Dams, Ecosystem Functions and Environmental Restoration

WCD Thematic Review
Environmental Issues II.1
Dams, Ecosystem Functions and

Environmental Restoration
Final Version: November 2000
Prepared for the World Commission on Dams (WCD) by:
Ger Bergkamp, Matthew McCartney, Pat Dugan, Jeff McNeely and

Mike Acreman
Based on contributions from:

M.C. Acreman (Institute of Hydrology, UK)
E. Barbier (University of York, UK)
G. Bernacsek (FAO)
M. Birley (University of Liverpool, UK)
J.R. Bizer (MESAS Consultants, USA)
C. Brown (University of Cape Town, South Africa)
K Campbell (Natural Resources Institute, UK)
J. Craig (Consultant, UK)
N. Davidson (Wetlands International, The Netherlands);
S. Delany (Wetlands International, The Netherlands)
C. Di Leva (IUCN Environmental Law Center, Germany)
F. Farquharson (Institute of Hydrology, UK)
N Hodgson (Natural Resources Institute, UK)
D.C. Jackson (Mississippi State University, USA);
J. King (University of Cape Town, South Africa)
M. Larinier (Institut de Mecanique des Fluides, France)
J. Lazenby (Gibb Ltd, UK )
D.E. McAllister, (Ocean Voice International, Canada);
G. Marmulla, (Fisheries Department, FAO)
M.P. McCartney (Institute of Hydrology, UK)
J. Morton (Natural Resources Institute, UK)
D. Murray (OPIRG, Carleton University, UK)
M.B. Seddon (National Museum of Wales, UK)
L. Sklar (University of California, Berkeley, USA);
D. Smith (Natural Resources Institute, UK)
C. Sullivan (Institute of Hydrology, UK)
R. Tharme (University of Cape Town, South Africa)
Secretariat of the World Commission on Dams

P.O. Box 16002, Vlaeberg, Cape Town 8018, South Africa
Phone: 27 21 426 4000 Fax: 27 21 426 0036.
Website: http://www.dams.org E-mail: info@dams.org
Dams, Ecosystem Functions, and Environmental Restoration i
Disclaimer
This is a working paper of the World Commission on Dams - the report published herein was prepared for the
Commission as part of its information gathering activity. The views, conclusions, and recommendations are not
intended to represent the views of the Commission. The Commission's views, conclusions, and
recommendations will be set forth in the Commission's own report. This manuscript has been compiled by
current and former staff members of IUCN in their personal capacity, based on contributions from a wide range
of sources, and comments received from the review panel and WCD Forum. It does not therefore represent any
official IUCN policy.
Please cite this report as follows:

Berkamp, G., McCartney, M., Dugan, P., McNeely, J., Acreman, M. 2000. Dams, Ecosystem Functions and
Environmental Restoration Thematic Review II.1 prepared as an input to the World Commission on Dams,
Cape Town, www.dams.org
The WCD Knowledge Base

This report is one component of the World Commission on Dams knowledge base from which the WCD drew to
finalize its report “Dams and Development-A New Framework for Decision Making”. The knowledge base
consists of seven case studies, two country studies, one briefing paper, seventeen thematic reviews of five
sectors, a cross check survey of 125 dams, four regional consultations and nearly 1000 topic-related
submissions. All the reports listed below, are available on CD-ROM or can be downloaded from www.dams.org
Case Studies (Focal Dams) Country Studies Briefing Paper
• Grand Coulee Dam, Columbia River Basin, USA • India • Russia and NIS
• Tarbela Dam, Indus River Basin, Pakistan • China countries
• Aslantas Dam, Ceyhan River Basin, Turkey
• Kariba Dam, Zambezi River, Zambia/Zimbabwe
• Tucurui Dam, Tocantins River, Brazil
• Pak Mun Dam, Mun-Mekong River Basin,
Thailand
• Glomma and Laagen Basin, Norway
• Pilot Study of the Gariep and Van der Kloof
dams- Orange River South Africa
Thematic Reviews
• TR I.1: Social Impact of Large Dams: Equity • TR IV.1: Electricity Supply and Demand
and Distributional Issues Management Options
• TR I.2: Dams, Indigenous People and Vulnerable • TR IV.2: Irrigation Options
Ethnic Minorities • TR IV.3: Water Supply Options
• TR I.3: Displacement, Resettlement, • TR IV.4: Flood Control and Management
Rehabilitation, Reparation and Development Options
• TR IV.5: Operation, Monitoring and
• TR II.1: Dams, Ecosystem Functions and Decommissioning of Dams
Environmental Restoration
• TRII.1: Dams, Ecosystem Functions and • TR V.1: Planning Approaches
Environmental Restoration • TR V.2: Environmental and Social Assessment
• TR II.2: Dams and Global Change for Large Dams
• TR V.3: River Basins – Institutional Frameworks
• TR III.1: Economic, Financial and and Management Options
Distributional Analysis • TR V.4: Regulation, Compliance and
• TR III.2: International Trends in Project Implementation
Financing • TR V.5: Participation, Negotiation and Conflict
Management: Large Dam Projects
• Regional Consultations – Hanoi, Colombo, Sao Paulo and Cairo
• Cross-check Survey of 125 dams

This is a working paper prepared for the World Commission on Dams as part of its information gathering activities. The views, conclusions,
and recommendations contained in the working paper are not to be taken to represent the views of the Commission
Dams, Ecosystem Functions, and Environmental Restoration ii
Acknowledgment
The WCD acknowledges contributions to this thematic review by the United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP) and the IUCN - The World Conservation Union - through their respective work
programmes. The submissions to the WCD thematic review were supported by the partnership
agreement between United Nations Foundation, UNEP and the WCD.
Dams, Ecosystem Functions, and Environmental Restoration iii
Financial and in-kind Contributors

Financial and in-kind support for the WCD process was received from 54 contributors including
governments, international agencies, the private sector, NGOs and various foundations. According to
the mandate of the Commission, all funds received were ‘untied’-i.e. these funds were provided with
no conditions attached to them.
• ABB • Skanska
• ADB - Asian Development Bank • SNC Lavalin
• AID - Assistance for India's Development • South Africa - Ministry of Water Affairs and
• Atlas Copco Forestry
• Australia - AusAID • Statkraft
• Berne Declaration • Sweden - Sida
• British Dam Society • IADB - Inter-American Development Bank
• Canada - CIDA • Ireland - Ministry of Foreign Affairs
• Carnegie Foundation • IUCN - The World Conservation Union
• Coyne et Bellier • Japan - Ministry of Foreign Affairs
• C.S. Mott Foundation • KfW - Kredietanstalt für Wiederaufbau
• Denmark - Ministry of Foreign Affairs • Lahmeyer International
• EDF - Electricité de France • Lotek Engineering
• Engevix • Manitoba Hydro
• ENRON International • National Wildlife Federation, USA
• Finland - Ministry of Foreign Affairs • Norplan
• Germany - BMZ: Federal Ministry for Economic • Norway - Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Co-operation • Switzerland - SDC
• Goldman Environmental Foundation • The Netherlands - Ministry of Foreign Affairs
• GTZ - Deutsche Geschellschaft für Technische • The World Bank
Zusammenarbeit • Tractebel Engineering
• Halcrow Water • United Kingdom - DFID
• Harza Engineering • UNEP - United Nations Environment
• Hydro Quebec Programme
• Novib • United Nations Foundation
• David and Lucille Packard Foundation • USA Bureau of Reclamation
• Paul Rizzo and Associates • Voith Siemens
• People's Republic of China • Worley International
• Rockefeller Brothers Foundation • WWF International
Dams, Ecosystem Functions, and Environmental Restoration iv
Executive Summary
Introduction. The impact of dams upon natural ecosystems and biodiversity has been one of the
principal concerns raised by large dams. Over the course of the past 10 years in particular,
considerable investments have been made in the development of measures to alleviate these impacts.
Yet today widespread concern remains that despite improvements in dam planning, design,
construction and operation, they continue to result in significant negative impacts to a wide range of
natural ecosystems and to the people that depend upon them for their livelihood. WCD Thematic
Reviews I.1 Social Impacts of Large Dams Equity and Distributional Issues, I.2 Dams, Indigenous
People and vulnerable ethnic minorities and I.3 Displacement, Resettlement, rehabilitation, reparation
and development examine this complex set of issues. It does so by first reviewing the importance of
natural river basin ecosystems and examining the impact of dams on these ecosystems. It then
examines the current status of approaches being taken to addressing these impacts through the
continuum of “avoidance-mitigation-compensation-restoration”. Based upon this analysis the report
concludes with an assessment of the areas of convergence and divergence on these issues within the
dams debate and provides a set of recommendations to the Commission.
River Basin Ecosystems and Biodiversity. Each river basin contains many natural ecosystems
including not only the aquatic habitats associated with water in the river channel, but all of the
elements of the river catchment that contribute water, nutrients and other inputs to the river. These
ecosystems include: the headwaters and the catchment landscapes; the channel from the headwaters to
the sea; riparian areas; associated groundwater in the channel/banks and floodplains; wetlands; the
estuary and any near shore environment that is dependent on freshwater inputs.
These ecosystems perform functions such as flood control and storm protection, yield products such
as wildlife, fisheries and forest resources, and are of aesthetic and cultural importance to many
millions of people. The total global value of ecosystem goods and services is estimated at US$ 33
trillion per year of which roughly 25% relates directly to freshwater ecosystems. With widespread
and still growing recognition of these ecosystem values, river basin development needs to determine
how much water is required for the maintenance of ecosystems to provide environmental goods and
services, and how much water should be used to support agriculture, industry and domestic services.
Ecosystem Impacts of Large Dams. The current state of knowledge indicates that the impacts of
dams on ecosystems are profound, complex, varied, multiple and mostly negative. By storing or
diverting water dams alter the natural distribution and timing of stream flows. This in turn changes
sediment and nutrient regimes and alters water temperature and chemistry, with consequent ecological
and economic impacts. Reduction in downstream annual flooding in particular affects the natural
productivity of floodplains and deltas.
These ecosystem impacts result in a significant impact of dams on freshwater biodiversity, which is
already under special threat. Global estimates of endangered freshwater fish reach 30% of the known
species. And in North America detailed studies indicate that dam construction is one of the major
causes of freshwater species extinction. Dramatic reductions in bird species are also known,
especially in downstream floodplain and delta areas. Some reservoirs also provide habitats for birds
and other fauna but this often does not outweigh the loss of habitat downstream.
Multiple dams on a river significantly aggravate the impact on ecosystems. Sediment entrapment can
reach 99% if a cascade of dams is developed. Fish migration is affected even by a single dam, and
multiple dams worsen this situation dramatically. In the Northern hemisphere 77% of the largest
rivers are affected by dams and on many rivers fully natural reaches are restricted to headwaters. The
global impacts of dams on the global water cycle are increasingly recognised.
The review highlights the complexity of the processes that occur when a dam impacts an ecosystem.
It is therefore extremely difficult and rarely possible to predict in precise detail the magnitude and
Dams, Ecosystem Functions, and Environmental Restoration v
nature of impacts arising from the construction of a dam or a series of dams. The precise impact of
any single dam is unique and dependent not only on the dam structure and its operation, but also upon
local hydrology, fluvial processes, sediment supplies, geomorphic constraints, climate, and the key
attributes of the local biota. There is therefore no normative or standard approach to address
ecosystem impacts and these have to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. In addition the
acceptability of ecosystem changes will vary with the nature of human societies, cultures, and
expectations.
The Economic and Social Implications of Ecosystem Impacts. Because natural ecosystems fulfil
functions and yield a range of services that are of substantial economic and cultural value to society,
the ecosystem changes that result from the creation of dams lead in turn to substantial economic and
social impacts. Entire communities depend on the functions provided by freshwater wetlands, yet it is
still difficult to translate the value into monetary terms. As a result the value of ecosystem functions
is not properly accounted for in conventional market economics, and the value of these functions and
the cost of their loss, is excluded from the economic decision-making process.
This externalisation of costs is a major factor leading to the loss of natural ecosystems. By reducing
or eliminating access to resources flooded by the reservoir, through degradation and loss of
agricultural and grazing resources on downstream floodplains, and through loss of riverine and coastal
fisheries dependent upon the river flood, many dams have very high external costs. Policy-makers
need to identify the value of this loss of welfare and implement financial and institutional mechanisms
to assimilate these costs into the accounting structure.
The review stresses however that, even when these steps are taken, the valuation of ecosystems and
the consideration of development options is not a straightforward accounting exercise. It needs to be
recognised that not all ecosystem values can be expressed in economic terms. Ethical and societal
considerations also need to be included. The monetary value serves as an input to multi-criteria
decision-making and raises awareness of costs that are currently hidden and negated in the accounting
exercise.
Responding to the Ecosystem Impacts of Dams. There are four principal categories of measures
that may be incorporated into dam design or operating regime in order to respond to the
environmental impacts identified through an EIA. These are: i) measures that avoid anticipated
adverse effects of a dam; ii) mitigation measures that are incorporated into a new or existing dam
design or operating regime in order to eliminate, offset or reduce ecosystem impacts to acceptable
levels; iii) measures that compensate for existing or anticipated adverse effects that cannot be avoided
or mitigated; iv) de-commissioning of the dam and restoration of the riverine ecosystem.
Within this framework of avoidance, mitigation, compensation and restoration, there are a wide range
of specific measures that can be taken appropriate to specific circumstances of each dam. The
Thematic Review evaluates experience in each approach and reveals that the most widely used
approach, mitigation, is problematic. It concludes that there are always residual impacts that cannot
be mitigated, simply by the nature of the dam’s impact on ecosystems themselves. Whether these
impacts are significant varies from case to case.
While there is experience of good mitigation, this success is nevertheless contingent upon stringent
conditions of:
• a good information base and competent professional staff available to formulate complex choices
for decision-makers;
• an adequate legal framework and compliance mechanisms;
• a co-operative process with the design team and stakeholders;
• monitoring of feedback and evaluation of mitigation effectiveness, and
• adequate financial and institutional resources;
Dams, Ecosystem Functions, and Environmental Restoration vi
If any one of these conditions is absent, then the ecosystem values are likely to be lost. In practice the
extent to which these conditions are met varies enormously from country to country and dam to dam.
The review therefore concludes that mitigation, though often possible in principle, has many
uncertainties attached to it in field situations and is therefore at present not a credible option in all
cases and all circumstances. In addition the weaknesses of the EIA process for many projects (cf
Thematic Review V.2) reduce the possibilities for positive outcomes. This would tend to encourage a
strategy of avoidance and minimisation rather than one of mitigation if the aim is to maintain
biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services for the foreseeable future. Alternative tools for
maintaining ecosystem health therefore need to be pursued.
The review argues that improved scientific predictive capacity and improved institutional and human
capacity will take several decades. In the short term therefore focused attention needs to be given to
the development and application of effective tools that can allow environmentally sound development
of river water resources and the management of dams within this context. Three such tools are
described: i) Indicators for Hydro-project selection; ii) Indicators of Ecological Integrity; iii)
Environmental Flow Requirements.
Trends in the International Debate/Approach to Dams. The Thematic Review examines current
trends in the international debate over dams and their environmental impacts. It concludes that
considerable steps have been taken to address the environmental concerns and that there are today
many areas of broad agreement between those who are generally supportive of building dams and
those who are generally philosophically opposed to large dams. However differences remain. At the
most general level these differences concentrate on the value systems adhered to by the different
groups involved and especially the value to be attached to the intrinsic value of nature. This
highlights the importance of ensuring that project approval be based on multi-criteria decision-
making, not just economic cost-benefits analyses or on a purely eco-centric view of the world.
Techniques also need to be improved to offer better methods of economic valuation that are
acceptable to both proponents and opponents of dams. Clearer guidelines on how costs and benefits
can be distributed among those people affected by a dam may necessitate the establishment of
appropriate institutions to promote equitable water use, especially between upstream and downstream
ecosystems and livelihoods.
The Review argues that most success in bridging the differences outlined is likely to be made by
strengthening options assessment and the evaluation of the true cost and benefits of projects for the
short and medium term. Discrepancies are likely to remain on value systems and development
paradigms for decades to come. Therefore efforts to deal with environmental impacts of dams should
concentrate on developing legitimate and accepted processes for dam planning, design and
management within the river basin context. Secondly, much effort could be invested in improving the
economic tools for analysis and improving incentives for better dam design and operation.
Policy Recommendations. The review concludes by providing ten policy recommendations to the
WCD.
Dams, Ecosystem Functions, and Environmental Restoration vii
Table of Contents
List of Figures............................................................................................................................x
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................xi
List of Boxes............................................................................................................................ xii
1. Introduction .....................................................................................................................1
2. River Basin Ecosystems and Biodiversity .....................................................................3

2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 3
2.2 Why Ecosystems are Valuable ...................................................................................................... 4
2.2.1 Ecosystems as Regulators.............................................................................................................. 5
2.2.2 Ecosystems as Habitats.................................................................................................................. 6
2.2.3 Ecosystems as Providers of Resources .......................................................................................... 7
2.2.4 Ecosystems as Providers of Information ....................................................................................... 8
2.3 The value of ecosystem goods and services .................................................................................. 8
2.3.1 Economic valuation techniques ..................................................................................................... 8
2.3.2 The Monetary Value of Freshwater Ecosystems ........................................................................... 9
2.4 Ecosystems and River Basin Development ................................................................................. 10
2.5 International and national recognition of ecosystem values ........................................................ 11
2.6 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................. 13
3. Ecosystem Impacts of Large Dams ..............................................................................14

3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 14
3.2 Scale and Variability of Impacts.................................................................................................. 14
3.3 Framework for Analysis .............................................................................................................. 18
3.4 Information Constraints ............................................................................................................... 20
3.5 Upstream Impacts ........................................................................................................................ 21
3.5.1 First-Order Impacts on Key Parameters ...................................................................................... 21
3.5.2 Second Order Impacts – Changes in Primary Production ........................................................... 23
3.5.3 Third-Order Impacts on Fauna .................................................................................................... 25
3.6 Downstream Impacts on Rivers, Floodplains and Deltas ............................................................ 26
3.6.1 First-Order Impacts on Ecosystem Driving Variables................................................................. 27
3.6.2 Second Order Impacts on Primary Production ............................................................................ 33
3.7 Third-Order Impacts on Fauna .................................................................................................... 36
3.7.1 Freshwater Species Diversity Changes........................................................................................ 36
3.7.2 Bivalve and Gastropod Molluscs................................................................................................. 40
3.7.3 Impact of Dams on Fish Diversity............................................................................................... 42
3.7.4 Dams and Waterbirds .................................................................................................................. 44
3.8 Cumulative Impacts of Dams ...................................................................................................... 46
3.8.1 Conceptual Framework for cumulative impact assessment......................................................... 47
3.8.2 Case studies on cumulative impacts ............................................................................................ 48
3.9 Estimating the Costs of the Impacts of Dams on Ecosystems ..................................................... 51
3.9.1 Externalities and Livelihoods ...................................................................................................... 52
3.9.2 Trade-offs between Economic and Ethical Considerations ......................................................... 52
3.10 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................. 53
4. Responding to the Ecosystem Impacts of Dams .........................................................55

Dams, Ecosystem Functions, and Environmental Restoration viii
4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 55

4.2 Types of Response....................................................................................................................... 55
4.2.1 Avoidance.................................................................................................................................... 56
4.2.2 Mitigation .................................................................................................................................... 58
4.2.3 Compensation .............................................................................................................................. 61
4.2.4 Dam Decommissioning and River Restoration ........................................................................... 62
4.3 How Effective is Mitigation?....................................................................................................... 64
4.3.1 The Example of Fish Ladders...................................................................................................... 66
4.3.2 Why Avoidance, Mitigation, and Compensation are Difficult .................................................... 68
4.4 How to Make Mitigation More Effective? .................................................................................. 69
4.4.1 Indicators for Hydro-Project Site Selection................................................................................. 70
4.4.2 Indicators of Ecological Integrity ................................................................................................ 71
4.4.3 Environmental Flow Requirements (EFRs)................................................................................. 72
4.5 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................. 73
5. Trends in the International Debate/Approach to Dams ............................................75

5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 75
5.2 Summary of the debate ................................................................................................................ 75
5.3 Summary of Trends ..................................................................................................................... 76
5.3.1 IEA 76
5.3.2 International Commission on Large Dams (ICOLD) .................................................................. 78
5.3.3 The World Bank .......................................................................................................................... 79
5.3.4 New approaches of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) .. 80
5.3.5 The International Movement Against Large Dams ..................................................................... 80
5.3.6 Requirements of International Conventions ................................................................................81
5.4 Areas of Convergence/Divergence .............................................................................................. 82
6. Conclusions and Policy Recommendations for WCD ................................................84

6.1 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................. 84
6.2 Recommendations........................................................................................................................ 85
6.3 Options for Operationalising the Recommendations................................................................... 86
7. References ......................................................................................................................89
Annex 1: Potential Environmental Impacts of Dams, Reservoirs and Hydroelectric

Projects .........................................................................................................................100
Annex 2: Reservoir Fisheries ..............................................................................................104
Annex 3: Comparison of Pre vs. Post Impoundment Conditions.....................................107
Annex 4: Sediment Discharges ...........................................................................................108
Annex 5: Large Dam Projects: Adverse Environmental Impacts and Mitigation

Options..........................................................................................................................111
Annex 6: Environmental Flow Requirements (EFR) ......................................................114
Annex 7: Example of Mitigation Measures ......................................................................116

Dams, Ecosystem Functions, and Environmental Restoration ix
Appendix I – List of Contributing Papers to Thematic Review II.1 ...............................117
Appendix II - Submissions for Thematic Review II.1 .......................................................119
Appendix III – Comments Received for Thematic Review II.1 Dams, Ecosystem
Functions & Environmental Restoration ..................................................................129
Dams, Ecosystem Functions, and Environmental Restoration x
List of Figures
Figure 2.1: General description of the inter-relationships between a river basin and the water cycle
(after Shiklomanov 1999). .............................................................................................................. 4
Figure 2.2: Cumulative number of countries ratifying the main environmental Conventions(World
Heritage (1), Ramsar Convention on wetlands (2), trade in endangered species (3), biological
diversity (4), and climate change (5)). .......................................................................................... 12
Figure 3.1: Distribution of reservoir area for dams over 15m high in Turkey(DSI, 1999).................. 15
Figure 3.2: Total area of large-dam reservoirs (1000's km2) by region (ICOLD 1999)..................... 16
Figure 3.3: Average area of large dam reservoir (km2) per region(ICOLD 1999).............................. 16
Figure 3.4: Comparison of pre and post impoundment flows in the Murray River, Australia:variation
in the average monthly flow at a) Albury (2225 km from the mouth) and b) at Barrages (1 km
from the mouth). Source: Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council, 1995............................... 28
Figure 3.5: Daily Streamflow Variations in the Colorado River at Lee's Ferry in September. Peak
flows are associated with the power generation between 14.00 and 19.00 daily, with minima at
04.00 am, and the fluctuation in demand also varies from day to day.......................................... 29
Figure 3.6: Fish species richness decreases at higher latitudes indicating that dam construction in
tropical regions could potentially have more impacts than at higher latitudes (WCMC 1998)... 36
Figure 3.7: Fragmentation of rivers in 225 basins in the world (Source: Nilsson et al. 2000). .......... 46
Figure 3.8: Dams in the river systems of Sweden. Only four major rivers remain undammed........... 47
Figure 3.9: The impact of dams on the hypothesised downstream pattern exhibited by a given river
characteristic in situationa) with no cumulative impacts and b) with cumulative impacts
(modified from Ward and Stanford, 1995). .................................................................................. 48
Figure 3.10: a) Cumulative useable storage in reservoirs in the Platte River basin and b) associated
cumulative change in island and channel area .............................................................................. 50
Figure 3.11: a) Longitudinal and altitudinal profile of the Gunnison River and b) changes in speciosity
and biomass with distance downstream. ....................................................................................... 51
Figure 4.1: Number of dams removed in the USA, as a function of a) dam height and b) year of
removal (after, Doyle et al., 2000)............................................................................................... 63
Figure 4.2: Figure 4.1: Distribution of EMP preparation & environmental problem evaluations for
dam projects in Latin America co-financed by the IDB from 1960-1999(IDB 1999).................. 65
Dams, Ecosystem Functions, and Environmental Restoration xi
List of Tables
Table 2.1: Natural ecosystems provide many goods and services (functions) to humankind that are
often neglected in (economic) planning and decision making........................................................ 6
Table 2.2: Global monetary values of freshwater and wetland functions (in US$ billion, 1994).......... 9
Table 3.1: The potential scale of the impacts of dams.........................................................................16
Table 3.2: Some databases of dams ..................................................................................................... 17
Table 3.3: Upstream and downstream impacts according to first, second, and third order as described.
...................................................................................................................................................... 18
Table 3.4: A framework for assessing the impact of dams on river ecosystems(modified from Petts,
1984). ............................................................................................................................................ 19
Table 3.5: Fragmentation of rivers in 225 basins in the world (Source: Nilsson et al. 2000)............. 46
Table 5.1: Distillation of arguments used by proponents and opponents of large dams...................... 77
Table 5.2: Trends in the Planning of Hydropower Projects (IEA, 2000)............................................ 78
Table 6.1: Options for establishing sub-principles under each recommendation ................................ 87
Dams, Ecosystem Functions, and Environmental Restoration xii
List of Boxes
Box 1.1: Why large dams are built ........................................................................................................ 1
Box 2.1: Important ecological concepts of rivers and floodplains......................................................... 3
Box 2.2: Why biological diversity is important ..................................................................................... 7
Box 2.3: Watershed Management........................................................................................................ 10
Box 2.4: International recognition of ecosystem values ...................................................................... 12
Box 3.1: Types of dams, in descending order of impacts on ecosystems ............................................ 15
Box 3.2: Construction impacts............................................................................................................. 20
Box 3.3: Invasive species and large dams............................................................................................ 24
Box 3.4: Species richness of the planet’s major environments (Source: McAllister et al. 1997)....... 37
Environment % area of % of known Relative species ...................................................................... 37
Box 3.5: Global hotspots for freshwater molluscs............................................................................... 40
Box 3.6: Mollusc species present within reservoir region, USA (Source: Neves, 1999) ..................... 41
Box 3.7: Fish species richness in selected river basins (after: World Bank 1998, WCMC 1998)....... 43
Box 3.8: Dams as Wildlife Habitats..................................................................................................... 45
Box 3.9: Example of cumulative affect on first order impacts (i.e. the hydrology) of the Murray
River, Australia (after Maseshwari et al., 1995)........................................................................... 49
Box 3.10: Example of cumulative affect on second order impacts (i.e. the geomorphology) of the
Platte River, USA (after Hadley et al., 1987) .............................................................................. 50
Box 3.11: Example of cumulative affect on third order impacts (i.e. zoobenthos) in the Gunnisson
River, USA (after Hauer et al., 1989). ......................................................................................... 51
Box 3.12: Ethical principles for decision-makers involved in water and energy planning (di Leva
1999) ............................................................................................................................................. 53
Box 4.1: Demand management, water recycling and rainwater harvesting: examples of .................... 57
Box 4.2: Avoidance of impacts on sensitive species during blasting .................................................. 58
Box 4.3: Decommissioning of the Edwards Dam, USA....................................................................... 63
Box 4.4: Possible consequences for salmon of removal of the Elwha Dam, Washington (after Doyle
et al., 2000) ................................................................................................................................... 64
Box 4.5: Improving fish passage design to make them work better .................................................... 67
Box 4.6: Why fish passes may fail....................................................................................................... 67
Box 4.7: Environmental Indicators To Guide Site Selection................................................................ 70
Box 4.8: Indicators of Ecological Integrity.......................................................................................... 71
Box 4.9: Case study: The Colorado River ........................................................................................... 72
Box 4.10: Case study: Kromme River ................................................................................................. 73
Box 5.1: The Curitiba Declaration....................................................................................................... 81
Box 5.2: Ramsar Convention: Guidelines for Contracting Parties relating to reducing the impact of
water development projects on wetlands ...................................................................................... 82
Box A2.1: Fisheries yields of selected reservoirs .............................................................................. 104
Dams, Ecosystem Functions, and Environmental Restoration 1
1. Introduction
Dams, large and small, are planned, constructed and operated to meet human needs in the generation
of energy, irrigated agricultural production, flood control, supply of drinking water, and various other
purposes. While seen originally as a relatively straightforward solution to many of these needs, the
history of dams over the past 100 years has shown that their many benefits to society come together
with an array of environmental and social costs. The decision to construct a dam and the design and
operation of its management regime therefore need to be based upon a rigorous analysis of these costs
and benefits.
There is today widespread recognition of this challenge amongst governments, industry, the
development assistance community, NGOs, community groups, and many others concerned with the
issues of large dams. Indeed over the course of the past 10 years there has been substantial change in
the approach to dams with much greater attention to environmental and social issues. Various types
of environmental and social guidelines now exist and are increasingly applied.
Differences in judgements towards dam development are based on different value systems,
development paradigms, options analysis and practical actions. At the level of value systems, the
dilemma focuses on whether ‘environmental conservation’ and ‘development’ are antagonistic.
Within the environmental conservation movement one can distinguish ‘conservationists’ and
‘preservationists’ (Norton 1991). Conservationists see natural ecosystems and species as resources
and are concerned mainly with the wise use of them. ‘Preservationists’ on the other hand are
committed to protecting large areas of landscape from any human alterations. In a simplified way, the
development community can be divided in those seeking ‘development per se’ and those that are
looking for ‘sustainable development’. Obviously the preservationist and those seeking ‘development
per se’ adhere to a different development paradigm. For conservationists and those seeking
sustainable development, paradigms often lie close to each other, with the debate focussing on what
constitutes “acceptable” change.
The majority of dams (75%) are developed and operated to irrigate land and generate power or are
used for both (Box 1.1). In many cases, these dams have provided profits for a range of beneficiaries.
At the same time, dams have negatively impacted affected people and the environment. As such the
development of water resources using dams has created many conflicts of interest and it is becoming
increasingly clear that environmental and social dimensions need to be addressed more substantially.
Box 1.1: Why large dams are built
Irrigation only 37%

Multi-purpose 22%
Electricity generation only 16%
Water supply only 12%
Flood control only 6%
Recreation only 3%
Other 4%
TOTAL: 100%
(Source: ICOLD World Register of Large Dams, 1998)
Despite this progress there remain significant and widespread concerns about the environmental
impacts of dams at the more practical level linked with option analysis and practical actions. The
conservationist view in short argues that dams, even when designed to minimise environmental
impacts, result in significant negative impacts to a wide range of natural ecosystems and to the people
that depend upon them for their livelihood. At a time when pressures upon the diversity and
productivity of the world’s natural resources continue to rise, it is argued that firm action is required
to prevent loss of these resources through further dam construction (McCully, 1996). In response,
those engaged in the planning, construction and operation of dams argue that with continuing
improvements in knowledge and technology it is increasingly possible to avoid, mitigate or
compensate for the environmental impacts of dams, so yielding win-win solutions in most cases
(ICOLD, 1997).
As a contribution to improved decision-making about large dams, this report examines the nature of
the effects of dams upon upstream and downstream ecosystems and the reported experience with
methods to avoid, mitigate and compensate those effects. It does not attempt an exhaustive assessment
of the impact of dams on ecosystems world-wide as data for this task are currently unavailable. The
focus of the report is deliberately on the medium to long-term impacts of dams on ecosystems rather
than the short term impacts of construction.
The paper approaches these issues by first examining the nature of river basin ecosystems, asking why
they are important and why the international community has signed up for promoting their protection
within the framework of sustainable development. It then reviews current understanding of the nature
of the impact of dams upon these ecosystems and their associated values. This includes both their
intrinsic spiritual, ethical and biodiversity values and their economic values to local people and their
livelihoods, as well as wider ecosystem values for society as a whole.
The report then examines the current status of approaches to addressing the consequences of dam
impacts on ecosystems through the continuum of “avoidance-mitigation-compensation-restoration” of
ecosystem losses. Based upon this analysis the report concludes with an assessment of the areas of
convergence and divergence on these issues within the dams debate and set of recommendations to
the Commission.
2. River Basin Ecosystems and Biodiversity
2.1 Introduction
Freshwater covers only 2.7% of the Earth’s surface, of which 66% by volume is in snow and ice, 29%
in groundwater, 2.5% in lakes and rivers and less than 0.001% in reservoirs (Shiklomanov 1999).
Rivers therefore cover a very small part of the Earth, yet they are intricately linked to the vast area of
the planet that lies within river basins, as well as the coastal and near-shore marine ecosystems that
are dependent on freshwater inputs. Rivers are central elements in many landscapes. Their string-like
shape and dendritic drainage pattern mean they are effectively interspersed into the landscape despite
their small total area (Nilsson and Jansson, 1995). They are important natural corridors for the flows
of energy, matter and species (Malanson, 1993).
Viewed holistically, river- related ecosystems encompass all the components (both biotic and abiotic)
of the environment linked to that river, including people. This includes not only the aquatic habitats
associated with water in the river channel, but all the elements of the river catchment that contribute
water, nutrients and other inputs to the river. Thus the complex of ecosystems that constitute a river
basin includes: the headwaters and the catchment landscapes; the channel from the headwaters to the
sea; riparian areas; associated groundwater in the channel/banks and floodplains; wetlands; the
estuary and any near shore environment that is dependent on freshwater inputs. Each of these
environments is dependent to a greater or lesser degree on connectivity with the active channel of the
river and the ecological character of the main channel depends on the interactions with those
environments (Petts and Amoros 1996) (Box 2.1).
The hydrological cycle provides an important linkage between the component parts (Figure 2.1).
Another important linkage is formulated in the ‘flood-pulse’ concept which describes the periodic,
two-way exchange of nutrients between the main river channel and riparian ecosystems (Junk et al.
1989, Bayley 1995, Sparks 1995) (Box 2.1). In order to understand the relationship between large
dams and the rivers on which they are built, it is essential to understand the nature and values of the
different ecosystems along a river’s course from its catchment to the sea.
Box 2.1: Important ecological concepts of rivers and floodplains
1. The “river continuum concept” encompasses the linkages upstream and downstream from a river’s
source to the coastal zone, including any deltas or lagoon systems. This concept includes the gradual
natural changes in river flows, water quality and species, that occur along the rivers length. Nutrients
and sediment generated in the headwaters are recycled downstream, driving plant growth and biotic
productivity. One of the most obvious characteristics of the river continuum concept is the migration
of fish from the sea to spawning grounds in the headwaters. River engineering projects, such as dams,
can break this continuum causing radical changes in flows, water quality and stopping the movement
of species.
2. The “flood pulse” concept is based on the importance of lateral connectivity between rivers and
their floodplains and sees the inundation of floodplains as the main driving force behind river life, not
as a problem that needs eradicating. Rivers provide the floodplain with nutrients and sediment, whilst
the floodplain provides a breeding ground for river species and improves water quality through
settlement of sediment and absorption and re-cycling of nutrients and pollutants.
Reviews of river ecosystems can be found in a number of volumes, for example Petts (1984) and
Davies and Day (1998).
Figure 2.1: General description of the inter-relationships between a river basin and the water
cycle (after Shiklomanov 1999).
2.2 Why Ecosystems are Valuable

Each ecosystem is composed of a number of physical, biological or chemical components such as
soils, water, plant and animal species, and nutrients. Processes among and within these components
allow the ecosystem to perform certain functions such as flood control and storm protection, and
generate products such as wildlife, fisheries and forest resources. There are also ecosystem scale
attributes such a biological diversity and cultural uniqueness/heritage, that have value either because
they induce certain uses or because they are valued themselves. It is the combination of these
functions, products, and attributes that make ecosystems important to society.
Whether a natural or man-made ecosystem performs a certain function, yields specific products, or
possesses certain attributes, is determined by the interaction between chemical and physical
characteristics of the site. Characteristics vary greatly between and within each major ecosystem
group. Thus forests perform different functions from wetlands and amongst wetlands there is
variation both in terms of the types of functions, and the degree to which they are performed.
Ecosystem functions can be grouped into four categories (after De Groot, 1992): regulation functions,
habitat functions, production functions, and information functions (Table 2.1). The following
sections summarise examples of functions of river basin ecosystems under each of these categories.
2.2.1 Ecosystems as Regulators
Ecosystems along the course of a river serve both as regulators of water quantity and water quality.
Several types of ecosystems, notably forests and wetlands, are known to act as hydrological buffers,
absorbing water when it rains and releasing it gradually over several weeks and months. This not
only helps to protect downstream communities from flooding, but helps to ensure that water continues
to flow during the drier periods of the year. For example, the forest of La Tigra National Park
(Honduras) sustain a well-regulated, high quality water flow throughout the year, yielding over 40%
of the water supply of the capital city (Acreman and Lahmann, 1995).
Wetland ecosystems are able to reduce rates of water flow and store water above the surrounding
water table (for example in a raised bog). The vegetation and hydrology enables the wetland
ecosystem to function as a ‘sponge’ and provide the services of flood prevention and water storage.
The value of these services may be considerable. Often technical alternatives to regulate the quantity
of flow are much more expensive. New York City ensures the quality of its water supply through the
protection of the biological and hydrological processes of the upper parts of the catchment on which
the water supply depends. Building water treatment plants would cost ten times as much, US$ 7
billion (Abramovitz, 1997).
Ecosystems also regulate water quality. On sloping ground, for example, vegetation anchors soil and
prevents it from being washed into the watercourse where it would cause siltation and nutrification
and reduce light penetration. This would reduce water quality, the health of aquatic ecosystems and
the suitability of the water for aquaculture and other uses. The physical structure of watercourses and
the organisms that inhabit it also regulate water quality. For example, waterfalls, rapids and aquatic
vegetation oxygenate the water, and riverbanks, river beds and vegetation trap sediment. These
hydrological and biological processes enable the watercourse to function as a water purification unit
providing fresh water.
Riverine wetlands play an important role in regulating water quality. They remove toxins and
excessive nutrients from the water both by processes of decomposition and uptake by vegetation
(Baker and Maltby, 1995). As wetlands hold water for long periods of time, decomposition processes
and vegetation are given enough time to remove nutrients and toxins from the water. For example,
vegetation found in the Melaleuca wetlands in SE Asia reduces the acidity of polluted water and
removes toxic metal ions making the water suitable again for the irrigation of rice (Ni et al., 1997). In
this way, the combination of hydrological and biological processes allows these wetlands to function
as filtration and purification systems and to provide the service of water purification.
Table 2.1: Natural ecosystems provide many goods and services (functions) to humankind that
are often neglected in (economic) planning and decision making.
(adapted from de Groot 1992).
REGULATION FUNCTIONS PRODUCTION FUNCTIONS
The capacity of natural and semi-natural Resources provided by natural and semi-
ecosystems to regulate essential ecological natural ecosystems
processes and life support systems
• Maintenance of biogeochemical cycling • Food (e.g. edible plants and animals)

(e.g. air-quality regulation and CO2- • Raw materials (e.g. thatch, fabrics)
buffering) • Fuel and energy (renewable energy
• Climate regulation (e.g. buffering resources)
extremes) • Fodder and fertiliser (e.g. krill, litter)
• Water regulation (e.g. flood protection) • Medicinal resources (e.g. drugs, models,
• Water supply (filtering & storage) test organisms)
• Soil retention (e.g. erosion control) • Genetic resources (e.g. for crop resistance)
• Soil formation & maintenance of fertility • Ornamental resources (e.g. aquarium fish,
• Bioenergy fixation souvenirs)
• Nutrient cycling (i.e. maintenance of the
availability of essential nutrients)
• Waste treatment (e.g. water purification)
• Biological control (e.g. pest control and INFORMATION FUNCTIONS
pollination)
Providing opportunities for reflection, spiritual
enrichment and cognitive development
• Aesthetic information (e.g. valued scenery)

• Recreation and (eco-) tourism
HABITAT FUNCTIONS • Religious and cultural values
• Cultural & artistic inspiration (i.e. nature
Providing refugia to wild plants and animals as a motive and source of inspiration for
(and native people) in order to maintain human culture and art)
biological and genetic diversity • Spiritual and historic information (based
on ethical considerations and heritage
values)
• Refugium function (for resident & • Scientific educational information (i.e.
migratory species) nature as a natural field laboratory and
• Nursery function (reproduction habitat for reference area)
harvestable species)
2.2.2 Ecosystems as Habitats
Riverine floodplains and river courses, together with their catchments are important habitats for many
species of plants, fish, birds and others animals. Wetlands areas are known as prime areas for
biodiversity conservation and as important nursery and feeding areas for many aquatic and terrestrial
migratory species. In contrast to their fringing wetlands, the main watercourses of rivers function as
habitats for animals that require fast-flowing oxygen-rich water. Together, freshwater ecosystems
support over 10,000 species of fish and over 4,000 species of amphibians described so far.
Freshwaters support a relatively high proportion of species, and more per unit area than other
environments; 10% more than land and 150% more than oceans (McAllister et al., 1997; WCMC,
1998).
Coastal deltas and the estuaries of the major rivers, are also important providers of habitats. They
provide food and shelter for marine animals that require freshwater conditions for part of their life
cycle. Consequently, these coastal wetlands function as habitats for crabs, oysters and shrimp, and
provide the service of supporting fisheries based on these goods. For example, it has been calculated
that over 90% of the shrimp harvest of the Gulf of Panama is dependent upon the estuaries and
mangroves of the region (D’Croz and Kwiecinski, 1980) that are, in turn, dependent on fresh water
inflows.
Box 2.2: Why biological diversity is important
Biological diversity, or biodiversity, is a measure of the variability of genes, species, and ecosystems
in a region. This region can vary from a small forest patch to a sub-contintent. Biodiversity is
important because plants and animals have made our planet fit for the forms of life we know today.
They help maintain the chemical balance of the Earth, stabilise climate, protect watersheds and renew
soil. All societies continue to draw on a wide array of ecosystems, species and genetic variants to
meet their ever-changing needs. The diversity of nature is a source of beauty, enjoyment,
understanding, and knowledge. It is the source of all biological wealth, supplying all our food, much
of our raw materials, and a wide range of goods and services and genetic materials for agriculture,
medicine and industry worth many billions of dollars per year. Biological diversity should be
conserved as a matter of principle, because all species deserve respect regardless of their use to
humanity, and because they are all components of our life support system.
Prudence dictates that we keep as much biodiversity as possible, but the trend is steadily downward,
as more habitats are converted to exclusively human uses. While we are still uncertain about how
many species now exist, leading experts calculate that if present trends continue, up to 25% of the
world's species could become extinct, or be reduced to tiny remnants, by the middle of the next
century. Many more species are losing a considerable part of their genetic variation, making them
increasingly vulnerable to pests, disease, and climatic change.
2.2.3 Ecosystems as Providers of Resources
Many riverine ecosystems provide large quantities of water, food and energy for direct human
consumption, agriculture, fisheries, watering livestock, industry and energy production. Harvesting
these goods while respecting the production rate and the regenerative capacity of each species can
generate great benefits to human society. One of the most important products of riverine ecosystems
is fish. In many areas, river-dependent fisheries form a fundamental pillar of the local and national
economy.
Direct harvest of forest resources of many floodplains also yields important products, ranging from
fuelwood, timber and bark to resins and medicines, which are common non-wood ‘minor’ forest
products (Dugan, 1990). Wildlife provides important commercial products such as meat, skins, eggs
and honey. Extensive riverine floodplain ecosystems also support substantial seasonal grasslands that
are grazed by livestock. For example the Brazilian Pantanal supports over 5 million cattle (Adamoli,
1988). Wetlands also contain a large genetic reservoir for certain plant species, fish and other
animals. For example, wild rice continues to be an important resource of new genetic material used in
developing disease resistance and other desirable traits.
2.2.4 Ecosystems as Providers of Information
Water-based ecosystems provide many opportunities for recreation, aesthetic experience and
reflection. Recreational uses include fishing, sport hunting, birdwatching, photography, and water
sports. The economic value of these can be considerable. For example in Canada the value of wetland
recreation was estimated in 1981 to exceed US$ 3.9 billion (Dugan, 1990). Maintaining the wetlands
and capitalising on these uses can be a valuable alternative to more disruptive uses and degradation of
these ecosystems. They are important repositories and stores of palaeontological information. Under
anaerobic conditions biological material such as pollen, and diatoms and even human bodies can be
preserved in peats and lake sediments.
In addition, many people gain spiritual or aesthetic benefits from visiting, appreciating and
experiencing free-flowing rivers. The symbolism of nature untamed, the bubbling of mountain
streams and the majesty of lowland rivers can be an uplifting personal experience, and also provides
inspiration for literature and music.
2.3 The value of ecosystem goods and services

