General/Overall Comments

1. The document is too long and often repetitive. The content of the Executive Summary (ES), the conclusions of the various chapters, and the content of the Conclusions chapter seem more or less the same. Perhaps you need to re-think the content in your Conclusions section (not much sense if it just repeats what has already been said before). Also, go through the document with a fine comb to remove repetition. And the whole thing can be MUCH shorter.
2. It is unclear to me what you hope to achieve with this document. Who is the document for? Why did you do it? And what is its purpose? It is a good compilation of information about the WCD process. You also make some good analytical insights about political and social contexts, gender, constituencies, representation, etc. But these insights are buried among all the descriptive stuff you have. You need to pull out the key insights in each chapter and highlight them (perhaps it’s just a presentation issue). Then your final conclusions can be your evaluation based on the insights and other analyses.
3. There are too many unclear sentences (some examples pointed out below). Also, you seem unwilling to take firm positions. Who are you worried of offending? People need to be able to learn something new from our document, and they can’t do tht unless you are firm, succinct and clear.

Pg 2, 2^nd para and pg 99, last para, pg. 143 para 2: here (and elsewhere too) you use language such as "appear fair" and "appearance of openness." Gives the impression that you see a difference between genuine fairness and openness, and a perception of fairness and openness; and that you are advocating the perception over reality.

Pg 2, para 2 and pg 3, para 5: I don’t agree that there was a stalemate in the dams debate; the "transaction costs" as you put it became increasingly higher because social movements and supporting CSOs were able to show the absolute inequities and other problems of large dams…

Pg 3, para1: true, MSP recommendations are not binding, more normative, etc., but then you need to discuss a bit more the value of MSPs. Why the different parties agreed to get into it in the first place. Did the World Bank (WB) and IUCN agree BECAUSE MSPs are non-binding and the WB could walk away from it? Did Dam opponents agree because they want to promote alternative approaches to policy development? Maybe you should talk a bit more with Paddy and Shripad about this.

Pg 4, para 3: here and elsewhere, you talk about the importance of a "consensus-driven" process; I agree that consensus is very important, but the process is not necessarily based on equality (depends on the people involved); too often, there were exercises of power by some commissioners and trade-offs, that the CSO commissioners had to make; also led to some agreements that were pretty watered down.

Pg 7, para 2: here and elsewhere you talk about governmental participation and representation on the WCD, and their non-acceptance of the WCD’s findings; this is a much more complex issue than you present, and needs further discussion—how do MSPs affect State-society relations?

It was definitely a shortcoming that the WCD did not involve governments more; there is already a growing gap between some forms of civil society (CS) and governments in the traditional South, and the WCD may have contributed to this gap; but at the same time, governments anywhere cannot claim full representative legitimacy since they often protect quite specific interest groups; there is thus a larger challenge to liberal democracy here--community activists may not be "elected" through ballots, but are representative of and accountable to their constituencies; govt. representatives on most commissions are bureaucrats and even if their ministers are elected through ballots, govt. reps are certainly not elected, nor are they accountable to the public (or to anyone for that matter!); and in this mess we have the IFIs and other policy bodies (such as the WB), who are unwilling to examine their own operations and power plays, and hide behind both governments, and civil society as they find expedient; the WB played this very cleverly in the WCD process…

Pg 7, para 3, p 9 para 1, p. 125, para 2, Pg 132, last para, pg. 141 para 4: The WB being more directly involved has little to do with their accepting the report; they did not like the findings and so they fudge around with committing to operationalising them, using governments as their front; please make no mistake, the WB will manipulate processes of consent and dissent to suit their purposes, no matter what.

Pg 7, last para: pg 50, para 4: you need to be more explicit that most Secrt. Staff came from techno-development-professional backgrounds and had a propensity towards scientism; what "extremes" in the debate are you talking about? There were no grassroots activists or staff with experience in alternative and participatory research methods in the Secrt; Secrt. staff were nice guys, sure, but they were as mainstream as you can get; the struggle against large dams is also a struggle between knowledge systems; and in the WCD Secrt., modernisation had an edge over alternative knowledge systems…

Pg 8, para 3: here and at many places you call the WB and IUCN the "midwives" of the WCD-- it gets quite tiring to read this over and over again; if they are credited as the midwives, why don’t you credit the anti-dam movements with the conception and pregnancy stages?

P 9, para 1: same objection as stated above—WB would not accept a report if it contradicts its own interests; this is quite similar to governments’ positions.

But there is also a larger issue of what we expect from "ownership" in such a process; if the WB had more ownership, then perhaps the report would be a lot weaker and sure, they would accept it but the problems underlying large dams would remain as is… ; referring back to your discussion about legitimacy and representativeness, here is a completely non-representative body whose positions and actions man people seem reluctant to challenge! We need to take principled positions against the schoolyard tactics of such a bully institution; there are many recommendations that the WB has not embraced, the WCD is not the first; instead of looking back at what the WCD could have done to get them on board, perhaps you should think about ways of throwing the book at them and shaming them into acceptance.

