World Commission on Dams: Biased if Misread

Being requested by the WCD I wrote the options part of the India Country study. Till late 1999 I had never thought of being caught up in the WCD process. Along with many others all over the world, willing to hear that a solution is reached in an intense debate of everyone’s concern, I watched the formation of the World Commission on Dams with interest. But I could not say ‘no’ when the WCD asked me to make an honest assessment of ‘options’. I am not committed to either pro-dam or anti-dam position. I have written against specific dams, against specific aspects of dams and also that I am not against dams in general. Some  of the water appropriation systems I wrote about in the seventies and eighties (e.g. Sengupta, 1985) were later characterized by anti-dam activists as’ options to dams, I did not depict them as such. How could I have done that knowing that a great may of the classified ‘large dams’ in India are not even 15mm height, and are indeed, parts of the structures that are being described as ‘options’ to dams. The option that I have suggested in the WCD report is not anti-dam but against single minded pursuit of dams. Use all five fingers instead of one that was my recommendation.

(6.4.5.3.4) If a careful selection is made, in some setting a network of small storage may be suitable in another only a large dam, and in a third a mixture of the two. It is then expected that in suitable setting, each one will perform better than the others; only the better performing units will then portray a good performance for each of these technologies. Providing level playing ground for other opportunities will only help large dam technology perform  better………..

This is just a sample. The whole report is replete with such statements. The WCD Secretariat had added a disclaimer making it explicit that the Commission’s views would be solely presented only in their final report, and that the India Country Study was not to be construed as the consultants’ views. I am not in agreement with several sections of the CD final report, sometimes sharing the objections raised by current critics. But I strongly disagree with such reading that “the WCD Report has unfortunately kicked off a row directed at stepping construction of new dams” (Navalawals, “World Commission on Dams: Biased?” EPW, March 24, 2001, p.1008). Instead, the commission went at length developing a whole lot of criteria, agreeable or not, for construction of dams. The WCD final report too recommended use of five fingers instead of one. To say that asked to cut a finger is misinformation. 

Unfortunately the WCD India country study has not been circulated widely. This has made room for misinformation campaigns. I will simply cite here some parts of the report to show how people are misrepresenting the findigs. Navalwala ws critical, “.. the report of the WCD has sidelined a number of key issues and the relaed problems that developing countires face. “ The issue he mentioned were not just discussed in the report, but were discussed by using almost the same sentences and the same set of data. I invite the readers to compare the following excerpts from the WCD India study with Navalawala’s article:

2,,1,1 The geographical area of India is about 329 m. ha with a wide range of physiographic and climatic variation. Average annual precipitation including snowfall is estimated to be of the order of 4,000 billion cubic metre (BCM) of which the monsson rainfall during June to September itself is around 3,000 BCM. The average natural run-off, as per the estimate of Central Water Commission, is 1869 BCM which is about 4 percent of global supply…. By per capita water availability per year India was ranked at the 42^nd position amongst a hundred countries.

2.5.1   According to the Planning Commission (9^th Plan, Vol. II, p. 483) as much as 92 per cent, 1050 BCM total utlisable surface and ground water resources of the country, would be required to be put to use by 2025 AD. …  According to a projection made by the CEA total installed capacity at the end of the Eleventh Plan (2007-12) will include a hydro component of about 74,000 MW. This is an addition of 52,000 MW within the next 12-13 years. In the area of flood control, no separate perspective based on dams has been set. But dams for both irrigation and hydropower will also serve this purpose

FUTURE POTENTIAL OF WATERRESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

The report definitely discussed that “Vast populations live in water scarece areas” but did not agree with Navalawala that “Dams will, in many instances, be the only feasible alternative to alleviate poverty, hunger and deprivation on such a large scale.” I could not make such statement because experts like Navalawala or M.S. Reddy, in their more serious writings, have questioned the feasibility of this plan. I cited them in the report as:

Let us see how feasible is this plan …..(2.5.2) The Northeastern States, the Brahmaputra-Barak basin, accounts for 67 per cent of possible storage projects not yet taken up and 48 per cent of unused potential of hydroelectricity. Projects here may effect flood control but there is hardly any scope of irrigation. Another 36 per cent of hydropower potential is in the Himalayan health of Ganga basin. This region has plenty of groundwater, and surface storage for irrigation is not a high priority. Future priority in surface water development for irrigation is therefore, confined to peninsular India (Reddy, 1992). The prospect of exploitation of the internal rivers is not very bright. Due to non-settlement or excessive delay in settlement process of inter-State river disputes large irrigation potential and about 5 to 6 per cent of country’s ultimate hydropower potential remains locked (Navalawala, 1999: 36). For exploitation of the hydel potential located in the Himalayan region several mega dams are planned, some of those are above 200m tall. Apart from the fragile ecological nature of the Himalayan region, these are also difficult locations. Tapping these sources is much constlier as compared to thermal power (9^th Plan, Vol. I, p.41) Besides, Brahmaputra passes through China before entering India. Current water availability may reduce if in future, ?China diverts substantial part of Brahamaputra water. Some authorities feel that defence consideration will restrain the process of extension of a series of massive storage that make a very wide and populous tract of the country vulnerable in the vent of international conflicts.

Note that these are physical and political realities, not problems created by anti-dam activists. If the prospect of allevating poverty, hunger and deprivation by large dams is so very bleak someone seriously looking for solutions has no other option but to delve into possible alternatives to official plan. I did that in the report. The search began from the fundamentals. “Some authors feel that the estimates of available, utlisable and utlised water resources as well as ultimate irrigation potential must not be taken as sacrosanct…. The first estimate of total surface run off, made in 1976, was 1850 BCM. Since then the figure has been revised upwards several times. The current estimate is 1869 BCM. ?Both data base and estimation method is crude… Current estimate of utilizable surface water resources is 690 BCM . The way it has been arrived a  can only be described as guess. The irrigation Commission, 1972, was of the opinion that 35 % of the run-off in the whole country could be utilized. K.L Rao had put it at 50 per cent. The National Commission of Agriculture, 1976 had suggested a figure as high as 56 Per cent. The current estimate is 37 per cent of run off. The ratio is not determined by the natural law. It depends on two sets of factors, the state of appropriation technology and water resource management methods. Appropriate technology may help more utilization. Bad management may lead to wastage even from existing facilities  (viz Sections 2.5.3 to 2.5.9).” This led me to suggest two sets of options(a) inclusion of additional techniques and (b) inclusion of alternative management possibilities. The report includes an inventory of various alternatives within these two head along with assessment of their potentials.

Another misinformation that is being created is that the WCD did not pay any attention to the contribution of dams. At least the India Country Study cannot be accused of this omission - there is a whole chapter on 'Dams in India' providing summary estimates of contribution of dams in various spheres. In its response to the WCD Report in February 2001, the Central Water Commission on behalf of the Government of India, cited at length from these estimates. Only once there is note of discord, arising out of misreading. The GOI felt that I have stated "the contribution of large dams m increase in foodgrains production had been marginal and is around 10 "(italics mine). Actually, I had written "ire marginal contribution of large dams to increased foodgrains production is less than 10 per cent (viz. section 2.4.3)" 'Marginal contribution' is an economic concept and that is very different from a contribution being marginal. Actually 10 per cent is not an insignificant contribution. In economy and society, where many different factors are needed to bnra about an improvement, a 10 per cent marginal contribution is quite normal for an important factor. This was clearly stated in the report - the next line was, "This is not insignificant, but not spectacular as is sometimes claimed." Over all thes tf years the pro-dam lobby has cultivated such an exaggerated sense of self-importance that it is difficult for them to accept that dams are at par with several other important factors, that this is not THE most important factor in "ndis'-i development. Some newspapers have played on their hurt ego. The data that I had used for estimation of the contributio-5 of different factors was that of the Central Water Commission. This is a well-publicised data. But no attempt was ever made in the past to find out factor contributions. It is a welcome sign that CWC has started working along this line. The GOI note suggests alternative methods of estimation. It may be discussed in due course.