We all depend on functioning ecosystems for our survival. For many of the World’s poorest people
the biological resources of river ecosystems often provide the single most important contribution to
their livelihoods and welfare in the form of food supplies, medicines, income, employment and
cultural integrity. Such communities often have limited alternative livelihood options and this makes
them particularly vulnerable to changes in the condition of the natural resources on which they
depend.
2.3.1 Economic valuation techniques
Attempts to quantify economic values for ecosystems have been made, both at the micro (Echeverria
et al., 1995; Sullivan, 1999) and at the macro levels (Costanza et al., 1997; Alexander et al., 1998).
These have demonstrated that replacement costs for ecosystems and their functions are likely to be far
higher than the opportunity cost of maintaining the natural system intact. However they have
highlighted the difficulties faced by those trying to assess environmental values in monetary terms.
The complexity of such systems in particular makes accurate assessments very difficult, since feed-
back effects and interactions are not yet fully understood.
While immature, the science of valuation of ecosystems has, however, allowed a clear distinction to
be made between: i) ecosystem products that can be sold on the market (and for which prices exist,
revenue is generated and jobs maintained); ii) non-marketable services (such as water quality
maintenance or groundwater recharge) that are more difficult to price in evolving circumstances; and
iii) intrinsic values such as the beauty of natural landscapes. Less clear guidance is available on how
to price "free services", particularly in developing economies that need to generate real, not virtual,
incomes and where society may value these services more highly 20 years hence as the economy
develops. The assessment of intrinsic, cultural and aesthetic values cannot usually be addressed in
monetary terms in the same way, as there is no replacement when these values are lost. These values
are therefore usually addressed through a political or ethical process rather than a process of economic
valuation.
Some current valuation techniques are based on preferences, and money provides a measure of value.
Preferences are both subjective and dynamic, and measurement of such ‘fuzzy’ variables is a difficult
task. The fact that preferences are subjective means that different groups within society are likely to
have different values, and this demonstrates the importance of consulting a wide variety of
stakeholders when considering the question of environmental values.
It should be stressed that this review does not see the valuation of ecosystem services as a
straightforward accounting exercise where the calculated value is simply added to the cost:benefit
balance sheet. As the ecosystem dimensions of dam projects also include ethical and societal values,
the monetary value serves as an input to multi-criteria decision-making and raises awareness of costs
that are currently hidden and negated in the accounting exercise.
2.3.2 The Monetary Value of Freshwater Ecosystems
Many functions of freshwater ecosystems and wetlands have direct and indirect economic importance.
Entire communities depend on the functions provided by freshwater ecosystems and, as such,
ecosystems have enormous value. It is still difficult to translate this value into monetary terms,
leading to the continuing loss and degradation of water systems due to undervaluation and neglect in
economic accounting procedures. In Nigeria, for example, it has been shown that the net economic
benefits of the Hadejia-Nguru floodplain ecosystem are much larger than those from irrigated land:
US$ 32 versus US$ 0.15 per 1,000m3 of water, not including benefits of floodplain inundation for
groundwater recharge and water supply to the productive ecosystem of Lake Chad (Adams 1992).
A first attempt to synthesise existing knowledge on the monetary benefits of the services of
ecosystems on a global scale was published in 1997 (Costanza et al. 1997). Table 2.2 gives a
summary of the main functions, and monetary values, of freshwater and wetland ecosystems.
Table 2.2: Global monetary values of freshwater and wetland functions (in US$ billion, 1994).
(functions based on de Groot 1997; values based on Costanza et al. 1997).
Ecosystem functions (goods & services) Active or direct Passive or Per cent of
use values indirect use Global Total
(mainly values (for a
market prices) (mainly shadow particular
price) function)
1. REGULATION FUNCTIONS
1.1 Climate regulation & biogeochemical ? 44 3%
cycling (e.g. CO2)
1.2 Water buffering (e.g. flood prevention) ? 350(a) 40 %
1.3 Waste treatment ? 5,300 31 %
1.4 Biological control ? 14 3%
2. HABITAT FUNCTIONS
2.1 Refugium function ? (c) (c)
2.2 Nursery function 62 62(a) 100 %
3. PRODUCTION FUNCTIONS
3.1 Water 840 840(a) 99 %
3.2 Food (mainly fish) 186 (b) 13 %
3.3 Raw materials & energy 40 (b) 6%
3.4 Genetic material & medicines (d) (d) (d)
4. INFORMATION FUNCTIONS
4.1 Aesthetic information (e.g. views) ? 5 2%
4.2 Recreation and tourism 304 (b) 37 %
4.3 Cultural values (e.g. art, science) (d) (d) (d)
Total (in US$ billion/year) 1,782 + 6,905 Average 26%
Notes:
(a) The total value of the flood prevention, nursery function and water supply given in Costanza et al. (1997) was based on a
combination of market and shadow prices. For simplicity, it has been estimated that 50% of the calculated value is
included in market prices.
(b) The values given for food, raw materials and tourism are based only on market prices. However, these resources also
have an unknown (direct) consumptive use value (many people depend on freshwater systems for these resources
directly, without market intervention).
(c) In addition to active and passive use values, many ecosystem functions have so-called non-use or intrinsic value. In this
study it is not attempted to place a monetary value on the intrinsic importance of nature but it could, in part, be derived
from the money people are willing to spend to maintain the refugium function of natural ecosystems.
(d) Freshwater and wetland systems are important sources of genetic material, medicines and cultural values but little or no
information is available on the monetary value of these ecosystem functions.
This analysis shows that, world-wide, freshwater and wetland systems account for approximately 26%
of the total economic value of all ecosystem services (which vary substantially by function, as the last
column shows). It can be concluded that still only about 20% (US$ 1,782 billion) of the economic
value of coastal and freshwater systems is accounted for in market pricing mechanisms. All other
values, which mainly relate to regulation and habitat functions, are not yet (properly) accounted for.
2.4 Ecosystems and River Basin Development

The central issue of river basin development is to decide how to allocate water to maximise the
benefits it provides to society as a whole. In the past little consideration was given to the importance
of ecosystems and their multiple values to society. Very regularly these were overlooked when single-
use developments were predominantly considered. Today, in some societies high value is placed on
sustaining healthy “pristine” river ecosystems because they are believed by many to have an intrinsic
value in themselves. Human – nature interactions within river basins are so strong that the system as a
whole is the logical level for environmental and water management measures.
The sustainable development of river basins requires the development and implementation of
management plans at the level of the entire basin (Newson 1997, Mostert 1999). The conservation of
valuable ecosystem goods and services forms an essential element in these (Box 2.3). To manage a
river basin implies to optimally allocate scarce resources among competing users now and in the
future. This requires political will, accurate information and knowledge of the basin, sustainable
technologies, appropriate institutional and legal arrangements, stakeholder participation and economic
viability (Burton 1999). There is no single best approach for river basin development as each basin is
unique in its configuration and state of development.
Box 2.3: Watershed Management
Watershed management programs generally include a variety of subprograms designed to reduce

erosion through establishment or expansion of protected areas, improved management of protected
areas, restoration and rehabilitation of forest or other biotypes, and the introduction of improved
agricultural technologies or alternative types of production. One of the more promising approaches is
to introduce agroforestry practices that have the dual benefit of increasing forest cover in the basin
and replacing existing agricultural practices with cultivation and promotion of non-destructive, but
economically beneficial use of those resources.
As the importance of the inter-relationship between dam development and the surrounding watershed
has become more fully realised, measures to protect and manage the watershed are being promoted in
association with the construction of new dams. These include management of agricultural, urban and
natural areas throughout the basin. While initially viewed as compensation to ameliorate the negative
impacts of dams (section 4.2.3), these measures for protecting and enhancing environmental resources
in the basin are increasingly seen as also sustaining the operational life of the project.
In 1996 the Compania Nacional de Fuerza y Luz, a private utility in Costa Rica (but owned by the
state utility), started a management program for the upper watershed (142 km2) of its Brasil
hydropower plant on the Virilla River. The project consists of reforestation, forest conservation, and
environmental education components, and will cost US$9 million over a ten-year period. It is
expected that such a change in land use management upstream of the dam will improve the water
regime by 2%, therefore resulting in an increased power production of 9%. The reforestation
component will change the land use from pastures to tree plantations in 1,250 ha, while an additional
1,250 ha will be managed as agroforestry systems. 3,400 ha of forest will be conserved, which
together with the plantations will yield the additional benefit of the fixing of 584,000 tonnes of carbon
(Mora 2000/ENV223).
Dams have been an important technology in river basin development. Planning for new dams and
upgrading of existing dams should be carried out within the context of river basin development and
management plans. National sector reviews, plans and efforts for the implementing of an integrated
water resources management approach need to be taken into account in dam development and
management.
The WCD’s Thematic Review V.3, “River Basins- Institutional Frameworks and Management
Options” deals with this subject in more detail. Also, Thematic Review V.1 “Planning Approaches”
also looks at the planning level of the dam building decision process.
2.5 International and national recognition of ecosystem values

During the past two decades, legal experts have attempted to understand and clarify the basic concept
underlying the governing principles regarding respect for all forms of life. The three resulting ‘over-
arching’ principles are to be read in conjunction with principles regarding human needs –
development and poverty eradication. Di Leva (1999) defines the three principles as:
1. Recognise that the enjoyment of basic human rights is dependent on the continued existence of a
ecologically sustainable natural environment;
2. Recognise that decisions impact on future generations which have inherent rights (inter –
generational equity);
3. Respect all life forms independent of their value to humanity (UN 1982).
To date there is a growing recognition of these values (Box 2.4). At the international level, this has
lead to the development of a UN Charter for Nature and a range of environmental conventions to
protect species and specific ecosystems. The UN Charter for Nature (UN 1982) was adopted by
consensus by the UN General Assembly to provide a high-level guiding principle to govern
humankind’s responsibility for nature conservation and management. The Charter has several
principles. One of these includes ‘Ecosystems and organisms as well …. resources utilised by men
shall be managed to achieve and maintain optimum sustainable productivity, but not in such a way as
to endanger the integrity of those ecosystems or species with which they coexist.’
As Figure 2.2 illustrates the attention given to ecosystem conservation by national governments from
all parts of the developing and developed world, as reflected in the signatures of international treaties,
has increased markedly in recent years. For example, The Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar 1971)
has been ratified by 110 contracting parties and 177 countries have ratified the Convention on
Biological Diversity to date, that is 96% of all UN-recognised countries in the world (185) (UN-CBD
2000). This argues strongly that every effort should be made to avoid irreversible loss of resources
that are likely to become more valuable to all societies in future.
Box 2.4: International recognition of ecosystem values
Contracting Parties give the following motivations for respecting ecosystem values:
“…the intrinsic value of biological diversity and of the ecological, genetic, social, economic,
scientific, educational, cultural, recreational and aesthetic values of biological diversity and its
components…”
“…the importance of biological diversity for evolution and for maintaining life sustaining systems of
the biosphere…”
“…that conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity is of critical importance for meeting
the food, health and other needs of the growing world population, for which purpose access to and
sharing of both genetic resources and technologies are essential…”
Convention on Biological Diversity of June 5, 1992

____________________
“…that wetlands constitute a resource of great economic, cultural, scientific, and recreational value,
the loss of which would be irreparable…”
Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat-The Ramsar
Convention of 1971
Figure 2.2: Cumulative number of countries ratifying the main environmental

Conventions(World Heritage (1), Ramsar Convention on wetlands (2), trade in endangered
species (3), biological diversity (4), and climate change (5)).
Currently, national governments and civil society are faced with the challenge of deciding how the
continuous process of the implementation of these conventions can be strengthened. Often this relates
to strengthening national legislation and its implementation / enforcement. An important practical
issue to resolve is defining how much water should be used for the maintenance of ecosystems to
provide environmental goods and maintain elemental services. Recent changes in the South African
law defined specific allocations for maintaining river flows for ecological reasons. The basic human
needs and environmental requirements are now identified as ‘The Reserve’ and have priority of use by
right (Asmal 1998). Increasingly, a range of techniques are available to determine the requirements of
downstream ecosystems (King et al. 1999).
This has to be determined along with how much water should be used to support agriculture, industry
and domestic services to provide basic goods. Obviously, the value that society places on these
alternative goods and services will determine the pattern of allocation.
It is important therefore that the costs and benefits to society of allocating water to maintain
ecosystems or to support agriculture, industry and domestic uses are well understood.
2.6 Conclusions
Ecosystems provide goods and services to human society. These have high values and provide the
basis for sustainable livelihoods. The goods and services these systems provide, such as food, timber,
fisheries and drinking water, form an important natural resource base for many societies throughout
the world. The total global value of ecosystem goods and services is estimated at US$ 33 trillion per
year, of which roughly 25% relates directly to freshwater ecosystems. Freshwater ecosystems are also
known to regulate water quality and quantity and to provide habitats for tens of thousands of species.
To maintain natural ecosystem goods and services it is essential to conserve and sustainably manage
species and ecosystem processes. Together they form the integrity of healthy ecosystems. For the
maintenance of healthy river ecosystems, the integrated management of land and water resources is
required within an entire river basin. Dams therefore cannot be an objective in themselves, but should
be seen as a tool that should be used with great care and prudence.
A large majority of sovereign states have committed themselves to conservation of nature through a
range of international conventions and national legislation and policies, as exemplified by the
extensive ratification of the five major international conventions on nature conservation. The
Convention on Biological Diversity alone is ratified by over 96% of all countries. The effective
implementation of these, however, often remains weak in relation to dam development.
3. Ecosystem Impacts of Large Dams

3.1 Introduction
Dams are structures designed to store or divert water. They are intended to alter the natural
distribution and timing of streamflows in order to meet human needs. As such, they also alter
essential processes for natural ecosystems. Dams constitute obstacles for longitudinal exchanges
along rivers. By altering the pattern of downstream flow (i.e. intensity, timing and frequency), they
change sediment and nutrient regimes and alter water temperature and chemistry. Storage reservoirs
flood terrestrial ecosystems, killing terrestrial plants and displacing animals. As many species prefer
valley bottoms, large scale impoundment may eliminate unique wildlife habitats and extinguish entire
populations of endangered species (Nilsson and Dynesius, 1994).
Terrestrial ecosystems in reservoir areas are replaced by lacustrine, littoral and sublittoral habitats and
pelagic mass-water circulations replace riverine flow patterns. As such, dams and their reservoirs also
provide new opportunities as they create new habitats and over time could be considered to become
part of the new environment. The degree to which these ‘new’ habitats can compensate the loss of
original habitats, species and ecosystem goods and services is however often contested.
Within these broad patterns of change, there is a wide diversity of specific impacts that vary from dam
to dam, catchment to catchment, ecosystem to ecosystem, and species to species. For example loss of
some ecosystems may benefit some species (e.g. waterfowl and fish that favour deep water), but
others may suffer significant loss of population, or even extinction.
The purpose of this chapter is to review current understanding of these impacts. An initial assessment
of the scale and variability of impacts is followed by an analysis of specific ecosystem impacts
divided according to Petts (1984) – Fig 3.4. He suggests the following breakdown that is used for the
basic structure of this chapter.
1. Assessment of first-order impacts that influence the key abiotic driving variables of the riverine
ecosystem (e.g. temperature and hydrological flows).
2. Definition of second-order impacts that include primary productivity as the basis for the food
chain.
3. Third-order impacts on the food web – implications for fauna.
This approach is adopted for both the upstream and downstream areas, followed by an assessment of
specific impacts on biodiversity and cumulative impacts within the catchment.
3.2 Scale and Variability of Impacts

There are different types of dams each with their own operating characteristics. Similarly, dams have
been built in a wide array of conditions, from highlands to lowlands, temperate to tropical regions,
fast-flowing to slow-flowing rivers, urban and rural areas, etc. The combination of dam types,
operating systems, and the contexts where they are built, yields a multitude of conditions that are site-
specific and very variable. This complexity makes it difficult to generalise about the impacts of dams
on ecosystems as each specific context is likely to have different types of impacts and to different
degrees of intensity. However, at a certain level of generality, some indications can be given of the
most likely impacts and their relative order (Box 3.1).
Box 3.1: Types of dams, in descending order of impacts on ecosystems
Storage dams Large reservoirs with or without river diversions.
Diversion (run-of-river) Uses flow with limited or no storage; diverts all or part of in-stream
or across catchments.
Run-of-river Uses flow with limited or no storage and no river diversion.
In addition to dam type, the height of dams and their reservoir areas are extremely variable. ICOLD
recognises a large dam as one that is higher than 15 m and/or, between 5-15 m high and impounding
more than 3 million cubic meters of water. Within any individual country there is a wide range of
different dam types, dam heights and reservoir sizes. For example, Figure 3.1 shows the distribution
of reservoir size for dams in Turkey where reservoir size varies from a few hectares to over 80,000 ha.
Figure 3.1: Distribution of reservoir area for dams over 15m high in Turkey(DSI, 1999)
Although dam and reservoir size are highly variable, it is possible to examine the broad scope of the
impacts. Figure 3.2. shows the total area of reservoirs by continent, while Figure 3.3. shows the
average area of reservoirs in each continent. These highlight both the large total areas involved and
the great variation between regions in terms of the average size of the reservoirs.
Figure 3.2: Total area of large-dam reservoirs (1000's km2) by region (ICOLD 1999)
Figure 3.3: Average area of large dam reservoir (km2) per region(ICOLD 1999)
Table 3.1 gives some examples of the scale of the impacts of water diversion on water flows from
countries where data is available, which indicate the significant effects of man’s activities on water
flows in major catchments. These impacts are likely to differ between northern countries, where
temperate climates and little irrigation mean that there is little water diversion and semi-arid countries,
which may have extensive out-of-river uses and high evaporation rates to contend with.
Table 3.1: The potential scale of the impacts of dams
River Example of Scale of Impact Source

Indus, India Only 28% of the Indus’ total Anonymous 1997, WCD
annual streamflow reaches its Tarbela report 1999
delta. For dry season flows it
is only 10%. The dams along
the river retain ~75% of the
silt carried by the river.
Various, South Africa There are 520 major Davies & Day 1998
regulating structures in South
Africa that capture nearly 50%
of the mean annual runoff
Murray-Darling, Australia Mean annual outflow from the Murray Darling Basin
Murray to the sea has been Commission 1999, quoted in
reduced from some 13,700 WWF Australia
GL/yr under natural conditions 1999/ENV220,
to 4,900 GL/yr, or as low as www.mdbc.gov.au
35% of natural flows.
Japan Of 35,000 rivers; only two McAllister et al. 1997, Dams
have not been either dammed Yearbook 2000
or modified in any way.
North America north of 77% of the total water Dynesius and Nilsson 1994
Mexico, Europe, and former discharge of the 139 largest
Soviet Union river systems is strongly or
modestly affected by
fragmentation of the river
channels by dams and by
water regulation resulting
from reservoir operation,
inter-basin diversion, and
irrigation.
United States Only 42 free-flowing rivers Abramovitz 1996
longer than 125 miles remain
– less than 2% of the country’s
3.1 million miles of rivers and
streams
Europe There are more than 10,000 Kristensen & Hansen 1994,
major reservoirs in Europe, ICOLD 1999
covering a total surface area of
ca 140,000km2, which is equal
to app. 4 times the national
territory of the Netherlands.
Columbia, USA 5% to 14% of adult salmon are Collier et al 1996
killed at each of the eight
dams through which they pass
on their way up the river
Studying the importance of dam impacts on ecosystems at a global scale, and incorporating the
complexity of temporal and spatial variability is made difficult by the lack of available information.
Although there are several databases containing some information on dams (Table 3.2.) there is, at
present, no comprehensive database of dams with geo-referenced locations in the public domain. This
means that there is no global data set that can easily be used to locate and map large dams. Hence, it
is not possible, except in very general terms, to relate dam distribution to major biotopes and to
deduce the different effects dams have in different regions of the world.
Table 3.2: Some databases of dams
Name Source
World Register of dams ICOLD 1999
World atlas of large dams International Journal on Hydropower and Dams,
Hydropower & Dams 1999
European Lakes, Dams and Reservoir European Environment Agency 1999
database (ELDRED)
National registers of dams e.g. USA ICOLD national committees, USCOLD 1999
register of dams
Including the temporal and spatial variability of ecosystems and dams increases the complexity of the
analysis. Temporal scales are important because some ecosystem changes caused by dams may not
become evident for many years, or may evolve through time (see for example section 3.7). Similarly,
the time factor is essential when considering some impacts which might become irreversible with
time, such as the accumulation of toxic sediments in a reservoir that can make dam decommissioning
more difficult or even economically impossible. Spatial scales are also important for ecosystems as
some impacts of dams are felt far away from the dam site. For example, if the dam reduces the
amount of detritus in the streamflow, this might affect the fisheries production in the river’s estuary
many kilometres downstream. The cumulative effects of many dams in a catchment might also be
different from the sum of the impacts of each individual structure, reinforcing the need for a spatial
assessment (see section 3.8).
3.3 Framework for Analysis

In considering the impact of dams on riverine ecosystems it is important to recognise the
interconnected nature of the ecosystems concerned and the often far-reaching consequences of change
in individual ecosystem components. Analysis of this complexity can be approached from various
different perspectives. Many groups and individuals, such as McCully (1996), Davies & Day (1998),
Veltrop (1999), and USGS (1996), World Bank, have attempted this in different ways. Two of these
approaches are presented in Annex 1 and Annex 5 – A summary of impacts derived from ICOLD
Bulletins and USCOLD, and another from the World Bank’s Environmental Assessment Source
Book. Overall such an analysis is only possible by breaking down the impacts into categories and
there is no agreed or definitive way of doing this. This report adopts the approach of Petts, 1984.
(Figure 3.4) as he dissagregates the components of ecosystem complexity by structuring impacts
according to their level.
First-order impacts are the immediate abiotic effects that occur simultaneously with dam closure and
influence the transfer of energy and material into and within the downstream river and connected
ecosystems (e.g. changes in flow, water quality and sediment load).
Second-order impacts are the abiotic and biotic changes in upstream and downstream ecosystem
structure and primary production, which result from first-order impacts. These depend upon the
characteristics of the river prior to dam closure (e.g. changes in plankton, macrophytes and
periphyton), and these changes may take place over many years.
Third-order impacts are the long-term biotic changes resulting from the integrated effect of all the
first- and second-order changes, including the impact on species close to the top of the food chain
(e.g. changes in invertebrate communities and fish, birds and mammals). Complex interactions may
take place over many years before any new “ecological equilibrium” is achieved.
Table 3.3: Upstream and downstream impacts according to first, second, and third order as
described.
Location in Category of Impact Impact
Relation to (as in Petts 1984)
the Dam
Upstream First-Order Impact Modification of the Thermal Regime
Accumulation of Sediment in the Reservoir
Changes in Water Quality
Groundwater along reservoir
Second-Order Impact Plankton and Periphyton

Growth of Aquatic Macrophytes
Riparian Vegetation
Third-Order Impact Invertebrates, Fish, Birds and Mammals
Downstream First-Order Impact Daily, Seasonal and Annual Flows

Water Quality
Reduced Sediment Flows
Changes to Channel, Floodplain and Coastal Delta
Morphology
Groundwater in riparian zone
Water temperature – thermal pollution
Ice formation
Second-Order Impact Plankton and Periphyton
Growth of Aquatic Macrophytes
Riparian Vegetation
Carbon flows and cycle distortions
Third-Order Impact Invertebrates, Fish, Birds and Mammals

Estuarine Impacts
Marine Impacts
In general terms the complexity of interacting processes increases from first- to third- order impacts.
Since ecosystem functioning is guided by abiotic steering variables related to hydrology (i.e. water
quantity and flow regime), geomorphology and water quality, observations related to these ecosystem
components can be used as primary indicators of river ecosystem conditions. Changes in abiotic
steering variables are key to understanding the long-term ecological consequences of dams as they are
the underlying mechanisms by which many habitats are maintained. As Ligon et al (1995) stated , “If
[a] stream’s physical foundation is pulled out from under the biota, even the most insightful
biological…program will fail to preserve ecosystem integrity.”
Birds
Mammals
THIRD-ORDER
IMPACTS
Fish
t
en
nm
Invertebrates
iro
nv
le
Primary Morphology
ia
production
str
SECOND-ORDER
rre
Channel form IMPACTS

Plankton
Te
Aquatic Macrophytes Substrate composition

Algae
Water Hydrology Sediment

quality load
Water Flow FIRST-ORDER
quantity regime IMPACTS
Barrier effects
Table 3.4: A framework for assessing the impact of dams on river ecosystems(modified from
Petts, 1984).
Box 3.2: Construction impacts
The framework presented in Figure 3.4 and used here does not include the often significant impacts
on non-aquatic ecosystems caused by the construction of physical infrastructure, transmission lines
and roads. Power transmission lines are typically cleared of shrubs and trees by cutting or use of
herbicides. Habitat is thus modified on the cleared swathes and runoff or winds may result in off-site
effects of the herbicides. Hydro-Québec reports that the length of its transmission lines totals 32,000
km (HQ and GDG 1999). To deal with this problem, it has established, as outlined in its
environmental code, specific measures to minimise construction impacts on the environment (Hydro
Quebec 1991).
HQ and GDG (1999) point out that powerlines have less environmental impact than roads and railway
lines, which are essentially vegetation free. Some powerline constructions support species, like the
smoky shrew and southern bog lemming, that are in danger of extinction in Québec. The lines and
roads, at times, fragment habitat for organisms both large and small.
Access roads to dam sites can also cause a significant direct impact on natural ecosystems, while also
providing access to previously remote areas for settlers and hunters. Blasting at construction sites can
also be a major source of disturbance, in particular during certain times of the life cycles of animals
such as calving caribou in Canada (Kiell 2000/ENV202).
A comprehensive analysis of indirect impacts due to the development of dams, for example impacts
of new irrigation schemes, development of navigation or tourism, and human health impacts, do not
form part of this review. Other papers prepared for the WCD secretariat will deal with these issues,
such as Thematic Review IV.2 Assessment of Irrigation Options and I.1 Social Impacts of Large
Dams: Equity & Distributional Issues.
3.4 Information Constraints

Over the last 30 years, the finding of numerous scientific studies relating to the environmental impacts
of dams have been reported in the scientific literature. Some of these findings have been summarised
within wide-ranging compilations (e.g. ICOLD, 1981; Petts, 1984; McCully 1996, USGS 1996,
ICOLD, 1988). Research continues and research findings are constantly being up-dated. Other
sources of information include a significant body of “grey” literature (e.g. consultant reports), usually
written during the planning of a river impoundment. Most of these case studies consist of pre-
regulation investigations. Finally, there is now an increasing amount of information and related
“position papers” published by various organisations. To an extent the perspective of the people and
organisations involved cloud the latter and the information presented may be selective in nature.
In order to effect a thorough investigation of the impacts of dams on ecosystems, data are required on
both the abiotic and the biotic components of ecosystems (eg Annex 3). Pre- and post- impoundment
information is required on: the hydrology of the river (both at the site of the dam and downstream);
hydraulic characteristics of the river; water quality; geomorphological characteristics (i.e. sediment
transport); aquatic biota and their habitat requirements; riparian vegetation and associated fauna;
vegetation and associated fauna in the upper watershed; and the direct use of the river and its
associated resources by local people.
To date however, most studies have investigated the impact of one dam or a few dams on specific
components of ecosystems rather than on the ecosystem as a whole. Most studies are focussed
primarily on the abiotic, primarily first-order impacts. Relatively few studies have assessed second-
and third-order impacts, possibly because of the longer time frame required before new equilibrium
states are attained and total change becomes apparent. At higher trophic levels (e.g. impact on
terrestrial vertebrates), very limited amounts of data relate to long-term change caused by dam
construction, though possible impacts are subject to much speculation (Nilsson and Dynesius, 1994).
Further, most studies of the environmental impacts of dams have been conducted in temperate
climates. Relatively little is known of the possible third-order impacts in tropical climates, where
biological processes often proceed faster and so ecological changes become apparent more quickly
(Bardach and Dussart, 1973). Scientists and conservationists suspected that the flooding of large areas
in the tropics is especially likely to contribute to global species extinction. Although largely unproven
because the data are unavailable, this suspicion exists because of the high species richness and
possible endemicity of many of the affected areas. One well-documented example is the case of the
Kihansi Spray Toad in Tanzania (Finlow-Bates, Gentle and Lovett, 2000).
This report therefore draws on the available literature while being aware of the dangers of
generalising from “worst case” examples that have been well studied. It seeks to lay out and illustrate
the generic impacts that are known to occur while recognising that the nature and scale of these
impacts will vary from site to site. It emphasises the need to look holistically at the impacts on a case-
by-case basis rather than addressing them piecemeal.
3.5 Upstream Impacts

The construction of a dam results in post-impoundment phenomena that are specific to reservoirs and
do not occur in natural lakes. One difference is that with first reservoir filling terrestrial habitats are
submerged and destroyed. Another difference is that level fluctuations may be much larger than those
normally found in a natural lake. Non-earth storage dams often have a bottom outlet. This may allow
both sediment flushing and water releases from deep below the surface. Both management measures
cannot be carried out with most natural lakes. Nevertheless some older reservoirs can be considered as
lakes and the challenges presented in managing them are often the same (Dinar et al., 1995), such as
the management of the riparian wetland habitats and fisheries. In this section a summary is given of
the first-, second- and third-order impacts on upstream ecosystems comprising the reservoir and
upper reaches of the river.
3.5.1 First-Order Impacts on Key Parameters
3.5.1.1 Modification of the Thermal Regime
Temperature is an important regulator of many important physical, chemical and biological processes.
In particular temperature, in conjunction with nutrient dynamics and seasonal availability of minerals
and light conditions, controls primary productivity. Reservoirs act as thermal regulators that may
fundamentally alter the seasonal and short-term fluctuations in temperature that are characteristic of
many natural rivers. The relatively large mass of still water in reservoirs allows heat storage and
produces a characteristic seasonal pattern of thermal behaviour. Depending on geographical location,
water retained in deep reservoirs has a tendency to become thermally stratified (Hutchinson, 1957).
Typically, three thermal layers are formed: i) a warm, well-mixed, upper layer (the epilimnion); ii) a
cold, dense, bottom layer (the hypolimnion) and iii) an intermediate layer of maximum temperature
gradient (the thermocline). Water in the hypolimnion may be up to 10oC lower than in the epilimnion
and in the thermocline the temperature gradient may be up to 2oC for each metre.
A range of factors, including climatic characteristics, controls the exact nature of thermal
stratification. Reservoirs closest to the equator are least likely to become stratified. At higher
latitudes the overall controlling factor is the variable input of solar energy. Considerable variability
may occur within a region as a consequence of different topographies and different reservoir-
catchment morphometrics. Shallow reservoirs respond most rapidly to fluctuations in atmospheric
conditions and are less likely to become stratified. Strong winds can affect rapid thermocline
oscillations. The patterns of inflows into, as well as the nature of outflows from, the reservoir also
influence the development of thermal stratification.
Currents generated by large water level fluctuations in reservoirs caused by the operating regime can
sometimes prevent thermal stratification. Many deep reservoirs, particularly at mid and high latitudes
do become thermally stratified as do natural lakes under similar climatic and morphological
conditions. However the release of cold water into the receiving river from the hypolimnion of a
reservoir is the greatest “non-natural” consequence of stratification. This is addressed in Section
3.6.1.
3.5.1.2 Accumulation of Sediment in the Reservoir
River currents transport particles from the fine ones in turbid water to the coarser ones such as sand,
rocks, and boulders. The speed and turbulence of currents enable transport of the geologically-
derived materials. As waters slow down and turbulence declines, the particles tend to drop out.
Lowered currents and turbulence occur when the river bed gradient diminishes, as in the lower
reaches of many rivers, upon entry into lakes or the sea. This also happens when river flow reaches
man-made reservoirs.
Many reservoirs retain a large proportion of the sediment load supplied by the drainage basin. About
1,100 km3 of sediment has accumulated in the world’s reservoirs, taking up almost 20% of the global
storage capacity (Mahmood, 1987). The Glen Canyon Dam on the Colorado River, USA, traps 66
million tons of sediment per year, equivalent to 95% of the sediment load. (Collier et al., 1996).
As with a natural lake, the “trap efficiency” of a reservoir depends on: i) the size of the reservoir’s
catchment; ii) the characteristics of the catchment that affect the sediment yield (i.e. geology, soils,
topography, vegetation and human disturbance) (see Kettab and Remini, 1999/ENV048); and iii) the
ratio of the storage capacity to the river flows into the reservoir. However, unlike a natural lake, the
type of outlet on the dam will also affect the trap efficiency of a reservoir. Sediment transport shows
considerable temporal variation, both seasonally and annually. The amount of sediment transported
into reservoirs is greatest during floods but also depends largely on the management of the upper
catchment.
Sediment transport and deposition have both positive and negative impacts. Sedimentation can create
new habitats in the reservoir, especially at the mouth of the river, while sedimentation reduces storage
capacity. For example, Nepal’s Kulekhani hydro dam, estimated to have a useful life of 85 years when
commissioned in 1981, had lost nearly half of its 12 million cubic metres of dead storage capacity by
1993, while El Salvador’s Cerron Grande reservoir was found to have a useful life of 30 years, instead
of the originally expected 350 years (Dorsey et al 1997). In North Africa, severe autumn rains and a
mountainous terrain mean that reservoirs receive enormous sediment loads. For example, the
Mellegue reservoir in Tunisia has lost 92% of its storage capacity since filling in 1954, and the
Mohamed V reservoir in Morocco has lost 58% of its storage capacity since filling in 1967 (Kettab
and Reminin, 1999/ENV048).
3.5.1.3 Changes in Water Quality
Water storage in reservoirs induces physical, chemical and biological changes in the stored water and
in the underlying soils and rocks, all of which affect water quality. The chemical composition of water
within a reservoir can be significantly different from that of the inflows. The size of the reservoir, its
location in the river system, its geographical location with respect to altitude and latitude, the storage
retention time of the water and the source(s) of the water all influence the way that storage detention
modifies water quality.
Major biologically-driven changes occur within thermally stratified reservoirs. In the surface layer,
phytoplankton often proliferate and release oxygen thereby maintaining concentrations at near
saturation levels for most of the year. In contrast, the lack of mixing and sunlight for photosynthesis in
conjunction with the oxygen used in decomposition of submerged biomass can result in anoxic
conditions in the bottom layer.
Nutrients, (i.e. phosphorous and nitrogen) are released biologically and leached from flooded
vegetation and soil. Although oxygen demand and nutrient levels generally decrease over time as the
organic matter decreases, some reservoirs require a period of more than 20 years to develop stable
water-quality regimes (Petts, 1984). After maturation, reservoirs, like natural lakes, can act as
nutrient sinks particularly for nutrients associated with sediments. Eutrophication of reservoirs may
occur as a consequence of large influxes of organic loading and/or nutrients. In many cases these are
a consequence of anthropogenic influences in the catchment (e.g. application of fertilisers) rather than
a direct consequence of the presence of the reservoir. For example, eutrophication of the heavily-
regulated Waikato River system in New Zealand was enhanced by sewage and stormwater discharges
(Chapman, 1996). Nutrient pulses, in conjunction with the specific environmental conditions, can
result in water blooms of blue-green algae which (in addition to being aesthetically unpleasant) can
cause oxygen depletion and increased concentrations of iron and manganese in the bottom layer and
increased pH and oxygen in the upper layers of stratified reservoirs (Zakova et al., 1993).
Mercury and other heavy metal contamination has recently been highlighted as a major reservoir
problem in some countries (Friedl, 1999/ENV079). Mercury is naturally present as a harmless
inorganic form in many soils. However, bacteria breaking down decomposing matter under a new
reservoir transforms this inorganic mercury into methylmercury, a toxin of the central nervous system.
Plankton and other creatures at the bottom of the aquatic food chain absorb the methylmercury. As the
methylmercury passes up the food chain it becomes increasingly concentrated in the bodies of the
animals eating contaminated prey (Paterson et al. 1998). Through this process of bio-accumulation,
levels of methylmercury in the tissues of large fish-eating fish or birds at the top of the food-chain can
be several times higher than in the small organisms at the bottom of the chain. The degree to which
fauna have been intoxicated with mercury has been shown to be variable (Friedl, 1999). In other
reservoirs no effects are reported (Lucotte et al. 1999).
Water quality changes due to the reservoir will be reflected throughout the downstream watercourse,
affecting primary productivity and the invertebrate fauna that provide the basis for the foodweb.
Annex 3 provides a comparison of a series of water quality variable parameters under pre and post
impoundment conditions of two reservoirs in the Mekong river basin, together with corresponding
data on second and third order variables, notably phytoplankton, zooplankton and fish.
3.5.2 Second Order Impacts – Changes in Primary Production
3.5.2.1 Plankton and Periphyton
Within natural fast-running river (lotic) systems, phytoplankton production is often negligible, only
derived from lakes, low velocity backwaters and benthic algal communities. Natural rivers,
particularly clean, slow-moving lowland rivers, do contain free-floating micro-organisms, but the
plankton populations are inherently unstable and dependent upon the frequency of high discharges.
The introduction of a reservoir into a river system, particularly in headwater areas, can markedly alter
its primary productivity. The hydrological characteristics and thermal and chemical regimes of
reservoirs are unique, so the character of primary production within reservoirs is highly site- and
catchment-specific.
Upon dam closure, the river (lentic) system resets itself as the reservoir fills. Often a microbial
population explosion releases nutrients as the newly submerged organic matter begins to decompose.
This stimulates the rapid development of the phytoplankton.. The enrichment of reservoir water by
large amounts of nitrogen and phosphorous, as a result of the decay and mineralisation of organic
matter flooded by the reservoir, may lead to a multiplication of blue-green algae. This in turn drives
invertebrate productivity and fisheries production. In many reservoirs, fisheries thrive for 4-5 years
after closure and then decline as primary productivity drops.
The occurrence of lacustrine plankton assemblages varies seasonally and with individual reservoirs,
depending upon their geographical location and catchment inputs. In temperate and high latitude
climates plankton populations are lowest in the cold winters and greatest during the warm summers.
Tropical reservoirs have no seasonal check to plankton growth comparable to winter in temperate
regions. Given the favourable thermal regime, the productivity of tropical reservoirs is mainly limited
by the introduction of highly turbid waters and wind-induced turbulence during the wet season.
Periphyton are layers of algae attached to any submerged object, including larger plants. Diatoms
normally dominate the attached algae of lotic systems. Conversion from a lotic to a lentic
environment will provide opportunity for some species of periphyton, while destroying the habitat for
others. Periphyton are most likely to proliferate where light penetrates, in the shallow water close to
the reservoir edge. The exact species composition will be determined by the nature of the substrate,
the presence or absence of aquatic macrophytes, the temperature and chemistry of the reservoir water
and the operation of the dam.
3.5.2.2 Growth of Aquatic Macrophytes
There may be increased opportunity for aquatic macrophytes in the littoral and sub-littoral zone of
reservoirs. The rapid build up of delta deposits near river inlets to the reservoir reduces water depths
and can encourage macrophyte growth. However, their ability to colonise these areas may be limited
if there are large fluctuations in reservoir level. Further out in the reservoir opportunity for aquatic
macrophytes may be limited by lack of light penetration to depth, yet in windless conditions with high
nutrient levels, colonisation by floating invasive species is possible (Box 3.3).
The growth of macrophytes can be an advantage as they create wetland-like conditions with
biodiversity values, support fisheries and assist in structuring habitats. However, they may also
provide habitat for disease vectors such as bilharzia-carrying snails, mosquitoes and intermediate
hosts for flukes.
Box 3.3: Invasive species and large dams
The modified habitats resulting from large dams often create environments that are more conducive to
non-native and exotic plant, fish, snail, insect and animal species. These resulting non-native species
often out-compete the native species and end up developing ecosystems that are unstable, nurture
disease vectors, and are no longer able to support the historical environmental and social components.
The short-term gain in having a reservoir or hydroelectric plant may not compensate for the loss of
critical ecosystem functions.
Species of floating and submerged weeds that are particularly virulent when introduced into new
habitats (so-called "alien invasive species") such as water hyacinth Eichornia crassipes, water lettuce
Pistia stratiotes, and water fern Salvinia molesta, pose a major threat to the efficiency of dams and
irrigation systems. These floating plants can form thick mats that cover the surface of the reservoir
completely. By shading out phytoplankton and through increased input of organic matter (when they
die and sink), they add to oxygen depletion, which in turn has impacts on fish and may have other
ecologically detrimental impacts and serious economic implications (Joffe and Cooke,
1999/ENV057). Managing invasive species that threaten dam and water systems in a proactive
manner is far more cost efficient than the usual reactive, crisis-driven manner that is expensive and
typically has had only limited success.
3.5.2.3 Riparian Vegetation
The riparian ecosystem will inevitably change when its adjoining aquatic environment changes. The
largest upstream impact of dam construction on riparian vegetation is biomass submergence. In arid
locations the shallow groundwater in the vicinity of a reservoir provides opportunity for vegetation
that require access to water throughout the year. A study of radial stem growth of coniferous trees
near Swedish reservoirs found a significant increase in the variation in growth following dam
construction in trees located close to a reservoir where regulation produced short-term (daily and
weekly) variation in water levels.
Variation in the water levels of reservoirs can have a negative impact on plants in the immediate
vicinity of the reservoir. For example, in Sweden, regulated water level fluctuations may exceed 30 m
in height. This has resulted in riparian corridors that are several hundred meters wide. However,
because the pattern of water level fluctuations is not synchronised with the natural regime, the riparian
vegetation cover is extremely sparse and the riparian ecosystem gives the impression of a barren strip
across the landscape (Nilsson and Jansson, 1995). The impact of reservoir level fluctuations are
directly related to the gradient of the drawndown zone. Where fluctuations are significant, steep
gradient drawndown zones are often characterised by baren strips along the reservoirs. With flat
gradients much wider areas can be affected, causing both a disappearance of species and the creation
of new habitats for amphibians, birds and drawdown-area plants.
3.5.3 Third-Order Impacts on Fauna
3.5.3.1 Invertebrates, Fish, Birds and Mammals
Filling of the dam reservoir results in permanent flooding of riverine and terrestrial habitat, and
depending upon the topography and habitats of the river valley upstream from the site of the dam,
these impacts can vary greatly in extent and severity. For example, the 500-megawatt Chile
Pehuenche Hydroelectric Project floods only 400 hectares of land (with minimal damage to forest or
wildlife resources) and has no water quality problems. By contrast, the Suriname Brokopondo Dam
Project inundated about 160,000 hectares of biologically valuable tropical rainforest and suffers from
severe water quality and aquatic weed problems (Ledec et al., 1997).
The effects of inundation are especially severe when the reservoirs are situated close to mountains, in
dry areas, or at higher latitudes where the river valleys are usually the most productive landscape
elements. Due to impoundment, all terrestrial animals disappear from the submerged areas and
populations decrease within a few years in proportion to the habitat area that is lost (Nilsson and
Dynesius, 1994). Flooding can result in both local and global extinctions of animal and plant species.
Particularly hard hit are the species dependent upon riverine forests, and other riparian ecosystems,
and those adapted to the fast-flowing conditions of the main river course (McAllister et al. 1999).
Dams also serve as a physical barrier to movement of migratory species, notably fish. This prevents
broodstock from reaching their spawning grounds during the breeding season, resulting in massive
failure of recruitment and eventual extinction of the stock above the dam. Dams in coastal locations
prevent fingerlings and juveniles migrating from brackish water in breeding and nursery areas from
reaching freshwater habitats upstream, leading to similar impacts (Bernacsek, 1999). This issue is
dealt with further in Section 3.7.3.
Flooding of the dam impoundment creates a new ecosystem, which can vary enormously in ecological
value and productivity according to the physical and biological characteristics of the site and the
management regime of the dam. Reservoirs have been described as an ‘ecological hodgepodge’
(Helfman in preparation). When a dam is built, some riverine species trapped behind the structure
survive although most of the lotic species cannot tolerate the lentic conditions. Most of the riverine
fish stay close to the shores of the reservoir, the mouth of tributaries and in shallows. The pelagic and
deep water is poorly used unless fishes adapted to these conditions were present before the reservoir
was formed. Exotic species are often introduced to fill these vacant niches and these increase the
number of species. To determine their effectiveness in providing environmental services and
enlarging biodiversity requires a rigorous examination of initial biophysical conditions and
comparison with altered conditions especially in terms of species diversity and presence of indigenous
species.
During the first years of submergence, reservoirs may experience an initial increase in aquatic
productivity as a result of nutrients released from decomposing plant biomass. The species of
colonising fish capable of rapidly using this new and abundant food will tend to dominate until
biomass decomposition has stabilised. Submerged vegetation provides habitats favourable to some
invertebrates, which attract in their wake fish capable of deriving benefit from them, followed by
predatory species that feed off these fish (De Silva, 1988; CIGB, 1985). Fish catch undergoes an
‘evolution’ in terms of quantity during the first 10 years after the dam closure. Typically (and
assuming there is sufficient fishing effort), catch rises very quickly to a peak level 3-5 years after dam
closure and then declines to a more-stable level thereafter. This is a normal feature of almost all
reservoirs throughout the world and should not be misconstrued as fishing effort-induced stock
depletion or that the reservoir is losing its productivity (Bernacsek, 1997). However, it should not be
assumed that reservoir fish biomass will in all cases exceed pre-dam river system biomass.
In addition to their importance for fisheries many reservoirs are also important for waterbirds (see
Section 3.7.4.) and other wildlife, in particular in drier regions.
3.6 Downstream Impacts on Rivers, Floodplains and Deltas
Rivers are part of the hydrological cycle and it is the variable nature of runoff processes that give
rivers their dynamic characteristics. The ecological integrity of river ecosystems is dependent on the
variation in flow regime to which they are adapted. Floods cause hydraulic disturbance that
determines the composition of biotic communities within the channel, the riparian zone and the
floodplain (Junk et al., 1989; Webb et al., 1999). The spatio-temporal heterogeneity of river systems
is responsible for a diverse array of dynamic aquatic habitats and hence ecological diversity, all of
which is maintained by the natural flow regime.
It is flooding and the consequent transfer of material that makes rivers and floodplains among the
most fertile, productive and diverse ecosystems in the world. Floodplain communities are
characterised by resilience and the ability to respond quickly to changing hydrological conditions. The
rich productivity of floodplains allows them to sustain large populations of organisms that are
interdependent on one another. Regular floods keep the vegetational successions in young, productive
stages, creating excellent conditions for an abundant wildlife. The diverse vegetation favours animal
diversity. Consequently, floodplains are also rich in species endemic to small geographical areas.
Coastal marine wetlands are often highly dependent on inputs of freshwater and associated nutrients
and sediments from rivers. Coastal wetlands are ecologically and environmentally diverse because of
the gradual and often fluctuating dynamic boundaries between salt, brackish and freshwaters. Salt
water may penetrate considerable distances upstream, but boundary patterns vary with flow regimes
and landscape forms. These patterns influence not only vegetation, but also animal behaviour, such as
the extent to which marine species can range into the food-rich wetlands.
Dams constitute obstacles for longitudinal exchanges along fluvial systems. Dams not only alter the
pattern of downstream flow (i.e. intensity, timing and frequency) they also change sediment and
nutrient regimes and alter water temperature and chemistry. These changes and others directly and
indirectly influence a myriad of dynamic factors that affect habitat heterogeneity and successional
trajectories and, ultimately the ecological integrity of river ecosystems. The changes induced by large
dams may affect ecosystems and the people who depend on them for tens to thousands of kilometres
downstream. In this section the first-, second-, and third-order impacts on downstream ecosystems
are summarised.
3.6.1 First-Order Impacts on Ecosystem Driving Variables
3.6.1.1 Daily, Seasonal and Annual Flows
In general, discharge control resulting from the development and operation of storage dams changes
flow variability downstream from the dam. For major floodplain rivers, dams may increase flood
peaks by altering the timing of the floodpeak to coincide with floodpeaks from tributaries
downstream. Peak discharges can also increase when reservoirs are used for generating peak power.
In most cases, however, the magnitude and timing of flood peaks is reduced by storage dam
development and operation.
The effect of a reservoir on individual flood flows depends on both the storage capacity of the dam
relative to the volume of flow and the way the dam is operated. Reservoirs having a large flood-
storage capacity in relation to total annual runoff can exert almost complete control upon the annual
hydrograph of the river downstream. However, even small-capacity detention basins can achieve a
high degree of flow regulation through a combination of flood forecasting and management regime.
An example of the changes in average annual flow regime following dam construction on the Murray
river (Australia) is shown in Figure 3.5. Discharge close to the Yarrawonga weir has no resemblance
to natural flow pattern. At the mouth of the river, the timing of the annual peak discharge under
natural conditions is similar to altered conditions (Figure 3.5b). However, river discharge is reduced
to 21 % and especially medium size flow peaks are affected. At Albury, a seasonal inversion of river
flows is observed due to releases for rice, dairy and orchard irrigation (Figure 3.5b). Reduction in
flow velocity in weir pools is considered a key cause of the decline in silver perch in Murray river
basin. A decline in river mouth wetlands due to reduced flows is also observed (MDBMC 1995).
a)
1000
800
Flow (GL)
600
400
200
0
Aug
Sep
Feb
Jul
Dec
Jan
Jun
Apr
Nov
Oct
Mar
May
Natural Conditions Current Conditions
b)
1800
1500
1200
Flow (GL)
900
600
300
0
Aug
Sep
Feb
Jul
Dec
Jan
Jun
Apr
Nov
Oct
Mar
May
Natural Conditions Current Conditions
Figure 3.4: Comparison of pre and post impoundment flows in the Murray River,
Australia:variation in the average monthly flow at a) Albury (2225 km from the mouth) and b)
at Barrages (1 km from the mouth). Source: Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council, 1995.
A consequence of reduced flood peaks is reduction in the frequency of overbank flooding and reduced
extent of flooding when it does occur. For example, in the Hadejia-Nguru wetlands (Nigeria) annual
flooding prior to construction of dams for irrigation was typically about 3,000 km2 and this was
reduced to less than 1000 km2 after construction (Hollis et al., 1993). Reduced floodplain inundation
and altered hydrology downstream of dams may reduce groundwater recharge in the riparian zone,
resulting in lowering of the groundwater table, with consequent impacts on riparian vegetation.
Equally there is a direct and significant relationship between flood extent and the number of wintering
ducks in these wetlands (WWF 2000/ENV224).
A range of operational procedures can result in fluctuations in discharge that occur at non-natural
rates. Hydroelectric power and irrigation demands are the most usual causes, but peak-discharge
waves have been utilised for navigational purposes and to meet recreational needs (e.g. white water
kayaking and rafting). For many purposes, so called “pulse releases” are made regularly (e.g. daily
releases through power turbines which reflect diurnal variation in power demand). Downstream from
the West Point Dam (USA), discharge ranges from 14 m3s-1 during low flow generation to 445 m3s-1
during peak generation, resulting in changes in stage height of more than 2 m. The pattern of daily
fluctuation in the Colorado River is shown in Figure 3.5. As hydropower represents one of the most
easily activated form of peaking power available to most national electricity grids, these kind of
fluctuations are frequently associated with hydropower dams.
2 5 ,0 0 0
Stream Flow (cubic feet per second)
2 0 ,0 0 0
1 5 ,0 0 0
1 0 ,0 0 0
5 ,0 0 0
-
11-Sep
13-Sep
15-Sep
17-Sep
19-Sep
21-Sep
23-Sep
25-Sep
27-Sep
29-Sep
1-Sep
3-Sep
5-Sep
7-Sep
9-Sep
1-Oct
Day
Figure 3.5: Daily Streamflow Variations in the Colorado River at Lee's Ferry in September.
Peak flows are associated with the power generation between 14.00 and 19.00 daily, with
minima at 04.00 am, and the fluctuation in demand also varies from day to day.
(U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Region, 2000)
In addition to altering the flow regime of rivers, dams also affect the total volume of runoff. These
changes may be either temporary and permanent. Temporary changes arise primarily from filling
the reservoir, which may take several years where reservoir storage greatly exceeds the mean annual
runoff. Permanent changes occur because:
i) water is removed for direct human consumption and not returned to the river (e.g. for
irrigation or interbasin transfers);
ii) water is lost from the reservoir through evaporation – worldwide it is estimated that
evaporation from reservoirs is of the order of 188 km3 y-1, which equates to more than 8% of
the total human consumption of freshwater (Shiklomanov 1999).
The hydrological effects of a dam become less significant the greater the distance down stream (i.e. as
the proportion of discharge from the uncontrolled catchment increases). The frequency of tributary
confluences below the dam and the relative magnitude of the tributary streams, largely determine the
length of river affected by an impoundment. Catchments in semi arid and countries with significant
storage may never recover their natural hydrological characteristics even at the river mouth, especially
when dams divert water for agriculture or municipal water supply.
Flow regimes, including volume, duration, timing, frequency and lapse time since last flooding, are
the key driving variables for downstream aquatic ecosystems and are critical for the survival of
communities of plants and animals living downstream. Small flood events may act as biological
triggers for fish and invertebrate migration, major events create and maintain habitats, and the natural
variability of most river systems sustains complex biological communities that may be very different
from those adapted to the stable flows and conditions of a regulated river. It should also be noted
however, that natural flood events can also be detrimental to ecosystems. After the Saguanay flood
(Canada) in 1996, for example, salmon habitats had to be restored over a large area (Gaétan pers.
com.).
Changes in river discharge can have significant effects on downstream groundwater resources. A
reduction in flooding can considerably reduce the amount of recharge to downstream aquifers.
3.6.1.2 Water Quality
Water storage in reservoirs induces physical, chemical and biological changes in the stored water. As
a result the water discharged from reservoirs can be of a different composition to that flowing into the
reservoir. Reservoirs act as thermal and chemical regulators so that seasonal and short-term
fluctuations in water quality are altered. The salinization of water below dams in arid climates (arising
from increased evaporation) is particularly problematic and is exacerbated in areas of marine
sediments and where saline drainage water from irrigation schemes is returned to rivers downstream
of dams. Salinization has also proved to be a problem on floodplain wetlands in the absence of
periodic flushing and dilution by flood water. If sufficiently high and prolonged, elevated salinity will
affect aquatic organisms (Hart et al., 1991).
Water temperature is an important quality parameter for the assessment of reservoir impacts on
downstream aquatic habitats because it influences many important physical, chemical and biological
processes. In particular, temperature drives primary productivity. It has been proposed that thermal
changes caused by water storage have the most significant effect on in-stream biota (Petts, 1984).
Temperatures downstream of the dam may be affected by the reservoir level from which the discharge
is drawn, e.g. cool deep temperatures or warm surface temperatures. In New South Wales (NSW),
cold water pollution impacts on average a river stretch of 300 km below each dam with water
temperatures 5 degrees or more below normal. The total amount of river stretch affected in NSW
amounts to 2650 km (Lugg 2000). Changed temperatures may affect spawning, growth rates and
length of the growing season for many species. For example juvenile silver perch grown in the cold
water released from Burrendong Dam, Australia, increased only 16% in weight over one month
compared to a 112% increase in water warmed to natural levels (Blanch 1999/ENV204). In the case
of the Gariep Dam in South Africa, for example, the temperature changes due to impoundment extend
for 130 to 180 km downstream (Davies 1999).
Even without stratification of the storage, water released from dams may be thermally out of phase
with the natural temperature regime of the river. The Hume dam on the Murray River, Australia
alters the thermal regime of the river and its effect is still discernible 200 km downstream (Walker,
1979). Water temperature changes have often been identified as a cause of the reduction in native
species of fish, particularly impacting spawning success negatively (Petts, 1984). Cold-water release
from high dams of the Colorado River is still measurable 400km downstream and this has resulted in
a decline in native fish abundance (Holden and Stalnaker, 1975). The fact that various introduced
trout species replaced some twenty native species of fish has been attributed to the change from warm
water to cold water.
The quality of water released from a stratified reservoir is determined by the elevation of the outflow
structure relative to the different layers within the reservoir. Water released from near the surface of a
stratified reservoir is often well-oxygenated, warm, nutrient depleted water. In contrast water released
from near the bottom of a stratified reservoir is often cold, oxygen-depleted, nutrient-rich water
which may be high in hydrogen sulphide, iron and/or manganese. Water depleted of dissolved oxygen
is not only a pollution problem in itself, affecting many aquatic organisms (e.g. salmonid, fish that
require high levels of oxygen for their survival), but one that may be exacerbated because such water
has a reduced assimilation capacity and so a reduced flushing capacity for domestic and industrial
effluents (ICOLD, 1994). The problem of low dissolved oxygen levels is sometimes mitigated by the
turbulence generated when water passes through turbines. Water passing over steep spillways may
become supersaturated in nitrogen and oxygen and this may also be fatal to fish immediately below a
dam (ICOLD, 1994; Fidler and Miller 1997: Bouck, G.R. 1980). This is known as the gas bubble
disease. It is for example a problem on the Columbia river (USA), where very high dams in the upper
catchment generate high total dissolved gases that are not dissipated downstream (Bell and DeLacy
1967 in Bizer 2000).
Davies (1999) argues that some of these key water quality parameters can recover to their natural
levels. If the river flows freely for long enough, they can be “reset”, although each has its own
“recovery distance”. Some, such as depleted oxygen levels, may recover within several hundred
metres. Others, such as temperature, may take hundreds of kilometres.
3.6.1.3 Changes in Sediment Loads
Under natural conditions sediment feeds floodplains, creates dynamic successions, and maintains
ecosystem variability and instability (Petts and Amoros 1996). Changes in sediment transport have
been identified as one of the most important environmental impacts of dams. The reduction in
sediment transport in rivers downstream of dams not only has impacts on channel, floodplain and
coastal delta morphology (section 3.6.1.4), and so alters habitat for fish and other groups of plants and
animals, but through changes in river water turbidity may effect biota directly. For example, plankton
production is influenced by many variables, including turbidity. Turbidity interferes with
photosynthesis and algal development may be attenuated by the presence of suspended inorganic
particles. If turbidity is reduced, as a consequence of impoundment, plankton development may be
enhanced and may even be stimulated to appear in new sections of rivers.
The selective release of highly turbid waters from a reservoir is a technique often used to reduce
sedimentation. Sediment sluicing involves drawing down a reservoir at the start of the flood season
and then allowing as much sediment-laden water as possible to pass through the dam before it has a
chance to settle. The sudden release of tonnes of sediment can be disastrous for some biota. For
example, the introduction of large quantities of fine silts and clays into permeable gravel substrates
can have a catastrophic effect on fish eggs and fry. Thus, even though reservoirs generally trap
sediments, reservoir operations can result in extreme and unnaturally high concentrations of sediment,
which may produce a major stress effect on downstream aquatic ecosystems. Contaminated sediments
in particular form a potential threat to downstream ecosystems if sediment flushing is carried out.
Reservoirs tend to serve as sediment traps because river velocities and therefore carrying capacities
for particles decrease in reservoirs. However, sometimes, fluctuating water levels in reservoirs erode
the shores and add to the turbidity of the reservoir discharge. Furthermore, the selective release of
highly turbid waters from a reservoir is a technique often used to reduce sedimentation.
3.6.1.4 Changes to Channel, Floodplain and Coastal Delta Morphology
Complex relationships exist between channel form and processes. In general the frequency of flood
discharges and the magnitude and particle-size distribution of the sediment load are the dominant
controls of channel and floodplain morphology. Reservoirs alter the processes operating in the
downstream river system by isolating upstream sediment sources, reducing the frequency of floods
and regulating the flow regime (section 3.6.1.1). A unique combination of climate, geology,
vegetation, size of impoundment and operational procedures produce the effect of any individual dam
upon the fluvial processes downstream. Hence, a wide range of geomorphological responses can be
generated by river regulation.
Some physical changes caused by dams are immediate and obvious while others are so gradual that
they may go unrecognised by humans using the river for many years. Three examples of these slow
and not always intuitive impacts are:
• Reduced sediment transport can result in lowering of the riverbed downstream and deepening of
the channel as a result of sediment starvation. This channel incision impacts the frequency of
floodplain inundation, as the deeper channel requires a higher discharge to overtop its banks and
spill out over the floodplain.;
• A reduction in lateral migration of the river channel can reduce the recruitment of spawning
gravel from the floodplain. Lack of channel avulsion and bank cutting eliminates coarse sediment
recruitment (Dietrich 1999/ENV082);
• Where non-transportable materials are present in the bed sediments, the selective transport of the
smaller sediment sizes results in the formation of a coarse sediment layer at the surface that
protects the underlying material from erosion, a phenomenon known as channel armouring. A
single grain thickness of coarse material may effectively prevent degradation although rare high
magnitude floods may disturb this surface layer. Degradation occurs most rapidly in the upstream
reaches closest to the dam so the armouring and degradation shifts progressively downstream.
Channel Erosion and Sedimentation