Pg 50, para 4: "It is arguably true that the demographic characteristics …. training , experience and avalailability of personnel." What does this sentence mean?

Pg 11, para 3 (and in the relevant section later in the document): not sure how inputs provided by many Forum members were used; It seems that the Forum’s role was more to legitimise the WCD than to advise them; it put quite a few people off from being actively involved.

P. 19, para 4: ends incomplete.

P. 20, para 5: "It is in this promise of democratisation…. WCD lies." What do you mean by this sentence? Also, I think you should be careful how you discuss the role of various actors in democratisation processes… (see my remarks above).

P. 51, paras 3-5, pg 139, para 5: in general, I think the Forum was not balanced in representation; not enough representation from project affected peoples and social movements; gender balance was DEFINITELY a problem and I don’t think DAWN made much of a contribution (well, Devaki Jain attended one Forum meeting in Cape Town); also, there was a technocratic bias in the overall discourse which is usually male-centred (and also Euro-American centred); women’s voices and analyses were "relativised," if you know what I mean. In general, there needs to be a lot more attention to how respective stakes are valued in a MSP, and representation in the process determined accordingly.

P. 92, box on cancelled India meeting: I think the cancellation of the meeting gave the WCD positive publicity, and actually enhanced the WCD’s credibility among CSOs, movements, research institutes and even among some governments.

P. 93 para 2: I wouldn’t be so gung-ho about the Vietnam consultation; I think the name of the meeting had to be changed from "Hearing" to "Consultation" because of the Vietnamese Govt.; the voices of Vietnamese people affected by dams were certainly missing; and Dai Qing was not allowed to give her testimony in public because of political pressure from China to Vietnam, so the Commissioners had to have a private hearing for her.

Also, the sentence: "These governments were the ones whose practice the WCD most sought to change." Really? This sounds quite pre-judged to me for an independent Commission. How about changing the practice of financing institutions, dam building industry, consultants, the WB and MDBs, etc.?

P. 94, para 5: it was not just "lifestyle choices" that inhibited participation from movements and grassroots activists, but also, sheer economics (un-affordability) and unfamiliarity with how the other 10 % live!

In general, the WCD’s consultations seemed to have more of an international conference tenor than a peoples’ hearing; and this may have inhibited participation as well, even among activists who were physically present; social movements and affected peoples’ representatives had limited access to Commissioners compared with others in attendance; it seems that MSPs may still be biased in their forms and structures towards the more "sophisticated" CSOs.

P. 98-99, section on media: unclear as to what the WCD’s media strategy was; what were their goals and objectives? Directed towards what ends—financing? Societal buy-in? this entire bit could do with more analysis.

P. 109, para 5: NGOs did NOT have more time than Forum members like the IADB though they certainly have less money; NGOs and movements participated in ways they know best—direct contact, putting issues on the table for public consideration, etc.; also, NGOs and movements were more worried than other Forum members that their voices would be ignored or set aside, so they made far greater efforts and found the time and resources to engage face-to-face with the WCD. In contrast, members like the IADB engaged in ways THEY know best—using money and political clout to wield influence behind the scenes, but not willing to engage in open and public discussions or debate.

In fact, the difference in methods of participation and engagement between social movements and their CSO allies on one hand, and the MDBs and Industry on the other hand is quite telling; MDBs and Industry never expected to "lose" and their interaction with the WCD process and results reflects this arrogance; Social movements were determined NOT to lose this time around and mobilised accordingly….

P. 110, para 1: I don’t think the Forum’s balance was right--not enough representatives from social movements and project affected peoples.

P. 133, par 3-4: I disagree with your analysis; it does not matter that the Commission did not consult with the MDBs and Industry during the late stages of drafting, or that these 2 sectors were not sufficiently represented on the Forum or Commission; they don’t like the report and so they are upset; if the report had been in their favour, they would sing a different tune. If they were bothered by their "under-representation," they could have engaged more constructively in the earlier stages of the process and publicly raised their concerns; but they did not because they are used to different tactics and ways of wielding influence and getting their way.

P. 133, para 5: Many CSOs criticised the report and said the report did not go far enough; the WCD report is not the final victory for the anti-dam struggle; it is certainly a victory, but the anti-dam movement made compromises too; unlike some of the MDBs, governments and Industry, however, the anti-dam movement is willing to recognise (and respect) the parameters of compromise; but in your report it seems like the anti-dam movement has kind of got its way…(which is not true).

P. 144: para 6, last sentence: What was the Commission if NOT a multi-stakeholder process aimed at facilitating long term dialogue? So what if it was time-limited? Sure, they had good reasons for not disclosing the draft findings; but you are contradicting your own description of MSPs here.

P. 148 paras 2-4: I don’t think it would be possible to forge broad consensus about large dams as long as specific self interests are involved; there can be no perfect process that is fully legitimate and representative; the controversy over large dams is based on the struggle for natural resources and the very notions of modern development; these are contested grounds and no compromise will satisfy everyone.

In its report, the Commission does raise the issue of power and the central role of dams in the dominant development paradigm; your report needs to look at it as well.