• Energy Research

AbstractThe World Commission on Dams (WCD) was a global environmental governance forum that worked between 1998 and 2000 to try to resolve long‐standing controversies between supporters and opponents of large dams. Its objectives were to assess the development effectiveness of large dams and to develop best practice guidelines for large dam construction and management, based on an extensive review of scientific evidence and wide‐ranging stakeholder consultation. This paper reviews literature discussing the WCD, to understand its influence on the debate on large dams and beyond. We find that its influence is debated within four main contexts: (a) interpretations of stakeholder responses to the WCD report and recommendations; (b) the persistence of the kinds of impacts of large dams that gave rise to the Commission's work; (c) the different visions for appropriate follow‐up strategies; and (d) insights from the WCD experience in the context of global environmental governance. Within these four contexts, we identify diverse opinions and directions of post‐WCD development and sources of disagreement on its merits and legacy, ranging from calls for its full implementation to dismissal and opposition. Commentators also differ in their assessment of whether the WCD sparked truly novel insights and propositions for dam decision‐making or whether it simply represented one among many other elements in the broader debate on dams. Most commonly, the WCD's work is cited in the context of persistent negative social and environmental impacts of dams: neither the impacts nor the controversy over large dams have ended.This article is categorized under: Engineering Water > Planning Water Engineering Water > Sustainable Engineering of Water

AbstractLarge numbers of dams for hydroelectric power production are currently planned or under construction in many areas around the world. While positive and negative social and environmental impacts of dams are increasingly well understood, little is known about attitudes of the general public towards dams, even though benefits to wider society are often cited to legitimise their construction. In Brazil’s Upper Paraguay River Basin, more than 100 mostly small-scale hydropower dams are planned or under construction in what can be considered a regional dam construction boom. Here we analyse public preferences for strategies to manage dam impacts in the area by investigating the value base that underpins such preferences, drawing on the recently proposed Value Landscapes Approach as our theoretical framework and data from a large representative household survey (N = 1067). We find that contrasting attitudes towards dams, expressed in preferences for economically or ecologically oriented water policies are informed by opposing underlying value landscapes, that is, groups of closely related fundamental, governance-related, and assigned (water) values. While such tensions between opposing values can never be fully eliminated, our research nevertheless gives insights to policy-makers seeking to minimise value conflict and to improve the political legitimacy of public decision-making on dam construction. Moreover, we find that a majority of members of the general public would prefer concentrating dam construction on some rivers while keeping others free-flowing, with direct implications for ecosystems and inland fisheries. This finding may guide policy-makers wishing to develop publicly supported water resources management strategies.

One of the most contentious issues surrounding the forest conservation program REDD+ is the question whether it should be funded via international carbon markets. The controversy between market supporters and opponents has been especially marked in the public debate in Brazil, one of the main potential beneficiaries of REDD+ payments. In a remarkable shift of policy, the Brazilian Federal Government gave up its long-standing opposition to market-based funding in the run-up to the COP15, following several years of competition between two main discourse coalitions and their preferred story lines. These were analyzed here with discourse network analytical techniques. Brazil’s policy change may in part be explained by the failure of market opponents to employ positive arguments about alternative funding mechanisms, such as a public fund model; and by the increasing discursive dominance of a third emerging discourse coalition, which adopted major arguments of both sides in the debate. The research presented here thus provides more general insights on the dynamics of public debates, discourse coalitions, and the impacts of discursive strategies on policy-making, as well as on the value of discourse network analysis as a research method.

Private sector actors are taking on an increasingly prominent role in energy transitions, including in hydropower development and finance. Yet, there is little empirical research on the topic. This study covers private sector views on accelerating hydropower investment in Nepal, using Q methodology. Three main viewpoints were identified among 17 interviewed hydropower developers, planners, and investors based in Nepal: 1) Efforts need to be focused on reforming hydropower policies and administration at the national level; 2) Funds for hydropower development need to be increased and sought from a diversity of domestic and foreign private sources; 3) Nepal needs to integrate its energy grid with its South Asian neighbours, starting with India. Areas of strong disagreement include the role of political stability in enabling hydropower development, as well as modes of engagement with Indian, Chinese, and Western partners. Areas of consensus include the need to smoothen land acquisition procedures as well as discomfort with the state-owned Nepal Electricity Authority’s perceived monopolistic status in the sector. Overall, this study contributes to debates on private sector involvement in hydropower development with a nuanced empirical assessment of views which contain clear visions for an independent and domestically driven future of the country’s hydropower sector.

Globally, hydropower developers are increasingly expected to share benefits with people living in project-affected areas. Nevertheless, hydropower benefit-sharing has not found sufficiently widespread application, and the concept is not yet widely understood. The present paper aims to make the following contributions: First, we clarify the commonalities and differences between benefit-sharing, compensation and related concepts, which refer to processes in which developers transfer resources to project-affected people. We suggest that benefit-sharing can be understood as a ‘sustainability intervention’, i.e. the focus is on making an additional and positive long-term development impact, beyond replacing or marginally improving on lost assets. Further, we propose that benefit-sharing is defined by the transfer of resources and services that are 1) substantively different from those serving as compensation for lost assets; 2) determined via participatory processes with project-affected people and 3) delivered in the later stages of the timeline from dam planning to operation. Second, we explore some governance challenges on the pathway towards ‘good’ benefit-sharing, highlighting: (i) that effective participation by project-affected people requires capacity building over time, involving a gradual transfer of control over spending decisions; and (ii) that the appropriate institutional set-up for benefit-sharing may be dependent on the existing capacity of governments in the dam-hosting location. Legally mandated benefit-sharing mechanisms to raise funds may be more appropriate in the context of high existing state capacity, whereas developer-led mechanisms will be required where the existing capacity is low. In practice, a mix of multiple institutional arrangements and benefit-sharing mechanisms is possible and desirable.

As the world pivots towards low-carbon energy generation, hydropower is once again in the spotlight. Hundreds of new dams are due to be built this decade. The hydropower industry recognises that new plants will only be viable with strong social acceptance and that benefit sharing is a way to build support. But the concept is not yet widely understood, and successful examples remain rare. Benefit sharing should be thought of as a ‘sustainability intervention’, which has additional and long-term positive impacts on project-affected people, well beyond compensation for lost assets. Increasing the social acceptance of hydropower through benefit-sharing agreements requires building long-term partnerships with resettled people, establishing appropriate institutional arrangements and investing a proportion of hydropower revenues over the long term.

ON 16 NOVEMBER 2000, the final report of the World Commission on Dams (WCD) was launched in London, in the presence of South Africa’s former president Nelson Mandela. This represented a remarkable milestone in the history of dam policy and politics. During its two-year existence, WCD had conducted the most extensive review of research and evidence regarding the planning, impacts, and management of large dams. It had engaged with numerous stakeholders around the globe. It also made comprehensive recommendations about how to improve dam planning and management.