The geomorphological effects of changes in flow and sediment regime have been analysed by many,
for example Galay (1983), Williams and Wolman (1984) and Carling (1996). If the post-regulation
flows remain competent to move bed material, the initial effect is degradation downstream from the
dam, because the entrained sediment is no longer replaced by material arriving from upstream.
According to the relative erodibility of the streambed and banks, the degradation may be accompanied
by either narrowing or widening of the channel. A result of degradation is a coarsening in the texture
of material left in the streambed; in many instances, a change from sand to gravel is observed and, in
some, scour proceeds to bedrock.
Channel degradation below a dam persists until the reduction of channel slope reduces the flow
velocity below the threshold for sediment transport. However, degradation is rarely able to progress
freely. It is complicated by interrelated hydraulic, sedimentological and biotic factors. For example,
degradation may be limited by the local hydraulic conditions within the channel: the interaction of a
low channel slope, large cross-section and rough boundary can reduce flow velocity below the
threshold for sediment transport. Consequently on many rivers these effects are constrained to the first
few kilometres or tens of kilometres below the dam. Degradation of up to 7.5 m has been observed on
large rivers immediately below the dam and decreasing downstream (e.g. the Colorado below the
Hoover Dam). Typically, 1-3 m of degradation occurs within a decade or two of regulation (Church,
1995).
Further downstream, increased sedimentation (aggradation) may occur because material mobilised
below a dam and material entrained from tributaries cannot be moved so quickly through the channel
system by the regulated flows. Channel widening is a frequent concomitant of aggradation. Most
degradation is observed during the first 10-15% of the period of adjustment as a certain armouring
and stabilisation starts to occur (Brookes 1996). Thus both channel erosion and sedimentation take
place in response to dam construction and operations.
Floodplains
Damming a river can alter the character of floodplains as the reduction in high-magnitude flows
reduces the number of occasions and extension of floodplain inundation. In this sense the river
becomes divorced from it floodplain. Effects on floodplain ecosystems are specifically critical as they
often are matured systems with a large biological diversity and complicated foodweb structures that
are difficult to restore once lost (if at all). In some circumstances the depletion of fine suspended
solids reduces the rate of overbank accretion so that new floodplains take longer to form and soils
remain infertile. In other circumstances channel bank erosion results in loss of floodplains. For
example, between 1966 and 1973, some 230 ha of land were lost from 10% of the total bank length of
the Zambezi below the Kariba dam. Erosion was particularly pronounced at alluvial sites with non-
cohesive sandy bank materials and was attributed to: the release of silt free water; the maintenance of
unnatural flow-levels, sudden flow fluctuations, and out-of-season flooding (Guy, 1981). However, in
some places the reduction in the frequency of flood flows and the provision of stable low flows may
encourage vegetation encroachment which will tend to stabilise new deposits, trap further sediments
and reduce floodplain erosion. Hence, depending on specific conditions, dams can either increase or
decrease floodplain deposition and erosion.
Coastal deltas
In contrast to the impact on river and floodplain morphology, where aggradation may occur,
impounding rivers invariably results in increased degradation of at least part of coastal deltas, as a
consequence of the reduction in sediment input. For example, the slow accretion of the Nile Delta
was reversed with the construction of the Delta Barrage in 1868. Today, other dams on the Nile
including the Aswan High Dam have further reduced the amount of sediment reaching the delta. As a
result much of the delta coastline is eroding at rates of up to 5-8 metres per year, but in places this
exceeds 240 metres per year (Khafagy and Fanos 1993; AbdelMegeed and Aly Makky 1993; Stanley
and Warne 1993).
Similarly, erosion of parts of the Rufiji Delta, by up to 40 metres per year, is attributed to the
construction of dams (Horrill, 1993). The consequence of reduced sediment may also extend to long
stretches of coastline eroded by waves which are no longer sustained by sediment inputs from rivers.
It is estimated that the entire coastlines of Togo and Benin are being eroded at a rate of 10-15 metres a
year because the Akosombo Dam on the Volta River in Ghana has halted the sediment supply to the
sea (Bourke 1988).
Another example is the Rhone River, where a series of dams retain much of the sediment that was
historically transported into the Mediterranean and fed the dynamic processes of coastal accretion
there. It is estimated that these dams and associated management of the Rhone and its tributaries have
reduced the quantity of sediment transported by the river to 12 million tons in the 1960s and only 4-5
million tons today. This has contributed to erosion rates of up to 5 meters per year for the beaches in
the regions of the Camargue and the Languedoc (Balland 1991), requiring a coastal defence budget
running into millions of dollars.
Further consideration of these issues is given in Annex 4.
3.6.2 Second Order Impacts on Primary Production
3.6.2.1 Plankton and Periphyton
The introduction of a reservoir into a river system as a result of impoundment can markedly alter the
plankton component of the river system below the dam. Dams affect the plankton component of the
river system in two ways:
1. by changing the conditions affecting the development of riverine plankton (e.g. through
modification of the flow regime and alteration of chemical, thermal and turbidity regimes), and
2. by usually, but not always, augmenting the supply of plankton into the downstream system.
These changes will affect not only the total plankton present, but also plankton assemblages. Three
factors govern the contribution of lentic plankton to the river downstream: the rate of water
replacement within the reservoir (i.e. retention time); the seasonal pattern of lentic plankton
development, and the character of outflows from the reservoir. Pulses of plankton output from
reservoirs are often linked to season, hydrological conditions, nutrient supply and reservoir operation.
The flood mitigating characteristics of dams tend to promote the maintenance of higher than natural
plankton populations within regulated rivers, by both sustaining populations released from the
reservoir and promoting conditions for plankton development. For example, flow regulation imposed
by the Eildon Reservoir, Murray River, Australia has allowed increased development of
phytoplankton within backwaters, billabongs and fringing reed beds (Shiel, 1978). Furthermore, dams
tend to enhance plankton development through temperature moderation, reduction of turbidity and
reduction of effluent dilution (from incoming downstream tributaries etc.).
Within impounded rivers, in temperate climates, the maintenance of higher summer discharges, the
reduction of flood magnitude and frequency, reduced turbidities and the regulation of the thermal
regime (i.e. higher winter temperatures) often promotes algal growth (Petts, 1984). Moderately swift
currents and stable flow favour the growth of periphyton, but the effect of flow regulation on substrate
stability may be the most important control. The periodic disruption of periphytic communities under,
natural, variable flow conditions may be eliminated, or decreased in frequency, as a result of flow
regulation. This allows the full development of a periphyton assemblage, at least in channels of
relatively steep slope where moderate current speeds can be maintained.
Downstream from deep release reservoirs the composition of the attached algae and the proportion of
the substrate covered changes as temperature, turbidity and substrate stability vary in response to
tributary and anthropogenic inputs. Typically, algal growth occurs in the channel immediately
downstream from dams, because of the nutrient loading of the reservoir releases, and diminishes
downstream due to processes of self-purification. Increased algal density has been observed
immediately below the Veyriers dam, on the Fontaulière River (France). However, although algal
biomass was up to 30 times greater than at an upstream reference site, species composition was
considerably altered. The differences have been attributed to nutrient pollution, lowered water
temperature, flow constancy and substrate stability (Valentin et al., 1995).
3.6.2.2 Growth of Aquatic Macrophytes
Water depth and light penetration are important controls upon the composition and spatial patterns of
higher plants. Together with current velocity and the susceptibility of the substrate to scouring, they
are the dominant controls upon plant distribution. Thus it is the influence of dams on these factors
that tends to dominate their impact on aquatic plants.
Of particular significance is the often general increase in bed stability downstream from dams.
Compared with the situation in the natural river, the root systems of plants experience reduced effects
of scour, the plants themselves suffer less stress from high discharges and the rate of channel
migration is reduced, so that an area of the channelbed available for the development of aquatic plants
can be stabilised. For example, in the years since the creation of Lake Kariba, flow regulation has
allowed the rapid development of rooted plants (Panicum repens and Phragmites mauritanus) within
the Zambezi (Jackson and Davies, 1976) where previously there were unstable sandbanks.
Flow regulation not only decreases the frequency of high flows and inhibits bed-material movement,
but also induces the deposition of finer sediments where supplies are available from tributary or
effluent sources. Channel sedimentation, particularly involving nutrient-rich silt, can markedly alter
plant distributions. For example, sedimentation is often associated with the invasion and spread of
Zannichellia palustris, which traps further sediments as it develops.
The elimination of high discharges to flush systems has allowed the extensive development of the
aquatic weeds Water Hyacinth Eichornia. crassipes and Water Fern Salivinia molesta in both Africa
and Australia. E. crassipes infested the lower reaches of the Fitzroy River, Australia after upstream
dam construction stabilised flows thereby reducing floods and preventing salt water incursions to the
upper tidal reaches (Mitchell, 1978). These growths may be supplemented by the discharge of
floating weeds from infested reservoirs. Thus it is estimated that 150 000 S. molesta mats per hour,
supplied by Lake Kariba, passed the Luanga confluence on the middle Zambezi in January 1974
(Davies, 1979). Colonisation by reeds of 41,000 ha of riverbed has occurred as a result of stablised
flows on the Orange River, South Africa (Davies 1999).
3.6.2.3 Riparian Vegetation
The characteristics of riparian communities are controlled by the dynamic interaction of flooding and
sedimentation. Many riparian species are dependent on shallow floodplain aquifers that are recharged
during regular flood events. Dams can have significant and complex impacts on downstream riparian
plant communities. An important downstream manifestation of river impoundment is the loss of
pulse-stimulated responses at the water-land interface of the riverine system. High discharges can
retard the encroachment of true terrestrial species, but many riparian plants have evolved with, and
become adapted to the natural flood regime. Species adapted to pulse-stimulated habitats are often
adversely affected by flow-regulation and invasion of terrestrial weeds in these habitats is frequently
observed (Malanson 1993).
Typically riparian forest tree species are dependent on river flows and a shallow aquifers. Therefore
the community and population structure of riparian forests is related to the spatial and temporal
patterns of flooding at a site. For example, the Eucalyptus forests of the Murray floodplain, Australia,
depend on periodic flooding for seed germination and regeneration has been curtailed by headwater
impoundment (Walker, 1979). Conversely, artificial pulses generated by dam releases at the wrong
time – in ecological terms – have been recognised as a cause of forest destruction. For example,
Acacia xanthophloea is disappearing from the Pongolo system below Pongolapoort Dam, South
Africa as a result of mis-timed floods (Furness, 1978). The direct loss of annual silt and nutrient
replenishment as a consequence of upstream impoundment is thought to have contributed to the
gradual loss of fertility of formerly productive floodplain soils. It has been shown that given
sufficient time after dam construction, riparian forest vegetation may be replaced by forest types more
characteristic of unflooded upland areas (Thomas, 1996). Similar effects caused by the decoupling of
basin hydrology from riparian vegetation (i.e. caused by changes in both high and low flow regimes)
have been documented in the USA (e.g. Crawford, et al., 1994; Rood et al., 1995; Miller et al., 1995;
Johnson, 1992).
A study in Sweden indicated that both storage reservoirs and run-of-river impoundments permanently
altered and reduced the diversity of riparian vegetation. In comparison to natural river reaches there
were one-third fewer species around storage reservoirs and 15% fewer species near run of river sites
(Nilsson et al., 1997).
The Kariba dam has reduced downstream flood magnitudes within the Zambezi valley by about 24%
(Masundire, in press). Within Zimbabwe’s Mana Pools National Park, flood extent has declined since
the construction of Kariba Dam, reducing regeneration of the floodplain woodlands (Anonymous
1997).
3.6.2.4 Delta and Coastal Vegetation
Reduction in streamflow can also have considerable impacts on vegetation in downstream delta and
coastal areas. Dam construction and operation in the Indus basin, for example, has reduced flow by
more than 80% (McCully 1986). With the increased abstraction of water upstream, the quantity of silt
reaching the delta has been reduced. Especially impacted are estuarine mangroves that once covered
over 1 millon ha. The sediment brought down to the Delta is now estimated at about 60 Mt per year,
about one fifth of original quantities. The active delta is only 10% of its original area and the
reduction in the sediment discharge has meant that the balance between erosion due to high energy
waves and sediment deposition has changed towards erosion. Mangrove forest needs sediment as part
of its habitat renewal mechanism that provides direct benefits to people such as fuel, fodder and fibre
and forms rich nursery grounds for fish. The reduced freshwater and sediment flow plus human
encroachment contributes to further mangrove degradation. These changes have even affected the
total site biodiversity as mangrove species in the Delta have decreased from the eight recorded species
to a virtually mono-specific mangrove stand (WCD Tarbela Case Study 2000).
3.7 Third-Order Impacts on Fauna

3.7.1 Freshwater Species Diversity Changes
Only a modest fraction – perhaps 10% – of the planet’s species have been discovered by science,
named and classified: the known species. Of the 1.87 million recorded species of plants, animals, and
micro-organisms, 44 000 or 2.4% occur in freshwater, 14.7% in the sea, and 77.5% on land (Box 3.4).
However, the diversity of freshwater species is 10% higher than that on land when the fact that
freshwaters comprise only 0.8% of the surface area of the planet is taken into account. The
disproportion is even greater for the fishes; about 42% of known fish species occur in the tiny fresh
water area, compared to 58% in the far greater marine area. Freshwater fish species diversity
generally increases at lower latitudes. This has specific consequences for dam construction impacts at
these latitudes as their impact on species loss can be potentially much higher than at higher latitudes
(Figure 3.6).
Figure 3.6: Fish species richness decreases at higher latitudes indicating that dam construction
in tropical regions could potentially have more impacts than at higher latitudes (WCMC 1998).
Species populations may be located along a spectrum from common to rare. Declining species status
can be measured in simple terms by lowered populations, extirpations (loss of populations from a part
of the species range), or extinctions (loss of all individuals of a species). IUCN (1994) has developed
a scientifically objective means for assessing such populations, and many governments have
enshrined species status considerations in their national legislation.
Box 3.4: Species richness of the planet’s major environments (Source: McAllister et al. 1997)
Environment % area of % of known Relative species
Planet living richness

surface species (%species / %area)
Fresh water 0.8% 2.4% 3.0

Terrestrial 28.4% 77.5% 2.7
Marine 70.8% 14.7% 0.2
Symbiotic N.A. 5.3% N.A.
According to IUCN's 1996 Red List, 1 107 bird species (11% of the total) are threatened and 104
(1%) are extinct. Among the more threatened of bird groups are the aquatic rails and cranes with 54
species threatened, and the partially aquatic kingfishers and bee-eaters with 11.5% threatened, while
18% of the grebes are threatened. Extinct aquatic birds include the Colombian Grebe (Podiceps
andinus) and the Atitlan Grebe (Podilymbus gigas). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Plants
concluded that 33 375 species or 13.8% of the world’s 242 000 vascular plant species are threatened,
and 376 are extinct.
At regional scale few detailed data are available. The exception is North America where freshwater
animals have been shown to be the most endangered species group on the continent, dying out five
times faster than those that live on land, with a rate similar to the loss of rainforest species. Since
1900, at least 123 species have been lost from North America’s waters. A further 190 fish, 27
amphibian, 35 reptile, 84 bird and 94 mammal species are currently threatened with extinction, as
51% of species decline in numbers (Riccardi and Rasmussen, 1999). In the United States alone data
on the conservation status of freshwater species groups give an alarming picture:
• 67% of freshwater mussels are vulnerable to extinction or are already extinct

• 303 fish species – 37% of the US freshwater fish fauna – are at risk of extinction
• 51% of US crayfishes are imperilled or vulnerable
• 40% of amphibians are imperilled or vulnerable
• at least 106 major populations of salmon and steelhead trout on the west coast have been
extirpated, and an additional 214 salmon, steelhead trout, and sea-run cut-throat trout stocks are at
risk of extinction (Nehlsen et al. 1991).
While these figures give an indication of the scale of the threats to freshwater biodiversity, the
information constraints highlighted in section 3.4. mean that there are limited data available on the
specific impacts of dams on species diversity. However, useful studies have been carried out on some
groups and these can serve as indicators. The following sections on molluscs, fish and waterbirds
therefore serve to illustrate how dams impact upon the biology of individual freshwater species and
thus lead to changes in species diversity.
3.7.1.1 Invertebrates, Fish, Birds and Mammals
The preceding sections have shown that when dams are constructed the variability in water discharge
over the year is reduced; high flows are decreased and low flows may be increased. Reduction of
flood peaks reduces the frequency, extent and duration of floodplain inundation. Reduction of
channel-forming flows reduces channel migration. Truncated sediment transport (i.e. sedimentation
within the reservoir) results in complex changes in degradation and aggregation below the dam.
These changes and others directly and indirectly influence a myriad of dynamic factors that affect the
diversity and abundance of invertebrates, fish, birds and mammals downstream of dams. In light of
the information constraints outlined in section 3.4., comprehensive data are not available. It is only
therefore possible to provide here a first indication of the third-order impacts on ecosystem
functioning and productivity. Section 3.7 then examines the specific issues of the impact of dams on
species diversity using three more thoroughly-studied groups as indicators.
Most aquatic species cannot live for long without water, e.g. those breathing with gills. When a dam
closes off river flow, some species may avoid dehydration for short periods, e.g. snails by closing
their operculum. Some downstream populations will be reduced but may manage to hang on in pools
or tributaries. Survival in such pools may be reduced by predation as individuals are more accessible
because they are concentrated in the shallows. These effects can lead to declines in downstream
fisheries.
Larger aquatic species such as sturgeons, crocodiles and dolphins require minimal flows in which to
navigate, feed, etc. Such species may be seriously affected by reduced flows which mean reduction of
area of habitat. Habitat reduction may mean simply smaller populations or reduced growth rates, or
where populations are already at risk, it may lead to extirpation (loss of a population) or extinction
(loss of an entire species).
Large woody debris plays an important and until recently unrecognised role in providing fish and food
base habitat. Wood contributes to complexity of channel form and habitat in many rivers. In some
cases, woody debris is removed from the downstream environment by the storage dam operations. If
the original amount of debris input into the river is large compared to the downstream input the
impacts of dam construction and operation can be considerable (Kondolf
1999/ENV083/ENV085/ENV088).
River-dwelling species have several migratory patterns. These include the well-known anadromous
fishes like salmon and catadromous fishes like eels. Adults of the first migrate up rivers to spawn and
the young descend, while the reverse occurs with the latter. But many other freshwater fishes move
up rivers or their tributaries to spawn, while the glochidia larvae of freshwater mussels hitch rides on
host fishes. Migration between marine and freshwater ecosystems and within freshwater ecosystems
are known. Dams block these migrations to varying degrees.
Biological linkages also extend laterally away from the river, extending the effect of river changes to
a band of varying width, parallel to the river. As long as the river flow is sufficient, other wildlife
such as deer, antelope and elephants will come to the water, especially in the dry/hot season, for
drinking water. These lateral movements can extend to several kilometres from the river. Many
wildlife species in a fairly wide strip of land on either side of the river depend upon it, and they may
all be affected when the flow of the river is disrupted by the construction of a large dam.
The blockage of fish movements upstream is probably the most significant and negative impact of
dams on fish survival and biodiversity. Many stocks of Salmonidae and Clupeidae have been lost as a
consequence. In the Columbia River alone, more than 200 stocks of anadromous salmonids have been
extirpated. Sturgeon populations in the Caspian Sea now rely on hatcheries, mainly in Iran, since
Russian dams block natural spawning migrations.
The control of floodwaters by large dams, which usually reduces flow during natural flood periods
and increases flow during dry periods, leads to a discontinuity in the river system. This together with
the associated loss of floodplain habitats normally has a marked negative impact on fish diversity and
productivity. The connection between the river and floodplain or backwater habitats is essential in the
life history of many riverine fishes that have evolved to take advantage of the seasonal floods and use
the inundated areas for spawning and feeding. Loss of this connection can lead to a rapid decline in
productivity of the local fishery and to extinction of some species.
An assessment of 66 case studies of the impacts of dams on fish biodiversity concluded that 27% of
cases had positive impacts (i.e. increase in species richness) compared to 73% having negative
impacts (i.e. decrease in species richness) . Of the latter, 53% were downstream of the dam, affecting
upward fish migrations and connections to floodplains. Within regions, negative impacts of this kind
are more common in temperate than in tropical zones. In tropical regions, the extent of positive
impacts is much greater than in temperate ones, particularly in reservoirs upstream of the dams
(McAllister et al., 2000). Where fish biodiversity increases it occurs because the reservoir provides
“new” habitat for fish species preferring lentic habitats. In many cases people introduce exotic (i.e.
non-native) species to improve fisheries.
Fish migrations in the tropics are probably best known in the Neotropical region. Hydroelectric dams
in the Amazon basin as a whole have halted the long distance migrations of several species of catfish
although the available data are not quantified (Ribeiro et al.,1995). The dams have also interrupted the
downstream dispersal of catfish larvae. On the Araguaia-Tocantins River Basin, several species of
fish which undergo long distance migrations have been drastically reduced in abundance as a result of
dams blocking their routes. Downstream fisheries have been reduced by 70%, probably as a result of
recruitment failure.
In Africa the recent droughts have made it difficult to differentiate between the effects of reduced
flow resulting from dams and from lack of rainfall, for example in the central delta of the Niger River
(Läe 1995). However, substantial losses to overall fishery production in river basins have been
reported in Africa as a result of dam construction. For example, 11 250 tonnes of fish per year from
the Senegal River system were lost following dam construction (Reizer, 1971). A major concern
throughout Asia is that movements of migratory fishes along river courses are being blocked by dams.
Dams can enhance some riverine fisheries, particularly tailwater fisheries immediately below dams
that result from discharge of nutrients (seston) (primarily plankton) from the upstream reservoir.
However, discharge of seston is typically attenuated quickly downstream from the dam, with
corresponding attenuation of the associated fisheries. If discharge is from the hypolimnion of the
reservoir, lowered temperatures in the receiving tailwater can curtail or eliminate warmwater river
fisheries and require stocking of exotic coldwater species such as salmonids (assuming that the water
is sufficiently oxygenated). Productive tailwater fisheries targeting these coldwater fishes can result
but generally require supplemental hatchery programs and introduction of coldwater invertebrates to
serve as food for these fish. In North America, yields from cold tailwater fisheries have been
recorded for up to 753 kg/ha/year with fishing effort 7-16 times higher than the respective upstream
reservoir.
Estuarine Impacts. Reduction in freshwater flow can result in an increase in salinity in estuarine
areas and upset the complex nature of water currents which in turn can alter fish biodiversity.
Increased salinity has occurred in the Nile Delta although the effects on fishes have not been well
documented (Aleem, 1972; Stanley and Warne, 1993). Marine fishes were found in higher reaches of
the Eastman Estuary after 90% of the river water was diverted to the La Grande River (Canada)
(Ochman and Dodson, 1982).
Marine Impacts. Freshwater flows support marine fish production. The effect of reduced freshwater
flow is probably greatest in the first year of life of a fish population. Fish abundance is normally
determined during the egg and larval stages (Drinkwater and Frank 1994). Thus, although the annual
discharge through a hydropower dam may not differ much from unregulated flow, unless water is
diverted, the seasonal timing of discharge may be significantly different and have negative impacts on
marine fishes. Many marine fishes spawn in estuaries or floodplains generally at times of peak run-
off. A decrease in freshwater flow and in nutrients may affect the nursery areas in a number of ways
including increasing salinity, allowing predatory marine fishes to invade and reducing the available
food supply. These impacts are well illustrated by the effect of the Aswan High Dam on the coastal
waters of the Mediterranean (Aleem 1972; Drinkwater and Frank 1994). Here reduction in nutrients
transported to the sea has reduced production at all trophic levels, resulting in a decline in catches of
sardines and other fish. In the Zambezi delta the impact of modified seasonal flows on shrimp
fisheries has been estimated at 10 million dollars per year (Gammelsrod 1992a, 1992b).
3.7.2 Bivalve and Gastropod Molluscs
Bivalve molluscs are especially important elements of riverine ecosystems because of their ecosystem
functions and economic value.
Box 3.5: Global hotspots for freshwater molluscs
River System Species %

Endemic
Mobile Bay, USA 192 78

Balkans region 190 95
Lake Baikal, Russia ±180 67
Lower Mekong 160 72
Lower Zaire 96 25
Lower Uruguay/Rio de la Plata 93 37
Lake Tanganyika 83 64
Western Ghats, India 71 18
They are also highly endemic, and therefore subject to extinction (Box 3.5). The ecology and life
history traits of one group of molluscs, the freshwater mussels (Unionoidea), makes them an
important indicator of ecosystem health and of the impact of physical and biological changes in the
ecosystem on species diversity. Freshwater mussels are filter feeders requiring a rich and plentiful
supply of diatoms, desmids, filamentous algae and other algal species. They are therefore especially
vulnerable to the second and third order ecosystem impacts described above.
In addition their reproductive cycle may be seriously disrupted by dams. This involves a larval stage
(called the glochidia), which is retained in the female brood pouch or gills and released for their
intermediate stage as a parasite of a host fish before being transformed to bottom-dwelling juveniles.
Dam building activity which blocks migratory fish or changes fish communities can also reduce the
reproductive success of the freshwater mussel communities which depend on the fish as glochidial
hosts. For example, dam construction at Lake Pepin on the Mississippi River led to the demise of
mussels upstream of the dam, as the runs of skipjack herring, their host species, were blocked (Eddy
and Underhill, 1974). Unfortunately few of the host fish for mussels have been identified.
Stresses associated with dam construction resulting in physical disturbance of the river bed may also
cause mussels to prematurely empty their brood pouches of glochidia, resulting in reproductive
decline (Howells et al., 1996). The changes in water chemistry that occur in reservoirs may in turn
affect spawning of mussels (Isom, 1971). Bivalve species are very sensitive to water chemistry.
Translocation experiments on endangered mussel species in Europe have shown that changes in water
chemistry can lead to stress and trigger release of glochoidea during unsuitable flow/water conditions.
Changes in temperature may affect spawning of mussels, growth and the duration of the growing
season (Isom, 1971). Low dissolved oxygen levels may cause stress to freshwater mussels although
some species can withstand brief periods of low oxygen levels.
Increased siltation can be a major problem in some areas. The greatest diversity in the prosobranch
gastropod fauna in the USA is found in the Mobile Bay river basin, and the Tennessee river basin,
although 7% of total taxa are now extinct (Bogan, 1998). Most of the extinctions in this group (38 out
of 42 taxa) are in the Mobile Bay fauna, and occurred when the river shoal fauna was impounded and
covered by deep standing water and subsequent siltation.
Many mussel species also have extended life cycles, some of which span over 100 years, where
maturity is delayed until the individual reaches 6–15 years of age (Bauer, 1993; Chesney and Oliver
1998). This can lead to the impression that populations are secure, when in fact no active recruitment
is taking place and the populations may well be functionally extinct.
Box 3.6 demonstrates the impacts of dams and reservoirs, using data from the USA. Impacts are
evident from construction, after construction, and downstream. Species richness of molluscs has
declined between 40% and 80% from the original diversity levels in certain USA rivers, over a period
of 50 years. The figures in post-dam richness also indicate the stretches downstream of the dam where
the bed may be devoid of mussels.
Box 3.6: Mollusc species present within reservoir region, USA (Source: Neves, 1999)
Reservoir Preimpoundment Postimpoundment

