Samir Mehta

River Waters: Perspectives and Challenges for Asia

18 November 2011

Wrong Climate for Damming Rivers

Who We Are

International Rivers protects rivers and defends the rights of communities that depend on them. We work to stop destructive dams and promote water and energy solutions for a just and sustainable world.

What We Do

• Capacity building (guidebooks, trainings, networking, small grants)

• Raising the voice of dam-affected groups

• Technical and policy analysis

• Lobby dam funders and builders for higher standards

• Partner with other organizations

• International Meetings (Brazil, Thailand, Mexico)

• Day of Action: March 14

Status of Rivers• >54,000 large dams/diversions

moderately/severely impact 60% rivers

• >500,000 km altered for navigation• 90% sewage in developing

countries untreated• Half world’s wetlands destroyed• Watershed degradation, climate

change disrupting flows• 37% freshwater fish species

threatened, endangered or extinct• 40-80 million people physically

displaced• 472 million suffer livelihood losses

downstream

Top-10 dam builders in 2011:* Major dams >60m within country under construction

(1) China 91(2) Iran 54(3) Turkey 26(4) Vietnam 22(5) Japan 15(6) India 8(6) Spain 8(7) Burma 7(7) Morocco 7(8) Brazil 6

Global Dam Building Boom

* 2011 World Atlas & Industry Guide, The International Journal on Hydropower & Dams

Why wrong climate?

Effects of climate change not being considered

Hydropower Sustainability Assessment Protocol developed by International Hydropower Association being promoted to replace recommendations of WCD

Insufficient sharing of hydrological data between countries

Except for the Indus Water Treaty, no other comprehensive water sharing instruments between countries

Why wrong climate?

Weak Indian policy and regulatory mechanismsNo legal requirement for water to flow in rivers(Indian) Dams in Bhutan have a downstream impact in IndiaPiecemeal approach to hydropower dams

River Basins are not planned holisticallyNon scientific approach to stipulating environmental flowsCumulative Impact Assessments are not multi-sectoralDams proposed and sanctioned based on hydrological potential, not ecological

limits of hydrological alterationFree flowing (stretches of) rivers not consideredBasin transfers of streams and riversIntervention in water courses at alpine heights

Run-of-river projects are running away with the riverEIAs do not take into consideration climate change

Public hearings: projects considered and approved in face of publicopposition / boycott

Large dams are the wrong response because:

(1) River flows are increasingly unpredictable• Reduced generation: drought and evaporation• Hydro ≥ 50% supply in 63 countries • Safety threatened by extreme floods

(2) Dam reservoirs emit greenhouse gases• Tropical reservoirs are globally significant sources of

methane

(3) Healthy rivers are critical for supporting life • Big dams reduce water quality and quantity, dry up

forests and wetlands, flood productive land, exacerbate biodiversity loss, and destroy fisheries.

• Free-flowing rivers help trap carbon

How Do Dams Worsen the Climate Crisis?

• Climate change will lead to major changes in rain and snowfall patterns.

• More extreme droughts and floods.• Large dam developers do not take climate

change into account. • Taking into account climate change

scenarios, dams would be more expensive because mitigating floods and droughts would increase costs.

2011 World Bank report: “Heavy reliance on hydropower creates significant vulnerability to climate change and it is a feature that many low- and middle-income countries have in common.”

(1) Climate Change Increases Hydrological Risk

• Glaciers are the source of many Asian rivers• Pace of glacial melt increases ->higher flows -> more frequent floods -

>dam safety concerns. Hundreds of dams are planned on glacier-fed rivers across the Himalayas. Most are designed based on historical river flow data, despite changing flows due to climate change.

• Glacier lake outburst floods: glaciers form large lakes behind dams of ice and rock when they melt. If they collapse, millions of people are put at risk of flash floods and dam breaks.

Case Study: Himalayas

Dig Tsho Glacial Lake in Nepal. Photo: ©Matthieu Paley

• Large dams are a major source of emissions in the tropics, which is also a hotspot for damming.

• Reservoirs emit greenhouse gases due to rotting organic material. Gases are emitted through: 1. diffusion at the reservoir and downstream

2. degassing from the turbines and spillways• Dams and reservoirs may be responsible for as

much as 25% of all human-caused methane (or 4% of all human-caused warming).

• Methane is 25 times more potent a greenhouse gas than C02.

• Emissions in temperate zones can be significant.

(2) Reservoir Emissions

Healthy Rivers:• Healthy rivers are crucial for supporting

fisheries and biodiversity, maintaining water quality and quantity, nourishing agricultural floodplains, and sustaining livelihoods and food security.

Carbon Capture:• Major rivers deliver nutrients offshore to

microorganisms that fix carbon and bury it in the sea floor when they die. Dams hold back sediment that drives this cycle.

• Damming the Amazon, Congo, the Mekong, and other high-flow rivers in warm-ocean areas could reduce their ability to mitigate climate change.

(3) Healthy Rivers Promote Resilience

Conclusions

Providing for the Future:• Widespread damming is turning healthy rivers into endangered

species, just when we need them the most.• Breakthroughs in clean and efficient energy and water efficiency

methods:(1) strengthen energy and water access for the poor, and(2) strengthen our resilience to climate change.