The misreading was unwarranted - the term 'marginal contributions' was used in the immediately preceding table for contributions as high as 63 per cent. This was the estimated marginal contribution of productivity increase measures like introduction of HYV seeds in the mid-sixties, rapid increase in fertilizer use, promotion of agricultural research and education, systematic extension, supply of credit for agricultural purposes, price support through administered prices etc., The pro-dam lobby is eager to assign the productivity increase measures to irrigation and large dams. The GOI no-.; argues, "The productivity inputs and irrigation are supplementary to each other; in fact a mere application of other productivity inputs can hardly yield the desired increase in crop production." That would mean the startling increase -productivity of rainfed areas was not due to 'productivity inputs' - according to the GOI data, used for these estimations. the productivity of rainfed areas has increased 2.5 times in last fifty years, from 0.4 t/ha to 1 t/ha. Please debate on facts not faiths.

In a lighter moment a friend of mine, a senior engineer, worded some genuine concern that the GOI may have. If the contribution of dams is only about 10 per cent then agencies like World Bank may not extend much support. I am. unable to understand how does it affect the interest of the country if a larger share goes to rainfed farming. There is a dispute that laudable success has been achieved in food front. The dispute is about factor contributions. The GOI, being represented by the CWC, is trying to undermine the contributions of rainfed farming. The country will not suffer, and I won't be unhappy, if rainfed farming gets its due credit and overdue support. In the WCD country report I appealed to the CWC and the Water Resources Ministry for being involved in development of the so-called rainfed farming, indicate the areas that need their attention. After all they are water resources commission and ministry, .not that of dams alone. The Agriculture and Rural Development Ministries are required to look after the developments of rainfed cultivation. As yet, they have not grasped that the so-called 'options to dams' are actually techniques in their domain, and the WCD report deserves to have their attentions. Thanks to their indifference, and that of the Environment Ministry, the CW 7 assessment is now the opinion of the Government of India.

The finding that 'rainfed cultivation' has responded very well to the productivity increase measures, should her"! made responsible commission members and ministerial staff inquisitive. Since HYV seeds or fertilizers cannot be used under rainfed conditions one must doubt whether the so-called 'rainfed farming' areas are indeed truly ' rinfed. "h reality, the rainfed areas are not devoid of water management measures, although the term used conveys such CT impression." Briefly I introduced the water appropriation and management techniques found in the so-called 'rainfed areas'- the 'traditional' techniques as well as the modem watershed development programmes, along with their extent  and potentials. These are the techniques popularly known as 'options'. But there is a very significant difference between the popular plea and the recommendations that I have made in the WCD report. Current performance of the smaller so-called options are poor, may be poorer than that of large dams. Among the factors arresting development of these system (section 6.3.1.7) were included:

..... There "is not a single organisation in the whole of the country for systematic study and improvement of engineering aspects of these techniques. The subject belongs to the Ministry of Water Resources. But “….the one Ministry which should be most concerned, is not even distantly connected with watershed management" (Reddy, 1999). Instead, technical contributions overtly directed to discredit the technological options are often associated with the CWC or CBIP in one form or other. It is difficult to justify this orientation. Canals and wells have five thousand years old tradition, but are now termed 'modem' by receiving due attention from modem science and technology. Many other principles used in the so-called traditional systems will enrich modem knowledge if those are understood and appropriated (Sengupta, 1993: 9-10).