Date Richness Richness
Norris, Clinch R. (1937) 40 species (1935-37) 12 species (1990’s)
Center Hill, Caney Fork (1948) 39 species (pre-1940) 2 species (1993)
Cumberland, (1952) 59 species (1947-49) 16 species (1961)
Wheeler, Tennessee R. (1936) >60 species (pre-1935) 18 species (1991)
Demopolis, Tombigbee R. (1936) 50 species (1933-35) 8 species (1954)
Demopolis/Warrior (1954/57) 48 species (pre-1950) 13 species (1972-75)
Stein and Flack (1996) conclude that the current decline of freshwater mussels in the Mississippi
Basin will have a detrimental impact upon the entire ecosystem. They point out that the freshwater
mussels play an important role in sediment mixing and nutrient recycling, and given their dominance
in terms of biomass, their removal could have long-term repercussions that are as yet unknown. They
are also a major food source for aquatic vertebrates.
Water level fluctuation also affects gastropod species. Brown (1994) described the gastropod
diversity of several African reservoirs which are comparable in size to large natural lakes. The
outflow from these reservoirs differs from the natural lakes, with most suffering large seasonal draw-
down as outflows from the lakes are regulated to ensure that the rainy season floods can be contained.
This gives a very unstable littoral zone, which stresses aquatic life at the margins, restricting the
number of mollusc species which can survive in the lake. Conversely, stabilisation of flows in the
Senegal river following construction of the Manantali and Diama dams allowed colonisation by
bilharzia-carrying snails, that were previously absent from the dynamic flood river ecosystem.
Riparian habitats also hold unique species of molluscs. Disturbance during the construction phase,
especially the destruction of habitats for temporary roads, can lead to loss of these species. These
losses may be permanent or temporary, depending on the degree of degradation and the amount of
habitat fragmentation. In South America, possible species extinctions have been related to loss of
gallery forest adjacent to rivers which are now submerged following construction of the Salto Grande
Dam. The land-snail Anthinus albolabiatus (Jaeckel, 1927) was formerly endemic to gallery forests of
the Uruguay River and has been submitted for inclusion in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Animals.
3.7.3 Impact of Dams on Fish Diversity
Fish are the most species-rich of all vertebrates. Valid scientific descriptions exist for about 24 600
living species of fishes in 482 families (Nelson 1994). One third of the fish families have at least one
member spending at least part of their life in freshwater. Freshwater fish diversity is therefore large
compared to other systems since freshwater lakes and rivers account for only 0.8% of the earth’s
surface and less than 0.01% of its water. Approximately 10 100 species are entirely freshwater and 2
500 move between the sea and freshwater during their life cycles (Helfman et al.,1997). An indication
of fish species diversity in some river systems is presented in Box 3.7.
The largest number of species occurs in the tropics and the diversity of fishes, in general, increases
from the poles to the tropics. Southeast Asia, South America and Africa have the most freshwater
fishes. However, many have not yet been described, so taxonomists are needed to describe unknown
species especially in these species-rich areas. It is also important to protect genetically distinct stocks
within a species. For example, Ryman et al.,(1995) suggested that it is just as important to protect the
intraspecific diversity of the Atlantic salmon as to protect the cichlid flock in Lake Malawi.
The 1996 IUCN Red List of Threatened Animals lists 617 freshwater fishes (including euryhaline –
salinity-level tolerant – species), about 7% of the known number of freshwater fish species. Studies
that take into account the fact that the Red List has evaluated only a fraction of freshwater fishes
estimate conservatively that 20% of freshwater fishes are either extinct, endangered or vulnerable; a
more realistic estimate might reach 30-35% (Stiassny, 1996).
Fish populations are highly dependent upon the characteristics of their aquatic habitat that support
their biological functions. Migratory fish require different environments for the main phases of their
life cycle: reproduction; production of juveniles; growth; and sexual maturation. The life cycle of
diadromous species takes place partly in fresh water and partly in seawater; the reproduction of
anadromous species takes place in freshwater; and catadromous species migrate to the sea for
breeding purposes and back to freshwater for trophic purposes. There are also migrations of
potadromous species, whose entire life cycle is completed within the inland waters of a river system.
The disruption of movement of species upstream has probably been the most significant and negative
impact on fish biodiversity and many examples illustrate the point from all regions. Large dams halt
long distance migrations and the fish fail to reach their spawning grounds. Many anadromous fish
populations such as Salmonidae and Clupeidae (e.g. shads) have died out as a result. The sturgeon
populations in the Caspian Sea now rely on stocking from hatcheries (mainly in Iran) as natural
spawning migrations were halted by dams built by the former USSR on rivers entering the sea.
The best-documented examples of disrupted migrations are from the west coast rivers of the USA, in
particular the Colorado and Columbia Rivers. In the Columbia River more than 200 stocks of
anadromous salmonids have become extinct. Catadromous species such as Anguillidae have been less
affected although adults are often killed in hydroelectric turbines. Eels are not restricted to specific
rivers, like salmonids, and can move into new rivers if their path is blocked by a dam (Drinkwater and
Frank 1994). Even when fish passes have been installed successfully, migrations can be delayed by
the absence of navigational cues such as strong currents. This causes stress on the energy reserves of
the fish as anadromous fish such as salmonids do not feed during migration.
Mortality resulting from fish passage through hydraulic turbines or over spillways during their
downstream migration can be significant. The risk of injury varies according to fish size and species,
but typically ranges from <1% for young fry to between 5-20% for 15cm Atlantic Salmon smolt for
example. Mortality in adult fish may reach 100% without special protection measures. Problems
associated with downstream migration can also be a major factor affecting anadromous or
catadromous fish stocks. Habitat loss or alteration, discharge modifications, changes in water quality
and temperature, increased predation pressure, and delays in migration caused by dams are significant
issues.
Box 3.7: Fish species richness in selected river basins (after: World Bank 1998, WCMC 1998)
Watershed/Continent Number of fish species Number of species 100/000

km2 of watershed
Kapuas, Indonesia 320 360

Mekong – Asia 1,200 147
Chao Phrya, Thailand 222 124
Xi Jiang (Pearl), China 290 71
Amazon - South America 3,000 49
Orinoco - South America 318 33
Yangtze – China 322 19
Paraná - South America 355 14
Congo - Africa 900 13
Mississippi – USA 375 12
In Australia, dams have generally resulted in negative impacts upon native riverine fishes while
encouraging exotic species. This has been attributed, in part, to disruption of seasonal flood cycles,
and to dams acting as barriers to fish movements. The Murray-Darling, which has 84 main reservoirs
with capacities of 10 000 ML capacity and over, now has the lowest commercial fish yield per sq km
of floodplain of any of the world’s major rivers, although historical catches were comparable
(Jackson, 1999).
Fish diversity in reservoirs is usually not as extensive as in natural lakes, because natural lakes have
more stable conditions under which the fishes evolve. Riverine species have to live under harsher and
more variable conditions. During reservoir formation the river and possibly associated wetland areas
become inundated. As the reservoir fills, riffles, runs and pools of the river are lost beneath the rising
waters leading to the extinction of habitat-sensitive riverine species with tightly defined niche
requirements (e.g. species of darter (Percidae) found in streams above dams in the Tennessee River
system (Neves and Angermeier, 1990). During construction, downstream flow may be severely
restricted, as at Cahora Bassa, Mozambique (Jackson 1999), eliminating the fishes present below the
dam. However many fishes can quickly recolonise once a flow is re-established. The filling of
reservoirs may take a few months (e.g. Kainji) or years (e.g. Volta, Kariba and Nasser/Nubia), and
fishes adapt better to prolonged filling.
Reduced number of species in reservoirs may also be an artefact created by inappropriate timing of
dam closure and poor control of environmental impacts during dam construction. The initial natural
stocking with native species is of high importance in determining the species composition of the
stabilised reservoir. If dam closure occurs during the dry season, the number of naturally stocked
species will likely be minimised and not be representative of the full complement of fish species
which occur in the river all year round. This is because many larger fish species migrate downstream
to refuge habitats during the dry season and only migrate upstream into low order tributaries during
the rainy season for spawning purposes. The disruption in normal hydrological flows which can
occur during the dam construction phase, compounded by excessive erosion and siltation of the river
in the vicinity of the dam site, may result in disturbance of fish stocks and migrations, and reduce the
magnitude of fish biodiversity and quantity available for initial natural stocking (Bernacsek, 1997).
3.7.4 Dams and Waterbirds
Waterbirds, both migratory and non-migratory, are important components of the biodiversity of
wetlands throughout the world. This is recognised in international conventions and agreements,
which place requirements on Parties to safeguard waterbirds throughout their range and distribution.
This is achieved in several ways, notably through the designation of wetlands of international
importance for waterbirds through the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance,
and the development and implementation of flyway-scale migratory waterbird conservation strategies,
notably the Bonn Convention African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbird Agreement (AEWA) and the
Asia-Pacific Migratory Waterbird Conservation Strategy. Such flyway-scale initiatives recognise the
vital need to safeguard the international networks of key sites upon which these birds depend
throughout the year for their survival, and to put in place a range of management measures to
maintain these populations.
Waterbirds may use natural and dammed open water wetlands for breeding, and during their non-
breeding seasons for feeding and for roosting. Wildfowl (divers, grebes, cormorants, swans, geese,
ducks, coots and rails) are particularly characteristic of open water systems. Large numbers of
waterfowl migrate south and south-west from arctic, sub-arctic and boreal breeding areas in Europe,
North America and Russia to overwinter in the relatively mild climate of western Europe, Africa, and
tropical America. Other major waterbird guilds such as waders (shorebirds) chiefly use the shallow
emergent shorelines of such wetlands for feeding during migration staging or wintering.
Of 957 Ramsar sites designated by December 1998, 10% included artificial wetland types, compared
to 25% including natural lake types (Frazier, 1999). Many of the designated artificial wetlands are
dammed sites: of the almost 100 artificial wetlands designated as internationally important, 78 are
listed as having water storage areas either as a primary or occurring wetland type. Of these 78 sites
57 were designated either wholly or partly for their internationally important waterbird populations.
Nineteen regularly support over 20 000 waterbirds (Ramsar Criterion 5), 13 sites regularly support
more than 1% of the biogeographic population of one or more waterbird species (Ramsar Criterion 6),
and a further 22 sites meet both of these waterbird criteria (Frazier, 1999)).
In inland South Africa for example, almost all permanent waterbodies are dammed sites, constructed
for water storage purposes. The total capacity of these impoundments amounts to some 52% of
annual run-off. These range from large scale impoundments several kilometres long to many small
farm dams. At least 517 major reservoirs were constructed by 1986, along with many tens of
thousands of farm dams of a few hectares each in area (Taylor et al., 1999). The overall impact of
these many artificial open water bodies has been to greatly increase the year-round availability of
permanent lakes in inland South Africa (Cowan and van Riet, 1998) and this has undoubtedly had
very major effects on the distribution and numbers of waterfowl in the region.
Artificial wetlands are included in many Important Bird Areas (IBAs) identified in South Africa
(BirdLife International, in prep.), and at least 12 impoundments support major and important
concentrations of waterbirds. Overall large dams have provided increased areas of suitable habitat for
several species that favour deep open-water conditions. The suitability of such dammed lakes for
other species depends, as elsewhere, on the extent to which they provide areas of fringing emergent
vegetation and shallow shorelines, features which generally are found in the upper parts of
impoundments. Large dams in South Africa have provided generally beneficial conditions for
Pelecaniformes (pelicans, darters and cormorants). They provide suitable habitats for moulting sites
for waterfowl: for example at least 70% of the global population of the South African Shelduck
Tadorna cana moults at only 23 localities in South Africa, 21 of which are large dams. Dams also
provide dry season or drought refuges for many waterfowl species, and breeding sites for many South
African waterfowl, including some species of national conservation concern, notably the Pink-backed
Pelican Pelecanus rufescens and Caspian Tern Hydroprogne caspia.
While dams in South Africa have increased the amount of suitable year-round habitat for species of
waterbird that prefer open-water habitats, and in some cases species that feed along the shallow
margins of the dams, the overall waterbird assemblage that naturally occurs in southern Africa has
suffered from major negative impacts. These include:
! The loss, on most river systems, of many of the former natural marshes and riverine habitats,
which has impacts on a larger assemblage of species that depend on such habitats than the number
of waterbird species that have benefited from the creation of open water dams.
! Major changes to downstream riverine habitats, first by reduction of river flow and removal of
much of its previous seasonal variability, causing changes to sediment movement and stabilising
channel morphology. Poor dam capacity management during major floods can also lead to
sudden major releases of water, so creating major floods in downstream areas in river systems that
have had little or no flood activity for years. This has affected the suitability of the river systems
between dams for those species that breed chiefly on unvegetated river banks and sandbanks
between river channels.
Few studies have assessed the waterbird assemblage before and after the construction of a large dam.
Allan (1999) reported on waterbirds present before and after construction of the large Katse Dam in
Lesotho. Of 13 waterbird species present before inundation, two disappeared (including Black Stork,
a Red Data Book listed species), two decreased in abundance, seven showed little change in status and
two common species increased in abundance. Two widespread open water species colonised the area:
Little Grebe and Red-knobbed Coot.
Unlike organisms that are unable to move in response to the construction of dams, waterbirds are
highly mobile and capable of exploiting such new open water systems and their margins if they
provide suitable breeding, feeding and roosting conditions. Hence reservoirs are often used by large
numbers of waterbirds. On the evidence of an analysis in temperate regions where natural lakes also
occur, the waterbird assemblage using dams is broadly similar to those of natural lakes. Although in
some situations (e.g. Switzerland) the species diversity is generally lower and artificial sites generally
support the more common and ubiquitous species, some dams (e.g. in the United Kingdom) support
an assemblage as large or larger than many natural lakes and provide important habitats for
internationally important waterbird populations. However, even in the UK, dams overall are of much
less international significance than the natural lake systems, and in this instance are also strongholds
of some alien invasive species that are the cause of conservation problems.
The before and after responses by waterbird assemblages to dam construction needs further
evaluation, as do the characteristics of reservoirs (in comparison with natural lakes) that determine
their suitability for different waterbird species. Such characteristics are most likely to include water
depth, steepness of shoreline and the presence of fringing vegetation. In many dams the water regime
and slopes do not favour colonisation by plants and this creates barren and sterile shorelines, equally
unfavourable to a range of bird species.
Box 3.8: Dams as Wildlife Habitats
While birds may be the most visible and well-surveyed fauna, there are cases of reservoirs also
supporting significant wildlife under particular circumstances. For example, the only place the
common caiman, Caiman crocodilus is found in Tobago is at Hillsborough Dam, while the Indian
mugger, Crocodylus palustris, an endangered species in Pakistan, thrives at Hub Dam (DFID-Mott
Macdonald 2000/ENV203). The National Park along the shores of Lake Kariba is also a famous
wildlife refuge.
3.8 Cumulative Impacts of Dams

Many of the major catchments in the World now contain multiple dams. Within a basin, the greater
the number of dams the greater the fragmentation of river ecosystems. It is estimated that 61% of the
worlds river basins are highly or moderately fragmented (Table 3.5, Figure 3.7, Dynesius and Nilsson,
1994; Nilsson et al., 2000).
Table 3.5: Fragmentation of rivers in 225 basins in the world (Source: Nilsson et al. 2000).
# of Basins assessed % of Basins assessed

Highly fragmented 83 37%
Moderately fragmented 54 24%
Unfragmented 88 39%
Total Basin assessed 225 100%
Figure 3.7: Fragmentation of rivers in 225 basins in the world (Source: Nilsson et al. 2000).
The magnitude of river fragmentation can be very high. In Sweden, for example, only four major
(longer than 150 km) and 6 minor (70-150 km) first order rivers have not been affected by dams
(Figure 3.8) (Lovggren, 1999).
Figure 3.8: Dams in the river systems of Sweden. Only four major rivers remain undammed
(Lovgren 1999/ENV136).
River impoundment affects the downstream environment so dams built in the same catchment, either
in series (i.e. along the same river) or in parallel (i.e. on different tributaries) will inevitably result in
cumulative impacts. A cumulative impact can be defined as the incremental effect of an impact added
to other impacts. An individually insignificant impact may, when combined with others, produce a
major change within a river ecosystem. The total effect on a river ecosystem of cumulative impacts
may be greater than the sum of each individual impact. This is particularly the case for those second
and third order impacts that are contingent on a number of lower order impacts.
3.8.1 Conceptual Framework for cumulative impact assessment
A fundamental tenet of the river continuum concept (Box 2.1) is that within river ecosystems biotic
communities are structured along resource gradients and downstream communities are dependent, at
least in part, on upstream processes. The serial discontinuity concept (SDC) is a theoretical construct
that perceives dams as major disruptions of longitudinal resource gradients along river courses (Ward
and Stanford, 1983; Ward and Stanford, 1995).
According to the SDC, dams result in upstream-downstream shifts in physico-chemical parameters

that in turn affect biotic patterns. The SDC proposes that dams reset or shift riverine characteristics in
predictable ways and that the magnitude of such shifts depend on the variable being considered, the
stream order, the position of a dam within a catchment and the dam operation. Riverine characteristics
include both the biotic and abiotic characteristics e.g. flow, sediment load, dissolved oxygen, thermal
heterogeneity, channel stability, biodiversity etc. In all cases, the dynamic and self-correcting nature
of rivers means that with increasing distance downstream, characteristics altered by the dam tend to
return to their unregulated level (i.e. baseline). Within this conceptual framework, cumulative impacts
can be visualised as occurring when any riverine characteristic, altered as the consequence of one
dam, fails to fully recover, before it is “re-set” as a consequence of either the presence of a
downstream dam or the operation of a dam on another tributary.
Two parameters can be used to measure the magnitude of biotic and abiotic shifts. These are: i) the
discontinuity distance (DD) which refers to the longitudinal shift and ii) intensity (PI) which refers to
the impact of regulation relative to its equivalent unregulated position. For any given attribute,
cumulative impacts affect both DD and PI. In most cases, cumulative impacts result in an increase in
both DD and PI.
Figure 3.9, illustrates the SDC and the effect of cumulative impacts. The thick curve represents the
conceptualisation of spatial gradients along a natural river system for a hypothetical river
characteristic. The arrows on the curves indicate the position of dams situated in headwaters, middle
and lower reaches. The thin lines associated with the arrows indicate how the variable changes as a
consequence of river impoundment. The upper graph shows the situation where the dams are far
enough apart for there to be no cumulative affects. Downstream of each dam the characteristic being
considered returns to the unregulated baseline before being reset by the next dam. The lower graph
shows the situation where cumulative impacts occur. In this case the dams are closer together and the
recovery distance is not attained before the characteristic is reset by the next impoundment. The
result is an extended discontinuity distance and increased intensity.
DD
Riverine characteristic
PI
Headwaters Lower Reaches
DD
Riverine characteristic
PI
Headwaters Lower Reaches
Figure 3.9: The impact of dams on the hypothesised downstream pattern exhibited by a given
river characteristic in situationa) with no cumulative impacts and b) with cumulative impacts
(modified from Ward and Stanford, 1995).
3.8.2 Case studies on cumulative impacts
There has been relatively little research into the cumulative affects of dams and almost none in
tropical climates. The most frequently mentioned type of cumulative impact is the combined effects of
multiple dams on river discharge and water quality (Kvernevik and Ghazali, 1998). Cada and
Hunsaker (1990) investigated the cumulative effects of hydropower development and grouped the
impacts into four potential pathways ranging from simple, additive effects of a single project to
synergistic effects arising from multiple projects.
In several countries, the importance of cumulative impacts is increasingly recognised. Several of

them, most notably the United States and Canada have made efforts to study and define cumulative
impacts for incorporation of their impacts assessment into legal guidelines for environmental impact
assessment. Consideration of cumulative impacts became a formal requirement in the National
Environmental Policy Act in the United States in the late 1970s (Irving and Bain, 1989) and in
Canada in 1992 (Bunch and Reeves, 1993; Brink 2000/ENV130).
A major constraint on assessing the cumulative effects on higher order impacts is the paucity and low
quality of available data (Irving and Bain, 1989). However, research has been conducted that
demonstrates cumulative impacts at all three levels of impact caused by impoundment (Boxes 3.10 to
3.12). A third order cumulative impact often cited is that of mortality of migratory fish. On the
Columbia River, USA between 5% and 14% of adult salmon are killed at each of the eight dams
through which they pass. Consequently, the cumulative mortality is 70% to 90% in every salmon run.
Fish mortality is attributed to navigational problems for migrating salmon in the still water behind
dams, killing of salmon within dam turbines and increased predation in the warmed still waters along
fish ladders.
Box 3.9: Example of cumulative affect on first order impacts (i.e. the hydrology) of the Murray
River, Australia (after Maseshwari et al., 1995)
The flow regime of the Murray River, Australia has changed markedly over the last century,
and especially the last 50 years, as a consequence of increased diversions, construction of
dams, weirs and levees and changes in operational procedures. A model developed by the
Murray-Darling Basin Commission has been used to compare simulated natural (unregulated)
flows at seven consecutive stages in the development of regulation. The model simulated
flow from 1891 to 1986 by adjusting storage and diversions as appropriate, and thereby
estimated the monthly flows that would have occurred had the given stage of development
prevailed throughout the simulation period. The study results illustrate the cumulative effects
of the dams on flow characteristics. Changes in the peak flow, low flow and flow-duration
characteristics of the system increased both with distance downstream and the stage of
development of regulation. Flow is often tightly coupled with other environmental
characteristics such as temperature and oxygen, channel morphology and substrate particle
size. Consequently, it is believed the cumulative alteration to the natural regime will have
profound implications for communities of native plants and animals in both the riverine and
the floodplain environment of the river.
Box 3.10: Example of cumulative affect on second order impacts (i.e. the geomorphology) of the
Platte River, USA (after Hadley et al., 1987)
Major changes have occurred in the hydrological regime and morphology of the channels of the Platte
River, USA as consequence of impoundment and water resource development. Reservoir storage
increased from zero to more than 8000 hm3 between 1885 and 1983 (Figure 3.10a). Trends in the
hydrological regime of the river are indicated by increases in the magnitude of low flows in the flow
duration curves and attenuation of annual mean flows and peak flows. These changes have affected the
discharge of sediment in the stream channel network. New sediment transport regimes have resulted in
sand bars that are not scoured or removed annually. When vegetation stabilises the sand bars, many
become permanent islands. The cumulative effect of the water resource development on island and
channel area are illustrated in Figure 3.10b.
a) b)
9000 1000
Cumilative usable storage (cubic hectometres)
8000 900
GLENDO a
d are
7000 800 an
Isl
Area (square hectometres)
700
6000 MCCONAUGHY
600
5000
500
4000 SEMINOE Ch
400 an
3000 ne
la
300 re
a
2000 North Platte River
PATHFINDER 200
1000
100
South Platte River
0 0
1885 1895 1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980
Figure 3.10: a) Cumulative useable storage in reservoirs in the Platte River basin and b)
associated cumulative change in island and channel area
Box 3.11: Example of cumulative affect on third order impacts (i.e. zoobenthos) in the
Gunnisson River, USA (after Hauer et al., 1989).
Caddisflies often contribute significantly to zoobenthic biomass and energy processing in running water
ecosystems. The Gunisson river system in the Rocky Mountains Colorado has been impounded by a
series of high, deep release dams (Figure 3.11a). Distinct patterns in caddisfly distribution and
abundance result from longitudinal changes in temperature, flow, substrata, trophic dynamics and other
ecosystem attributes. Figure 3.11b illustrates the cumulative downstream effect of the dams on the total
number of species and biomass. It has been demonstrated that the process of resetting the river
continuum downstream of dams requires tens of kilometres.
a) b)
20
Number of Species
15
Species
per site
10
3700 5
3500 0
20 80 140 200 260 320
3300
3100 4000
Dry weight (Mg m-2)

Elevation (metres above sea level)
2900 Taylor Park Reservoir 3000 Biomass

2000
2700
1000
2500
Blue Mesa Reservoir 0
2300 20 80 140 200 260 320
Morrow Point Reservoir
2100 Crystal Reservoir
4000
1900 Unregulated
Lavae (m )
3000 Density
-2
Regulated Blank
1700 Canyon 2000
Reregulated
1500 1000
1300
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 0
20 80 140 200 260 320
Kilometres from source Kilometres from source
Figure 3.11: a) Longitudinal and altitudinal profile of the Gunnison River and b) changes in
speciosity and biomass with distance downstream.
3.9 Estimating the Costs of the Impacts of Dams on Ecosystems

This section provides a minimal treatment of this subject as most of this work is presented in WCD
Thematic Review I.1 (Social Impacts of Large Dams) and WCD Thematic Review III.1 (Economics,
Financial, and Distributional Analysis ).
From an economic perspective, ecosystem changes due to dam development and operations may be
considered as changes in the natural capital of a region. It is increasingly recognised that to achieve a
sustainable development, measures of natural capital, and the income flows from it, must be
assimilated into national and corporate accounting systems. This requires their identification and
valuation usually in monetary terms. In the case of water resources, these may constitute part of what
may be described as a nation’s ‘Critical Natural Capital’ (Faucheux and O’Connor, 1998).
Those responsible for water management need to be able to measure and value the ways that dams
affect the environment. Clearly if the values of environmental impacts are incorporated into
power/agricultural sector planning, they may well tip the balance and turn what appears to be an
economically viable project into one that is likely to have a net economic cost. If the financial benefits
of the dam are marginal, perhaps other development strategies would produce a better result. If, on the
other hand, these environmental costs are not included at the project appraisal stage of dam planning,
the costs are hidden, but still need to be paid. The end result may have spatial and temporal impacts
which create a situation of both intragenerational and intergenerational inequity.
The economic impacts of these ecosystem changes tend to be greatest where they affect livelihood
opportunities and industrial production. However in the case of dams the costs and benefits of
resettlement of human populations, human and veterinary health, and the loss of cultural or natural
capital all have to be addressed, and incorporated into the accounting process. In order for this to be
done, these impacts must first be defined and measured, and a measure of value assigned to them.
Where economic values can not be easily ascribed, multi-criteria decision-making is essential.
Resettlement and health issues are addressed in detail in other WCD reviews (I.3)
3.9.1 Externalities and Livelihoods
Many ecosystem functions are not properly accounted for in conventional market economics so the
value of these functions and the cost of their loss, is external to the economic decision-making
process. This externalisation of costs is a major factor driving the loss of natural ecosystems. Large-
scale projects such as dams and canalisation of river-beds, have very high “hidden” environmental
and consequent social costs that may only become visible after construction. These external costs are
manifest in the loss of livelihood incurred by certain sectors of society rather than by those entities
building and operating the dam. Examples of these losses include loss of access to resources from
flooding for reservoir construction, degradation and loss of agricultural and grazing land on
downstream floodplains, and loss of riverine and coastal fisheries dependent upon the river flood.
The social consequences of these changes are dealt with in more detail in WCD Thematic Reviews
I.1 Social Impacts of Large Dams Equity and Distributional Issues, I.2 Dams, Indigenous People and
vulnerable ethnic minorities and I.3 Displacement, Resettlement, rehabilitation, reparation and
development. Policy-makers need to identify the value of this loss of welfare, and implement
financial and institutional mechanisms to assimilate these costs into the accounting structure faced by
the agent responsible for bringing about that loss into the accounting process. This is particularly
important when the distributional impacts of these external costs and benefits may be spatially and
temporally inequitable. Compensation for such losses may also be included within the project as a
redistribution mechanism.
3.9.2 Trade-offs between Economic and Ethical Considerations
The vast majority of the world’s dams are owned by governments, central, regional or local. The
value system that prevails within most governments or parastatal organisations is to increase the
welfare of the constituency, which can either be a country, the population of a state, or that of a
smaller region. An important premise is that growth in employment and material wealth is essential
for the progress of humanity and the improvement of health and living conditions.
Another value system maintains that nature should be disturbed as little as possible. People are part
of nature, and nature has an intrinsic value that goes beyond the use to which it can be put by people.
We must try to understand and respect natural cycles and live in harmony with them. Ecological
systems are delicately balanced, and technological interventions can cause irreversible damage to the
Earth’s life-sustaining processes.
Clearly there is no consensus when it comes to codes of moral conduct. In our modern, cosmopolitan,
multiethnic societies, we must learn to deal with this (IEA, 2000). However the United Nations has
recognised the inter-dependence of the world's ecosystems, and noted that even purely local
environmental crises are of common concern to all humankind. Environmental treaties repeatedly
urge countries to take actions to protect environmental values within their borders because global
values transcend those borders. Thus, ethical concerns run throughout the international instruments
and pertain to projects that affect more than the immediately intended beneficiaries. Decisions must
be proven to have taken these common concerns into account.
A set of ethical principles for decision-makers is presented in Box 3.12.
Box 3.12: Ethical principles for decision-makers involved in water and energy planning (di Leva
1999)
A. Decision-makers should acknowledge that their decisions affect a common concern of

humanity.
B. Decision-makers must respect all life forms.
C. Decision-makers must recognise that their decisions impact on future generations, and
that those generations have inherent rights – the principle of “inter-generational equity”.
D. While environmental concerns must be respected and protected, decision-makers must

also recognise the basic human right to development and to achieve a life free from
poverty.
E. Decision-makers must also recognise that all people have a right to a livelihood and as
far as possible to a stable, protective and unthreatening environment
F. Decision-makers must respect that actions taken within their jurisdiction should not lead
to the harm of others outside their jurisdiction.
G. Decision-makers should ensure that in the event project development proceeds, that
mechanisms are in place to enact the polluter pays principle, including the principle that
those who cause damage are liable to ensure that the environment is restored to its
former state.
H. Decision-makers should ensure that before decisions are taken, those who could be
adversely affected have an opportunity to engage in prior informed consent and that
decisions are enacted consistent with appropriate due process.
This short review of the economic and social implications of ecosystem impacts has highlighted the
great value of natural ecosystems to society, yet underlined both the current challenges inherent in
measuring this value accurately, and the need to ensure that these values are included in economic
decision making. In the face of these constraints it is important that ecosystem values and the impacts
of dams upon these be quantified wherever possible, and this should be pursued in parallel with
ethical judgements as to the importance of the natural environment. Decisions need to be made not
just through traditional cost-benefit analysis but also taking the environmental and social dimensions
into account. This work should seek to ensure that the hidden costs of dams are made explicit and
integrated into the decision-making process. Special importance needs to be given to the
consequences of ecosystem impacts for those communities whose livelihoods are dependent upon
healthy ecosystems.
3.10 Conclusions
The processes that occur when a dam impacts an ecosystem are complex and, as a result, predicting in
precise detail the nature and magnitude of any impact arising from the construction and operation of a
dam or a series of dams is difficult in many situations. The detail of the impact of any single dam is
unique and dependent not only on the dam structure and its operation but also upon local hydrology,
sediment supplies, geomorphic constraints, climate, and the key attributes of the local biota.
Furthermore, fluvial processes will operate differentially even within an individual catchment.
There is therefore no normative or standard approach to addressing ecosystem impacts and these have
to be looked at on a case-by case-basis. The importance attached to some ecosystem changes will
vary with the nature of human societies, cultures, and expectations, others are more straightforward to
assess and quantify.
Dams have a significant and measurable impact on man-made and natural ecosystems. These impacts
are not documented for all 40 000 large dams in the world in all details . Despite the fact that each
dam is unique, several generic environmental impacts are documented for a large number of cases.
Negative impacts of dam construction and operations on ecosystems include in a majority of cases
adjustments of river flow regime, negative effects on the quality of the water and reductions in
sediment transport. The latter is leading in several deltas to coastal erosion of between 5 and 250
metres per year, requiring millions of dollars investment in coastal defence. Reduction in downstream
annual flooding affects the natural productivity of floodplains and deltas.
The impact of dams on freshwater species is significant. Global estimates of endangered freshwater
fish reach 30% of the known species. Detailed studies in North America indicate that dam
construction is one of the major causes for freshwater species extinction. Dramatic reductions in bird
species are also known, especially in downstream floodplain and delta areas.
Positive impacts on ecosystems and species also occur. The creation of reservoirs has in several cases
lead to the development of productive and species-rich riparian ecosystems along reservoirs . In other
cases, an increase in species numbers has been observed due to reservoir construction, especially in
areas with low number of species per surface area as can be found at higher latitudes. In many cases
the habitat gains in and around the created reservoir do not compensate nor outweigh the loss of
habitats either upstream (i.e. inundated terrestrial ecosystem) or downstream.
Multiple dams on a river significantly aggravate the impact on ecosystems. To date 61% of a large
sample of world river basins have been found to be highly or moderately fragmented. In many cases,
high percentages of sediment are entrapped if a cascade of dams is developed. Fish migration is
affected even by a single dam, and multiple dams worsen this situation dramatically.
4. Responding to the Ecosystem Impacts of Dams

4.1 Introduction
All dams, through disruption of physiochemical processes modify, in both obvious and subtle ways
and across a wide range of spatio-temporal scales, the conditions to which ecosystems have adapted.
Chapter 3 has shown that large dams can have major impacts on riverine ecosystems and processes
and the changes in ecological processes can have profound social and economic repercussions for
people whose livelihoods depend on the natural resources and ecosystem functions of river
ecosystems. Consequently, the impacts have been at the forefront of the debate regarding the
desirability of continued dam development (Chapter 5), and have led to a major investment by
scientists and engineers to identify measures to ameliorate the most damaging impacts of dams.
The analysis of potential ecosystem impacts of dams and the development of appropriate responses to
these is one focus of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process. The strengths and
weaknesses of EIA are dealt with in another WCD Thematic Review (V.2 Environmental and Social
Assessment for large dams ) and will not be revisited in detail here. It is important to recognise
however that while in principle an effective EIA allows the majority of potential effects of a proposed
dam to be anticipated prior to construction, it may not be possible to determine the precise magnitude
of impacts. Furthermore, because of the complex interaction of different effects, it will always be the
case that some changes will not be anticipated and even when impacts are correctly predicted it is not
technically possible to completely annul them all. It should be recognised that an EIA is the start of
the amelioration process; implementation of measures to address negative impacts requires resources,
capability and willingness from both the dam owner/builder/operator and the full range of political
and stakeholder institutions.
The present chapter reviews the methodologies that seek to respond to ecosystem impacts of dams. It
presents information on their effectiveness, examines constraints, and discusses tools submitted to the
Commission that can help improve the sustainability of water resource use and of large dams.
4.2 Types of Response

When considering the construction of a new dam a prioritised, three-tier response to the
environmental impacts identified through an EIA approach is widely advocated:
1) avoidance: measures that completely exclude as many negative impacts as possible;

2) mitigation: measures that attempt to minimise those negative impacts that cannot be
completely avoided, and
3) compensation: measures that attempt to enable reparation for those negative impacts that
cannot be either avoided or mitigated.
For existing dams the same three types of response can be considered together with decommissioning
and restoration of pre-dam ecosystems. Within this framework of avoidance, mitigation,
compensation, and restoration, there are a wide range of specific measures that can be taken
appropriate to the specific circumstances of each dam. The present section provides a summary of
these. A more extensive listing of options that can be used to meet specific environmental impacts are
dealt with in greater detail in Bizer (2000). Annex 5 presents a summary of World Bank experience
and lists examples of mitigation measures.
4.2.1 Avoidance
The best way to manage negative environmental impacts is to avoid them in the first place. The
adoption of avoidance measures results in no change to existing functioning of a particular ecological
area or resource. Normally, these measures are adopted to prevent loss of significant or sensitive
ecological areas and consequently can only be incorporated during the conceptualisation or planning
stages of the project (i.e. pre-feasibility, feasibility, or design). In order that avoidance be given due
consideration, it is important that an adequate assessment of options be carried out at the
conceptualisation stage of projects.
The most obvious option for avoiding impacts to aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems is to either not
construct a new project or construct the project at another location. Alternatives to constructing a dam
should always be considered. For example, demand management, water recycling, rainwater
harvesting (Box 4.1) as well as increasing efficiency of energy use or electricity production from
alternative sources (e.g. solar, wind, thermal or nuclear) are all approaches that reduce the need for
dam construction. However, all alternatives have environmental impacts that need to be weighed
against those arising from dam construction. Such evaluation must consider the inevitable impacts
both “upstream” and “downstream” of the site of immediate intervention (e.g. the impact of an oil
based thermal power station must include the impacts associated with oil extraction, oil processing,
transportation and storage as well as the impacts of the power station itself). Thus, when comparing
environmental impacts the full “life-cycle” of alternatives must be considered. These options are
further explored in Thematic Reviews IV.1 Planning Approaches; IV.2 Environmental and Social
Impact Assessment for Large Dams; IV.3 River Basin Management: Its Role in Major Water
Infrastructure Projects and IV.4 Regulation, Compliance and Implementation.
Box 4.1: Demand management, water recycling and rainwater harvesting: examples of
methods that may avoid dam construction
Demand Management – refers to actions for affecting the ways in which water is used and
seeks to improve the efficiency of the direct use of water by people. It is increasingly coming
on the agenda in regions where concerns have arisen over water sufficiency, allocation, high
costs of expanding supplies and environmental preservation. Water supply and sanitation
systems in many urban areas are characterised by high leakage and low efficiencies. A great
deal of water is not returned directly (treated or untreated) to the source from which it was
withdrawn. In some communities water losses can reach 40-60%. In contrast in modern
cities with centralised water pipeline systems and relatively new sewage systems, losses do
not usually exceed 5-10% (Shiklomanov, 1997). These figures demonstrate that actions to
improve operational efficiency and reduce leaks could make a significant impact on water
demand in urban areas.
Water recycling – refers to the capture and reuse of water prior to ejecting wastewater to
ground or surface water receptors. Hence, recycling reduces water withdrawal requirements
for a given set of final uses. For example, end-use water requirements for an industrial
process may be met totally by withdrawals in a once-through process, or by lower levels of
withdrawals in combination with internal recycling which captures and reuses waste water.
Similar considerations apply in the capture and reuse of water in municipal and irrigation
systems.
Water harvesting – is the direct capture of rainfall or collection of surface runoff to use as
drinking water and to water crops and livestock. In some circumstances traditional methods
of harvesting water may present opportunities for relieving water shortages in arid areas.
Techniques include:
• the capture of rainfall draining from the roofs of buildings;

• tanks to capture surface runoff;
• low earth embankments built across drainage channels to divert runoff onto fields, and
• bunds constructed on fields to promote the infiltration of surface runoff.
One approach that is advocated to avoid widespread adverse effects to environmental resources at the
national level is to initiate a development strategy that commits a single river basin to development
while limiting development in other river basins. This has most potential in countries where there are
several undeveloped river basins, some of which have more environmental significance than others.
Currently, the national hydropower strategies of Switzerland (Truffer, 1999) Sweden (Lövgren 2000)
and Norway (Larsen, 1999; Flatby and Konow, 1999) involve the “set aside” of particular river basins
for the purpose of environmental protection. However, the addition of new installations on regulated
rivers can lead to cumulative impacts (section 3.8) and harm remaining habitats. Consequently, this
policy should not allow a “free for all” in those basins designated for development; amelioration of
negative environmental impacts should still be viewed as a key aspect of all projects.
Beyond the actual selection of a site, adjustments to the alignment of the dam or the configuration of
the dam and ancillary facilities may be made on the basis of environmental criteria. Factors that may
be considered in developing the configuration of the project include dam height (maximum elevation
of the water surface of the impoundment) and dam alignment. In many cases, constructing the dam to
a somewhat lower elevation may avoid inundation of areas that are relatively densely populated,
provide habitat for unique ecological or geological areas, or include sensitive or critical habitats for
rare, endangered or endemic species. For example, Hydro Quebec modified the height of the St
Marguerite-3 dam to reduce the flooded area by 20% (315 to 253 km2) while only suffering a 4%
reduction in power generation (2.9 TWh to 2.8 TWh) (IEA 2000). Such adjustments must be based on
an adequate understanding of the environmental conditions within the river basin as well as outside
the project area.
Avoiding the potential for adverse effects associated with construction of the project and ancillary
facilities is somewhat more flexible. Re-alignment of access roads or transmission lines to prevent
fragmenting associations of native vegetation and protection of wildlife is normally possible. In the
Upper Salmon Hydroelectric project, for example, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro avoided
disturbance to calving caribou by curtailing construction activities when sufficient numbers of caribou
were in close proximity (Kiell 2000/ENV202).
Box 4.2: Avoidance of impacts on sensitive species during blasting
During rehabilitation of the spillway of the Shongweni dam (S Africa), the EIA identified 5 000-10
000 bats roosting in the Mlazi by-wash tunnel. A significant population of Temmincks hairy Bat,
Myotis tricolor, use the tunnel as a maternity site in January, which was the originally-intended
construction period. Blasting was therefore delayed to avoid the risk of activity-related starvation
during the breeding season. After project completion, monitoring showed no adverse effects on the
population. (English 1999/ENV205)
Selection of locations for acquisition of aggregate or fill for construction of the dam or for disposal of
excavated material may also be based on ecological considerations. Construction materials may be
obtained from, or spoil materials disposed of, within the impoundment zone, thereby avoiding
changes to the topography in the area around the reservoir and reducing the potential for erosion from
the disturbed sites, and reducing the aesthetic impacts after construction is complete (EHDC, 1994).
Further, consideration of placing construction staging areas and other necessary areas within the
impoundment zone may be a means to avoid disturbance to lands that otherwise would be affected in
addition to the areas that are inundated. However careful assessment is required to ensure that such
measures do not increase water pollution or have other negative impacts
4.2.2 Mitigation
The second category concerns mitigation measures that are incorporated into a new or existing dam
design or operating regime in order to reduce negative ecosystem impacts. For new dams,
mitigation measures attempt to reduce the occurrence of anticipated adverse effects while at existing
dams, mitigation measures seek to rectify as far as possible adverse effects through modification of
structural or operational components of the development. Ideally, mitigation measures are identified
through the EIA process so that adverse effects are minimised from the outset of a project.
Mitigating construction impacts

