Promoting Good Practice for Hydropower – a role for ECAs

Dr Ute Collier

Global Freshwater Programme

WWF International

Huge potential in developing

world

Multi-purpose nature of many

dams

Indigenous source, doesn’t require energy

imports

Often requires majorresettlement

Major local environmental impacts

Downstream ecosystem and livelihoods impacts

Cumulative impacts ofmultiple dams in a basin

The hydropower dilemma

Rivers at Risk

Dam impacts

© WWF/Ute Collier

Livelihoods at stake

© WWF-Canon/Michèle DÉPRAZ

The legacy of bad resettlement

Resettlement outcomes

Improved7%

Restored11%

Worse82%

Based on Scudder, 2005

Project example Ermenek dam

• lack of public consultation• severe shortcomings in EIA• lack of options assessment• inadequate mitigation

measures

© WWF Turkey

A rights and risks approach

WCD Strategic priorities for decision-making

1. Public acceptance

2. Comprehensive options assessment

3. Existing dams

4. Sustaining rivers and livelihoods

5. Entitlements and sharing benefits

6. Compliance

7. Transboundary rivers

Broad support for the WCD decision-making framework

• US Ex-Im• Swiss ERG• Coface• OPIC• HSBC• EU linking directive• IHA sustainability guidelines• Country dialogues – e.g. South Africa, Nepal, Vietnam

Opportunities for improving on WB safeguards

• WB OPs are ‘catch all’, not specific to complex, large hydro projects

• WCD specific attention to downstream impacts, river basin approach, environmental flows

• WCD resettlement recommendations require improvement of living standards, not just compensation

• Resettlement Action Plan written into loan conditions

Conclusions

• Reputational risk associated with hydro remains large

• ECAs need to demonstrate that there can be ‘good’ hydro project

• WCD decision-making framework widely recognised as best practice

• Should be seen as opportunity, not constraint

THANK YOU!

ucollier@wwf.org.uk

www.panda.org/dams

© WWF-Canon/ Zeb Hogan