Sekong river, Laos. Photo: © Marcus Q. Rhinelander

Greenwashing DamsA CRITIQUE OF THE HYDROPOWER SUSTAINABILITY

ASSESSMENT PROTOCOL (HSAP)

A History of the HSAPExclusion of Stakeholders

• 1995: The dam industry creates the International Hydropower Association (IHA)

• 2000: The World Commission on Dams (WCD) issues its recommendations for best practices

• 2004-06: The UNEP Dams and Development report is published, confirming the recommendations of the WCD

• 2006: IHA creates its own, weaker sustainable hydropower guidelines

• 2007: The IHA creates the Hydropower Sustainability Assessment Forum (HSAF) to make their guidelines operational

• 2011: The IHA launches the Hydropower Sustainability Assessment Protocol (HSAP)

Dam-affected people and civil society from the Global South were never included in the creation of the HSAP.

HSAP “Sustainability Partners”

Ten dam builders have signed on as “Sustainability Partners”, by paying £65,000 to IHA, to develop the first official HSAP assessments:

As of Nov 2011

ItaipuBinacional Landsvirkjun Manitoba Hydro Odebrecht Sarawak Energy Statkraft

E.On EDF Hydro Equipment

Association (Andritz Hydro, Voith Siemens, Alstom Power)

HydroTasmania

Odebrecht workers at the site of Dardanelos Dam in Brazil, where poor assessments led to the destruction of an indigenous people's cemetery in

2010.

HSAP “Sustainability Partners”

These regions may be targeted for official assessments in 2012:

As of Nov 2011

India: (the IHA has held trainings with the Indian government) The Mekong Basin: Nam Theun 2 (EDF) and TheunHinboun Dam (Statkraft) Malaysia:Bakun Dam (Sarawak Energy) Tasmania: (HydroTasmania) Brazil:Itaipu Dam (ItaipuBinacional) and the Amazon (Odebrecht) Iceland: (Landsvirkjun) Canada: (Manitoba Hydro)

How HSAP Assessments (Don't) Work

The HSAP is only a voluntary guideline. It is not a precautionary measure nor a safeguard. The HSAP does not require developers to meet any binding laws or international standards.

HSAP assessments score how well a dam meets a range of sustainability concepts at any stage of project development.

A score of 1 represents “significant gaps relative to basic good practice.”A score of 3 represents “basic good practice.”A score of 5 represents “proven best practice.”

Developers are not penalized for obtaining low scores.

No third-party body applies safeguards to assure that assessment scores are accurate and independent of industry influence.

How HSAP Assessments (Don't) Work

HSAP assessments are likely to be written for low-risk projects or existing dams.

HSAP assessments can be “official” or “unofficial.”

Project assessors come directly from the dam industry.

There is no required assessment period. Project assessors can write an assessment in as little as five days, or less.

Assessors are not required to consult with dam-affected communities or civil society organizations.

October 2011 unofficial assessment of Trevallyn Power Station in Tazmania led by HydroTasmania

How HSAP Assessments (Don't) Work

All “official” assessments must be published online at www.hydrosustainability.org. After publication, the public has a 60-day period to submit comments.

Developers cannot make a claim that a dam is “sustainable” unless they have also published the HSAP assessment on their own website.

Dam builders can pay IHA £65,000 to become "Sustainability Partners" without having to make any minimum commitments regarding their projects.

HSAP Compared to Existing Standards

How do HSAP guidelines compare to international standards?

Standard How HSAP sees it Comparison

Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC)

Does not require developers to obtain FPIC when indigenous peoples and their territories are impacted.

Weaker than the International Finance Corporation (IFC) Performance Standard 7 on Indigenous Peoples.

Options Assessment Does not require comprehensive and participatory needs and options assessments to identify the best water or energy solution

Weaker than the recommendations of the World Commission on Dams (WCD)

Displacement and Compensation Does not require developers to provide land-for-land compensation.

Weaker than the recommendations of the International Network on Displacement and Resettlement.

Cumulative Impacts Only suggests to “scope” the cumulative impacts of cascade dams.

Weaker than the environmental policy of the Asian Development Bank.

Global Greenwash: Where HSAP is Promoted

Water, Energy, Food Nexus in Bonn: HSAP promoted as water-energy nexus solution

World Water Forum 6: HSAP promoted for adoption in 20 countries by 2015

Rio+20: HSAP promoted as a green economy solution

Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and European Trading Scheme (ETS): HSAP promoted to replace WCD recommendations

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD): HSAP promoted as a technical “standard” for hydropower

Conclusions

The HSAP does not replace the recommendations of the WCD

The HSAP is not a standard for best practices in the dam industry

The HSAP should not be used to create a certification scheme and a “sustainable dams” brand name

Governments and financial institutions should not adopt the HSAP

The HSAP: Weakening Global Dam Standards Factsheethttp://www.internationalrivers.org/en/node/6569

Why wrong climate?

Weak Indian policy and regulatory mechanismsNo legal requirement for water to flow in rivers(Indian) Dams in Bhutan have a downstream impact in IndiaPiecemeal approach to hydropower dams

River Basins are not planned holisticallyNon scientific approach to stipulating environmental flowsCumulative Impact Assessments are not multi-sectoralDams proposed and sanctioned based on hydrological potential, not ecological

limits of hydrological alterationFree flowing (stretches of) rivers not consideredBasin transfers of streams and riversIntervention in water courses at alpine heights

Run-of-river projects are running away with the riverEIAs do not take into consideration climate change

Public hearings: projects considered and approved in face of publicopposition / boycott

Please contact:

samir@internationalrivers.org

Thank you!

Further Information