Disturbance to soils at the construction site is one of the first and more easily-handled aspects of dam
construction simply through the effective use of berms that direct runoff to settling basins. Areas
adjacent to the primary areas needed to construct the project and which are disturbed as a
consequence of site preparation may be revegetated with grasses or other rapidly-growing plants to
prevent erosion from the sites. Other types of containment facilities (primarily berms) are frequently
used to detain runoff from batch plants, equipment maintenance areas and equipment storage facilities
(Bizer 2000). Most of these types of protection measures are described in numerous compilations of
“Best Management Practices” and generally do not add significantly to the cost of the site preparation
(e.g. Hydro Quebec 1991).
The behaviour of the labour force is a more difficult aspect of managing the potential adverse effects
of a construction site, especially in remote, unpopulated or sensitive areas. This is particularly true
where workers are prone to hunt either to supplement their food or to supplement their income
through sale of plants and animals from the area immediately surrounding the labour camp. The
impacts of non-labour force migrants that gather at construction sites are even more difficult to
manage. While the labour force itself may be provided with sufficient food, water and alternative
activities, the migrant, non-labor force population will likely forage in the adjacent areas for food and
fuel and may create significant problems with sanitary and solid wastes. Few if any construction
projects are equipped to deal with the potential environmental damage caused by non-workforce
migrants.
In most cases, the selection of routes for access roads and transmission lines can avoid passing
through ecologically sensitive areas. Where it is not possible to avoid such areas, a route should be
selected to avoid disturbance and fragmentation of the biologically significant areas to the extent
possible. For transmission lines in particular, it may be possible to construct the transmission towers
and string the lines without completely clearing the right-of-way between the towers. In this way the
fragmentation of the area may be minimised. As soon as construction of the access road or
transmission towers is completed, the disturbed areas should immediately be re-vegetated with local
vegetation. Access roads may also be closed to the public to reduce frequentation of sensitive areas
(Kiell 2000/ENV202).
A mitigation measure sometimes implemented is the rescue of terrestrial animals from the area to be
inundated. For example, 10 000 animals were rescued from drowning prior to the filling of the
Afokaba reservoir on the Surinam River in South America (Nilsson and Dynesius, 1994). However,
while the approach often generates wide publicity, it is rarely a success. Often the rescued animals are
relocated to areas where there is insufficient carrying capacity to support the influx of new animals.
Mitigating Operational impacts
Scientists and engineers have developed numerous methods for mitigating many of the environmental
impacts that occur both upstream and downstream of dams after construction. One measure that is
commonly adopted is the release of “compensation” flows for the maintenance of in-channel
ecosystems downstream of a dam. In the past these were often simply a continuous minimum flow
release that had to be maintained throughout the year. In recent years it has been more common for
seasonally varying flows regimes to be designed to meet “instream” or “environmental flow”
requirements. Thus release regimes are planned to mimic the natural seasonal variation in flow. In
some situations (e.g. in parts of Australia), where rivers would naturally dry up at certain times of
year, this may mean very small or even zero release. Even more recently consideration has been
given to the release of high flows to maintain floodplain (out-of-bank) and deltaic ecosystems
(Acreman et al, 2000). The design of Environmental Flow Requirements is dealt with in further detail
in Section 4.4.3.
Measures to minimise erosion in the draw-down zone of the dam impoundment include
minimisation of the magnitude of the draw-down, and/or planting of annual vegetation along the
margins of the impoundment as the reservoir is drawn down.
When operation of the project is such that water level fluctuation in the reservoir is unavoidable,
measures that have been implemented have included construction of submersible barrages at the
mouths of inlets along the margins of the reservoir (Casinader, 1999; Seattle City Light, 1985). These
maintain a water level within the inlet at some level greater than the maximum drawdown of the
impoundment. When the impoundment is at maximum operating level, the water in the inlets is
contiguous with the impoundment allowing movement of organisms between the main body of the
reservoir and the inlet area.
The changes in physical and chemical properties of water associated with dam construction, both in
the reservoir and downstream from the reservoir, may be minimised by integrating measures to
mitigate for changes in temperature and dissolved gas concentrations. Options include the installation
of variable level off takes or submersed surface impellers and limiting plunge port depths. The
retrofitting of variable level off takes is very expensive but has been attempted in various reservoirs,
including in Japan (Miyanaga et al., 1994). The design technology is now well supported by field
experience.
Other major considerations relative to water quality include effects to nutrient loading and salinization
associated with return flows from irrigated agricultural areas and use of the river for domestic waste
disposal upstream. In all cases an integrated upstream catchment management strategy is required to
minimise anthropogenic inputs of pollutants into the reservoir.
Measures to mitigate for the potential effects of nutrient accumulation in an impoundment have
focused on reducing the amount of inflow of nutrients to the reservoir, and increasing the removal of
nutrients from the water. In some countries (e.g. Switzerland) waste water treatment is specifically
designed to try and limit nutrient influx into lakes and reservoirs. There are various interventions that
can reduce the nutrient load of streams that flow into reservoirs (Bernhardt, 1994). However, in many
countries eutrophication of reservoirs remains a major problem. In many cases, there is much scope
for improving up-stream basin wide management to reduce nutrient input into the reservoir.
Reduction of the inflow of nutrients has been accomplished through the construction of wastewater
treatment facilities at communities along the margins of the impoundments as well as in the watershed
upstream and the promotion of the use of biogas units in more rural areas of the watershed (EHDC,
1998). Other methods of reducing continuing inflow of nutrients to an impoundment include training
of local farmers in the use of fertilisers, or seasonal flushing of the reservoir (i.e. drawdown of the
impoundment and refilling to dilute the concentration of nutrients). The effectiveness of this process
however is dependent upon the volume of the reservoir relative to inflow (Jobin, 1999).
Mitigation for the accumulation of sediments in the impoundment has been achieved in a small
number of dams in several ways. A direct approach to reducing the accumulation is to mechanically
remove the sediments by periodic dredging. In other cases, the sediments have been removed through
periodic flushing of the reservoir by releasing large volumes of water through low-level outlets in the
dam. However, this approach is limited to removal of sediments that have accumulated close to the
dam, in many cases it is impossible to flush sediments deposited further upstream in the reservoir.
Furthermore, although the flushing of sediment may have some geomorphological benefits, the
extreme and unnaturally high concentrations of sediment caused by flushing may produce a major
stress on downstream aquatic ecosystems and can be disastrous for some biota (section 3.7).
Furthermore, sediments flushed from the hypolimnion of stratified reservoirs may be contaminated
(e.g. with mercury and other trace metals).
Partial removal of accumulated sediments at the mouths of tributaries is another method often used. It
maintains access to the tributaries for movement of fish from the reservoir into the tributaries for
spawning and rearing of juvenile fish. The accumulation of sediments in the river channel
downstream from a dam due to the altered hydrologic regime may be mitigated through periodic
flushing of the river channel with artificial, high flow events, if the sluice gate design and water levels
allow.
For many dams, sediment accumulation remains a major concern and one that is not often financially
viable to mitigate by dredging. The configuration and bathymetry of most reservoirs means that
sediment frequently accumulates at the head of the reservoir, a long way from the dam wall and the
bottom outlet. Many feasibility studies acknowledge the concept of a “life span” for a dam based on
inevitable sediment accumulation. Sediment arrangement and safety issues currently head industry
concerns about dam management.
Most measures to mitigate for the altered hydrologic regime have been designed primarily to
prevent impacts to the biological components of downstream aquatic communities dependent on the
natural hydrologic, physical and chemical regimes. This is addressed further in section 4.4.3.
Effective measures for mitigating the blockage to migration of fish include the installation of fish
passage facilities to facilitate movement of fish from below the dam to the reservoir and further
upstream. Designs of fish passage facilities have evolved through the years as scientists and
engineers learn more of the requirements for encouraging fish to use the passage facilities, the specific
hydraulic conditions that various fish species use to orient their migration, and the climbing
capabilities of the target species or groups of species (Bizer, 2000). However, much of this research
has been conducted in Europe and North America and data is lacking on appropriate designs for
tropical and subtropical species. Most designs for fish passage facilities are passive: it is up to the fish
to move themselves into and through the fishway. Other fish passage designs have included fish
elevators that collect the fish in boxes and then lift the fish to the level of the impoundment. In other
instances, trap-and-haul techniques have been used to move fish from below the dams to the
impoundment. The effectiveness of fish ladders is discussed further in Section 4.3.1.
4.2.3 Compensation
The third category concerns compensation measures. These consist primarily of some form of
“repayment” for anticipated (or realised) adverse effects that cannot be either avoided or mitigated to
some “acceptable” level . Such measures include direct monetary payment to a governmental or non-
governmental organisation for the adoption of resource management programmes that provide for
protection, replacement, rehabilitation, or restoration of natural resources in repayment for the loss of
natural resources due to the development.
Compensation for lost resources may take the form of:
i) guaranteed preservation or restoration of existing ecologically important areas to “replace”

those lost as a consequence of dam construction (e.g. establishment of nature reserves), and
ii) alternative approaches to ensure the continuance of some ecosystem services (e.g.
construction of a fish hatchery to replace lost fish spawning areas)
Some authorities will only accept the former type of compensation. Compensation may also be paid
“in-basin” (e.g. restoration of forest area within the river basin for forest lost to inundation) or “out-
of-basin” (e.g. assistance in expanding management capability at similar locations in another river
basin). Compensation measures are normally adopted during the planning process. However,
compensation programmes may also be implemented after construction of the project. They may be
included as part of the capital costs of the scheme and/or funded from revenue in the case of hydro-
power projects (Bizer 2000).
Generally, the entire loss of riverine and terrestrial areas to inundation is neither avoidable nor
directly mitigable. Consequently, the only options readily available are compensation, either through
increased management of other existing areas in the basin, restoration and rehabilitation of other
lands, or through direct monetary compensation for improved management by national resource
agencies in other parts of the country. For example, Zimbabwe created a National Park along the
shores of Kariba reservoir, and the Nam Theun II project proposes support for a 3 710 km2 forest
National Park in the catchment.
Many ecologically important terrestrial areas are in danger of continued exploitation regardless of
whether or not a dam is constructed. Compensation therefore should be directed primarily at the
restoration or rehabilitation of areas that have been damaged by other human activities (e.g. timber
harvest or agricultural practices). Restoration, rehabilitation and conservation efforts have been
successfully applied to a number of projects (e.g. Braund, 2000; Hamerlynck et. al., 1999, Rivero,
1999). However, it is of course impossible to fully compensate for loss of unique environments (e.g.
virgin rainforest) and/or species.
In situations where installation of fish passage facilities is not feasible, other measures that may be
used to compensate for the loss of spawning areas include artificial enhancement of breeding
populations in hatcheries designed specifically for native riverine fish and artificial breeding and
stocking of appropriate fish species for introduction into the reservoir (e.g. Idaho Power, 1999; Chelan
County PUD, Committee on Dams and Environment; 1999). Critics of hatcheries point however to
the need to maintain the genetic diversity and fitness of natural stocks if compensation is to be truly
effective.
While they do not address issues of biodiversity loss, the introduction of native species from other
adjacent areas or the introduction of non-native species to a reservoir can bring considerable
economic and social benefits through the development of subsistence and commercial fisheries (e.g.
Indonesia, Laos, China) and the evolution of sport fishing industries as in the US (Jackson, 1999), the
United Kingdom (Binnie, 1999), and France (Masson, 1999). The decision to compensate for loss of
fish species in an inundated reach of river through introduction of non-native commercial species is
generally made in situations where principle concerns exist for providing a source of protein for local
residents or where pressure for recreational opportunities is present (Jackson, 1999). Such
introductions, however, bring with them the risk that the new species will predate or invade the
ecological niches of native species, so reducing biological diversity further. For example, the
introduction of brown trout to Lake Pedder Dam in Tasmania is believed to have contributed to the
decline of two endemic Galaxia species, one of which is now endangered (WWF Australia
2000/ENV220).
It must be recognised that no scheme will ever fully compensate for the natural resources and
functions that are lost as a consequence of dam construction. Consequently, compensation should be
viewed as the least acceptable of the amelioration approaches and one that is used solely to diminish
the negative consequences of impacts which can neither be avoided nor mitigated to an acceptable
level.
4.2.4 Dam Decommissioning and River Restoration
Increasingly rivers once developed and altered for human benefits are being restored, in a variety of
ways, to an approximation of pre-disturbance conditions. Within this context dam removal is
increasingly being considered as a realistic option for the potential restoration of river ecosystems. In
some cases people have modified their livelihood strategies or the river ecosystem has been developed
to such an extent that decommissioning is at present not a viable option. However, in many cases
decommissioning is possible and should be considered.
In the USA 465 dams have been removed in recent years. The majority are small (i.e. < 5 m) and
medium (i.e. 5 to 15 m) sized dams. To date only a handful of dams greater than 20 m have been
decommissioned (Figure 4.1). The removal of dams in part indicates changing societal standards and
in part reflects simple economic considerations. Increasingly society is placing greater value on
“natural” systems and in many cases environmental enhancement is the primary consideration in dam
removal (Box 4.3). However, it also often the case that when dams reach the end of their design life
and/or represent a safety hazard, decommissioning is often less expensive than alternative options.
The cost of repairing a dam is often significantly greater, than the cost of removal, particularly when
fish passage must be provided. In the USA it has been computed that on average the cost of repair is
3.4 times greater than the cost of removal (Born et al. 1998).
Figure 4.1: Number of dams removed in the USA, as a function of a) dam height and b) year of
removal (after, Doyle et al., 2000)
To date there has been very little research into the environmental impacts associated with dam
removal. Nearly all that has been conducted has been done in the USA. The primary concern in most,
if not all, dam decommissioning cases is the fate of sediment stored in the reservoir and the
subsequent physical changes in the river channel that occur following removal. Although there has
been relatively little scientific study, the most consistent observation is that drastic geomorphological
changes have occurred immediately following dam removal. At the 1969 removal of the Newaygo
Dam on the Muskegon River, Michigan, approximately 40% of the stored sediment moved
downstream immediately in the form of an elongating sediment wave, travelling at a rate of
approximately 1.6 km per year (Simons and Simons, 1991). At the Fort Edward dam on the Hudson
River (removed in 1973) approximately 33% of the stored sediment moved downstream within a year
of removal and was highly publicised due to the presence of PCBs in the transported sediment
(Shuman, 1995).
Box 4.3: Decommissioning of the Edwards Dam, USA.
When in 1997 the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in the USA ordered the
removal of the Edwards dam (built in 1870) it cited “compelling environmental” considerations.
The Commission said its actions were based on the following key considerations:
• power produced at the dam can easily be replaced by existing resources in the region;
• removal will provide 9 species of fish with continuous access to 15 miles of spawning habitat;
• removal will provide 4 species of fish that do not use fishways with access to their entire historic
range within the Kennebec river;
• wetland habitats, recreational boating and fishing will benefit, and
• there will be no major environmental or social drawbacks.
Although it is often widely assumed that changes are substantial, relatively rapid and positive, there is
little solid evidence regarding rates of biotic recovery following dam removal. Some preliminary
results indicate that changes can be extremely rapid. For example, striped bass returned to
inaccessible sections of the Kennebeck River within 3 months of breaching of the Edwards dam in
Maine (American Rivers et al., 1999). Similarly, there was increased diversity of invertebrate
communities in the Baraboo River, Winconsin within one year of dam removal (Doyle et al., 2000).
However, in contrast, modelling results from studies of dam removals suggest a period of decades to
centuries will be required for complete recovery of fish and riparian plant populations (National Park
Services, 1996). It has been suggested that massive changes in the physical structure of the river (e.g.
caused by sediment redistribution) could result in dramatic ecological changes with long-term
consequences (Doyle et al., 2000) (Box 4.4).
Box 4.4: Possible consequences for salmon of removal of the Elwha Dam, Washington (after
Doyle et al., 2000)
An evaluation of the potential impacts of removal of the Elwha Dam, Washington, concluded that dam
removal would have “major adverse short-term impacts on salmon attempting to return or spawn in the
river”. Suspended sediment loads associated with breaching are expected to reach lethal levels during
some phases of the removal, consequently the removal schedule will be designed such that sediment
releases occur when the salmon are not in the river. If scheduling is successful it is reasonable to expect
populations to recover to pre-impoundment densities. However, mismatches between expected time of
fish runs and the removal schedule, or an unanticipated flood that mobilises large amounts of sediment
could potentially devastate remaining populations.
In addition the ecosystems upstream of the dam may take many years to recover from inundation.
Predicting or controlling the alignment and location of the upstream channel in the reservoir sediment
after dam removal is difficult. Surveys and soil coring data indicate that in four out of five cases,
post-removal channels do not follow the pre-dam channel alignment, but rather develop a new course
(Lenhart, 2000). Furthermore, plant communities in former impoundment sites may not resemble
naturally occurring plant assemblages. In Winconsin, floral communities are dominated by
monocultures of weedy pioneer species five to six years after dam removal. The extreme habitat
alteration (i.e. the sudden availability of extensive amounts of nutrient-rich sediments) means that
plants that initially colonise the exposed sediments are able to persist for several years and prevent
other species from becoming established (Lenhart, 2000).
There are however methods of ameliorating the negative environmental impacts of dam
decommissioning that will improve as experience grows. For example, reservoir sediment can be
removed (e.g. by dredging) prior to decommissioning. Alternatively the dam removal can be staged so
that there is a more gradual influx of sediment into the downstream system. Upstream of the former
impoundment active management to both stabilise sediments and encourage the return of naturally
occurring plant species is possible.
Given that all dams have a finite life, the issue of decommissioning is central to dam construction.
There is a requirement for much more research to improve methods of decommissioning and post-
dam restoration of ecosystems. Furthermore the costs of decommissioning must be considered within
the life-cycle analysis of all dam projects.
4.3 How Effective is Mitigation?

Dams are the source of significant and unavoidable environmental impacts. As section 4.2.2 has
shown, the severity of many, but not all, impacts can be reduced through implementation of a variety
of mitigation measures. The critical question that emerges from this review and the many
submissions (58) on mitigation received by the Commission is – how effective is mitigation? To
attempt to answer this question we have drawn upon all reviews available to us. There is however
only limited published information in the literature on how effective mitigation plans have been in
meeting their objectives in developing and developed countries. While it is obvious that mitigation
measures can work in at least some specific cases it is certainly not the case that mitigation
measures are designed, implemented, or are effective in all cases (see example in Annex 7). To a
large extent the effectiveness of mitigation measures depends on the abilities both of those people
who determine which impacts need to be mitigated and those who design and implement a particular
mitigation strategy. The effectiveness of mitigation is, like the impacts themselves, very site specific.
Reviews of environmental impact assessment, mitigation and monitoring by the World Bank, the
Asian Development Bank, African Development Bank and Interamerican Development Bank
highlight the gap that exists between the potential to identify and mitigate against environmental
impacts and current practice, one that has also been documented (Bizer 2000). For example. the
Asian Development Bank report “Special valuation study on the social and environmental impacts of
(four) selected hydropower projects” (ADB, 1999) highlights the importance of distinguishing
between both adequate formulation of environmental clauses and compliance with these clauses. The
ADB report notes that “compliance with environmental clauses in construction contracts has not been
satisfactory, because many have very modest clauses”, and highlights the limited implementation of
measures, even where they are well designed. The report then goes on to stress the important role
played by regular monitoring missions and recommends strengthening ADB’s practice in this sector
as weak oversight can lead to unsatisfactory outcomes.
These issues also emerge in the IDB assessment of dam projects (Dam projects 1960-1999, IDB
1999) which strives to distinguish whether proposed environmental mitigation plans were
implemented as planned. It also determines whether additional actions were needed to correct what
were seen as either badly-formulated Environmental Mitigation Programmes, or as corrective actions
for unforeseen impacts. In fact most of the IDB examples do not have any data on environmental
impacts as these projects were constructed prior to EIA regulations (51 out of 88). Figure 4.2 shows
the distribution of different categories of environmental problem evaluations that indicates that only 4
out of the 16 more recent EMPs (Environmental Management Programmes) have effectively
addressed the environmental issues; a further two require additional inputs and these are underway;
the remainder have residual impacts that are not being appropriately addressed.
5
5
Number of Cases
3 3
3
2 2
2
1
1
0 0
0
P1 P2 P3 N1 N2 N3 Px Nx
P 1 : a n E M P w a s p r e p a r e d . C u r r e n tly th e r e a re n o s ig n ific a n t e n v ir o n m e n ta l p r o b le m s in th e p r o je c t a r e a o f in f lu e n c e . S o m e m in o r e n v iro n m e n t a l

a lte ra tio n s h a v e b e e n a p p r o p r ia te ly a d d r e s s e d a n d a p p ro p r ia t e m e a s u r e s to p r o te c t t h e e n v ir o n m e n t a re b e in g im p le m e n te d in a tim e ly a n d
s a tis fa c to r y m a tte r.
P 2 : a n E M P w a s p r e p a r e d . T h e p r o je c t p r o v o k e d o r is t h r e a te n in g to p r o v o k e a s ig n if ic a n t d e te r io r a tio n in th e e n v ir o n m e n t, a n d / o r s o m e
u n fo r s e e n c u m u la tiv e n e g a tiv e e n v ir o n m e n ta l im p a c ts h a v e a r is e n . H o w e v e r , a p p r o p r ia t e m e a s u r e s a r e b e in g ta k e n b y th e
b o rr o w e r /im p le m e n t in g a g e n c y t o a d d r e s s th e p r o b le m s .
P 3 : a s in P 2 , b u t p r o b le m s a r e n o t b e in g a d d r e s s e d a p p r o p r ia te ly .
N 1 : n o s p e c ific E M P w a s p r e p a r e d o r it is u n k n o w n if a n E M P w a s p r e p a re d . C u r r e n tly t h e r e a r e n o s ig n if ic a n t e n v ir o n m e n ta l p r o b le m s in t h e
p r o je c t a r e a o f in f lu e n c e . S o m e m in o r e n v ir o n m e n ta l a lte r a t io n s h a v e b e e n a p p r o p ria te ly a d d r e s s e d a n d a p p ro p r ia t e m e a s u r e s to p r o te c t th e
e n v ir o n m e n t a r e b e in g im p le m e n te d in a t im e ly a n d s a t is fa c to r y m a tte r .
N 2 : n o s p e c ific E M P w a s p r e p a r e d o r it is u n k n o w n if a n E M P w a s p r e p a re d . T h e p r o je c t p ro v o k e d o r is th re a te n in g to p r o v o k e a s ig n ific a n t
d e te r io r a tio n in th e e n v ir o n m e n t. H o w e v e r , a p p r o p r ia te m e a s u re s a r e b e in g ta k e n b y th e lo c a l a u t h o r itie s to a d d r e s s th e p r o b le m s .
N 3 : a s in N 2 , b u t p r o b le m s a r e n o t b e in g a d d r e s s e d a p p r o p r ia te ly .
P x : a n E M P w a s p re p a r e d , b u t th e r e is in s u ff ic ie n t a n d / o r n o n - c le a r b a s is to e v a lu a te th e m a g n itu d e o f p r o b le m s th a t m a y a ffe c t th e p r o je c t a r e a
o f in flu e n c e .
N x : n o s p e c ific E M P w a s p r e p a r e d o r it is u n k n o w n if a n E M P w a s p r e p a r e d . T h e re is in s u ffic ie n t a n d /o r n o n - c le a r b a s is to e v a lu a t e t h e
m a g n itu d e o f p ro b le m s th a t m a y a ff e c t th e p r o je c t a r e a o f in flu e n c e .
Figure 4.2: Figure 4.1: Distribution of EMP preparation & environmental problem evaluations
for dam projects in Latin America co-financed by the IDB from 1960-1999(IDB 1999).
These bank reviews give insights on the effectiveness of mitigation in developing countries and the
difficulties experienced in ensuring that clients respect operational guidelines on environmental
issues. It is significant that these problems arise despite the internal scrutiny of the banks, their regular
supervisory missions, independent panels, and their commitment to ensuring good environmental
outcomes according to their own internal policies. This raises the concern that dam projects without
donor input that are less well documented and monitored may have even lower performance ratings
than those described above.
In industrialised countries where the information base and the scientific and financial capacity to
mitigate is generally greater, increased investments are now being made in post construction
mitigation of impacts, frequently in response to strong public demand. Recent crises such as the
salinity crisis and algal blooms in the Murray Darling basin (A) in the early 1990s, or the declaration
of once common migratory fish stocks as “endangered” in the US, have focused minds and allowed
mitigation measures to be improved.
Salmon and trout issues dominate mitigation measures in the US where several tools exist for
retrospective fitting to reduce impacts including technical measures for the reduction of mortality due
to Total Dissolved Gases, turbine design improvements to make them fish friendly, fish screening and
guidance technology to guide them over the dam, and improved fish ladders and barging schemes.
These measures do not prevent all negative dam impacts on fish. For those people campaigning for
the removal of dams, technological “fixes” will never be the solution. The real issue for mitigation of
dam impacts is what residual effects are acceptable. This is a question of societal preference, the
answer to which has and will continue to change over time.
4.3.1 The Example of Fish Ladders
Fish ladders are perhaps the most obvious form of mitigation on rivers where the dam creates an
insurmountable obstacle to migratory fish, and serve as an interesting example where mitigation
practice from different countries serves to inform the discussion on how effective such measures are.
Upstream passage for anadromous species is provided for through several types of fishway: pool-type
fish passes, Denil fish passes, nature-like bypass channels, fish lifts or locks and collection and
transportation facilities. Only a few special designs have been developed in Europe, Japan, New
Zealand and Australia for catadromous species, namely for eels.
Most of the effective fish passage facilities have been designed and installed at existing temperate and
north-temperate-zone projects. Installation of fish passage facilities in tropical or subtropical zones
has been less successful. A major cause for ineffective installations at dams in the tropical and
subtropical areas is that the designs are typically adaptations of facilities designed for temperate
species. As was discovered in North America, the designs are generally species or family specific in
that designs such as pool and weir ladders that work for salmonids do not necessarily work for other
migratory species such as the alosids, cyprinids or ictalurids (Committee on Dams and Environment,
1999).
In Thailand 50 species have been recorded to use the Pak Mun fishpass out of 265 present in the Mun
river. This may be because of non-optimal design due to a steep gradient resulting in high water
velocities. It is also important to note that for only two species do a high proportion of the migrating
fish manage to swim through the pass (Ek, 2000 pers comm., Bizer 2000, WCD Case Studies – The
Pak Mun Dam & Mekong river basin) Between 1950 and 1994, only 16 known fishways (mostly of
the fish ladder type) were constructed in South Africa. Fifteen of these were formally planned, with
only one properly modelled and model tested, before construction (B Bernade pers com).
Fish passages have been considered singularly ineffective by some experts in Brazil, which has led to
widespread mitigation of hydroelectric effects with fish hatcheries (Carolsfeld 2000, pers comm).
The first ladder was constructed on a small dam in Pirassununga, SP, over 60 years ago, along the
lines of salmonid ladders, followed by another 30 in this state. Godoy (1945) estimated 10% passage
of up to six species for the first of these ladders, and they appear to have assisted significantly in
maintaining the populations of some species that jump well (Prochilodus spp. in particular).
However, a more recent evaluation of one of these ladders by Godinho et al. (1991) suggested a much
lower efficiency (2% reached the top for only a single species out of 34).
Few of the 430 dams over 15 metres in Australia have fishways of any description as there were no
technical solutions at the time, although with current technology fishways / fishlifts could be retro-
fitted on these structures (Flanders 1999, pers comm.). Recent research has shown that design
improvements can increase effectiveness of mitigation (see Box 4.5).
Only 9.5 % of the 1 825 hydropower dams in the US have an upstream fish pass facility. A DOE
report from 1994 looked in detail at 16 case studies of dams with fish passes and concluded that half
of those with upstream facilities reached their stated mitigation goal. The others either do not monitor
or were affected by factors such as low stream flows that impaired success. The report concludes that
monitoring should be a requirement in order to improve assessment of mitigation investments that
may cost hundreds of thousands of dollars per year (DOE 1994).
Box 4.5: Improving fish passage design to make them work better
In 1976 a pool-and-weir type fishway was incorporated into a tidal barrage on the Burnett River in SE
Queensland, Australia. Assessment of the fishway in 1984 and 1994 showed it to be ineffective with
only 2 000 fish of 18 species ascending over a 32-month period. The fishway was modified to a
vertical-slot design with low water velocity and turbulence. The new design saw 52 000 fish of 34
species using the fishway over 17 months. The modified design provided access for non-leaping fish
precluded from the pool-and-weir design by high water velocities and high head loss between pools.
The local fish species were clearly less adept at leaping than the northern salmonid species for which
the pass was originally designed (Flanders 1999/ENV219).
Box 4.6: Why fish passes may fail
When the causes of poor performance (in terms of effectiveness and/or efficiency) of fish facilities are
analysed, certain factors are frequently revealed (Larinier, 1998 ; Nakamura, 1993 ; OTA, 1995) :
• Lack of attraction of the facility, resulting from a poor position of the fish pass or insufficient
flow at the entrance of the facility in relation to the flow discharge into the river;
• Poor design of the facility with regard to the variations in water levels upstream and downstream
during the migration period, resulting in under or oversupply of flow to the fish pass, or excessive
drop at the entrance. This may be due to poor appreciation of the range of the upstream and/or
downstream water levels during the project planning phase, or a subsequent change in these
levels;
• Poor dimensions: pools with insufficient volume causing excessive turbulence and aeration,
excessive drop between pools, insufficient depth for the fish, or the flow pattern in the pools not
suitable for the target species;
• Frequent clogging up or obstruction of the fish passage facility, resulting from inadequate
protection against debris, or too exposed a position, or quite simply inadequate maintenance on
the part of the operator;
• Malfunctioning of parts which regulate the flow discharge and the drops between pools
(automatic sluice gates, etc.), or which ensure the functioning of the facility in the case of fish
lifts and fish locks (automatic sluice gates, hoist for the tank, moving screens, etc.).
4.3.2 Why Avoidance, Mitigation, and Compensation are Difficult
4.3.2.1 Dealing with scientific uncertainty
The constraints encountered in ameliorating the ecosystem impacts of dams are hardly surprising. In
order to design fully-effective amelioration systems a good information base and a strong predictive
capacity are essential. These are simply not yet available for most riverine ecosystems.
For example, while it has rarely proved practical to survey all biota at potential dam sites, this is
clearly essential if major impacts on biodiversity are to be avoided. Not only do we need to know
what species are present, but also whether they are unique compared to neighbouring areas and other
riverine ecosystems in the region. The capacity to rank the importance of species richness for
alternative dam sites is a key contribution to the decision-making process and is essential if the policy
of “avoidance” or “compensation of damage” at one site through creation of protected areas in similar
sites is to be effective. Future restoration projects will also be more successful if the state of the
original ecosystem is known, and can provide a benchmark for fixing future restoration management
objectives.
In contrast to the engineering profession, the details of ecosystem solutions tend not to be generic and
transferable. Fish ladders designed for salmon migration in the Pacific NW of the USA will not be
appropriate for Mekong Catfish in Thailand, and flow releases to maintain threatened Lesotho
Minnow would be inappropriate for the Indus Dolphin. This requires a case-by-case response that can
be inspired by what works elsewhere but can never simply be copied. This faulty assumption has been
the basis of many ineffective and expensive fish ladders (Section 4.3.1).
This uncertainty has a knock-on effect on the effectiveness of mitigation measures such as
Environmental Flow Releases (EFRs). Their success depends, in large part, on predicting and
modelling the theoretical ecosystem response prior to construction. However the real experiment will
only begin when the dam is actually closed and data can be gathered on the observed responses, some
of which may only stabilise over many years. It is therefore essential to include a “monitoring and
feedback” element in the EFR measures that provides for constant assessment of ecosystem response
and feedback to modify dam operation rules as appropriate.
There is a need for fundamental research linking abiotic processes to changes in ecology, particularly
in tropical climates. In the absence of much basic understanding, a cautious approach should be
adopted in decision-making.
4.3.2.2 Capacity constraints
Lack of scientific understanding is at present the primary constraint on amelioration in both the
developing and the developed world. In part this has often been due to a lack of commitment from
planners and donors to funding the necessary research. However, in many countries effective
conservation, mitigation and compensation measures face a combination of additional constraints
relating to human, financial, and institutional capacity. While in general these are often exacerbated in
developing countries, they are far from uncommon in the developed world. Primary issues include:
Funding
• Experience of successful mitigation in industrialised countries indicates that developing the

scientific knowledge needed to mitigate and manage impacts involves significant financial
resources. In many projects funds to conduct the necessary research are very limited.
• Funds for conducting environmental impact assessments and for post-project monitoring are often
only a very small fraction of the total project costs and in many cases are insufficient.
• Environmental impact assessments are very often viewed simply as an “add-on extra”, a hurdle
that has reluctantly to be overcome to enable the project to go ahead.
Institutional capacity
• Often the responsibilities for planning, monitoring and regulating dams are spread across a large
number of institutions. Disparate organisation can result in problems relating to management co-
ordination and the identification of responsibility.
• Institutions without the technical expertise to conduct acceptable environmental assessments, and
to develop and monitor adequate amelioration strategies. Very often the ecological and socio-
economic monitoring required both for design prior to construction and afterwards to assess the
effectiveness of amelioration measures is inadequate.
• Many developing countries have neither the necessary framework to ensure legal compliance nor
organised civil society to enforce recommended amelioration measures. In such situations the
contractual arrangement with the donor may be the major means for ensuring compliance.
However, in the absence of a transparent accountable system of compliance, this arrangement is
rarely successful. More supervisory missions and closer monitoring have been recommended.
Unfortunately this may cease when the contract expires and the donor considers the project
“completed”.
Human capacity
! Adequate mitigation and compensation measures rely heavily on professional judgement and
adequate data. In many parts of the world, adequate pre-dam surveys are rarely undertaken, and
the background information base for comparing options is not systematically available. Where
such professionals do not exist, the data for making judgements are unavailable, or
interdisciplinary working habits among professionals are weak, amelioration is less likely to be
successful. Lack of knowledge and understanding hinders good planning and decision-making.
! In some countries biophysical and social science specialists are rare, while those recruited from
other countries may not understand the local rivers, human communities, or the likely constraints
of working within the country. Foreign specialists also tend to eventually leave, often leaving
inadequately trained local specialists to face any developing problems. In developing countries,
failure rates of mitigation measures may be higher than in developed countries simply because of
the lack of experienced professionals who can detect emerging problems.
4.4 How to Make Mitigation More Effective?

From consideration of the monitoring reports referred to above and analysis of the constraints to
mitigation, it is clear that even when technically feasible mitigation is not always successful. The wide
range of constraints mean that successful mitigation is rarely achieved in practice. The survey has
indicated that successful mitigation requires:
• A good information base and competent professional staff able to formulate complex choices for
decision-makers;
• An adequate legal framework and adequate compliance mechanisms;
• Sophisticated and transparent co-operation between design teams and all stakeholders;
• Adequate long-term monitoring and evaluation of mitigation effectiveness;
• Adequate financial and institutional resources.
Only when all these aspects are in place do mitigation measures, even when technically feasible, have
a chance of success.
In theory, as the science base develops and the capacity gaps are filled, the amelioration of negative
dam impacts should also improve. However, this process could take several decades. In the
immediate future there is an urgent requirement for effective tools that allow environmentally sound
development of river resources and the management of dams within this context. These tools should
not only inform decision-making, but also form part of what is currently termed Environmental
Management Programmes (EMP) that have become common practice as an outcome of the
Environmental Impact Assessment requirement for the approval of new dam projects (WCD Thematic
Review V.2 Environmental and Social Assessment for Large Dams). EMPs gather together all the
mitigation and compensation measures for social and environmental effects. These programmes
inform the decision making process for the planning, options assessment, design, and operation of all
dam projects. Three tools have been highlighted in the information gathered by this review, or
submitted directly to the Commission.
4.4.1 Indicators for Hydro-Project Site Selection.
In a submission to WCD (INS082), the World Bank reviewed more than 20 completed hydroelectric
dam projects in Latin America, along with several well-known projects from other regions (Ledec et
al., 1997). They found that some large dams may be relatively benign in terms of environmental
impact, while others have caused tremendous environmental damage.
On the basis of this analysis, Ledec et al (1997) distilled six quantitative, easily-calculated indicators
useful for hydro-project site selection. These six indicators (Box 4.7) are particularly useful because
they have especially high predictive value for likely adverse environmental and biodiversity impacts
and they require data which are relatively easy to obtain. Box 4.7 is augmented with additional
indicators (not identified by Ledec et al., 1997) which are also useful in ranking hydroelectric project
sites according to the expected severity of their adverse environmental impacts. Such indicators have
recently been used in Colombia and Brazil to incorporate environmental concerns within power
expansion plans.
The exact ranking of potential new hydroelectric dam sites will vary somewhat according to the
indicators used and the relative weight accorded to each. However, this methodology is remarkably
robust, in that most dam sites tend to get broadly similar ratings, regardless of which combination of
the environmental indicators in Box 4.7 are used.
Box 4.7: Environmental Indicators To Guide Site Selection
Indicators identified by Ledec et Good Site Other Useful Indicators Good Site
al,(1997)
Reservoir Surface Area Small Critical Natural Habitats Small
Affected*
Water Retention Time in Short Fish and other species Low
Reservoir diversity
Biomass Flooded Low Length of River Left Dry None/Short
Length of River Impounded Small Likelihood of Reservoir Low
Stratification
Number of inflows to mainstream Large Useful Reservoir Life Long
from undammed downriver
tributaries
Access Roads through sensitive Short Lost Land-Based Production Small
natural areas (eg forests)
* Not all habitats are of equal quality. Habitats that support large numbers of individuals and high
biodiversity should be affected as little as possible.
An environmentally “good” large dam site will receive favourable ratings from most of these
indicators (including small reservoir surface area with low hectares per megawatt ratio, short water
retention time, short stretch of river impounded, low fish diversity, etc.) while a particularly “bad” site
will receive unfavourable ratings from the same indicators (large flooded area with high hectares per
megawatt ratio, long water retention time, long stretch of river impounded, high fish diversity, etc.).
4.4.2 Indicators of Ecological Integrity
The universal challenge facing any ecosystem management or large-scale restoration programme is to
translate the general and often amorphous goal defined by the public e.g. a healthy ecosystem – into a
set of measurable attributes that, taken as a whole, add up to an assessment of overall ecological
integrity. To achieve this, a reproducible and methodical procedure that draws heavily on scientific
understanding, expert opinion and local knowledge needs to be developed, and applied in the specific
political and social context aimed at forging a plan for ecosystem management (and restoration as
appropriate). This approach of an ecologically-based conceptual framework has been used in the San-
Francisco Bay-Delta Watershed (Box 4.8) to translate the abstract concepts of “ecosystem health”
and “ecological integrity” into usable tools to guide the long-term process of large-scale ecosystem
conservation and restoration.
The purpose of such a suite of ecosystem indicators is to provide a scientifically valid definition of
ecological integrity that can be used to help develop ecosystem management programmes and
ultimately to determine whether its goal has been met. Such an approach can provide an important
tool for river basin and water resource development. By establishing a set of key indicators from the
outset it will be possible to assess development investments against these.
The information and capacity constraints described for mitigation also apply to this approach however
and success can only be incremental. Few areas have the technical information that is available for
the San Fransisco Bay-Delta watershed. However by assembling even limited data in this focused
manner a much more effective framework can be developed for examining water resource
management options and resources focused upon filling critical information gaps.
Box 4.8: Indicators of Ecological Integrity
In a collective effort to work towards the restoration of the San Francisco Bay-Delta-River watershed
system, the Environmental Defense Fund, CALFED staff, universities, research institutes, scientists,
and other stakeholders have been working towards developing a suite of ecological indicators for the
system. The goal is to try to translate the abstract concepts of ecosystem health and ecological
integrity into usable tools to guide the long-term process of large-scale restoration. This approach is
different to others because it focuses on positive ecological attributes rather than solely on indicators
of problems. While an indicator of stress or response can show progress, it may leave out system
components that are not currently seen as problems. Overall, the purpose of the suite of indicators is
to provide a scientifically valid definition of ecological integrity that can be used to help develop a
restoration program and ultimately to determine whether its goal has been met.
Two essential characteristics of the framework are that both structural and functional attributes of
ecosystems need to be assessed and that this should be done at a variety of scales. Structural
attributes refer to the physical components of the system and their spatial relationships to one another.
Functional attributes are the processes at work in the system. Determining ecological indicators at
many scales helps to ensure consideration of the whole as well as the parts and ensures that large-
scale processes work in harmony with processes and structures at smaller scales. Three different
levels of scale can be the entire landscape, ecological zones, and habitat types for example.
(Fujita 1999 /ENV096/ENV095/ENV090)
4.4.3 Environmental Flow Requirements (EFRs)
One vital area of emerging scientific knowledge is the assessment of environmental flow
requirements, which deals with the amount, timing, and conditions under which water should be
released by dams, to enable downstream river ecosystems to retain their natural integrity and
productivity. It is important to recognise that these are releases specifically for environmental
purposes. They do not include flows necessary for downstream commercial or water supply purposes.
Where flows are released for commercial as well as environmental purposes, the term instream flows
should be used (Petts, 1996).
Assessments of Environmental Flow Requirements (EFRs) are now used in 25, mostly developed,
countries. Their use has increased in importance during the last three decades as it has become
apparent that flow manipulations are causing serious degradation of river ecosystems. The level of
costs involved is now sufficiently high for EFRs to be increasingly accepted worldwide as an essential
tool for water-resource management, especially where downstream livelihoods may be threatened.
EFRs in future need to be developed as part of dam design. However, for existing dams they can be
introduced as a means of monitoring or restoring downstream ecosystems (see Boxes 4.9 & 4.10).
Box 4.9: Case study: The Colorado River
Between 22 March 1996 and 7 April 1996, water was released from Hoover Dam on the Colorado
River, Colorado USA, into the downstream river in an effort to restore some of the features of the
downstream river that had been lost as a result of a reduction in flooding. For the first four days, a
steady release of 8 000 cubic feet per second (cfs) was made; on March 26th the release was increased
at a rate of 4 000 cfs per hour (cfs/h) until 45 000 cfs was achieved at about mid-day, March 27th.
The release was maintained at that level for seven days. Between April 2nd and 7th, they were
decreased in a three-step fashion to maximise sediment deposition in the river. A team, consisting of
aquatic scientists, engineers and managers, closely monitored the releases and their effects on the
riverine ecosystem. The results were hailed as a success, with the releases achieving many of their
objectives. These included the following:
• at least 55 large, new beaches in the Grand Canyon were created;
• more than half of the existing canyon beaches increased in size due to the flood, 37% remained
approximately the same size, and 10% lost small amounts of sediment;
• the flood caused scouring of clay and vegetation bases in backwaters and marshes, thus providing
habitat for the humpback chub and other endangered fish species, and
• in numerous backwater areas, the increased organic debris (primarily non-native plant species
growing very close to the banks of the river), which would not occur on the natural river, was
cleared by the floodwaters.
Source : Press release: May 1996: Office Of The Interior Secretary.
River scientists have developed a range of processes for assessing environmental flows that reflect
their multidisciplinary understanding of rivers. Few would question that rivers with these flows in
place would be in better condition than those that were simply exploited for water or as waste disposal
facilities. Thus the process of establishing environmental flow assessments can be pronounced
successful. Further success of EFRs can be judged at two other levels: the effect of EFRs on national
attitudes, and the effect of a specific EFR on an individual river.
At the national level, there is no doubt that the concept of EFRs has been successful. A growing
number of countries now recognise the need for EFRs, and are either searching for or developing
suitable methodologies to do them or adopting tried and tested approaches from elsewhere. The
Instream Flow Incremental Methodology (IFIM) has long enjoyed legal status in America and the US
Federal Energy Regulation Commission requires that operators of many hydro-dams release
environmental flows as a condition of renewing their dam licenses. Box 5.7 shows one innovative
example on the Colorado river. In Spain, 10% of the mean annual runoff (MAR) of a river should be
released from dams as environmental flows, which although probably insufficient to sustain the
downstream environment, at least acknowledges the need for environmental flows (McCully 1996).
The South African Building Block Methodology (BBM, King and Louw 1998) convinced lawyers re-
writing the country’s Water Law that environmental flows could be calculated in a scientific and
defensible way. This led to flows for maintenance of aquatic systems being recognised within the
country’s new Water Law as one of only two sectors with a right to water, the other being basic
human needs.
It is important to remember however that even the most successful EFR will only partially mitigate
against the effects of a dam on a river. The physical presence of a dam will, in itself, inevitably result
in impacts on the downstream environment related to, inter alia, trapping of sediment, reduction in
flow variability, and changes in the temperature and chemical composition of the water, with knock-
on social and economic impacts. Nothing is gained at no cost; if flow regimes are manipulated the
targeted rivers will change. Society decides, pro-actively or through neglect, the extent of that
change. More detail of EFRs are found in Annex 6 and in King et al (1999) report to WCD.
Box 4.10: Case study: Kromme River
The Kromme River estuary is situated in the Eastern Cape, South Africa. Under natural conditions,
aperiodic floods scoured out the estuarine channels, and maintained the biotic diversity in the estuary.
However, reservoirs in the Kromme River catchment currently dampen all the floods smaller than the
1:30 year events. The existing environmental flow allocation allows for a single release of 2m3/s-1 per
annum for maintenance of the Kromme estuary. As part of the SA Department of Water Affairs and
Forestry’s investigations for the new Water Law in that country, a multi-disciplinary study was
commissioned to evaluate the response of abiotic and biotic components in the Kromme estuary to an
experimental release of 2m3s-1 from Mpofu Reservoir.
The objective of the release was to create freshwater conditions throughout the upper half of the
estuary. However, the release resulted in the water column becoming highly stratified for about two
weeks after which the estuary returned to its marine-dominated pre-release condition. The release
also provided no direct or indirect advantages to zooplankton or other biota in the estuary. No
scouring took place. It was concluded that the release was too small to effect the desired changes, and
that a regular baseflow combined with freshwater pulses into the estuary would be more beneficial to
the estuary (Wooldridge and Callahan, in prep).
4.5 Conclusions
In response to the identified impacts of dams on natural ecosystems and species, four principal
approaches: avoidance, mitigation, compensation and restoration have been developed, and are now
promoted as solutions to these impacts. Obviously since avoidance results in no change to the existing
functioning of a particular ecological area or resource it is the most acceptable approach.
This chapter has reviewed the use of these different measures, and indicates that the most widely used
approach, mitigation is particularly problematic. It is clear that there are always residual impacts that
cannot be mitigated. Many impacts are technically impossible to mitigate if dams are to provide their
planned outputs.
While there is experience of good mitigation, this success is nevertheless contingent upon stringent
conditions of:
• a good information base and competent professional staff able to formulate complex choices for
decision-makers;
• an adequate legal framework and adequate compliance mechanisms;

• adequate financial and institutional resources.
If any one of these conditions is absent, then the ecosystem functions will likely be lost. In practice
the extent to which these conditions are met varies enormously from country to country and dam to
dam. The review therefore concludes that mitigation, though often possible in principle (as
demonstrated by IEA’s thorough review), has many uncertainties attached to it in field situations and
is therefore at present not a credible option in all cases and all circumstances. In addition the
weaknesses of the EIA process for many projects (cf Thematic review V.2) reduce the possibilities for
positive outcomes. There should therefore be a strategy of avoidance and minimisation rather than
one of mitigation if the aim is to maintain biodiversity, and ecosystem functions and services for the
foreseeable future.
5. Trends in the International Debate/Approach to Dams

5.1 Introduction
For much of modern human history water management has focused on the direct provision of enough
water for people to drink, grow their food and support industries. This has changed however in recent
years as the inter-relationship between renewable natural resources and human development has
received greater international attention. Drawing upon this philosophy, and based upon principles
developed at water conferences in Mar del Plata (UN, 1977) and in Dublin (WMO, 1992), Chapter 18
of Agenda 21 develops the concept of Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM). This treats
“water as an integral part of the ecosystem, a natural resource and a social and economic good, whose
quantity and quality determine the nature of its utilisation” (UN, 1992). Central to an IWRM approach
is the protection of surface water and groundwater resources, water quality and aquatic ecosystems
and the management of land and water in an integrated way.
The issues raised by dams are central to IWRM and to the wider debate on sustainable use of the
world’s water resources. This is particularly so as in recent years the costs and benefits of dams to
human society have been questioned. Over the past two decades the multiple values of natural
ecosystems to human society and the environmental consequences of dams have become more widely
understood. Opponents of dams argue that in many instances the environmental and social costs
outweigh the economic benefits gained (by some) from dam construction and that better options than
dams are available. They further argue that the benefits and costs are distributed unequally and that as
knowledge of the impact of dams increases the opposition to dams continues to grow. Dam
proponents maintain that large dams are essential for the well-being of many millions of people and
have played a key role in human development. They argue that many of the alternatives to dams are
at present either uneconomic (eg desalination), constrained by technical limitations (eg. options for
solar and wind power) or are potentially more environmentally damaging (eg thermal and nuclear
power stations). They also argue that many of the negative impacts of dams can be mitigated and that
increasing human population will require increased dam construction in the future.
Although often presented as a simple dichotomy, the argument is in reality very complex and less
polarised than often presented; positions fall out along a "dams-no dams" continuum, and may vary
with the dam. The key issue is whether in the long run any particular dam will or will not provide a
net benefit to humankind, and how such a judgement is reached. Science can help illuminate the
discussion, but the decision ultimately is a political one.
5.2 Summary of the debate

Looking into the future, it seems highly likely that the scarcity value of freshwater will greatly
increase, as will the value of energy produced in ways that do not contribute significantly to
atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Those who promote the hydropower
perspective argue that hydropower provides 20% of electricity globally. Further, hydropower is
critically important for many countries; hydropower produces more than 50% of electricity for 65
countries; for 24, more than 90%; and for 10, practically all energy for everything except
transportation. The irrigation sector points to increased population growth and the need to improve
supplies that lead it to predict a 17 % increase in water storage for irrigation purposes in the next two
decades (Report of the World Commission on Water, February 2000).
Those concerned with rural poverty and access to common property resources point to the essential
role played by floodplains and deltas in sustaining livelihoods in many African, Asian and South
American countries. These communities often see water diverted to other uses, frequently depriving
them of a secure and diverse resource base that comes with combining terrestrial and aquatic
production systems(see Thematic review I.1).
Since the mid-1980s a well-organised international movement against current dam building practices
has evolved. Dam opponents do not view themselves as simply anti-dams, but rather as advocates of
what they feel are more sustainable, equitable and efficient technologies and management practices.
For this reason they have in many countries become aligned with environmental and human rights
organisations. Their principal argument is that existing dams have largely failed to meet their
economic and social objectives and at the same time resulted in significant environmental and social
damage (McCully, 1994). Anti-dam groups have called for a moratorium on the construction of all
new large dams that fail to comply with a set of 17 conditions listed in the San Francisco Declaration
(1988).
Conversely, dam proponents maintain that large dams have played a key role in human development
throughout the world and significantly improved the well-being of humankind. They contend that as
human population grows and expectations of higher standards of living increase, global water demand
inevitably will increase. They argue that to meet this increased demand more dams will be needed in
future (ICOLD, 1997; Le Cornu, 1998b). They maintain that the anti-dam movement has tended to
focus on very narrow issues, and through sustained campaigning has swayed public opinion against
dams. They feel that educating the public about wider water resource issues will provide them with a
more balanced view of dams. Table 5.1 highlights the main points of each side.
5.3 Summary of Trends

