 'Dam Model of Development'
2. Participate and express adequately in the Stakeholders' meetings-

WCD had no fund constraint, if one looks at the liberal support it had for a limited period of operation of say 2 years. (some of the professional Organisations like ICOLD & ICID had not spent a sum of the order of WCD's in 2years, even in several decades). The process was manipulated to restrict participation of 'Pro-Dam Advocates' and the brief sessions in a single day the with floor management procedure adopted yielded the pre-conceived results These results are not a consensus decision of all Stakeholders;

This has linkage with the last para of the previous one of WCD- Historic Context. The word 'both sides’ presumably means Financiers & Dam opponents. In fact the role of Financiers in supporting Dam activity in countries like India is insignificant. In the 3^rd para, the independent review follows self proclaimed WCD's own line of thinking in detailing the process. That the World Bank & IUCN could open up in a meeting of Stakeholders of political extremes in the dam debate is just by citation of ICOLD, one of the participants as dam builders’ association. This is totally wrong. ICOLD is a professional body that disseminate knowledge on Dam related activities and do not build dams themselves. And inclusion of one of the past-president of ICOLD as one of the Commissioners of the WCD exercise, when the ICOLD President(s) during the tenure of WCD themselves have declared in writing (as well as orally during 2^nd Forum meeting of WCD) as to how they differ in the opinion or approach of WCD process, does not truly signify that the dam debate was well handled. The WCD exercise was a sheer mockery of any 'balanced' approach when the real investors, viz. Governments of major Dam building Nations were not invited to be active participants and the choice of Commissioners was not based on due consultations with them.

The Independent Review's Executive Summary would be inadequate if these facts are not properly brought out to provide the semblance of neutrality.

Box 2 reflect the Commissioners who handled the WCD tasks, using World Bank & IUCN financial support. Let us see the division of their leanings so as to see if there was any balance of fair play or the 'level-playing ground'.

Anti Dam

Pro-dam(?)

Mr. L.C.Jain - India Ms Judy Henderson - Australia
Mr. Thayer Scudder - US
Mr. Joji Carino - Phillipines
Ms .Medha Phatkar - India
Ms.Deborah Moore - US
Mr. Achim Steiner - Germany

Goran Lindahal - Sweden Donald Blackmore - Australia
Jose Goldemberg Brazil
Jan Veltrop - USA (ICOLD )

Page 5,6

Findings and recommendations

The quality of the recommendation has been brought out in this analysis indicates that the only flaw had been the choice of Commissioners who belong to a handful of countries leaving Latin America and middle east; and there was skewed representation in the choice It is also seen that all the constituencies are not represented despite tall claims ; this is especially so in respect of political constituency which is the core of democracies. For well established democracy as in India this is something which is surprising as MSP principle and ‘an equal seat at the table’ must not be a process of exclusion of this category which is playing a great role in democratic set up in public decision making. Being public investment projects, water resources projects are debated in Parliaments and State Legislatures and democratically elected Panchayats (Local Self Government Institutions) in India. To a major extent, the decision making process is based on the decisions of Democratically elected Governments. The political willingness apart from other imperative like social well being regional balancing and economic viability which are crucial in public investment are part of the scanning process before an Investment decision is made.. There was no representation in the selection of Commissioner who could adequately represent this (political or elected representatives) constituency. This in fact had resulted in making certain recommendations in the final WCD report that are totally unacceptable for Countries like India.

Page 7 & Para 8

Comments on the choice of Commissioner by Independent Review

To some extent, the Independent Review brings out the same comments as in previous in respect of selection of Commissioner .

As indicated in the concluding sentence of the last paragraph the WCD secretariat apparently lacked any technical expertise in dams and this has cost the report heavily. There is a complete insensitivity for future demands and as to how best one could succeed in meeting them without dams. The alternatives or options do not yield the requisite demand projections and are utopian. It would only result in further delaying of Dam as an Option for much needed development in developing and underdeveloped countries and thus an impractical suggestion..

Page 9:

Independent Review

It has been rightly pointed out that the first attempt in staging a consultation close to a major dam project in India had miserably failed because of the grant of non permissions. This also points out that the first exercise that WCD launched after its formation tried to work towards a motivated and pre-set action plan which is essentially because of the very constitution of the Commission that had a biased leaning.

Page 10

Transparency

There was complete lack of transparency when WCD was attempting to draft its final report. The forum members were kept in dark and were only used to project the image of WCD that it comprised of multi interest groups. The Forum was not adequately consulted on the Final Report in a draft .The meetings were held in short spells of just a day or two. In the process of report vetting the Forum could have played a significant role.

In fact, the data that was supplied by Indian Government as a forum member for WCD’s Cross Check Survey on Indian Dams were conveniently ignored.

The views of ICOLD, ICID and IHA also differed considerably but this was sidelined though they were Forum members.

Page 15

The WCD guidelines had gone far beyond the scope of reviewing the development effectiveness of dams. It had attempted to address concerns of the society with regard to equity sharing benefits alternative models for gaining public acceptance etc which are of relevance to Development of all kinds, anyway!

Certain other dimensions like risk both voluntary and involuntary, rights and legitimacy of people’s entitlements are also brought out but the underlying cardinal note is that democracies are not the Institution that can well handle them. This does not sound healthy / proper for well founded democratic Institutions..

The Report has gone yet further to bring in issues like declaration of human rights and declaration on right to development etc though these were certainly beyond their terms of reference on 'Dams and Development'.

For its own preset motives, WCD had underplayed the past contribution of Dams to Societies while overstating the costs. It can more appropriately be said that WCD is not a World Commission on Dams but a ‘World Commission on Anti-Dams’.