Comparing recommendations from the World Commission on Dams and the IEA initiative on hydropower

Abstract

During the 1996–2000 period, two parallel international initiatives had the aim of improving the planning, design, and operations of large dams. One was under the auspices of the International Energy Agency and the other was the World Commission on Dams. Both produced recommendations for future development. Many of these recommendations were similar, pointing out the need to assess options properly, to obtain public acceptance of projects, to share their benefits and to make sure that affected populations are fairly treated and adequately compensated. However, when the detailed guidelines are compared, there is wide divergence between the two reports. This is due to fundamentally different conceptions of development. The WCD proposes a set of guidelines that could delay projects indefinitely and assumes that development is possible with almost complete consensus; by contrast, the IEA considers that governments have a key role to play in setting up an effective and efficient decision making process which avoids endless negotiations. Furthermore, the IEA report considers that final decision on large hydro projects should be made by a national or state government, whereas the WCD report would give a strong role to international organizations. Moreover, the WCD assumes that other renewable energy options, such as wind power, could realistically replace the energy services provided by dams without considering the relative magnitudes involved, or the intermittent nature of windpower compared with the sustained nature of hydropower. The IEA Hydropower Agreement report considers that coal generation is the main competitor of hydropower, and any limits placed on hydropower development would result in severe negative environmental impacts due to the increased use of coal.