In the face of this evolving debate within civil society a number of significant steps have been taken at
international level and today set the context within which future steps to address the ecological
impacts of dams need to be considered. There are four principal groups:
• those institutions related to dam construction, (e.g. IEA and ICOLD);

• those institutions that facilitate funding for construction (e.g. World Bank and OECD);
• those organisations largely opposed to continued large-scale dam construction (e.g. International
Rivers Network), and
• governments or “international community” whose stance is expressed through international
Conventions that set international environmental standards.
The current approach of each is summarised in Table 5.1.
5.3.1 IEA
In a review of hydropower and the environment (IEA, 2000) IEA has summarised trends in industry’s
perspective on the planning of hydropower projects (Table 5.2). They highlight that in the past large
dam projects generally recognised a future demand (water, power) to be met in a least cost manner,
and that planning procedures consequently minimised mitigation of environmental and social impacts.
Today the emphasis has switched to avoiding unnecessary delays or expenditure and effort on projects
which in the end will not be carried out, and consequently planning procedures in developed countries
are often geared toward minimising business risk and maximising acceptance. This new planning
approach presents and discusses as early in the planning stage as possible all the costs and benefits of
competing scenarios with interested parties, including the persons directly affected by the project and
NGOs, taking into account technical, economic, financial, environmental, social institutional, political
and risk factors. This is followed by formulation and review of alternative plans and major
investment in trying to reach consensus about the best plan to be adopted for implementation.
Table 5.1: Distillation of arguments used by proponents and opponents of large dams
Proponents Opponents
Through provision of reliable water supplies, production of Through inundation of huge tracts of inhabited land and
energy and creation of recreational opportunities, dams destruction of the natural services provided by downstream
have improved the economic and social well-being of ecosystems, dams have destroyed the livelihoods and reduced
many millions of people. the well-being of many millions of people. The social and
economic benefits promised for large dams have in many cases
not been realised.
Dams are the most important means of making surface Dams are only one way of providing water when required. Other
water available at the place and time of demand. Although options such as demand management, rainfall harvesting and the
there are non-structural alternatives (eg demand tapping and recharging of groundwater or desalination of
management), more dams will be needed in the future to seawater could reduce our dependence on the construction of
manage the world’s limited water resources. dams.
Dams create new habitat through the creation of reservoirs, Through creation of reservoirs, dams have flooded and so
which, although detrimental to some species, provides destroyed many pristine biotopes, with consequent negative
opportunities for others. impacts on biodiversity. Dams transform “healthy” river
ecosystems into impoverished reservoirs.
Downstream from dams, the destruction of ecosystems Downstream from dams, disruption of natural flow, sediment
resulting from the disruption of the natural flow regime can and energy dynamics destroys the integrity of many ecosystems.
be mitigated by release of compensation flows that Although it is possible to mitigate against some of the negative
simulate both the high and the low discharges of the effects, it is impossible to undo all the damage.
natural flow regime.
Large dams provide flood protection, and so increase the Large dams protect from regular annual floods but often fail to
security of many millions of people who live downstream hold back floods of longer return periods. Dams lead people to
from them. believe that floods are controlled and so lead to increased
development of floodplains. Then when a large flood does
come, damage caused is often greater than it would have been
without the dam. If a dam fails the consequences can be
devastating. Thus dams reduce, in a very tangible way, the
security of people living downstream.
The health risks associated with dams and associated Many large dams and the projects associated with them (eg
projects were not appreciated in the past. We now irrigation schemes) create health risks for many people who live
understand the risks and so can mitigate against the causes. in their vicinity. The health risks associated with the workforce
Furthermore dams, by increasing economic status, can bringing in disease during dam construction are an additional
provide the impetus for improved health care. hazard.
Hydropower represents a “clean” sustainable energy Hydropower is not a “clean” energy. By altering chemical and
source. Many of the alternatives to hydropower (eg nuclear thermal regimes, reservoirs effectively pollute rivers and destroy
and coal fired power stations) create greater environmental downstream ecosystems. Furthermore, reservoirs may contribute
and social-economic problems. to greenhouse gases (i.e. decomposition of submerged vegetation
releases carbon dioxide and methane). Modern technologies (eg
solar power) provide new opportunities that enable us to reduce
our dependence on large dams.
Over the last 20 years, environmental issues have come to Over the last 20 years societal values have changed (especially
the fore, but people (especially in the developed world) are in the developed world). Environmental damage is no longer
not prepared to make the changes to their life styles that accepted as an inevitable consequence of human development.
doing away with large dams would entail. Indeed, it is now recognised that continued environmental
degradation is non-sustainable.
Overall: In the past mistakes have been made. We now Overall: Large dams should be a last resort after “less damaging
have a greater understanding of the negative ecological, and costly alternatives for flood management, transportation,
socio-economic and health consequences of large dams, water supply, irrigation and power supply are exhausted" (IRN,
and to a large extent these can be mitigated against. The 1994). In the past, dams have not lived up to the promises made
scope for reducing any detrimental impacts on the for them. The ecological, socio-economic and health costs
environment through alternative solutions, project associated with their construction are now recognised. In many
modifications in response to particular needs, or mitigating cases these costs outweigh the benefits. The price paid is too
measures should be thoroughly investigated, evaluated and high. Alternatives to large dams exist. The era of large dams
implemented (ICOLD, 1997). The benefits of dams should be brought to an end.
outweigh the costs. In many cases the alternatives are
associated with far greater costs. The negative impacts of
large dams on the environment are sometimes overstated.
Dams can sometimes enhance environmental conditions.
Dams are now an essential part of the basis for human
survival. More dams will be needed in future. The future
for large dams should be bright.
While this is a time consuming approach, it brings the major advantage that by attempting to reach a
consensus amongst all parties concerned at an early a stage, it is possible to avoid last minute
surprises after years of development expenditures, as has happened with several large dam projects in
the recent past.
Table 5.2: Trends in the Planning of Hydropower Projects (IEA, 2000)
Old Planning Concept New Planning Concept

A hydro project is a technical scheme to: A hydro project is part of an integrated set of
technical, environmental and social measures to:
! Provide basic technical infrastructure to ! cover basic needs of people in a sustainable manner
improve supply of power/water (water, light, power)
! accelerate rural development to improve the welfare of
people in the region – particularly those directly
affected by the project
! improve environmental and flood protection
! combat global warming
Planning is government responsibility, Planning involves many partners/stakeholders:
often assisted by international development ! government
agencies ! people affected
! non-governmental organisations
! private sector developers
! financing institutions
Least-cost planning procedure: Multi-criteria planning procedure:
! identify least-cost project to cover ! project(s) must be part of sectoral development plan
power/water needs ! rigorous study of project alternatives, including the
! carry out unavoidable social and No-Project option
environmental impact mitigation at ! prepare comprehensive comparison matrix showing
minimum cost pros and the cons of each alternative from technical,
! carry out detailed studies environmental, social, economic, financial, risk and
political perspectives
! quantify secondary and external costs and benefits as
well as risk
! reach consensus among stakeholders about overall
best alternative to be developed
! carry out detailed studies
Public Sector Project: Private/Public Sector Project:
! developed and owned by government ! developed and owned by private sector, with or
! funding partly from international without government participation
development agencies ! finance largely from commercial sources
! international development agencies act as catalyst for
project funding by providing guarantees
! access to semi-concessional funding if stringent
international guidelines for social and environmental
impact mitigation are followed
5.3.2 International Commission on Large Dams (ICOLD)
In a recent position paper on dams and the environment, ICOLD gave great importance to addressing
the environmental and social aspects of dams and reservoirs (ICOLD, 1997). It recognised that the
impact of dams and reservoirs on both the natural as well as the socio-economic environment is
“inevitable and undeniable”. It argued that in the quest to provide growing numbers of people with a
better life, the need to develop natural resources, including water, means that the natural environment
cannot be preserved completely unchanged. However, the paper accepts that “great care must be
taken to protect the environment from all avoidable harm or interference” and the aim of humankind
must be to balance the need for the development of water resources with the conservation of the
environment in a way that will not compromise future generations.
The paper argues that all dam projects must be judged by the state-of-the-art of the technologies
involved and by current standards of environmental care. It agrees that a comprehensive
Environmental Impact Assessment should be a standard procedure as part of the project
conceptualisation. However, it does not provide guidance on exactly what should be included in this
assessment, nor how findings should be used to assist the decision making process. Nevertheless, it
does state that “special attention should be paid to any effects on biodiversity or the habitat of rare or
endangered species”.
The document states that in future, environmental and social aspects of dams “should be addressed
with the same concern that has made the question of dam safety a predominant concept” for the
industry.
5.3.3 The World Bank
The World Bank advocates the application of environmental assessments to provide information
about the ways new economic activities (including projects that involve dam construction) may
directly or indirectly affect ecosystems. The Bank requires that the environmental assessments carried
out for the projects it supports reflect the views of persons affected by the project, including the poor,
indigenous people, and disadvantaged groups. The Bank will not support projects which involve the
significant conversion or degradation of critical natural habitats unless there are no other feasible
alternatives to the project and its siting and the overall benefits from the project substantially
outweigh its environmental costs. The current Bank policies and guidelines that are of most relevance
specifically to ecosystem impacts of large dams are published in the Bank's Operational Handbook
(World Bank, 1999) and include:
World Bank Operational Policy 4.04 (Natural Resources):
The Bank… supports the protection, maintenance and rehabilitation of natural habitats and their
functions…and expects borrowers to apply a precautionary principle to natural resource
management….The Bank promotes and supports natural habitat conservation and improved land use
by financing projects designed to integrate into national and regional development the conservation of
natural habitats and the maintenance of ecological functions. The Bank does not support projects that
in the Bank's opinion involve the significant conversion or degradation of critical natural habitats.
World Bank Operational Policy 4.01 (Environmental Assessment):
The Bank requires environmental assessment (EA) of projects proposed for Bank financing…EA
evaluates a project’s potential environmental risks and impacts in its area of influence, examines
project alternatives, identifies ways of improving project selection, siting, planning, design and
implementation by preventing, minimising, or compensating for adverse environmental impacts and
enhancing positive impacts…EA considers natural and social aspects in an integrated way.
World Bank Procedure 4.01 (Environmental Procedures);
This contains details of how environmental assessments should be conducted and notes that EA
reports will be made public through its Infoshop. An appendix (Annex B) provides specific details on
the application of EA to Dam and Reservoir projects.
World Bank Operational Policy 4.07 (Water Resources Management):
World Bank policies are to promote economically viable, environmentally sustainable and socially
equitable water management.
5.3.4 New approaches of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and

Development (OECD)
OECD members agree to ensure that “development assistance projects and programmes which,
because of their nature, size and/or location, could significantly affect the environment, should be
assessed at as early a stage as possible and to an appropriate degree from an environmental
standpoint”. The exploitation of hydrological resources is highlighted as the type of project where an
environmental impact assessment (EIA) should be conducted. In conducting EIAs, the following main
elements are particularly relevant to large dam construction and should be included:
! consideration of alternative project designs (including the no action alternative) as well as
required mitigation and monitoring measures;
! an assessment of off-site effects including transboundary, delayed and cumulative effects, and
! a clear statement of significant beneficial and adverse environmental and related social effects and
risks of the project.
The OECD guidelines recommend that in conducting EIA’s donors should “use the standards that will
achieve the minimum level of “acceptable”, non-mitigable negative effects and maximise the positive
effects. However, no definition of “acceptable” is given.
5.3.5 The International Movement Against Large Dams
Throughout the world there are a large number of non-governmental organisations that oppose dam
construction for a wide variety of social, economic and environmental reasons. However, the most
prominent of these groups, one that campaigns at a global scale and perhaps best articulates the
overall position of the anti-dam lobby, is the International Rivers Network (IRN). The IRN states its
mission as:
“…to halt and reverse the degradation of river systems; to support local communities in protecting
and restoring the well-being of the people, cultures and ecosystems that depend on rivers; to promote
sustainable, environmentally sound alternatives to damming and channelling rivers, to foster greater
understanding, awareness and respect for rivers…”
IRN works with environmental and human rights groups on specific key projects around the world
whilst at the same time working to alter global policies. It argues that critical review of large dam
projects indicates that organisations such as the World Bank rarely, if ever, fulfil their own guidelines
relating to dam development. IRNs position on dams is summarised through a series of declarations
including the San Francisco Declaration (1988), the Manibeli Declaration (1994) and most recently
the Curitiba Declaration (1997). All these declarations call for a moratorium on large dam building
until certain criteria are fulfilled (Box 5.1) .
Box 5.1: The Curitiba Declaration
This declaration signed by representatives of dam-affected people and of opponents of

“destructive” dams from 20 countries calls for a moratorium on the building of large dams
until:
i) There is a halt to all forms of violence and intimidation against people affected by
dams and organisations opposing dams;
ii) Reparations, including the provision of adequate land, housing and social
infrastructure, be negotiated with the millions of people whose livelihoods have
already suffered because of dams;
iii) Actions are taken to restore environments damaged by dams – even when this
requires the removal of the dams;
iv) Territorial rights of indigenous, tribal, semi-tribal and traditional populations affected
by dams fully respected through providing them with territories which allow them to
regain their previous cultural and economic conditions;
v) An international independent commission is established to conduct a comprehensive
review of all large dams financed or otherwise supported by international aid and
credit agencies, and its policy conclusions implemented. The establishment and
procedures of the review must be subject to the approval of the international
movement of people affected by dams.
vi) Each national and regional agency which has financed or otherwise supported the
building of large dams have commissioned independent reviews of each large dam
project they have funded and implemented the policy conclusions of the reviews. The
reviews must be carried out with the participation of representatives of affected
people’s organisations.
vii) Policies on energy and freshwater are implemented which encourage the use of
sustainable and appropriate technologies and management practices, using the
contributions of both modern science and traditional knowledge. These policies need
also to discourage waste and over consumption and guarantee equitable access to
these basic needs.
5.3.6 Requirements of International Conventions
The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), to date ratified by 178 countries, explicitly
recognises the links between biodiversity conservation and sustainable development. It acknowledges
that biological diversity is more than just the sum of species numbers; it encompasses the variety,
variability and uniqueness of genes and species and of the ecosystems in which they occur. The
Convention’s overall objectives include the conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of
its components, and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the utilisation of genetic
resources. As of February 2000, 122 countries have also ratified the
Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar 1971) which provides broad guidelines on reducing the impact of
development projects (eg dams) on wetlands (Box 5.2).
Box 5.2: Ramsar Convention: Guidelines for Contracting Parties relating to reducing the
impact of water development projects on wetlands
1. Ensure that proposals for water development projects are carefully reviewed at their initial
stages to determine whether non-structural alternatives may be feasible.
2. Take all necessary actions in order to minimise the impact of water development projects
on biodiversity and socio-economic benefits during the construction phase and longer
term operation.
3. Ensure that project design/planning processes includes a step-by-step process to integrate

environmental issues, especially initial biodiversity/resource surveys, and post project
evaluation and monitoring.
4. Incorporate long-term social benefit and cost considerations into the process from the very
initial stages of project preparation.
5.4 Areas of Convergence/Divergence

It is clear from this review of current trends that considerable steps have been taken to address the
environmental concerns surrounding dams. Indeed there are today many areas of broad agreement
between those who are generally supportive of building dams and those who are generally
philosophically opposed to building large dams. These include:
! The public policy issues affecting dam construction are to be addressed with the active
participation of governments, the private sector, and civil society.
! The determination of the size, location, and type of dam depends on the economic, technical,
social, and environmental flexibility of the proposal.
! Dams require a physical area for the dam body and the reservoir. They change the natural water
conditions, inducing changes in both physical and biological aspects of the river basin affected,
including the humans living in the area. They are built to change the way water is managed, with
the objective of satisfying important needs identified by people.
! Projects should be judged everywhere by “current standards of environmental care” (ICOLD,

1997). In general opponents of dams do not believe that no dams should ever be built (IRN,
2000) and they accept that at least some of the adverse environmental effects of dams can be
mitigated.
! In general, proponents accept that decisions about new dam projects must be based on
“unequivocally realistic economic analysis” that neither “overstates the benefits” nor “understates
the costs” and that such analysis requires “taking the impacts on the natural and social
environment into account” (ICOLD, 1997). Opponents of dams state that “the claims of project
promoters of the economic, environmental and social benefits and costs” of projects should be
“verified by independent experts” (IRN, 1997)
At the same time, the analysis carried out indicates that besides agreements, a wide range of important
and fundamental differences remain. At the most general level these differences relate to the value
systems adhered to by the different groups involved and especially the value to be attached to the
intrinsic value of nature.
In very broad terms the dam debate is emblematic of the wider on-going debate about the future
direction of human development. In the past the argument that more people require more water, more
food and more energy and thus more dams was widely accepted. Today, this apparently logical
argument is broadly accepted by proponents of dams but is questioned by dam opponents. There
remain four main areas of difference:
• the integration of social, economic and environmental concerns;

• the question of equity of distribution of costs and benefits;
• the methods of the decision-making process, and
• the extent to which impacts can be mitigated or compensated.
Differences arise when it comes to evaluating the “true” costs and benefits (both direct and indirect)
of projects, particularly those environmental and social impacts which are difficult to quantify in
monetary terms. While proponents accept that these need to be taken into account, opponents of dams
argue that existing methods of project appraisal result in unrealistically optimistic assessments of the
benefits of dam projects and that not all values can be expressed in economic terms. This debate is
driven by the different value systems of the different ethical perspectives described in Section 3.9.2
and referred to above.
Project life-cycle analysis does not eliminate the need for value judgements and arbitration because
many impacts are at present impossible to compare directly. Clearer guidelines are therefore required
on how costs and benefits can be distributed among those people affected by all development projects
(not just dams). Techniques need to be improved to offer better methods of economic valuation that
are acceptable to both proponents and opponents of dams. It is important that development projects
are appraised in a transparent manner using multi-criteria analysis, not just economic cost-benefit
analyses or using a purely eco-centric view of the world.
6. Conclusions and Policy Recommendations for WCD

6.1 Conclusions
This review has highlighted the value of natural ecosystems to human society, giving particular
attention to the specific goods and services provided by those ecosystems that are impacted most by
dams. While some of these ecosystem values are non-monetary in nature, such as the aesthetic,
cultural and heritage value of specific habitats and landscapes, the direct and indirect economic value
of these services is highly significant to local, national and regional economies. In most cases one or
more sector of society depends upon these values (e.g. fisheries, grazing) while in some the total value
of the benefit of natural ecosystems can exceed the value of the benefits derived from dams and
associated investments in agriculture (Barbier 1996). In the past, the failure to take into account the
cost of the consequences of dams has resulted in the benefits of many dams being overstated.
The importance of these natural ecosystems is today widely recognised by national governments and
the importance of efforts to preserve these ecosystems and harness their values sustainably is
enshrined in a series of international agreements, notably the Convention on Biological Diversity and
the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance. See section 5.3.6.
The review has underlined that dams have a wide range of major impacts upon natural ecosystems,
that most of these are negative, that many are irreversible, and that they are manifest in economic and
social costs. Perhaps surprisingly, the review has noted that there is today widespread, but not
complete, agreement as to the reality and importance of these impacts and their costs.
The review has also recognised the growing understanding of the threats to the world’s biodiversity,
and the particularly acute threats to those species that are dependent upon freshwater. By altering the
quantity and quality of water available to natural riverine ecosystems, dams add to these already
significant threats.
In response to the identified impacts of dams on natural ecosystems and species, four principal
approaches: avoidance, mitigation, compensation and restoration have been developed, and are now
promoted as solutions to these impacts. A review of these approaches highlights, however, that while
there is good evidence through practical experience that each of the individual measures can be
successful in specific cases, there are problems with them all. The most widely used approach,
mitigation, is particularly problematic. As with any kind of human development, whatever
amelioration measures are utilised, dam building will always result in some environmental and
ecosystem impacts While there is experience of good mitigation, this success is nevertheless
contingent upon stringent conditions of:
• a good information base and competent professional staff able to formulate complex choices for
decision-makers;
• an adequate legal framework and compliance mechanisms;
• adequate financial and institutional resources.
If any one of these conditions is absent, then the ecosystem values will be lost. In practice the extent
to which these conditions are met varies enormously from country to country and dam to dam. The
review therefore concludes that mitigation, though often possible in principle, will, under present
political, economic and institutional conditions, rarely be successfully implemented. Alternative
approaches to maintaining ecosystem health therefore need to be pursued.
6.2 Recommendations
In light of the above, ten recommendations are submitted to the WCD.
1. Recognise the important role of natural ecosystems in contributing to sustainable

development. If river basin development is to be truly sustainable it needs to recognise the wide
range of goods and services that are provided to human society by natural ecosystems. All major
development investment, including dam construction, should seek to conserve and enhance these
ecosystems and their value to society. Actions that diminish these values should be minimised.
2. Recognise the importance of biodiversity and promote its conservation. Biodiversity is

recognised internationally as a uniquely important, but endangered, feature of our planet. In the face
of unprecedented rates of species extinction in recent decades every effort needs to be made to
minimise threats to biodiversity. In the past dams have contributed significantly to endangerment and
extinction of species. In future no dam should proceed if it is shown to have a high probability of
having a significant detrimental effect on species diversity.
3. Dams must be considered within a framework of river basin management plans and
international/national/regional policies. They must be evaluated alongside other options for water
supply, irrigation and electricity production. In any situation, the environmental costs and benefits of
the full “life-cycle” of the various options must be compared. This must include the costs of
decommissioning dams that have come to the end of their useful life.
4. Recognise and manage for uncertainty. There is enormous variation between river basins, rivers,
ecosystems, dams and associated projects. This diversity, together with the seriously limited quantity
and quality of information on the functioning of specific natural ecosystems, and on species diversity
and resilience in different habitats affected by dams, contributes to a very limited capacity to predict
the precise impact of dams on natural ecosystems and biodiversity. Such a high degree of uncertainty
and limited predictive capacity argue forcefully for adoption of a precautionary approach to dam
development. Wherever possible dams and their impacts should be avoided. Where avoidance is not
possible, capacity to manage the dam in a flexible manner and so adapt to improved understanding of
ecosystem requirements, should be incorporated into dam design. This precautionary approach
should be recognised as a central feature of planning, design and management of dams, especially as
many are probably irreversible.
5. Ensure effective multi-sector participation in planning, design and management of dams. In

order to help recognise and reduce uncertainty it is essential that all dam projects and their impacts are
subject to intensive analysis during planning and design. This needs to be pursued through open
processes that ensure that there is full sharing of available information, and recognition of areas where
that information is not sufficient to predict the impact of dams or design successful mitigation
measures with any confidence. This participatory process also needs to identify who should assume
responsibility for the ecosystem impacts of dams and therefore take on their true costs, ensure their
mitigation or compensation (as appropriate) and restore, where possible, the river at the end of a
project’s life.
6. Maximise adaptive capacity. When the participatory design processes recommended above leads
to a decision to construct a dam as the best option for sustainable development in the river basin,
design features should include the capacity to adjust operation to adapt to the lessons of experience,
improved knowledge, or changing ecological requirements. Such design features include in particular
sluices or gated spillways that will allow Environmental Flow Releases of appropriate water quality.
This approach needs to be accompanied by a programme of independent environmental monitoring
that will allow continuous tracking and regular assessment of the impact of the dam and its operation
upon downstream ecosystems. This information needs to be fed back into to an adaptive decision
making process. Mechanisms must be established to ensure compliance with recommendation on dam
operation from monitoring bodies.
7. Promote incorporation of environmental management features into dam design. In addition to

features that provide for adaptive management as a permanent element of the dam cycle, dams should
also be designed to include all appropriate environmental features for improving water quality. These
include variable level off-takes, shallow plunge pools, fish passes, regulating weirs etc..
8. Promote the development of national legislative frameworks. Ultimately the measures

recommended here, together with recognition of the need to fulfil international commitments with
regard to ecosystems and biodiversity, need to be enshrined in national legislation governing dams
and river basin development. This should be promoted together with measures to strengthen
enforcement, such as the use of environmental bonds, direct compensation revenue sharing
(hydropower), or environmental trust funds as a guarantee of compliance.
9. Promote application of tools to foster ecosystem health.
(I) Environmental Flow Releases. EFRs are being used in 25 countries and today
serve as the single most important tool for managing the ecosystem and associated
impacts of dams. EFRs should be a requirement for all future dams. Blanket
minimum flow requirements, such as “10% minimum flow” do not address the needs
of riverine ecosystems. Taking account of the dynamic nature of rivers requires
optimum flows, often including periodic managed floods. An intensive investment
should be made in developing further the knowledge-base required to improve this
tool adapting it to local needs, extending it to include explicit support for social
downstream needs.
(II) Ecosystem Health Indicators. In order to engage in a proactive discussion on the

requirements for maintaining (or restoring) healthy ecosystems, greater investment
should be made in the development of indicators of ecosystem health. These can be
used for setting targets for mitigation, compensation and restoration of ecosystems
impacted by dams.
(III) Site Selection Indicators. The World Bank has identified six key indicators of site
selection that help minimise ecosystem impacts: reservoir surface area; water
retention time in the reservoir; biomass flooded; length of river impounded; number
of inflows to mainstream from undammed down-river tributaries; and access roads
through sensitive areas. Use of these Indicators should be promoted and refined on
the basis of experience.
10. The role of every dam should be periodically reviewed and its value to society re-evaluated.
Consideration should be given to decommissioning, retrofitting modern technologies and/or altering
dam operation so that where feasible, dams are improved to comply with up-to-date standards of
environmental care.
6.3 Options for Operationalising the Recommendations

It is recognised that the higher level recommendations in this chapter provide a framework for
addressing ecosystem issues, yet for their effective implementation they require a level of
operational detail that these formulations do not allow. Some also link directly to similar
recommendations emanating from other WCD thematic reviews.
The Commission may wish to attach measurable norms or standards to these recommendations in
order to move from the policy framework towards implementation. This document does not intend to
be prescriptive at this level, however Table 6.1 explores some of the options open to the Commission
in establishing more operational sub-principles for dams and ecosystems.
Table 6.1: Options for establishing sub-principles under each recommendation
Recommendation Operationalisation Option

1. Recognise the important role of • Assess the value of natural ecosystem functions and
natural ecosystems in services during feasibility studies for both upstream and
contributing to livelihoods and downstream communities. Water does not have a zero
sustainable development. opportunity cost.
• Adopt a river basin approach to water and ecosystem
management.
• Use multi-criteria decision-making that recognises
values other than costs and not simply a cost-benefit
analysis.
• Rivers are a public trust and extractive use rights should
not be permanently allocated.
• Identify users of the downstream and upstream natural
resources and ensure that their needs are incorporated
by the project (link with thematicI.1).
2. Recognise the importance of • Ensure that dam projects comply with the provisions and
biodiversity and promote its guidance of the Convention on Biological Diversity, the
conservation. Convention on Wetlands and other related nature
conservation Conventions.
• Dams should not negatively impact any Red Data Book
species.
• Dams should not be built in, nor should reservoirs
impinge on, declared National Parks or Nature
Reserves.
• Undertake comprehensive biodiversity surveys of rivers
in order to allow the least ecosystem-damaging choices
and trade-offs to be made. Ecological investigations
should be placed on the same footing as engineering and
economic assessments during project planning and not
be “add-on” extras.
• River flows should not be reduced during commissioning
to zero or levels likely to have a negative impact on
biodiversity.
• Dams built on tributaries will have fewer impacts on
migrating fish than those on the main stream.
3. Recognise and manage for • Recognising that the precautionary principle should
uncertainty apply as it is at present impossible to predict all
consequences of dam construction.
• Undertake baseline assessments of the riverine ecosystem
and its biodiversity down to the river mouth, during
feasibility studies to provide the information base needed
to improve predictive capacity.
• Assess possible cumulative impacts.
4. Ensure effective participation in • All EIA studies should be public documents.
planning, design and management • All stakeholders must participate in EIA and decision-
of dams. making process. Utilise decision-making tools that
encourage interdisciplinary discussion and stakeholder

participation.
• Base decision-making on multi-criteria analyses, not
simple cost-benefit analyses.
• Link with “participation” thematic review : V.5.
5. Maximise adaptive capacity. • Allow for regular monitoring of ecosystems to ensure
that management objectives are met.
• Every existing dam should have an Environmental flow
requirement.
• Review operating rules every five years to incorporate
findings of monitoring programmes and mitigate
unexpected ecosystem changes.
• Undertake research programmes to solve outstanding
problems.
• Ensure every dam has a proposal for how it will
eventually be decommissioned, especially with regard to
design features for reservoir drainage, the treatment of
accumulated sediment, and appropriate financial
measures for ecosystem restoration.
• Include direct revenue sharing (hydropower), or
environmental trust funds as tools to ensure funds for
monitoring and repairing ecosystem damage are
available throughout the project’s lifetime.
6. Promote incorporation of • Include biologists and ecologists in the design team.

environmental management • Every dam on a river with migratory fish should have an
features into dam design effective fishpass and monitoring programme.
• Dams that have pulsing flood releases due to hydropower
should systematically have a downstream re-regulating
weir that levels out day to day flow oscillations.
• Where water quality is, or is likely to be, an issue,
variable level offtakes should be mandatory.
7. Promote the development of • Use environmental bonds as a guarantee of compliance.

national legislative frameworks • Ensure the developer/owner is responsible for managing
dam-related ecosystem impacts and restoring the site at
the end of the project’s lifetime.
• Ensure that the environmental components of dam
tenders are at a fixed cost and are not subject to the
competitive tendering process that is used for the
infrastructure.
• Undertake regular independent audits of environmental
performance of major projects where complex mitigation
measures are planned.
• National legislation should include provision for an
intact rivers policy.
7. References
Abdel Megeed, A. and Aly Makky, E. 1993. “Shore Protection of the Nile Delta After the
Construction of High Aswan Dam”, in Egyptian Committee on Large Dams (ed), High Aswan Dam
Vital Achievement Fully Controlled, Cairo: ENCOLD. In, McCully 1996.
Abramovitz, N.N. 1996. “Imperiled Waters, Impoverished Future: The Decline of Freshwater
Ecosystems”, Worldwatch Paper 128, Worldwatch Institute, Washington D.C., 80 pp.
Acreman, M.C. and Lahmann, E. 1995. “Overview: hydrological management and protected areas”,
in Parks 5 Vol 2: 1-5.
Acreman, M.C., Farquharson, F.A.K., McCartney, M.P. Sullivan, C., Campbell, K., Hodgson, N.,
Morton, J., Smith, D., Birley, M., Knott, D., Lazenby, J., Wingfield, D., Barbier, E.B. 2000. Managed
Flood Relases from Reservoirs: Issues and Guidance. Report to DFID and the World Commission on
Dams, Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Wallingford, UK.
Adamoli, J. 1988. “Sistema de Alarma para Prevencion de Peligros de Inundaciones en el Pantanal

Matogrossense (Brazil)”, in Proc. Of Workshop ‘Mitigacion de Peligros Debidos a Eventos Naturales
Extremos en America’. Natural Science Foundation, University de Puerto Rico: pp 177 – 194.
ADB, 1999. Special Valuation Study on the Social and Environmental Impacts of (Four) Selected
Hydropower Projects, Manilla: Asian Development Bank.
Agostinho, A.A. & Zalewski, M. 1995. “The Dependence of Fish Community Structure and
Dynamics on Floodplain and Riparian Ecotone Zone in Parana River, Brazil”, in Hydrobiologia. Vol
303: 141-148.
Agostinho, A.A., Julio, Jr., H.F. and Petrere, M. 1994. “Itaipu Reservoir (Brazil): Impacts of the
Impoundment on the Fish Fauna and Fisheries”, in I.G. Cowx. (ed) Rehabilitation of Freshwater
Fisheries, Oxford: Fishing News Books..
Aleem, A.A. 1972. “Effect of River Outflow Management on Marine Life”, in Marine Biology. Vol
15: 200-208.
Alexander A.M., List, J.A., Margolis, M. and d’Arge, R.C. 1998. “A Method for Valuing Global
Ecosystem Services”, in Ecological Economics. Vol 27: 161-170.
Allan, D.G. 1999. “Mega-Developments and Birds: the Waterbirds Impacted by the Lesotho
Highlands Water Scheme as an Example”, in N.J. Adams & R.H. Slotow (eds) Proc. 22nd
International Ornithological Congress, Durban., Pp. 1556-1578, Johannesburg: BirdLife South Africa.
American Rivers, Friends of the Earth and Trout Unlimited. 1999. Dam Removal Success Stories:
Restoring Rivers through Selective Removal of Dams that Don’t Make Sense. Final Report.
Amsler, M.L. & Drago, E.C. 1999. “A Review of the Suspended Sediment Budget at the Confluence
of the Parana and Paraguay Rivers,” paper presented at Hydrological and Geochemical Processes in
Large Scale River Basins Conference, Manaus, Brazil, 15-19 November.
Anonymous. 1997. “Wetlands and Integrated River Basin Management: Experiences in Asia and the
Pacific”, in UNEP/Wetlands International - Asia Pacific, Kuala Lumpur.
Baker, C.J. and Maltby, E. 1995. “Nitrate Removal by River Marginal Wetlands: Factors Affecting
the Provision of a Suitable Denitrification Environment”, in: Hughes, J.M.R. and Heathwaite, A.L.
(eds) Hydrology and Hydrochemistry of British Wetlands, Chichester (UK): John Wiley and Sons. pp.
291-313.
Balland, P. 1991. Le Littoral Mediterraneen Francais. Evolution Physique. - Qualite Generale.

Agence de l’Eau Rhone-Mediterranee-Corse, p. 23.
Barbier, E.B. 1996. “Valuing Floodplain Benefits: Economic and Hydrological Studies Conducted at
the Hadejia-Nguru Wetlands Conservation Project, Nigeria”, in IUCN Wetlands Programme
Newsletter. Vol 14: 10-12.
Bardach, J.E. and Dussart, B. 1973. “Effects of Man-Made Lakes on Ecosystems”, in Geophys.
Monogr. Vol 17: 811-817.
Bell. M. C., DeLacy A. C. and Paulik G. J. 1967. A Compendium on the Success of Passage of Small
Ffish through Turbines, Report on Contract DA-35-026-CIVENG-66-16 to North Pacific Division,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Bernacsek, G.M. 1997. Large Dam Fisheries of the Lower Mekong Countries: Review and
Assessment, MKG/R.97023 Vol.I Prepared for The Mekong River Commission Project on
Management of Fisheries Reservoirs in the Mekong Basin.
Bernhardt, H. 1994. “Control of Water Quality in Lakes and Reservoirs” in Hino, M (ed) Water
Quality and its Control, Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema. pp. 77-109.
Binnie, C. 1999. Personal Communication to Mr. J. Skinner, World Commission on Dams.
Blanch¸ S. 1999. Environmental Flows: Present and Future, Sidney, Australia: Inland Rivers Network.
pp. 8.
Bogan, A.E. 1998. “Freshwater Molluscan Conservation in North America: Problems and Practices”,
in Killeen, I.J., Seddon, M.B. and Holmes, A. (eds) “Molluscan Conservation: a Strategy for the 21st
Century”. Journal of Conchology Special Publication no. 2: pp. 223 – 230.
Born, S.M., Genskow, K.D., Filbert, T.L., Hernandez-Mora, N., Keefer, M. and White, K. 1998.
“Socioeconomic and Institutional Dimensions of Dam Removals: the Wisconsin Experience”, in
Environmental Management.Vol 22: 359-370.
Bourke, G. 1988. “Subduing the Sea’s Onslaught”. South, July. In McCully 1996.
Brown, D.S. 1994. Freshwater Snails of Africa and their Medical Importance. 2nd edition, London:
Taylor & Francis.
Bunch and Reeves (eds). 1993. “Proceedings of a Workshop on the Potential Cumulative Impacts of
Development in the Region of Hudson and James Bays, 17-19 June 1992”, in Canadian Technical
Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences Vol. 1874.
Cada, G.F. and Hunsaker, C.T. 1990. “Cumulative Impacts of Hydropower Development: Reaching a
Watershed in Impact Assessment”, in The Environmental Professional, Vol. 12: 2-8.
Casinader, Ranji. 1999. “Sugarloaf Dam, Australia: Note on Environmental and Social Mitigation
Mechanisms in Planning, Design and Construction”, Personal Communication to Mr. J. Skinner,
World Commission on Dams.
Chapman, M.A. 1996. “Human Impacts on the Waikato River System, New Zealand” in Geojournal.
Vol. 40 (1-2): 85-99.
Chelan County Public Utility District. 1999. Performance-Based Resource Standards in the
Hydroelectric Relicensing Process. Chelan County, Washington, USA. 19 pp. (Draft).
Chesney, H.G.R. & Oliver, P.G. 1998. “Conservation Issues for the Margaritiferidae in the British
Isles and Western Europe”, in Killeen I.J., Seddon M.B. & Holmes A. (eds) “Molluscan
Conservation: a Strategy for the 21st Century”, in J. Conchology Special Publication no. 2: pp. 231-
242.
Church, M. 1995. “Geomorphic Response to River Flow Regulation: Case Studies and Time-Scales”,
in Regul. Rivers: Res. Manage. Vol. 11: 3-22.
Collier, M. Webb, R.H. and Schmidt, J.C. 1996. “Dams and Rivers: a Primer on the Downstream
Effects of Dams”, in US Geological Survey Circular Vol. 1126: p 94.
Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S.,
O’Neill, R.V., Paruelo, J., Raskinet R.G., Sutton, P. and van den Belt, M. 1997. “The Value of the
World’s Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital”, in Nature Vol. 387:253-260.
Cowan, G.A. & van Riet, W. 1998. A Directory of South African Wetlands, Pretoria: Dept. of
Environmental Affairs & Tourism.
Crawford, C.S., Molles, M.C., Valett, H.M. 1994. “Flooding and Conservation in the Albuquerque
Bosque. Tech. Rep. New Mex. Water Resour. Res. Inst. 290: The Future of Albuquerque and Middle
Rio Grande Basin”, in Proceedings of the 39th Annual New Mexico Water Conference. pp 101-105.
Davies, B.R. 1979. “Stream Regulation in Africa: a Review”, in: Ward, E.J. and Stanford, J.A. (eds)
The Ecology of Regulated Streams. New York, USA: Plenum Press. pp 113-142.
D’Croz, L. and Kwiecinski, B. 1980. “Contribucion de los Manglares a las Pesquerias de la Bahia de
Panama”, in Revista Biologia Tropical, Vol. 28: 13-29.
De Groot, R.S., 1992. Functions of Nature. Evaluation of Nature in Environmental Planning,

Management and Decision Making. Wolters Noordhoff, Deventer (The Netherlands). 315 pp.
De Silva, S. S. 1988a. “Reservoirs of Sri Lanka and their Fisheries”. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper,
No. 298, Rome.
De Silva, S. S. 1988b. “Reservoir Fishery Management and Development in Asia”, in Proceedings of

a workshop held in Kathmandu, Nepal, 23-28 November 1987, Ottawa: International Development
Research Centre.
Dinar, A., Seidl, P., Olem, H., Jorden, V., Duda, A. and Johnson, R. 1995. “Restoring and Protecting
the World’s Lakes and Reservoirs”. World Bank Technical Paper No. 289. Washington, D.C.: The
World Bank. 85 pp. + maps.
Dixon, J.A., Talbot, L.M. and Le Moigne, G.J.M. 1989. “Dams and the Environment: Considerations
in World Bank Projects”. World Bank Technical Paper No. 110, Washington, D.C.
Doyle, M.W, Stanley, E.H. Luebke, M.A. and Harbor, J.M. 2000. “Dam Removal: Physical,
Biological and Societal Considerations”. American Society of Civil Engineers Joint Conference on
Water Resources Engineering and Water Resources Planning and Management, Minneapolis, MN,
July 30-August 2, 2000.
Drinkwater, K.F. & Frank, K.T. 1994. “Effects of River Regulation and Diversion on Marine Fish and
Invertebrates”. Aquatic Conservation : Freshwater and Marine Ecosystems. Vol. 4: 135-151.
Dugan, P.J. 1990. Wetland Conservation: A Review of Current Issues and Required Action. Gland
(Switzerland): IUCN, 95 pp.
Dunne, T., Mertes, L.A.K., Meade, R.H., Richey, J.E. & Forsberg, B.R. 1999. “Sediment Transport
and Floodplain Storage along the Amazon River Valley in Brazil”, paper presented at Hydrological
and Geochemical Processes in Large Scale River Basins Conference, Manaus, Brazil, 15-19
November.
Dynesius, M. and Nilsson, C. 1994. Fragmentation and Flow Regulation of River Systems in the
Northern Third of the World, in Science. Vol. 266 (4 November 1994):753-762.
Echeverria, J., Hanrahan, M. and Solorzano, R. 1995. “Valuation of Non-Priced Ameneties Provided
by the Biological Reserves within the Monte Verde Cloud Forest Preserve”, in Ecological Economics.
Vol. 13: 43-52.
Eddy, S. & Underhill, J.C. 1974. Northern Fishes with Special Reference to the Upper Missippi
Valley. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Ertan Hydroelectric Development Corporation (EHDC). 1994. “Ertan Hydroelectric Project:

Environmental Assessment”. Submitted to World Bank. Chengdu, Sichuan Province, P. R. China.
European Environment Agency 1999. “Lakes and Reservoirs in the EEA Area”. Topic Report No.
1/1999. EEA, Copenhagen, 108 pp.
Faucheux, S. and O’Connor, M. 1998. Valuation for Sustainable Development. Cheltenham: Edward
Elgar.
Finlow Bates, K.S., Gentle J. and Lovett J.C. 2000. “Environmental Mitigation of the Lower Leihansi
Project, Tanzania”, Process Conference International Hydropower Association, Berne 2000 pp 427 -
436 Aqua - Media International, UK.
Flanders, D. Principal Engineer, International Business. Department of Natural Resources, State