To confirm that this is actually possible I cited an example in the report. In most cases of large dam construction in the past the existing networks of traditional irrigation systems in the command areas were systematically destroyed. Still there are some exceptions where one would find a bottom-up approach to development. Here the traditional systems were not destroyed but were enriched by the use of modem knowledge. After large dam construction and hydropower generation techniques were available in the twentieth century even those were used to enrich the system. The report describes one of these systems, the Tambapami irrigation system, which now irrigates 35 thousand hectares not only through its channel systems but also by use of 179 tanks in its command area. Three reservoirs have been constructed at its upper reaches, two of them are for power generation. Earlier, while reviewing my book, Chitale (1993) had introduced two other systems in the country that have the same feature. The Vaigai Modernization project in Tamil Nadu, completed with World Bank assistance was one. The other was a cascade system of Bandharas on the Panchagana river in Maharashtra which was fed by the controlled releases of water from a large storage dam on the upstream at Radhanagiri. Evidently, the option suggested is not "'over-optimistic' views of the future economies of largely untested technologies" fis. Navalawala propagates. These exist, but with little impact on the thought process of engineers. Nothing has been learnt from them, no effort has been made for popularizing such designs. These designs, using existing networks, cost much less in terms of human misery and financial requirements. These are the solutions for escaping the present impasse. And evidently, these are neither anti-dam nor undermining smaller options. This led me to conclude the report as:

6.4.6.2 Current performance of both large dams and their smaller counterparts are poor. Both of them may benefit from each other. Large dams may be made far more welcome by alterations of the design so as to reduce adverse effects of submergence and displacement. The supply demand mismatch, what is so common in centralised designs, can be eliminated, resulting in better performance. The smaller works have little future if those are to remain isolated forever. They await extension, improvement and enrichment of supply, which is possible only through the use of modem technology, including dams.

The report includes a large section where I have identified the areas that need attention for pursuing this kind of a water resource development programme. The areas identified extend from educational curricula in Universities to the mode of functioning of the Planning Commission and State departments. Hope some day some one will pay attention to these matters.

*

. . No one wants to see a million people devastated by dams, or a million others lingering in poverty without any hope. We need a solution that rises above petty sectoral interests. Beginning with the Gland workshop, the WCD process (see Navlawala for introduction) was a commendable effort in this direction. The Commissioners, who belonged to opposite camps, sat together to resolve a problem. While writing the WCD report I have benefited from this congenial climate. Several parts of my earlier drafts did not satisfy anti-dam activists. Many of them were furious that I did not reject large dams, or that I wrote '.. dams are still the best known option' for flood control. But persons at the top were far more open. Medha Patkar had considerable reservation, "but had made it clear that she was looking for ah impartial assessment. On the other side, B. N. Navalawala had extended whatever help I asked for, and persuaded others to discussions. Sounding differences on the report will further the process of dialogue. But it will be unfortunate if a healthy L.Tutt of dispute resolution is killed by misreading and misinterpretation. Iteferrncfi Cited Chitale. M. A., 1993: "Of Traditional Wisdom", Book Review of User-Friendly Irrigation Designs by Ninnal Sengupta, The Book Review, August. i'tavalaw.ila. B.N., 1998: Water Resources Development and Management - Challenges Ahead, 40" Annual General Meeting and 3"" H.P. Barua 1@'emorial Lecture, The

Institution of Engineers (India), Assam State Centre. Panbaur, Guwahati. Dec. 30. Planning Cominissitin. 1999: Ninth Five Year Plan. 1997-2002, vols. I and II Reddy. M.S., 1992: Water Resources Development in the 21" Century: Primary Options/or India. Inlernationai Hydrological Decade, Endowment Lecture, Centre for

Water Resources. Anna University, Chennai.

1999: forcward. Theme Paper on Five Decades of Water Resources Development in India. Water Resources Day, Indian Water Resource Society. &3igupti:. Ninnal, 1985: "Irrigation: Traditional vs. Modem", Special No. on Natural Resource Utilisation, Economic and Political Weekly, November.

1993: User-1- titvlty Irrigation Designs. Sage publishers. New Delhi.