Water Projects, Australia. 1999. Personal Communication to Mr. J. Skinner, World Commission on
Dams.
Flatby, R. and Konow. T. 1999. “Environmental Impact Assessments, Licensing Procedures and
Terms of Licence (sic) – A Review of the Norwegian Experience”, in Proceedings of Workshop on
Benefits of and Concerns about Dams – Case Studies. Pp. 69 – 76. Antalya, Turkey: International
Commission on Large Dams.
Frazier, S. 1999. Ramsar Sites Overview. Wageningen: Wetlands International.
Furness, H.D. 1978. “Ecological Studies on the Pongola River Floodplain”, in Working Document IV,
Workshop on Man and the Pongolo Floodplain. Pietermaritzburg, South Africa: C.S.I.R. No.
14/106/7C.
Galay, V.J. 1983. “Causes of River Bed Degradation”, in Wat. Resour. Res. Vol. 19: 1057-1090.
Gammelsrod, T. 1992. “Variation in Shrimp Abundance on the Sofala Bank, Mozambique, and its
Relation to the Zambezi River Runoff”, in Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science. Vol. 35: 91-103.
Godinho, H. P., Godinho A. L., Formagio P. S. and Torquato V. C.. 1991. “Fish Ladder Efficiency in
a Southeastern Brazilian river, in Ciencia e Cultura Vol. 43(1): 63-67.
Goldsmith, E. and Hildyard N. 1984. The Social and Environmental Effects of Large Dams. San
Francisco, CA, USA:A Sierra Club Book. 404 pp.
Gourene, G., Teugels G.G., Hugueny B. & Thys van den Audenaerde D.F.E. 1999. “Evaluation de la
Diversite Ichthyologique d'un Bassin Ouest-Africain Apres la Construction d'un Barrage”, in Cybium
Vol. 23: 147-160.
Guy, P.R. 1981. “River Bank Erosion in the mid-Zambezi Valley, Downstream of Lake Kariba”, in
Biological Conservation. Vol. 20: 199-212.
Hadley, R.F., Karlinger, M.R., Burns, A.W. and Eschner, T.R. 1987. “Water Development and
Associated Hydrologic Changes in the Platte River, Nebraska, USA”, in Regul. Riv: Res. and
Manage. Vol. 1: 331-341.
Hauer, F.R., Stanford, J.A. and Ward, J.V. 1989. “Serial Discontinuity in a Rocky Mountain River II.
Distribution and Abundance of Trichoptera”, in Regul. Riv: Res. and Manage. Vol. 3: 177-182.
Hamerlynck, O., Ould Baba M. L., and Duvail S.. (In press). The Diawling National Park,
Mauritania: Conflict and development around a newly established protected area. Submitted to Vida
Sylvestre Neotropical.
Hart, B.T. Bailey, P., Edwards, R., Hortle, K., James, K., McMahon, A., Meredith, C. and Swaling, K.
1991. “A Review of the Salt Sensitivity of the Australian Freshwater Biota”, in Hydrobiologia. Vol.
210: 105-144.
Helfman, G.S., Collette B.B. & Facey D.E. 1997. The Diversity of Fishes. Malden, Massachusetts,
USA: Blackwell Science, Inc.
Holden, P.B. & Stalnaker C.B. 1975. “Distribution and Abundance of Mainstream Fishes of the
Middle and Upper Colorado River Basins”, in Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. Vol.
104: 217-231.
Hollis, G.E., Penson, J.R., Thompson, J.R. and Sule, A.R. 1993. “Hydrology of the River Basin” in
Hollis, G.E., Adams, W.M. and Kano, M.A. (eds) The Hadejia-Nguru Wetlands: Environment,
Economy and Sustainable Development of a Sahelian Floodplain Wetland. Gland, Switzerland and
Cambridge, UK: IUCN. xviii + 244pp.
Howells, R.G., Neck, R.W. & Murray, H.D. 1996. Freshwater Mussels of Texas. Texas Parks and
Wildlife Press.
Hydro Quebec 1991. Environmental Code. Montreal (Canada): Hydro Quebec.
HQ and GDG, 1999. Biodiversity and Hydroelectricity: World Outlook and Québec Context. A joint
report by Hydro-Québec and GDG Conseil, Inc., Montreal (Canada).
Hynes, H.B.N. 1970. “The Ecology of Flowing Waters in Relation to Management”, in Journal of The
Water Pollution Control Federation. Vol. 42 (3): 418-424.
ICOLD. 1981. Dam Projects and Environmental Success. ICOLD Bulletin 37. Paris, 30 pp.
ICOLD. 1988. Dams and Environment. Case Histories. ICOLD Bulletin 65. Paris 112 pp.
ICOLD. 1994. Dams and Environment: Water Quality and Climate. Paris. 85 pp.
ICOLD. 1997. Position Paper on Dams and Environment. http://genepi.louis-

jean.com/cigb/chartean.html
ICOLD. 1999. Database. http://genepi.louis-jean.com/cigb/anglais/html
International Energy Agency. 2000. Hydropower and Environment: Present Context and Guidelines
for Future Action. Annex 3. Implementing Agreement for Hydropower Technologies and
Programmes.
IRN. 1994. Manibeli Declaration. http://www.irn.org/programs/finance/manibeli.html
IRN, 2000. Questions and Answers on the International Movement Against Large Dams.
http://www.irn.org/basics/qanda.html
Irving, J.S. and Bain, M.B. 1989. “Assessing the Cumulative Impact on Fish and Wwildlife in the
Salmon River Basin, Idaho”, in The Scientific Challenges of NEPA: Future Direction Based on 20
Years of Experience. Knoxvill, TN, October 24-27: 357-372.
IUCN. 1994. Wasa Logone Flood Restoration Study. Delft Hydraulics/IUCN, Gland.
Jackson, D. C. 1999. “The Influence of Dams on River Fisheries, Consultant’s Report to the Unitied
Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. 36 pp.
Jackson, P.B.N. and Davies, B.R. 1976. “Cabora River in its First Yyear: Some Ecological Aspects
and Comparisons”. Rhodesian Science News.Vol. 10 (5): 128-133.
Jobin, W., Blue Nile Associates. 1999. Personal Communication to Mr. J. Skinner, World
Commission on Dams.
Johnson, W.C. 1992. “Dams and Riparian Forests: Case Study from the Upper Missouri River”, in
Rivers. Vol. 3 (4): 229-242.
Junk, W.J., Bayley, P.B. and Sparks, R.E. 1989. “The Flood Pulse Concept in River-Floodplain
Systems” in Doge, D.P. (ed) Proceedings of the International Large River Symposium (LARS). Can.
J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. Vol. 106: 110-127.
Khafagy, A.A. and Fanos A.M.. 1993. “Impacts of Irrigation Control Works on the Nile Delta Coast”,
in Egyptian Committee on Large Dams (ed) High Aswan Dam Vital Achievement Fully Controlled.
Cairo: ENCOLD. In, McCully 1996.
King, J., Tharme R., and Brown C. 1999. “World Commission on Dams Thematic Report: Definition
and Implementation of Instream Flows”. Final Draft. Prepared by Southern Waters Ecological
Research and Consulting under contact to World Commission on Dams, Cape Town, South Africa.
64 pp.
King, JM. and Louw, M.D. 1998. “Instream Flow Assessments for Regulated Rivers in South Africa
Using the Building Block Methodology”, in Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Management. Vol. 1:
109-124.
Kirchner, J.W., Finkel, R.C. Riebe, C.S. Granger, D.E. Clayton J.L. & Megahan, W.F. 1998.
“Episodic Erosion of the Idaho Batholith Inferred from Measurements over 10-Year and 10,000 Year
Timescales”, in EOS Transactions, American Geophysical Union. Vol 79: F338.
Kristensen, P. and Hansen, H.O. (eds), 1994. “European Rivers and Lakes. Assessment of Their
Environmental State”. EEA Environmental Monograph 1.
Kvernevik, T.I. and Ghazali, N. 1998. Cumulative Effects of Dams – a Resource File. 10 pp.
Läe, R. 1995. “Climatic and Anthropogenic Effects on Fish Diversity and Fish Yields in the Central
Delta of the Niger River”, in Aquatic Living Resources 8: 43-58.
Larinier, M. 1998. “Upstream and Downstream Fish Passage Experience in France” in Jungwirth, M.,
Schmutz, S. and Weiss, S. (eds) Fish Migration and Fish Bypasses. Oxford (UK): Fishing New
Books, Blackwell Science Ltd..
Larsen, T. B. 1999. “Norwegian Hydropower Resources: Use, Management and Planning”,

proceedings of Workshop on Benefits of and Concerns about Dams – Case Studies. International
Commission on Large Dams, Antalya, Turkey. 6 pp.
Le Cornu, J. 1998b. “ICOLD’s Challenges”, report of ICOLD Secretary General to Hydrovision ’98:
the World Hydro Forum. Reno, Nevada, July 28. http://genepi.louis-jean.com/cigb/reno.html
Ledec, G., Quintero, J.D. and Mejia, M.C. 1997. “Good Dams and Bad Dams: Environmental and
Social Criteria for Choosing Hydroelectric Project Sites”, World Bank Sustainable Dissemination
Note 1.
Lenhart, C.F. 2000. “The Vegetation and Hydrology of Impoundments after Dam Removal in
Southern Winconsin”, unpublished MSc thesis, University of Winconsin – cited in Doyle et al. 2000.
Ligon, F.K., Dietrich, W.E. & Trush, W.J. 1995. “Downstream Ecological Effects of Dams,” in
Bioscience. Vol 45: 183-192.
Maheshwari, B.L., Walker, K.F. and McMahon, T.A. 1995. “Effects of Regulation on the Flow
Regime of the River Murray, Australia”, in Regul. Riv: Res. and Manage. Vol 10: 15-38.
Mahmood, K. 1987. “Reservoir Sedimentation: Impact, Extent and Mitigation”, World Bank technical
Paper 71.
Malanson, G.P. 1993. Riparian Landscapes, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Masson, J. 1999. “Advantages and Impacts of Dams: The example of the Durance and Verdon
Scheme”, Proceedings of Workshop on Benefits of and Concerns about Dams – Case Studies.
International Commission on Large Dams, Antalya, Turkey, pp. 295 – 305.
McAllister, D.E, Hamilton A.L., and Harvey B.. 1997. “Global Freshwater Biodiversity: Striving for
the Integrity of Freshwater Ecosystems”, in Special Edition of Sea Wind-Bulletin of Ocean Voice
International. Vol 11(3): 1-140.
McCully, P. 1994. “Damming the Rivers: the World Bank’s Lending for Large Dams”, International
Rivers Network. http://www.irn.org/pubs/wp/damming.html
McCully, P. 1996, Silenced Rivers: the Ecology and Politics of Large Dams, London: Zed Books. 350
pp.
Meade, R.H. & Parker, R.S. 1985. “Sediment in Rivers of the United States,” in Water Supply Paper.
Vol 2275: 49-60, United States Geological Survey, Washington D.C.
Miller, J.R. Schulz, T.T. Hobbs, N.T., Wilson, K.R. Schrupp, D.L. and Baker, W.L. 1995. “Changes
in the Landscape Structure of a Southeastern Wyoming Riparian Zone Following Shifts in Stream
Dynamics”, in Biol. Conserv. Vol 72 (3): 371-379.
Mitchell, D.S. 1978. Aquatic Weeds in Australian Inland Waters, Canberra: Australian Government
Publishing Service. 189 pp + xxii.
Miyanaga, Y. Tanaka, M. and Hino, M. 1994. “Thermal Stratification: their Prediction and Control”
in Hino, M (ed) Water Quality and its Control, Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema. 3-43.
Moore, D. 2000. “Dams and Wetlands Worldwide: The World Commission on Dams to Examine
Methods for Wetlands Protection, Mitigation, and Restoration”, in National Wetlands Newsletter.
January-February 2000.
Nakamura, S. 1993. "A Review of Fish Passage Facilities in East Asia. Fish Passage Policy and
Technology", in Proceedings of the symposium, Portland, Oregon, USA.
National Park Services. 1996. “Elwha River Ecosystem Restoration Implementation” summary draft
EIS. Olympic National Park, Washington.
Nehlsen, W., Williams J.E., and Lichatowich J.A. 1991. “Pacific Salmon at the Crossroads: Stocks at
Risk from California, Oregon, Idaho, and Washington”, in Fisheries. Vol 16: 4-21.
Nelson, J.S. 1994. Fishes of the World. 3rd Ed., New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.. 620pp.
Neves, R.J. and Angermeier, P.L. 1990. “Habitat Alteration and its Effects on Native Fishes in the
Upper Tennessee River System, East-central U.S.A”, in Journal of Fish Biology. Vol 37: 45-52.
Nilsson, C. and Jansson, R. 1995. “Floristic Differences Between Riparian Corridors of Regulated and
Free-Flowing Boreal Rivers”, in Regul. Rivers: Res. Manage.Vol 11: 55-66
Nilsson, C., Jansson, R. and Zinko, U. 1997. “Long-term Responses of River-Margin Vegetation to
Water-Level Regulation”, in Science. Vol 276: 798-800.
Ochman, S. & Dodson J. 1982. “Composition and Structure of the Larval and Juvenile Fish
Community of the Eastmain River and Estuary, James Bay”, in Le Naturaliste Canadien. Vol 109:
803-813.
Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). 1995. “Fish Passage Technologies : Protection at

Hydroelectric Facilities”, report OTA-ENV-641, Washington DC.
Petts, G.E. 1984. Impounded Rivers, Chichester, UK: John Wiley &Sons Ltd Publishers.
Petts, G.E. 1996. “Water Allocation to Protect River Ecosystems”, in Regulated Rivers: Research &
Management. Vol 12: 353 – 365.
Prescott, J. P. Vice President Generation, Idaho Power Company. 1999. Personal Communication to
Mr. J. Skinner, World Commission on Dams.
Reizer, C. 1988. “Les Peche Continentales du Fleuve Sénégal. Environment et Impacts des
Aménagement”. Musée Royal de l’Afrique Centrale, Tervuren, Belgique, in Annales Série 1N-8
Sciences Zoologiques Vol. 254: 1-10.
Ribeiro, M.C.L.B., Petrere, M., Jr & Juras, A.A.. 1995. “Ecological Integrity and Fisheries Ecology of
the Araguaia-Tocantins River Basin, Brazil, in Regulated Rivers: Research and Management. Vol 11:
325-350.
Rivero, C. ENDESA, Spain. 1999. Personal Communication to Mr. J. Skinner, World Commission
on Dams.
Rood, S.B., Mahoney, J.M. Reid, D.E. and Zilm, L. 1995. “Instream Flows and the Decline of
Riparian Cottonwoods along the St. Mary River, Alberta”, in Can. J. Bot. Vol 73 (8): 1250-1260.
Rosales, J., Bradley, C., Petts, G., & Gilvear, D. 1999. “A Conceptual Model of
Hydrogeomorphological-Vegetation Interactions within Confluence Zones of Large Tropical Rivers,
Orinoco, Venezuela,” paper presented at Hydrological and Geochemical Processes in Large Scale
River Basins Conference, Manaus, Brazil, 15-19 November.
Ryman, N., Utter, F. & Laikre, L.. 1995. “Protection of Intraspecific Biodiversity of Exploited
Fishes”, in Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries. Vol 5: 417-446.
Sanz Montero, M.E., Avendaño Salas, C. & Cobo Rayan, R. 1999. “Influencia de los Embalses en el
Transporte de Sedimentos Hasta de Delta del Rio Ebro, España,” paper presented at Hydrological and
Geochemical Processes in Large Scale River Basins Conference, Manaus, Brazil, 15-19 November.
Seattle City Light. 1985. “Application for Amendment to License for Boundary Dam
Hydropower Project”, Submitted to U. S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Shiel, R.J. 1978. “Zooplankton Communities of the Murray-Darling System”, in Proceedings of the
Royal Society of Victoria. Vol 90: 193-202.
Shiklomanov, I.A. (ed) 1997. Assessment of Water Resources and Water Availability in the World.
Comprehensive Assessment of the Freshwater Resources of the World, Stockholm: Stockholm
Environment Institute.
Shiklomanov, I.A. 1999. “World Water Resources: Modern Assessment and Outlook for the 21st
Century.” Federal Service of Russia for Hydrometeorology and Environment Monitoring: State
Hydrological Institute. (Summary of the monograph World Water Resources at the Beginning of the
21st Century, prepared in the framework of IHP-UNESCO, 51 pp.)
Shuman , J.R. 1995. “Environmental Considerations for Assessing Dam Removal Alternatives for
River Restoration”, in Regul. Rivers: Res. and Manage. Vol 11: 249-261.
Simons R.K. and Simons, D.B. 1991. “Sediment Problems Associated with Dam Removal –
Muskegon River, Michigan”, in Shane, R.M. (ed) Hydraulic Engineering, Proceedings of the National
Conference on Hydraulic Engineering American Society of Civil Engineers, New York. 680-685.
Smith, L.C. & Sidorchuk, A. 1999. “Hydrologic Variability and Floodplain Sedimentation of Major
West Siberian Rivers,” paper presented at Hydrological and Geochemical Processes in Large Scale
River Basins Conference, Manaus, Brazil, 15-19 November.
Stanley, D.G. & Warne, A.G.. 1993. “Nile Delta: Recent Geological Evolution and Human Impact”,
in Science (Washington, D.C.). Vol 260: 628-634.
Stein, B.A. & Flack, S.R. (eds). 1996. America’s Least Wanted: Alien Species Invasions of U.S.
Ecosystems, Arlington, Virginia: The Nature Conservancy.
Sullivan, C.A. 1999. “Review of the Economic Dimensions of Downstream Environmental Impacts of
Controlled Flood Releases”, Report to DfID and the WCD. Institute of Hydrology, Wallingford.
Sullivan, C.A. 1999. “Valuation of Non-timber Forest Products: A Case Study of Three Amerindian
Villages in Guyana”, Ph.D. Thesis, Dept. of Economics, Keele University, UK.
Taylor, R., Mcginnis, S. and Elliott, C.. 1999. “Certification without Green Buyers?: A Discussion
Paper”, presented at the World Bank Alliance for Forest Conservation and Sustainable Use: Forest
Certification/ Verification Systems Workshop. Washington, DC, USA. 19 pp.
Truffer, B. 1999a. “Green Electricity Products and the Sustainable use of Water Resources”, Forum of
the UNESCO International School of Science for Peace on “Water security in the Third Millenium.
Mediterranean Countries as a case”. Landau Network – Centro Volta, Como, Italy. 10 pp.
Truffer, B. 1999b. Personal Communication to Mr. J. Skinner, World Commission on Dams.
USCOLD, 1999. Dam, Hydropower and Reservoir Statistics. http://www2.privatei.com/

~uscold/uscold_s.html
USGS, 1996. “Dams and Rivers. Primer on the Downstream Effects of Dams”, U.S. Geological
Survey Circular 1126. USGS, Tucson (USA).
Valentin, S., Wasson, J.G. and Philippe, M. 1995. “Effects of Hydropower Peaking on Epilithon and
Invertebrate Community Trophic Structure”, in Regulated Rivers: Research & Management. Vol 10:
105-119.
Walker, K.F. 1979. “Regulated Streams in Australia: the Murray-Darling River System” in Ward, J.V.
and Stanford, J.A. (eds) The Ecology of Regulated Streams, New York: Pelnum Press. 398 pp.
Walling, D. & Fang, D. 1999. “Longer-term Variability of Sediment Transport to the Oceans,” paper
presented at Hydrological and Geochemical Processes in Large Scale River Basins Conference,
Manaus, Brazil, 15-19 November.
Ward, J.V. and Stanford, J.A. 1995. “The Serial Discontinuity Concept: Extending the Model to
Floodplain Rivers. Regul. Riv: Res. and Manage. Vol 10: 159-168.
Ward, J.V and Stanford, J.A. 1983. “The Serial Discontinuity Concept of Lotic Ecosystems in
Fontaine”, in T.D. and Bartell, S.M (eds) Dynamics of Lotic Ecosystems, Collingwood: Ann Arbor
Science, MI 29-42.
Watson, R. T., Zinyowera, M. C., and Moss, R. H. 1996. (eds). “Climate Change 1995. Impacts,
Adaptations and Mitigation of Climate Change: Scientific-Technical Analyses”, contribution of
Working Group II to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 878 pp.
WCMC 1998. “Freshwater Biodiversity: a Preliminary Global Assessment”, WCMC Biodiversity

Series no. 8, WCMC/UNEP, Cambridge (UK).
Webb, R.H., Schmidt, J.C. Marzolf, G.R and Valdez, R.A. 1999. “The Controlled Flood in Grand
Canyon”, Geophysical Monograph Series, 110, Geological Survey 368 pp.
Williams, G.P. and Wolman, M.G. 1984. “Downstream Effects of Dams on Alluvial Rivers”, US
Geol. Surv. Prof. Pap., 1286, 83 pp.
World Bank, 1991a. “Environmental Assessment Sourcebook, Volume I, Policies, Procedures, and
Cross-Sectoral Issues”, World Bank Technical Paper No. 139, Washington.
World Bank, 1999. The World Bank Operational Manual. http://wbln0018.worldbank.org
Zahar, Y. & Albergel, J. 1999. “Hydrodynamique Fluviale de l’Oued Medjerdah a l’Aval du Barrage
Sidi Salem. Evolution Recente,” paper presented at Hydrological and Geochemical Processes in
Large Scale River Basins Conference, Manaus, Brazil, 15-19 November.
Zakova, Z., Berankova, D., Kockova, E., Kriz, P., Mlejnkova, H. and Lind, O.T. 1993. “Investigation
of the Development of Biological and Chemical Conditions in the Vir Reservoir 30 Years After
Impoundment”, in Water Sci. Technol. Vol 28 (6): 65-74.
Annex 1: Potential Environmental Impacts of Dams,

Reservoirs and Hydroelectric Projects
Based on ICOLD’s Bulletins 35, 37, 50, 65, 66, 86, 90, 96 and 100, observations from USCOLD and
the World Bank’s “Environmental Assessment Sourcebook”, Vol. III, pp 69 – 73, [8] ten categories of
environmental impacts have been established:
A. Impacts on the Natural Environment (Flora, Fauna and Aquatic Fauna)

B. Social / Economic / Cultural Aspects (resettlement)
C. Land
D. Dam Construction Activities
E. Sedimentation of Reservoirs
F. Downstream Hydrology
G. Water Quality
H. Tidal Barrages
I. Climate
J. Human Health
Note: ICOLD Bulletins are identified by a “B” followed by the number of the bulletin, USCOLD by
“U”; and the World Bank’s Sourcebook by “S” and the numerical listing.
A. Impacts on the Natural Environment

1. Negative environmental effects due to construction activities (S1);
2. Loss of wildlands, wetlands and wildlife habitat, extinction of plant and animal life (S15, B50);
threats to endangered species (U);
3. Effects of stopping the flow of nutrients downstream (U, B50);
4. Reduced biological activity downstream (B50) (In arid areas often an increase in quantity of flora
and fauna (B50);
5. Reduction in downstream flooding may result in less natural submergence for flood-recession
agriculture, reduction in groundwater recharge and reduction in removal of parasites by natural
flooding (B50);
6. Impacts on quantity of water needed for maintaining downstream ecology (B35);
7. Anaerobic decomposition of vegetation and production of greenhouse gasses (high cost of
cleaning up);
8. Environmental degradation from increased pressure on land such as irrigated agriculture,
industries and municipalities (S23);
9. Dams form obstacles to passage of trees, floating debris, ice and ships (B35);
10. Waterloss due to evaporation;
11. Induced seismicity;
12. Changed morphological character of rivers (flow volume, surface area and water levels) (B50);
13. Rivers may dry up (B35).
A* Flora
1. In severely cold climates, impact is limited to direct inundation and nearby changes in
groundwater levels (B50);
2. Aquatic weeds (floating and submerged) may proliferate, especially in tropical areas: Water
hyacinth and water lettuce (B35);
3. Prolific vegetation impedes navigation and fishing, and affects hydraulic structures (B50);
4. Tourism may adversely affect flora and fauna and also create social problems (B50).
A** Fauna
1. Accommodation of amphibians, riparian fauna and birds to a new environment (B35);
2. Migration of animals to new areas, where new equilibrium may favour some species over others
(B50).
A** Aquatic Fauna

1. Blocking fish migration (S14, B35);
2. Disruption of riverine fisheries due to changes in patterns, duration, velocity and volume of flow
(S14, U, B35);
3. Introduction of new species of fish in the reservoirs (B35);
4. Inappropriate reservoir operation with large variations in water levels could threaten fish by
drying up shallow-breeding and flood-producing areas (B50);
5. Destruction of spawning beds in shallow areas at the margins of reservoirs due to enhanced
turbidity as a result of land erosion caused by wave action.
B. Social / Economic / Cultural Aspects (resettlement)

1. Dislocation of people living in the inundation zone (S2);
2. Disruption of livelihood of private lives and tribal / indigenous groups (S20);
3. Destruction of lifestyles and customs (S20);
4. Social disruption and decrease in standard of living of resettled people (S18);
5. Impacts on host communities (receiving resettlers);
6. Uncontrolled migration of people into the project area made possible by access roads and
transmission lines corridors (S22);
7. Migration of displaced people from rural to urban areas (B50);
8. Loss of local land marks, historic, cultural or aesthetic features by inundation (S4);
9. Effects on recreation, instream fishing and whitewater rafting (U);
10. Loss of aesthetic values and scenic beauty, such as white water, waterfalls and active streams (U);
11. Influx of construction workers: interaction with local population may cause social and health
problems (B50);
12. Fluctuating water levels create bare slopes and, in arid conditions, also dust (B50);
13. Frazil ice in cold winter climates may clog downstream installations (B50);
14. Blockage of land transportation routes.
C. Land
1. Loss of land through inundation: agricultural, forest, range, wildlands and wetlands (S3, B35);
2. Decrease in floodplain (recession) agriculture (S11), but expanded irrigated agriculture;
3. Salination of floodplains (S13);
4. Saltwater intrusion in estuaries (S13);
5. Loss of riparian soils (U) and erosion of borrow areas (B50);
6. Land slides may occur as a result of wetting and rapid drawdown (B35, 50);
7. Increased seismic activity and reservoir-induced earthquakes (B35);
8. Permafrost warming could cause considerable ground deformations (B50).
D. Dam Construction Activities
1. Air and water pollution;

2. Soil erosion;
3. Creation of borrow and spoil areas;
4. Access roads open up new areas;
5. Workforce: boomtown effects, squatter settlements, strain on local resources and services, open
up new markets for local goods.
E. Sedimentation of Reservoirs
1. Sedimentation of reservoirs causes loss of storage capacity (S8) (often not in severe winter
climates, except in the Himalayas) (B50);
2. Formation of sediment deposits at reservoir entrance creates backwater effect, flooding and water-
logging upstream (S9);
3. Capture of nutrients causes deficiencies downstream;
4. Scouring of river bed below dam due to lower sediment content of released water (S10) Also less
soil replacement;
5. Poor land use practices in catchment areas (such as deforestation and incautious agricultural
development (B35), and inflow of untreated industrial effluents and municipal wastes (B50);
6. Release of captured sediments (e.g. heavy metals).
F. Downstream Hydrology
1. Change of riverflow patterns;

2. Oxygen deficiency, changes in water temperature and pH;
3. Salination and saltwater encroachment;
4. Changes in tidal prism in estuaries resulting from increased siltation;
5. Changes in water quality.
G. Water Quality
1. Changes to water quality and limnology (S14) due to inflow of saline water (B35, 37) (retention
time is important);
2. Effects of changes in groundwater levels, higher around the reservoir and lower downstream (U,
B35). These may also affect ground water quality;
3. Proliferation of aquatic weeds in reservoir and downstream, causing clogging and impairing
navigation, recreation, fisheries and irrigation (S6);
4. Deterioration of water quality in the reservoir due to rotting of submerged vegetation and
hydrogen sulphide (B50) (Normally not in areas with a severe winter climate (B50) (S7);
5. Water quality deterioration is due to lack of dissolved oxygen near the bottom of reservoirs (B50).
This is toxic to fish and can lead to death of aquatic life (B35). It is also corrosive to turbines;
6. Snagging of fishing nets due to submerged vegetation in reservoir;
7. Deoxygenation (especially at lower levels in the reservoir) due to submergence of forests and
other vegetation with a high content of degradable matter (B50);
8. Fish may die downstream from nitrogen and oxygen supersaturation (B35);
9. Thermal stratification in deep reservoirs (due to heating and cooling of the surface layer (B50)
may result in low temperature water released through low level outlet works. This is detrimental
to fish, and affects home and industrial water supplies and cooling ponds (B35);
10. Eutrophication results from sediment inflow enriched with nutrients (B35);
11. Pollution of reservoirs by humans and animals (B35) (industrial affluents, mercury release from
the soil and raising or contaminating watertables);
12. Macrophytes cause high water losses due to evaporation and depletion of oxygen and creates
difficulties for fishing (B50);
13. Agriculture on marginal lands near the water level (e.g. islands), may introduce pesticide,
rendering fish inedible (B50);
14. Evaporation in arid areas increased salinity, chlorides, carbonates and sulphates (B50);
15. Ice may impede proper aeration. Oxygen deficiency seldom occurs in severely cold climates
(B50).
H. Tidal Barrages (B35)
1. Reduce inflow of tidal waters and scouring due to tides;

2. Formation of bars affects navigation;
3. Salt and fresh water regimes may change from stratified to mixed, or vice versa, which may affect
siltation and aquatic life;
4. Changes in natural wave patterns may affect flora and fauna in the tidal range;
5. Upland drainage and fresh water runoff may require pumping schemes; sewage treatment may
also be required;
6. Locks are needed for shipping, fish and ice passage.
I. Climate
1. Large reservoirs produce a microclimate due to storage of heat and cold and may cause changes in
local rainfall patterns (B35);
2. Formation of early morning and winter fog in temperate climates (B35, 50);
3. Shallow reservoirs may show thicker mist on cool days (B35, 50);
4. Local increase in humidity and fog may create favourable habitats for insect disease vectors
(mosquitoes, tsetse) (S21);
5. Reservoirs in cold climates have very little effect because of the presence of many natural lakes
(B50).
J. Human Health
1. Health is affected by dissemination of water-related diseases and from environmental changes, or

population movement or settlement (S16, B50);
2. In hot and damp regions endemic parasites find an increase in “host” habitat, such as those that
cause malaria, schistosomiasis, filariasis, bilharzia (in still water), and onchoceriasis (in flowing
water) (B35, 50) also, typhoid fever, viral hepatitis and other parasitic and infectious endemic
diseases (B50);
3. The health of workers and people in adjacent neighbourhoods may endanger the social and
economic environment (B50).
Source : Jan Veltrop, ICOLD
Annex 2: Reservoir Fisheries

The high production of fish (kg/ha) observed in reservoirs often exceeds that of natural bodies of
water (Dixon et al., 1989; De Silva, 1988; Goldsmith and Hildyard, 1984) (Box A2.1). The vast areas
and volumes of water made available during the creation of reservoirs provide additional habitats for
aquatic wildlife. The net increase in the number of hectares of aquatic habitats generates high fish
production, which generally encourages recreational and commercial fishing (World Bank, 1991a;
Dixon et al., 1989; De Silva, 1988; Goldsmith and Hildyard, 1984). In Canada, this phenomenon has
given rise to the development of numerous recreational fishing outfitters on the periphery of
reservoirs. Aquatic biomass produced in reservoirs in north temperate zones is higher than the
terrestrial wildlife biomass that is available for harvesting. In Lakes Kariba and Ayame, although
several riverine species have disappeared, the overall number of fish species has increased (Gourène
1999; Kolding and Karenge in press). Tilapias (Cichlidae) are usually the most successful in these
lakes.
The siting of the reservoir can have an important influence on whether the impact is positive or
negative. The Itaipu Reservoir, Brazil, is sited below a floodplain which enhances migratory species
that inhabit the floodplain and when mature migrate down into the reservoir (Agostinho et al.,1994;
Agostinho and Zalewski 1995). However the floodplain will disappear when a new dam being built
permanently inundates the floodplain.
Well-managed reservoir fisheries can be very productive. For example, an innovative programme
introduced at the Saguling (1986) and Cirata (1991) dams in Indonesia makes use of the recent
creation of the reservoir for fishery development. Fish-farming technologies have been adapted for
small producers with an established tradition of aquaculture in ponds or rice fields. In 1992, follow-
up activities demonstrated that the floating cage farming system of both reservoirs made possible the
hiring of 7 500 families and produced 10 000 tons of fish. This harvest far exceeds the ten tons
produced annually by the river of origin. Fisheries revenues from both reservoirs have exceeded $10
million per year, higher than the value of rice harvests from the farm lands submerged. Furthermore,
21 000 additional jobs have been created in enterprises for fish food production, cage maintenance,
marketing, etc. Fishery management in other reservoirs has generated a significant number of jobs
and major revenues, among them the Akosombo in Ghana, the Kedung Ombo in Indonesia, the
Kariba in Zambia and Zimbabwe, the Magla and Tarbela in Pakistan, and the Nam Ngum in Laos.
Box A2.1: Fisheries yields of selected reservoirs
Reservoir/Country/Region Yield
Kg/ha/yr
Large African reservoirs (Kariba, Nassar, Nubia) 27-65
Lake Kainji 3.5-4.7
Medium-sized African reservoirs 80
China (with intensive stocking) 127-152
India 11.4-49.5
Malaysia 15
Kazakhstan 15
Sri Lanka (with intensive stocking) 40-650
Cuba 125
Dominican Republic 29-75
Brazil 2.1-11.5
Panama 4.8-63.2
North America 24
Europe 21-76
Reservoir fishery yields tend to be higher for the Caribbean than is generally recorded for Central and
South American reservoirs. Records available for Brazil and Panama suggest that reservoirs can have
quite variable yields, depending on flushing rates, elevation, and basin morphology. Higher yields
throughout the region typically result from stocking of exotic species.
In short, reservoirs resulting from construction of dams can in some situations result in productive
fisheries. This is particularly true for locations where river fisheries contribute little to overall
national fishery yields. The exact position of the dam with respect to fertile floodplain and delta
fisheries will affect the degree to which the reservoir replaces or exceeds the natural river fishery. The
available data seems to indicate that lowland dams have more impact on fisheries than highland dams.
Beneficial reservoir fisheries also exist in drier regions where they are constructed for agricultural
irrigation, and fisheries are secondary considerations. Benefits seem more pronounced for smaller,
shallower reservoirs that have reasonably high concentrations of dissolved solids and that are located
in the upper reaches of their respective river ecosystems. Stocking of exotic species (both in
reservoirs and in tailwaters) can enhance yields, as long as the exotic fishes are environmentally
sound and culturally acceptable to the surrounding human population. In this regard, caution is
warranted in cultures where fishing and fish consumption are non-traditional activities. Building
reservoirs in the context of such cultures may not achieve projected fishery benefits even though
exploitable fish stocks may exist.
See also contributing papers:

Contributing Paper/ Synthesis Paper Writers Contract co-ordinator(s)/
funder
Molluscan Biodiversity and the Impact of M.B. Seddon IUCN/UNEP
Large Dams
The Influence of Dams on River Fisheries D. C. Jackson FAO/WCD
G. Marmulla
Ecosystem Impacts of Large Dams M.P. McCartney IUCN/UNEP
C. Sullivan
M.C. Acreman
Biodiversity Impacts of Large Dams D.E. McAllister IUCN/UNEP
J.Craig
N. Davidson
M. Seddon
D.Murray
Large Dams and Freshwater Fish Biodiversity J.F.Craig FAO/WCD
Definition and Implementation of Instream J. King WCD
Flows R. Tharme
C. Brown
Information Needs for Appraisal and J. King WCD
Monitoring of Ecosystem Impacts C. Brown
Dams and Fish Migration M. Larinier FAO/WCD
Biodiversity Impacts of Large Dams: N. Davidson IUCN/UNEP
Waterbirds S. Delany
Fundamental Legal and Ethical Principles In C. Di Leva IUCN/UNEP
Adjudging the Merits of Development Projects
Contributing Paper/ Synthesis Paper Writers Contract co-ordinator(s)/

funder
Managed Flood Releases from Reservoirs – A M.C. Acreman DFID
Review of Current Problems and Future E. Barbier
Prospects M. Birley
K. Campbell
F. Farquharson
N. Hodgson
J. Lazenby
M. McCartney
J. Morton
D. Smith
C. Sullivan
Report on the Conference on Hydrological L. Sklar WCD
and Geochemical Processes in Large Scale
River Basins, 15-19 November, 1999,
Manaus, Brazil
International Mechanisms for Avoiding, J. R. Bizer IUCN/UNEP
Mitigating and Compensating The Impacts of
Large Dams on Aquatic and Related
Ecosystems and Species
Capacity and Information Base Requirements G. Bernacsek FAO/WCD
for Effective Management of Fish
Biodiversity, Fish Stocks and Fisheries
Threatened or Affected by Dams During the
Project Cycle
Annex 3: Comparison of Pre vs. Post Impoundment

Conditions
Comparison of a series of variables in pre and post impoundment conditions of two reservoirs in the
Mekong River Basin. Adapted from Bernacsek 1997.
Reservoir and Year of Study

Trin An Thac Ba
Variable Pre- Post- Pre- Post-
Impoundment Impoundment Impoundment Impoundment
1983 & 1985 1990 1964 & 1971 1976 & 1985
ToC 30-33.2 26.5-28 - 16-32
Transparency 100-243 15-30 - 38-169
pH 7.5-7.6 6.5-7.5 7.8-7.9 7-8.2
O2 (mg/l) 3.2-10.24 4.0-6.08 9.12-9.29 0.72-8.64
CO2 (mg/l) 1.75-2.64 3.52-6.16 - 0.88-23.76
Hardness 0.67-2.35 0.84-1.12 4.81-4.92 1.9-7.6
SiO2 (mg/l) 5-12 7-9 11 7-73
Ca (mg/l) 2.4-7.2 4 23.2-25 23.6-24.4
Mg (mg/l) 0.96-5.78 1.2-2.2 7.29 4.45-5.87
Fe (mg/l) 0.05-0.35 0.20-0.30 0.10-0.40 0.40-0.59
HCO3 (mg/l) 24.4-42.7 61 - 105.2-111.4
PO4 (mg/l) 0.15-0.30 0.05-0.10 Trace-0.13 Trace
NH4-N (mg/l) 0 Trace-0.10 0 Trace
Phytoplankton Species 97 38 306 101
Phytoplankton 46,600 100,000-500,000 295,000 40,000-200,000
Quantity nos./l
Zooplankton Species 24 20 100 61
Zooplankton Quantity 1,710 4,750-12,000 302 4,300-81,000
nos./m3
Zoobenthos Species 13 7 170 60
Zoobenthos Quantity 1,706 100 - -
nos/m2
Zoobenthos Biomass 53.82 0.125-0.200 - 0.337-0.766
g/m2
Fish Species 81 50 53 80
Fishermen 190 2,700 78 430
Fisheries Production 42 1,000 2.8-7.5 430
(tonnes)
Aquaculture cages 0 600 0 20
Aquaculture 0 300 0 9
production (tonnes)
Change in # of Species -38% +51%
Change in fish catch Increased 24 times Increased 57 times
Annex 4: Sediment Discharges

(Based on Sklar 2000)
An illustrative example of temporal variability in sediment delivery is the observation that in a single
three-day storm in the winter of 1982, the Eel River in Northern California delivered more sediment
to the Pacific Ocean than had passed through the river in the previous seven years combined (Meade
& Parker, 1985). At longer time scales the magnitude of temporal variability can also be quite large.
A recent study of sediment flux from the mountains of central Idaho (Kirchner et al, 1998) showed
that long term average erosion rates, as inferred from reliable cosmogenic nuclide dating techniques,
are as much as an order of magnitude larger than the rate calculated from several decades of reservoir
sedimentation monitoring. These examples show that sediment supply is often dominated by
infrequent, catastrophic events that are difficult to anticipate but which should be incorporated into
sediment supply studies for dam projects.
Walling & Fang (1999) presented an analysis of a data set of suspended sediment flux measurements
from 142 large rivers, with the goals of quantifying the range of variability in each river and revealing
any global trends. Each river basin had more than 25 years of record and a contributing drainage area
greater than 10 000 km2; all were in the northern hemisphere. They found that for nearly every basin,
the range of annual sediment discharges was far wider than the range of annual water discharges,
when normalised by the average value for each river. In statistical terms, the coefficient of variation
(standard deviation divided by the mean) of the distribution of annual fluxes, was typically more than
twice as large for sediment than water discharge. There are several practical implications of this
result. First, the uncertainty in any estimate of mean annual sediment flux is likely to be very large,
particularly for gauge records of limited duration. This potential error in sediment flux estimation is
in addition to the uncertainty in any single measurement of sediment flux, which is often large for
suspended load, as will be discussed in more detail below, and even more so for bedload, which is
notoriously difficult to measure. Second, downstream river channels, floodplains, and resident
ecosystems may be adapted as much to the natural variations in sediment supply as to the annual
sediment flux as averaged over decadal time scales. Walling & Fang’s analysis also suggests that
there is a global trend toward reduced sediment supply, which they attributed to the widespread
trapping of sediment behind dams. Of the 142 rivers studied, 68 showed a decrease in sediment flux,
70 showed no change, and only 4 showed an increase in sediment flux over the period of record.
Some case study examples

Sidi Salem Dam, Medjerdah River, Tunisia
Zahar & Albergel (1999) reported on the downstream effects of the Sidi Salem Dam, on the
Medjerdah River. The dam, closed in 1981, intercepts water draining from 77% of the basin, and
effectively traps nearly all sediment entering the reservoir. Mean annual discharge downstream has
been reduced by 65% due to diversion for irrigation and evaporative losses. Peak sediment
concentrations have been reduced from 60 to 2 g/l, leading to severe erosion of the coastal delta just
north of the city of Tunis. Prior to dam construction, the delta had been prograding, having advanced
3000 m since Roman times. In addition to loss of delta land to coastal erosion, river bed erosion has
undermined several bridges and other structures immediately downstream of the dam.
Mequinenza-Ribarroja-Flix Dam Complex, Ebro River, Spain

Sanz-Montero et al (1999) studied the loss of reservoir storage volume due to sedimentation in the
major dams of the Ebro River, and the effects on the delta and estuary downstream. Over 180 dams
were constructed in the basin during the 20th century. Pre-dam sediment flux to the delta was about
30 megatons per year but is now reduced to 0.2 megatons per year, less than 1% of the historic
sediment supply. Mean annual flow in the Ebro River has declined by 30% during the same period,
due to diversion and evaporative losses from reservoirs. Nearly half the total basin reservoir storage
volume has been lost to sedimentation, with some reservoirs more than 80% filled. Although some
erosion of the delta has occurred, the primary downstream concern is salt water intrusion in the
estuary and coastal groundwater.
Itaipu and Yacyreta Dams, Parana River, Brazil, Paraguay and Argentina
Amsler & Drago (1999) presented a sediment budget for the middle Parana River, downstream of
Itaipu and Yacyreta Dams, and compared their results with a similar study done in the 1970s, prior to
construction of the two dams. Nearly all suspended sediments are trapped by the two dams, resulting
in a decrease in sediment flux of 80% since closure of the dams. Most of the remaining sediment is
derived from bank erosion below the dams, where the channels are eroding due to the reduction in
sediment supply. Downstream of the confluence of the Parana and Paraguay rivers the sediment load
returns to its pre-dam level because of an increase in sediment supply of 85% on the Bermejo river, a
tributary of the Paraguay that drains the Andean foothills. Amsler & Drago attribute the increase in
sediment flux from the Bermejo to a wetter climate that has caused an increase in mean annual runoff
throughout the upper Paraguay and Parana basins.
Sediment Exchange between Floodplains and River Channels

Dunne et al (1999) presented results of the most comprehensive sediment budget ever constructed for
a large floodplain river system (Dunne et al, 1998). Dividing the main stem Amazon river into ten
reaches, each about 200 km in length, Dunne et al measured the sediment fluxes between the river and
floodplain and downstream along the river. Sediment enters each reach by in-channel suspended load
and bedload transport, from local tributaries and by bank erosion. Sediment leaves the reach by
deposition on bars, diffuse overbank flow, by flow into floodplain channels leading to lakes and other
off-channel waterbodies, and by in-channel transport. They found that the magnitude of annual
sediment exchange between the river and floodplain typically exceeds the magnitude of downstream
annual sediment flux, often by a factor of nearly two. This result shows that sediment supply in the
channel can be dominated by interaction with the floodplain. It also suggests that the floodplain is
closely coupled to the channel system and thus is vulnerable to even subtle changes in channel
sediment transport capacity and supply caused by construction of dams upstream. For example,
reduction in sediment supply from upstream could lead to channel bed erosion and deepening of the
channel cross-section, which in turn would reduce the frequency and duration of overbank flooding
and limit sediment flux to the floodplain. Floodplain ecosystems would then experience a reduction
in the supply of vital nutrients carried by fine-grained suspended sediments. This process has been
documented by Ligon et al (1995) on the Oconee River in the southern United States.
Smith & Sidorchuk (1999) looked at the Ob, Yenisey and other large Siberian rivers that drain into
the Arctic Ocean. In these rivers, the timing of the annual ice break-up strongly influences the
duration and extent of floodplain inundation, and thus the rate of sediment delivery to the floodplain.
Compared with river water entering the floodplain, the water that drains from the floodplain wetlands
system has a much lower suspended sediment concentration and an elevated organic carbon content,
factors that are important for the coastal ecosystems of the arctic ocean. Rosales et al (1999) studied
the influence of river confluences on floodplain ecosystem diversity in two large tributaries of the
Orinoco River in Venezuela. They found a maximum in species diversity near tributary junctions that
they attribute in part to more active, and more temporally variable, sediment exchange between
channel and floodplain. Junctions are more dynamic because of differences in flood timing, flood
magnitude, sediment load and sediment grain size between the main stem and tributary channels.
Cumulative Impact Analysis

Cumulative impact analysis is an essential tool for understanding and predicting the impacts of dams
on large river basins. Unfortunately, little scholarly research been devoted to developing a theoretical
framework or practical methodologies for cumulative impact analysis. Cumulative impacts have been
defined in two different and useful ways. First, the indirect impacts which result from interaction of
direct impacts, originating with a single intervention in the river system, can be considered cumulative
impacts. For example, the reduction in sediment flux downstream of a dam could lead to channel bed
coarsening, while flow regulation by the same dam could result in the elimination of infrequent large
discharge events and lead to channel narrowing due to vegetation encroachment. The combined effect
of these two impacts may be sufficient to eliminate the spawning habitat for an endangered fish
species, although either impact taken alone may not have had any major effect. A second type of
cumulative impact results from the additive effects of multiple interventions in different places within
the river system. For example, cold water releases from a high dam combined with a large reduction
in suspended sediment flux downstream of a large volume storage dam on the same river, may result
in water too nutrient poor and cold to allow the spring bloom of algae, which form the base of the
aquatic food chain. The effects of either dam, taken individually, may not produce this result.
The cumulative impacts illustrated above result from the existence of thresholds and feedbacks within
river systems. Anticipating cumulative impacts involves more than the summing of individual
impacts. The relevant thresholds need to be identified and the state of the system relative to those
thresholds needs to be assessed. Cumulative impact analysis is difficult because it requires cross-
disciplinary interaction among experts who are usually trained in reductionist approaches to science.
Cumulative impacts are particularly important to assess in large rivers when a large number of dams
may be built within a single basin.
Annex 5: Large Dam Projects: Adverse Environmental

Impacts and Mitigation Options
(Source: World Bank Submission to WCD/Ledec et al. 1997/INS082)
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS MITIGATION OPTIONS

Flooding of Natural Habitats. Large Compensatory Protected Areas. To compensate for
reservoirs can permanently flood natural the loss of natural habitats to reservoir flooding or other
areas, with local and even global project components (such as borrow pits), one or more
extinctions of animal and plant species. protected areas can be established and managed under
Particularly hard-hit are riverine forests the project. If the compensatory area is protected “on
and other riparian ecosystems, which paper” only, a useful project option can be to strengthen
naturally occur only along rivers and its on-the-ground management. The area protected
streams. under the project should be ecologically similar to, and
no smaller than, the natural area lost to the project.
Hydroelectric and other projects should not be sited
where they would cause the significant conversion or
degradation of critical natural habitats that do not occur
elsewhere (and, hence, cannot be adequately
compensated).
Loss of Terrestrial Wildlife. An inherent Wildlife Rescue. Widely practised for public relations
consequence of the flooding of terrestrial purposes, the capture and relocation of wild animals
natural habitats, the drowning of wildlife during reservoir filling is usually of little or no
during reservoir filling, is often treated as conservation value. Instead of drowning, the “rescued”
a separate impact. animals typically starve, are killed by competitors or
predators, or fail to reproduce successfully, due to the
limited carrying capacity of their new habitats. The
money spent on rescue would usually do much more for
wildlife conservation if it were invested in
compensatory protected areas.
Downriver Hydrological Change. Major Management of Water Releases. Objectives to be

changes in downriver flows can destroy considered in optimising water releases from the turbines
riparian ecosystems dependent on periodic and spillways include adequate downriver water supply
natural flooding, exacerbate water pollution for riparian ecosystems, reservoir and downriver fish
during low-flow periods, and increase survival, reservoir and downriver water quality, aquatic
saltwater intrusion near river mouths. weed and disease vector (eg mosquito) control, irrigation
Reduced sediment and nutrient loads and other human uses of water, downriver flood
downriver of dams can increase river-edge protection, recreation, and power generation. From an
and coastal erosion and damage the ecological standpoint, the ideal water release pattern
biological and economic productivity of would usually closely mimic the natural flooding regime
rivers and estuaries. Induced desiccation of (although this may not be feasible for densely settled
rivers below dams (when the water is floodplains where flood protection is a high priority).
diverted to another portion of the river, or Environmental management plans for hydroelectric
to a different river) kills fish and other projects should specify environmental water releases, even
fauna and flora dependent on the river; it for dams owned or operated by the private sector.
can also damage agriculture and human
water supplies.
Water Quality Deterioration. Damming of Water pollution control measures (such as sewage
rivers can cause serious water quality treatment plants or enforcement of industrial
problems due to reduced oxygenation and regulations) may be needed to improve reservoir water
dilution of pollutants by relatively stagnant quality. Where poor water quality would result from the
reservoirs (compared to fast-flowing rivers), decay of flooded biomass, selective forest clearing
flooding of biomass (especially forests) and within the impoundment area should be completed
the resulting underwater decay, and/or before reservoir filling.
reservoir stratification (where deeper lake
waters lack oxygen).
Fish and Other Aquatic Life. Reservoirs Fish Management Measures. Management of water
can positively affect some fish species (and releases (see above) may be needed for the survival of
fisheries) by increasing the area of available certain fish species, in and below the reservoir. Fish
aquatic habitat. However, the net impacts passage facilities (fish ladders, elevators, or trap-and-
are often negative because (a) the dam truck stations) are intended to help migratory fish move
blocks upriver fish migrations, while upriver past a dam; they are usually of limited
downriver passage through turbines or over effectiveness for various reasons (including the difficulty
spillways is often unsuccessful, (b) many of ensuring safe downriver passage for many adults and
river-adapted fish and other aquatic species fry). Fish hatcheries can be useful for maintaining
cannot survive in reservoirs, (c) changes in populations of native species which can survive but not
downriver flow patterns adversely affect successfully reproduce within the reservoir. They are also
many species, and (d) water quality often used for stocking the reservoir with economically
deterioration in or below reservoirs (usually desired species, although introducing non-native fish is
low oxygen levels; sometimes gas often devastating to native species and not ecologically
supersaturation) kills fish and damages desirable. Fishing regulation is often essential to maintain
aquatic habitats. Freshwater molluscs, viable populations of commercially valuable species,
crustaceans, and other benthic organisms especially in the waters immediately below a dam where
are even more sensitive to these changes migratory fish species concentrate in high numbers and
than most fish species, due to their limited are unnaturally easy to catch.
mobility.
Floating Aquatic Vegetation. Floating Pollution control and preimpoundment selective forest
aquatic weeds can rapidly proliferate in clearing will make reservoir conditions less conducive
eutrophic reservoirs, causing problems to aquatic weed proliferation. Physical removal of
such as (a) degraded habitat for most floating aquatic weeds is effective, though an expensive
species of fish and other aquatic life, (b) recurrent cost for large reservoirs. Where compatible
improved breeding grounds for mosquitoes with other objectives (power generation, fish survival,
and other nuisance species and disease etc.), occasional drawdown of reservoir water levels
vectors, (c) impeded navigation and may be used to kill aquatic weeds. Chemical poisoning
swimming, (d) clogging of electro- of weeds or related insect pests requires much
mechanical equipment at dams, and (e) environmental caution and is usually best avoided.
increased water loss from some reservoirs.
Greenhouse Gases. While relatively small None, other than choosing reservoir sites which
reservoirs (which flood little or no forest) minimise the flooding of large tracts of land in general,
are essentially “carbon neutral,” larger and forests in particular. Although carbon releases
reservoirs can release significant quantities could be slightly reduced by thorough salvage of
of carbon dioxide and methane into the commercial timber, in practice this rarely happens
atmosphere, either slowly (as flooded because of (a) high extraction and transportation costs,
organic matter decomposes) or rapidly (if (b) marketing constraints, and (c) pressures to fill the
forest is cut and burned before reservoir reservoir quickly.
filling). These “greenhouse gases” are
strongly suspected of causing human-
induced climate change.
Reservoir Sedimentation. Over time, Watershed Management. To minimise reservoir

reservoir storage and power generation are sedimentation rates, it may be necessary (though often
reduced by sedimentation, such that much difficult) to control road construction, mining,
of a project’s hydroelectric energy may not agriculture, and other human activities in the watershed.
be renewable in the long term. Protected areas are sometimes established in upper
watersheds to reduce sediment flows into reservoirs.
Access Road Impacts. New access roads Careful Road Siting, Design, and Construction. Any
to hydroelectric dams can indirectly result new access roads should be sited in the environmentally
in major land use changes – particularly and socially least damaging corridors. Forests and other
deforestation – with resulting loss of environmentally sensitive areas along the chosen road
biodiversity, accelerated erosion, and other corridor should receive legal and on-the-ground
environmental problems. In some projects, protection. Environmental rules for contractors
the environmental impacts of access roads (including penalties for non-compliance) should cover
can greatly exceed those of the reservoir. proper drainage, construction camp siting, gravel
extraction, waste disposal, avoiding water pollution,
worker behaviour (such as no hunting), etc.
Transmission Line Impacts. Power line Siting of power lines should be in the environmentally,
corridors can directly reduce and fragment socially, and aesthetically least damaging corridors,
forests; indirectly, they occasionally with good environmental practices used during
facilitate further deforestation by construction (as with roads, above). In areas with
improving physical access. Large birds are concentrations of vulnerable bird species, the top
sometimes killed in collisions with power (grounding) wire should be made more visible by using
lines. Power lines can also be aesthetically special devices.
objectionable.
Quarries and Borrow Pits. Used to To the maximum extent feasible, quarries and borrow
provide material for construction of the pits should be sited within the future inundation
dam and other civil works, these pits can zone. Where this is not feasible, the pits should be
increase the area of natural habitats or rehabilitated after use, ideally for ecological purposes
agricultural lands that are lost to a (such as wetland habitats).
hydroelectric project.
Associated Development Projects. Environmental Planning and Mitigation. Major new

Hydroelectric projects often make possible irrigation, water supply, or industrial development
other projects with high environmental projects should be planned to minimise adverse
impacts, including irrigation and new environmental and social impacts. Environmental
residential or industrial development (due impact assessment studies should be carried out in the
to new water supplies). early stages of project planning; the resulting
environmental mitigation plans should be fully
implemented.
Additional Dams. The construction of the Cumulative Environmental Assessment. The

first dam on a river can make the environmental impact assessment study for the first
subsequent construction of additional dam on any river should include a cumulative
dams more economical, because flow assessment of the likely impacts of proposed additional
regulation by the upriver dam can enhance dams on the same river system. Implementation of
power generation at the downriver dam(s). mitigation measures for cumulative (rather than dam-
specific) environmental impacts should be well
underway prior to construction of the second dam on
the river.
Annex 6: Environmental Flow Requirements (EFR)

(Based on King et al. 1999)
The review commissioned by the WCD (Southern Waters 1999) examines whether scientific
knowledge is sufficiently advanced to permit development of guidelines on how much of the original
flow regime of a river should continue to flow in order to maintain specified valued features of the
riverine ecosystem. Such an assessment is usually linked to a proposed water-resource development
or river rehabilitation scheme, probably because interest and funds are focussed on that specific river
at that time; but an assessment of flow requirement may be done for any river at any time. It is used
to assess how much water could be abstracted from a river without an unacceptable level of
degradation of the riverine ecosystem or, for a highly modified river with much abstraction, how
much of its original flow should be reinstated in order to rehabilitate the ecosystem to some desired
condition. In the context of the wider river environment, neither of the historical terms, "instream flow
assessment" or "biophysical flow assessment", seem appropriate. The terminology assessment of
“environmental flow requirement” (EFR) is more all encompassing, and is adopted in this report.
EFRs have two main areas of focus: 1) the different flow regimes that would maintain a river
ecosystem at various levels of health (condition); and 2) the ways those different levels of river health
will affect people. The second area of focus can be subdivided in various ways: the people using the
river for sustenance versus all other stakeholders (regional, national and international); or similarly,
but not necessarily quite the same, the issues that can be costed (loss of resources, cost of
development) versus those that cannot (moral and ethical issues, legalities, intangible river values).
Each area of focus is addressed by different kinds of specialists. A comprehensive assessment of EFR
will employ them all, combining their inputs in a structured and transparent way.
A flow assessment produces one or more descriptions of possible future flow regimes for a river, each
linked to an objective which this achieves in terms of the condition or health of the riverine
ecosystem. Each possible future flow regime provides the environmental flow requirement for
achieving that objective. For instance, the requirement may be stated as simply as “a water depth of
at least 50 cm throughout the year, to provide adequate wetted habitat areas for fish species A”.
Alternatively, it may be described with much greater complexity, detailing a comprehensive flow
regime, with specified magnitudes, timing and duration of low flows and floods at both intra-annual
and inter-annual scales of variability, all designed to maintain fundamental functioning of all
ecosystem components (eg, fish, riparian trees, water chemistry) at a specified level of condition.
The linking of “condition” with “flow regime” indicates that rivers may be maintained in a range of
conditions. Rivers maintained close to natural require more of their natural flow regime than those for
which extensive modification is acceptable. Recognising this, the assessment and resulting EFR can
be viewed and used from two perspectives. First, the assessment can be made, and the flow
requirement stated, by any stakeholder group, in order to present in a negotiating forum their
aspirations for the river. Second, as other stakeholders may have different aspirations and thus
different EFRs for the river, compromises may be sought and agreed upon. In this situation, an
agreed compromise solution reflects the eventual EFR and condition for the river. If no compromise
can be agreed upon, a decision-maker would have to make a decision on the future river condition and
associated flow regime (EFR), and be accountable for that decision.
To assess EFRs, river scientists link valued features of the river to the amount of water required for
their maintenance. Such valued features could include a Red Data Book fish species threatened with
extinction, riparian forests, a harvestable resource, or sufficient water of a certain quality for a specific
use such as washing clothes or watering livestock. The links can be made at various levels of
complexity. The simplest level may be a desk-based study of the past and present hydrological
character of the river, linked to a review of any published literature on the riverine ecosystem,
providing a coarse calculation of the kinds of flow needed in a generic way to support riverine biotas.
The highest level of complexity may require an intensive, interdisciplinary, long-term study, with
extensive fieldwork, to enhance understanding of the nature and functioning of the river. These data
would be used to provide clear quantitative descriptions of the consequences for all ecosystem
components of different potential manipulations of the flow regime. Usually, the greater the
investment in the fieldwork and other specialist inputs, the higher the confidence in the output.
Measuring the success of an EFR is difficult because change takes place over such long distances and
time-spans, and also because changes that are not flow-related will also be occurring in the river. As
an example, if a channel is becoming narrower, it could be because an upstream dam has harnessed
scouring floods, or because alien trees have infested riverbanks and fallen into the water, or both. The
former situation is flow-related. The latter may not initially be flow-related, but due to disturbance of
the surrounding land, with this in turn allowing invasion into the riparian zone of shallow-rooted alien
vegetation with poor bank-stabilising abilities. This condition could then evolve into flow-related
degradation of the river as the invading trees would be more likely to collapse into the river during
floods than would native riparian ones, thus further destabilising banks. Similarly, the objective to
maintain a Red Data Book species within a river may fail despite a very favourable flow regime
simply because catchment activities caused deterioration of water quality in the river beyond that
which the species could tolerate. In these kinds of complex pictures – which are probably the norm –
it is not easy to assess the success of an EFR.
Post-development monitoring of river health is an integral part of the water-resource development,

especially if the assessment of the EFR is linked to a proposed re-structuring of releases from an
extant dam or intended to guide the control of run-of-river abstractions.
Four basic groups of methodology for assessment of EFRs are widely recognised: hydrological index
methodologies; hydraulic rating methodologies; habitat simulation methodologies; and holistic
methodologies. They are fully explained in Annex 2 of Southern Waters 1999. The evidence
presented in Annex 2, drawing from many countries, leads to the conclusion that environmental flows
are not a waste of water. They are working. Rivers are becoming "healthier"; more birds are
breeding, more fish are swimming, more wetlands are filling. The decline of many rivers and
wetlands has been slowed down in some areas, and time will tell if they have been turned around. But
generally speaking, the volumes being released fall far short of what is needed and many physical and
institutional and psychological hurdles of the type described in Chapter 4 remain.
All types of methodology, for all applications, however, have in common a considerable reliance on
professional judgement.
Annex 7: Example of Mitigation Measures

Mitigation, Enhancement and Compensation Measures Applicable on the Physical Environment: Water Quality (Presented by IEA 2000)
Impacts Measures Type Climatic Biome Effective- Comments Measures Measures

Zone ness applied proposed
Eutrophication of reservoir Mechanical removal of macrophytes and M TR-T F-S-W LE Measure that is simple to apply but requires on- ● 42, 104 ● 26
phytoplankton on the reservoir surface to limit going follow-up. Alone, it is not sufficient to achieve ◆ 128
eutrophication of the reservoir the objectives of limiting the eutrophication of the
reservoir. Must be applied in combination with
other measures, such as forced aeration, discharge
measurement, etc.
Mercury methylation Removal and controlled burning of vegetation M TR-T-C M-F E-LE This measure seems to effectively reduce the ● 42, 53 # 129
before impounding. decomposition of organic matter that results in ◆ 133
organic enrichment of reservoir waters. On the ✱ 2, 21, 101, 130,
other hand, it is often very expensive and its 131
secondary impacts on fishing are not negligible. # 129
Moreover, in tropical regions, cleared zones are
recolonized at a very high rate, often recreating
bush that is similar to that cut before impounding.
Gas saturation Modification of the exit of the tailrace canal to M T C E Meets intended objectives. ◆12
avoid oversaturation of water with gases ✱ 2, 16
Thermal shock Installation of water intakes at various levels in M T C E Simple mitigation measure that is easy to apply. It ◆ 128 # 129
the reservoir to mitigate the impact of thermal completely mitigates the impact of thermal shock ✱2
shock downstream of the reservoir. downstream of the dam. Should be planned as part # 129
of project planning.
Management of releases to reduce salinity of M TR W ND ● 26
waters feeding the diversion canal.
Saline intrusion Construction of protective dikes in the diversion M TR W NE This measure seems inadequate on its own. ● 38
canal to control inflows of salt water in an
estuary.
Sealing the diversion canal walls to reduce rise of M TR S-W ND ● 26
water table and risks of waterlogging and
salinization of surrounding land.
Transmission lines and energy transformation substations and refurbishing power stations
Measure Type Biome Effectiveness References as per climatic zones
M: mitigation, E: enhancement, C: compensation M: mountain, F: forest, S: savannah, W: wetland E: effective, LE: limited effectiveness, NE: non effective, ND: undetermined # general, $ (TR) tropical region, % (T) temperate, ✱ (C) cold region
This is a working paper prepared for the World Commission on Dams as part of its information gathering activities. The views, conclusions, and recommendations contained in the working paper are not to be taken to
represent the views of the Commission
Appendix I – List of Contributing Papers to Thematic Review II.1
Contributing Paper/ Synthesis Paper Writers Affiliation Contract co-

ordinator(s)/ funder
Molluscan Biodiversity and the Impact of M.B. Seddon National Museum & Galleries of Wales, IUCN/UNEP
Large Dams UK
The Influence of Dams on River Fisheries D. C. Jackson Mississippi State University, USA FAO/WCD
G. Marmulla Fisheries Department, FAO, U.N.
Ecosystem Impacts of Large Dams M.P. McCartney Institute of Hydrology, UK IUCN/UNEP
C. Sullivan Institute of Hydrology, UK
M.C. Acreman Institute of Hydrology, UK
Biodiversity Impacts of Large Dams D.E. McAllister Consultant on biodiversity IUCN/UNEP
J.Craig Consultant on Fish and Fisheries
N. Davidson Wetlands International
M. Seddon National Museum of Wales, UK
D.Murray OPIRG, Carleton University, UK
Large Dams and Freshwater Fish Biodiversity J.F.Craig Whiteside, Dunscore, UK FAO/WCD
Definition and Implementation of Instream J. King University of Cape Town, South Africa WCD
Flows R. Tharme University of Cape Town, South Africa
C. Brown University of Cape Town, South Africa
Information Needs for Appraisal and J. King University of Cape Town, South Africa WCD
Monitoring of Ecosystem Impacts C. Brown University of Cape Town, South Africa
Dams and Fish Migration M. Larinier Institut de Mecanique des Fluides, FAO/WCD
Toulouse
Biodiversity Impacts of Large Dams: N. Davidson Wetlands International IUCN/UNEP
Waterbirds S. Delany Wetlands International
Fundamental Legal and Ethical Principles In C. Di Leva IUCN Environmental Law Center, Bonn IUCN/UNEP
Adjudging the Merits of Development Projects
Managed Flood Releases from Reservoirs – A M.C. Acreman Institute of Hydrology, UK DFID
Review of Current Problems and Future E. Barbier University of York, UK
Prospects M. Birley University of Liverpool, UK
K. Campbell Natural Resources Institute
F. Farquharson Institute of Hydrology, UK
N. Hodgson Natural Resources Institute
J. Lazenby Gibb Ltd
M. McCartney Institute of Hydrology, UK
J. Morton Natural Resources Institute
D. Smith Natural Resources Institute
C. Sullivan Institute of Hydrology, UK
Report on the Conference on Hydrological L. Sklar University of California, Berkeley, USA WCD
and Geochemical Processes in Large Scale
River Basins, 15-19 November, 1999,
Manaus, Brazil
International Mechanisms for Avoiding, J. R. Bizer Independent Consultant IUCN/UNEP
Mitigating and Compensating The Impacts of
Large Dams on Aquatic and Related
Ecosystems and Species
Capacity and Information Base Requirements G. Bernacsek Fisheries and Environment Specialist FAO/WCD
for Effective Management of Fish
Biodiversity, Fish Stocks and Fisheries
Threatened or Affected by Dams During the
Project Cycle
Appendix II - Submissions for Thematic Review II.1

The WCD is committed to an open and consultative process. To broaden the scope for participation and input from all interested groups and
stakeholders the Commission invites submissions on all aspects related to its work programme. As they are received, submissions are classified
according to the area(s) of the work programme to which they are relevant. Therefore the submissions used here are those that have been identified as
applicable to the Thematic Review (II.1) on Dams, Ecosystem Functions, and Environmental Restoration.
Submissions arrive in parallel to the drafting process of the WCD’s reports. Those listed here are the 203 submissions specifically for TR II.1 which
were received by March 31, 2000. Note that submissions are listed alphabetically by author and are therefore not numbered sequentially.
Every submission has been read carefully. Some are informed individual perspectives on which the WCD can not mediate. For example, there are
some submissions that seek the endorsement of the WCD, and the WCD’s mandate is neither to adjudicate nor to mediate on specific dams or
disputes.
Therefore, the submissions received for Thematic Review II.1 have been used as background information. Many have been cited as references
throughout the text. Others have been used as part of a text box to illustrate a point. All submissions have informed the WCD as to the different
positions on the dams debate. A few submissions only included an abstract or an outline for a presentation at one of the consultations with
insufficient detail to be included.
Author Serial Title

Abbueid, Abdalla M ENV099 Water Aquifers in Palestine
Adil, M Ali ENV104 El Girba Dam and its Environmental Effects
Agarwal, A ENV012 Private Power: Maheshwar Project in Narmada Valley
Anand, A ENV040 Appeal Against Installation of the Barge Mounted Hydroelectric Project Proposed to be set up in Tadadi, Kumta
Taluk, Uttara Kannada District
Anane, Mike ENV100 Ghana's Proposed Bui Dam to Cause Havoc: 150 Endangered Hippos in and National Park in Danger
Anastacio Afonso Juras ENV065 Fishing studies on Tucurui Dam
Angelucci, Carlo ENV197 Comments from ITCOLD
Armando Llop, Maria Valeria Mendoza ENV058 Assessing the Environmental Impact of Large Dams on the Agricultural Sector in Southern Mendoza, Argentina
Ashish Kothari and Rahul N. Ram ENV132 Environmental aspects of the Sardar Sarovar Project
Baird, Ian B ENV154 Indigenous fish, Artisanal Fisheries and the Cycles of the Mekong River in Southern Lao PDR
Bakhsh, H; Ghaffar, A; Sario, P ENV046 Stop Damming the Indus
Bank, Robert ENV179 Comments on Pine River Dam
This is a working paper prepared for the World Commission on Dams as part of its information gathering activities. The views, conclusions, and recommendations contained in the working paper are not to
be taken to represent the views of the Commission
Author Serial Title

Bank, Robert ENV180 Kangaroo Rat & Seven Oaks Dam
Bansuri Taneja ENV128 Restoration of Rivers : Lessons From Environmental Recovery and Restoration in Northwest India
Barnard, Bob ENV213 Information on Mitigation on Dams
Belanger, Robert ENV212 Environmental Mitigation Measures on Dams
Bell, JE, Gilkes, PW and Millmore, JP ENV036 The Roadford Scheme: Planning, Reservoir Construction and the Environment
Billore, R. ENV004 Narmada Sagar: A Case for Review
Binnie, Chris ENV052 Ghazi-Barotha HydroPower Project: Environmental Assessment
Binnie, Chris ENV172 Various Comments
Birley,M ENV044 Comment of Impacts Table
Bozek, Jacek ENV228 Cascade Punch for the Vistula
Braga, Maria Isabel ENV171 Integrating Freshwater Ecosystem Function & Services with Water Development Projects
Bridle, Rodney ENV166 The Benefits of Dams to British Society
Bridle, Rodney ENV190 Environmental mitigation at Pollan Dam-Design and construction implications
Bridle, Rodney ENV191 Roadford Lake-Leisure Development
Bridle, Rodney ENV192 Roadford Reservoir-enhanced flows, fisheries and hydroelectric power generation
Bridle, Rodney ENV193 Maximizing the ecological benefit of a new small reservoir
Bridle, Rodney ENV194 Environmental assessment-legislation and planning requirements within the European framework
Bridle, Rodney ENV195 Reservoir, environment and private sector
Brink, Elizabeth ENV054 Dam Removal and Sedimentation
Brink, Elizabeth ENV130 Cumulative effects of Dams - a resource file
Brink, Elizabeth ENV131 Changes in the habitat and fish community of the Milwaukee River, Wisconsin, following removal of the Woollen
Mills Dam
Broome, Kenneth ENV185 Alternatives of small dams
Canese, Ricardo ENV074 Preliminary profile of Water Resources Management of Parana River Project
Cappato, J ENV030 Declaration of San Jose, Costa Rica on Dams and Wetlands
Casinader, Ranji ENV200 Note on Environmental & Social mitigation mechanisms in planning design & construction
Author Serial Title

Chang Cheng-Yang ENV150 The Meinung Dam: Eleven Major Concerns
Chang, Cheng-Yang ENV084 Experiences from Meinung Dam, KaoPing River, Taiwan
Choudhury, GA ENV019 Experiences with Large Dams in Bangladesh
Comision Nacional Del Agua ENV094 Los Consejos De Cuenca En Mexico Definiciones Y Alcances
Cooke, Sanjiva & Joffe, Steen ENV057 Management of the Water Hyacinth and Other Invasive Aquatic Weeds: Issue For the World Bank
Cruz, Marcos Orellana ENV225 Failed Mitigation and Compensation Schemes in dam Construction: The Pehuen Foundation in the Pangue/Ralco
Project in the Alto BioBio
Datye, K R ENV221 Biomass Strategy and a Scenario for 2025
Dave, JM. ENV005 Environmental Issues related to Large Dams and Alternatives
David Kiell ENV202 Mitigation and Compensation Measures/Programs at Hydroelectric Developments-Newfoundland and Labrador
Hydro
De Alwis, D ENV020 Balancing Integrated Rural Development with Environmental Conservation around Reservoirs
Delaunay, Alexis ENV189 Effacement du Barrage de Maisons Rouges
Delio,Julio & Bacchiega, Jorge & Fattor, ENV116 Massive death of fishes by supersaturation of total dissolved gases: the case of Yacyreta Dam
Claudio
Department of Landscape Planning- Swedish ENV214 Review of Environmental Mitigation and Compensation Measures in Sida Financed Hydropower Projects
University of Agricultural Sciences
Desarda; HM ENV016 Toward Sustainable Water and Energy Resource Development

DFID-Mott Mcdonald ENV203 Mitigating Large Dams
Dietrich, William ENV082 Impacts of dams on River geomorphology
Dr J.D. Cadman ENV061 The Environmental Aspects of Six Hydro Reservoirs in the Amazon Basin
Dr Kefialew Abate ENV103 Large Dams and Sustainable Development in Africa: An Overview
DSI -Turkey ENV142 Archaeological Investigations of Illisu Dam, Turkey
E.A.K. Kalitsi ENV101 Dams and Ecosystems: Assessing and Managing Environmental Impacts (Ghana's Experience)
Earthlife Africa ENV091 Water Demand Management in tha Mgeni River Catchment - Kwazulu Natal
English, Graham ENV205 Environmental Mitigation Measures-Shongweni Dam
Author Serial Title

European Rivers Network - for living rivers- ENV144 Information on Dam Construction in a Russian National park on the Belaya River
(ERN)
Fearnside, Philip M. ENV059 Publications on Human Carrying Capacity, Agroecosystems, Deforestation, and Development Planning in
Brazilian Amazonia
Fearnside, PM ENV034 China's Three Gorges Dam: "Fatal" Project or Step Toward Modernisation?
Fernando Esquivel Rafael Galo ENV069 The Pacuare Dams
Fernando Francis ENV064 The Corumba Hydroelectric Plant and the Geothermal Resources of Caldas Novas
Fick, Loraine ENV199 Skuifraam Dam: Outlet Works-DWAF Discussion Report
Fields, Daryl ENV231 BC Hydro Environmental Measures
Flaim, Sam ENV167
Flaim, Sam ENV168 Optimal Provision of Hydroelectric Power Under Env & Regulatory Constraints
Flanders, Doug ENV219 Effectiveness of Fishways and Fish lifts in Queensland
Fone, Doug ENV226 Environmental Mitigation Measures for Dams
Franzin, R ENV053 The Piave River: A Case of Contested Waters
Friederich, Hans ENV148 The Biodiversity of the Wetlands in the Lower Mekong Basin
Fujita, Rodney M. ENV090 Thematic Review Submission on Ecological Indicators for Monitoring Ecosystem health
Fujita, Rodney M. ENV095 Essential Ecological Indicators for the San Francisco Bay-Delta-River System
Fujita, Rodney M. ENV096 Conceptual Framework for Indicator Development: Development of key Ecological Attributes for the San
Francisco bay-Delta Watershed
Gabriela Fried1 ENV079 Swiss Federal Institution for Environmental Science and technology (EAWAG)
Getzen, Beverly ENV176 Information Paper: Lower Snake River Fish & Wildlife Compensation Plan
Ghimire, DJ ENV018 Environmental Monitoring of the Construction of the Upper Bhotekoshi Project
Ghosh, A ENV008 Water & Power: A People-Centric Development Alternative
Giancarlo Fanelli ENV140 Dams and the Environment
Gornitz, Vivien ENV050 Effects of anthropogenic intervention in the land hydrologic cycle on global sea level rise
Gracia, CL ENV022 Biscarrues Dam Project. Gallego River. Ebro Basin. SPAIN
Author Serial Title

Gracia, CL ENV023 Santaliestra Dam Paroject, Esera River, Ebro Basin, Spain
Gracia, CL ENV024 Itoiz Dam Project. Irati River. Ebro Basin.
Gracia, CL ENV025 Valle del Genal Dam Project. General River. Sur Basin
Gracia, CL ENV026 Hozgarganta Dam Project. Hozgarganta River. Sur Basin
Gracia, CL ENV027 Lechago Dam Project. Pancrudo River. Ebro Basin
Gracia, CL ENV047 Melonares Dam Project. Viar River. Guadalquivir Basin (Spain)
Grethel Aguilar Rojas ENV070 Impact assessment and hydroelectric dams in Central America. A legal perspective
Groupe Caisse Francaise De Developpement ENV093 Urban and Periurban Water Supply and Sanitation
Groupe Caisse Francaise De Developpement ENV117 Water Supply in Villages and Small Towns
Groupe Caisse Francaise De Developpement ENV118 Hydro-electricity
Groupe Caisse Francaise De Developpement ENV119 Irrigation and Livestock Water Supply
Guha, SK. ENV002 Earthquakes Induced Following Impoundment
Gujja, Biksham ENV224 Dams: Impact on River's Life
Gujja, Biksham & Hunziker, Diwata Olalia ENV230 The Impact of Dams on Life in Rivers
Hagenbucher, Thomas ENV198 Mitigation in three projects
Hamerlynck, Olivier ENV164 The Diawling National Park, Mauritania: conflict and development around a newly established…
Harris, Garth ENV163
Hloele, Thabo ENV215 LHWP- Mitigation and Compensation Measures
Hori, Hiroshi ENV147 Recommendation for the Study of Development and the Environment in the Lower Mekong Basin
Horowitz, Michael M ENV159 Environment and Society in the Lower Mekong Basin
hydro-Quebec & GDG CONSEIL inc ENV051 Biodiversity and Hydroelectricity: World outlook and Quebec Context
ICOLD ENV141 Benefits of and Concerns about Dams: The Italian Case: Case Studies, Antalya, Turkey, 1999.
Infrastructure Development Insitute- Japan ENV143 Rivers in Japan '98
International Network on Small Hydro Power ENV208 Environmental Mitigation Measures for Dams
Iriyagolle, G ENV039 Curse of Large Dams- The Sri-Lankan Experience- A Compilation on the Mahaweli Master Plan
Author Serial Title

ITAIPU Binacional ENV076 Itaipu and the Environment
Jacques de Boissezon ENV106 Pour un gestiondes plans d'eau naturels et artificiels respectue
Jobin, William ENV181 Various examples
John L. Mckern ENV137 Improving Salmon Passage: Draft: The Lower Snake River Juvenile Salmon Migration Feasibility Report/
Environmental Impact Statement
Jose Antonio Ribeiro ENV111 Flavio Nenflidio Carvalho
Jose Roberto Fontes Castro ENV075 Statement on Pilar dam project, Minas Gerais State, Brazil
Kallar Protection Group ENV014 The Vamanapuram Irrigation Project
Karim S Numayr ENV102 Sedimentation and Water Quality Problems at the King Talal Reservior
Karmacharya, Janak ENV178 General Comments
Karpowicz, Charles ENV211 Highlights of NPS Dams Program Report to Congress for 98-99
Kataoka, N ENV031 The Nagara River Estuary Dam
Kato, Akira ENV222 The Environment at Dams
Kettab, A & Remini, B ENV048 Reservoir Sedimentation in Meghreb's Dams
Khwaja, Aslam ENV045 Some Aspects of Opposing Kalabagh Dam
Kim, Young-Sook ENV158 Balance Destruction of Tides by Blocking the Flow- Hagu Dam Naktong River
Kondolf, G Mathias ENV085 Dams and Ecosytems, Regarding the Impacts of Dams on River Geomorphology, and the Feasibility of
Restoration Strategies
Kondolf, G. Mathias ENV088 Thematic Review on Dams and Ecosystems, regarding the impacts of dams on river geomorphology, and the
feasibility of restoration strategies
Kulkarni, P. ENV003 Sharavathy Tail Race Project: Yet Another Monument of Destruction
Larsen, Thrond Berge ENV165 Norwegian Hydro Power Resources: Use, Management & Planning
Lawson, JD; Sambrook, HT; Solomon, JD and ENV037 The Roadford Scheme: Minimising the Environmental Impact on Affected Catchments.
Weilding, G
Le, Dien Duc ENV156 Dam - An Unsustainable Way of Development
Lemaire, Bernard ENV183 Protected Areas & Dams: The case of the Senegal River Delta
Lemaire, Bernard ENV184 La voie fonciere et administrative an appui a la voie ecologique et agricole pour une gestion decent
Author Serial Title

Lovgren, Lars ENV136 Moratorium in Sweden: An account of the dams debate
Mahoney, James ENV182 Specific examples from China & Venezuela
Manning, Ian ENV173 Comments from own experience
Marcus Aurelius Minervino ENV066 Integrated management of landed-based activities in the Sao Francisco River basin: Phase I
Marcus Aurelius Minervino ENV068 Integrated management of landed-based activities in the Sao Francisco River basin: Phase I
Marwa Doudy ENV108 The Development of the Euphrates & Tigris Basins: An Assessment of Upstream Development (Turkey) on
Downstream Riparians (Syria)
Matola, S ENV001 Pristine Belize Habitat under Serious Threat
McCully, P ENV033 Why Ecological Knowledge is Ignored in Dam Planning
Mediwake, LW ENV017 Negative Effects of Victoria Dam Project
Mehta, MB ENV006 Environmental Impacts & Issues of Large Dams & the Alternatives
Micceslau Kudlavicz ENV063 Porto Primavera Dam in Rio Parana
Mieceslau Kudlavicz ENV129 Relato: Barragem de Porto Primavera no Rio Parana
Ministry of Construction-Japan ENV145 MIYAGASE: Affluent in Nature Forever
Mishra, G and Singh, TP ENV041 Dams in North Bihar
Mitchell, Thomas ENV187 Customized response from US Bureau of Reclamation
Mitchell, Thomas ENV188 Native American Indian rural water systems required because of impacts to Missouri River lands
Moores, Nial ENV157 Estuarine Dams: Declining Waterfowl Populations and Diversity in the Nakdong Estuary, South Korea
Mora, Dennis ENV223 Plan de Mejoramiento Ambiental de la Parte Alta de la Cuenca del Rio Virilla
Mosley, JG ENV028 Why lake Pedder should be Restored
Mosley, JG ENV029 How Lake Pedder can be Restored
Mothepu, Mahlape ENV175 Env Mitigation Measures for Dams: The Lesotho Highlands Water Project Experience
Nature Conservation Council of NSW ENV049 Dams, Ecosystem Functions and Environmental Restoration
Neuhauser, C ENV186 Special Conditions from Construction Contract
Nicolaas van Zalinge, Nao Thuok & Sam Nuov ENV151 Cambodia's Inland Fisheries and the Dams of the Mekong Basin
Nuttall, Peter ENV196 Leading Edge Approach to Instream Flow Requirements for the Lesotho Highlands Water Project
Author Serial Title

Nyoman, I & Suryadiputra, N ENV153 Biodiversity and Water Quality of the Ciujun Ciliman River Basin, West Java- Indonesia
Onta, I R ENV209 Environmental Mitigation Measures for Dams
Owen, Philip ENV109 Tree Plantations and Water in South Africa
Potnis; VD ENV009 Impact on Narmada River Ecosystem of Namada Valley Project (NVDA): Limnological Issues & Aspects
Prescott, John P ENV210 World Commission on Dams Survey
Prof. Emmanuel Obot ENV098 Large Dams, Biodiversity and Local Livelihood: A summary of Experience from 3 dams, Kainji, Jebba and
Shihoro in Northern Nigeria
Purdom, Roger ENV161 Mitigation in Columbia River
Rafael Bastos ENV067 The question of water in the evaluation of environmental impacts of dam construction
Rivero, Cristina ENV177 General comments
Robert Belanger, P.Eng. ENV139 Dam Monitoring and Instrumentation
Rodomiro Ortiz ENV092 Potential for Improving Agricultural Production through Biotechnology in the Semi-Arid Tropics
Rofe, BH ENV038 Reservoirs: An Environmental Gain
Ron Gee ENV201 Yukon Energy Corporation's response to the WCD's request on information on environmental mitigation
Rozengurt, Michael ENV152 Controversial Influence of Impounded Large Rivers on their Delta-Estuary-Coastal Ecosystems
Rudkowski, Clarice Blake ENV056 My River, My Home
Sale, M J et al ENV206 Environmental Mitigation at Hydroelectric Projects. Volume 1: Current Practices for Instream Flow Needs,
Dissolved Oxygen and Fish Passage
Sasidharan; M ENV011 Large Dams and Alternatives: A Perspective View
Saunders, Rob ENV162 Mitigation & Small Dams
Shaojun Xiong ENV149 Fragmentation and Flow Regulation of the Large Rivers in China and South East Asia
Siazo, Mugiel ENV207 Environmental Mitigation Measures for Dams
Singh, Arun ENV133 A Seismo-Tectonic Framework of the Narmada Valley and its Implications for the Sardar Sarova Project
Singh, Arun ENV135 Manasiwakal Project
Siwakoti, Gopal ENV081
Smith, Brian D ENV227 Downstream Effects on Biodiversity of a Planned High Dam in the Karnali River, Nepal
Author Serial Title

Smith, Richard ENV174 General comments
Sonia Santos Baumgratz, Environmental ENV071 Environmental management of the Guilman-Amorim HHP, located in Minas Gerais, Brazil (Doce river basin)
Control Plan Coordinator
Stuart Blanche ENV204 Environmental Flows: Present and Future
Sullivan, Dr. Caroline ENV089 The Economic Impact of Changes in River Profiles. Upstream impacts
Tabeth Chiuta ENV105 Vision for Water and Nature: Link with Environmental Issues of Dams
Takehiro Nakamura et al ENV107 Implication of Dams on the Freshwater and Coastal Environment and its Resources
Taylor, Richard ENV087 Research needs for water quality issues relating to hydro reservoirs
The Common Wealth ENV216 Salinity and Drainage Strategy- Ten Years On
The Common Wealth ENV218 The Salinity Audit of the Murray Darling Basin: A 100 Year Perspective
Toyishiki Adachi ENV146 Conserving a Valuable Resource in Harmony with the Environment (Video Tape)
Truffer, Bernhard ENV169
Truffer, Bernhard ENV170
Visvanathan; N ENV010 Impacts of Construction of Large Dams: A Case Study
Vladut, T ENV007 Specific Environmental Issues of Dams
Vladut, T ENV042 Seismicity Concerns
Vladut, T ENV043 Response to Martin Birley's Comment
Vu, Van Tuan ENV155 Some Preliminary Assessments of the Influences of Hoabinh Dam/Reservoir on Environment
Waage, Jeff ENV097 Alien Invasive Waterweeds- A Threat to Dams and Water Resources in Developing Countries
Walker, Glen, Gilfedder, Mat & Williams, John ENV217 Effectiveness of Current Farming Systems in the Control of Dryland Salinity
Wegner, David L ENV086 Submission to the World Commission on Dams' Thematic Review On Dam and Ecosystems, regarding the
Impacts of Dams on ecosystem sustainability and integrity
Williams, Philip[ B. ENV160 Reviving Living Rivers
WWF-Australia ENV220 The Ecological Effects of Large Dams in Australia: A review of literature
Yong-Woon, M ENV032 Tong River Preservation Campaign
Author Serial Title

Young, Terry & Fujita, Rod ENV055 How Healthy is Our Estuary? 13 Essential Indicators Tell All
Countries from which Submissions were Received for TR II.1
Country Total Country Total Country Total Country Total Country Total
Argentina 2 Costa Rica 4 Lesotho 3 Peru 1 Syria 1
Australia 10 France 4 Malaysia 1 Poland 1 Taiwan 2
Bangladesh 2 Ghana 2 Mauritania 1 Russia 1 Thailand 3
Belize 1 India 20 Mexico 1 Senegal 2 Turkey 1
Blank 15 Indonesia 1 Nepal 4 South Africa 4 UK 17
Brazil 13 Italy 4 Nigeria 1 South Korea 1 USA 23
Cambodia 1 Japan 5 North Africa 1 Spain 7 Vietnam 2
Canada 10 Jordan 1 Norway 1 Sri Lanka 3 W. Africa 1
Chile 1 Kenya 3 Pakistan 3 Sudan 1 Zimbabwe 1
China 4 Korea 2 Palestine 1 Sweden 2
Colombia 1 Lao PDR 2 Paraguay 1 Switzerland 5
Appendix III – Comments Received for Thematic Review II.1

Dams, Ecosystem Functions & Environmental Restoration
The WCD is committed to an open and consultative process. To broaden the scope for participation
and input from interested groups and stakeholders, the Commission invited specialists, centers of
excellence and WCD Forum members to prepare comments on the thematic drafts. Comments were
received throughout the progression of the thematic review. The comments were incorporated to the
extent possible into subsequent drafts of the thematic.
Every comment has been read carefully. Some are informed individual perspectives on which the
WCD can not mediate. For example, there are some comments that seek the endorsement of the
WCD, and the WCD’s mandate is neither to adjudicate nor to mediate on specific dams or disputes.
Others may go beyond the scope of the individual thematic review.
Please note that section numbers referred to in individual commentaries will have changed in the final
version of the report.
I: Comments on Circulation Draft of March 2000

a) Guy Lanza Director, Environmental Sciences Program, University of
Massachusetts, Amherst, USA
b) Wulf Klohn Food and Agriculture Organization
c) Himanshu Thakkar South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers and People
d) Ikuko Morishita Institute of Freshwater Biology, Osaka, Japan
e) Montri SuwanmontriEnvironmental Division, Electricity Generating Authority of
Thailand
f) Patrick McCully & International Rivers Network, USA
collaborators
g) Yogi Carolsfeld Research Director, World Fisheries Trust, Canada
h) Gaetan Guertin ICOLD, Chairman of the environment committee
i) Goran Ek & Swedish Society for Nature Conservation
Collaborators
j) Henk Saeijs Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management,
The Netherlands
k) Martin Perusse Senior Advisor - Environmental Issues Hydro Quebec, Canada
l) Robert Dobias Asian Development Bank, Philippines
m) Stuart Blanch Coordinator of the Inland Rivers Network, Australia
n) Musonda Mumba Programme Officer, Freshwater Programme, WWF lnternational
o) Tor Ziegler & Hans World Bank
Olav Ibrekk
p) Takehiro Nakamura United Nations Environment Programme
a) Comments by Guy Lanza

I recently received a draft of the WCD Thematic Review "Dams, Ecosystem Functions, and
Environmental Restorations." The draft manuscript indicates that it "presents a synthesis of knowledge
on the environmental impacts of large dams and incorporates inputs (reports and submissions)
received by the WCD." I assume that statement refers to the selected and limited knowledge provided
by " a series of reports commissioned directly by WCD, and through a co-operative agreement with
UNEP." I would like to offer the following brief comments on the report:
(1) In spite of the fact that the conclusions of the draft report clearly indicate that most impacts from
dam construction have negative effects on ecosystems (Page 80), the recommendations clearly favour
a policy of continued global dam construction.
(2) The increasing appropriation of water resources by large scale engineering schemes, including
dams and their impoundments, represents a major threat to global water supplies and biodiversity. At
a time when we desperately need a new paradigm of global water resource use premised on the
conservation of water resources, water quality, and biodiversity in natural ecosystem settings, the
WCD draft recommendations emphasise a policy to 'build better dams' and future fragment the already
abused and fragile global hydrological cycle.
(3) Although tropical terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems represent only 26 percent of the land
surface of the globe, they generate almost 60 percent of the world's essential primary productivity, and
support two-thirds of the identified species of vascular plants and more than two-thirds of the planet's
total biodiversity. The severe damage to ecosystems from dam construction and operation , much of it
irreversible, is well-documented and well-understood. And, the history of damage is clearly stated in
many sections of the report body and in the report conclusions.
I find the lack of correspondence between the report conclusions and the report recommendations to
be a very serious flaw. If one of the main purposes of the theme report is - - "To identify good
practices (including tools, methodologies and procedures) and options that could improve the
decision-making process within the broader context of sustainable management of water and energy
resources." -- then the report falls far short of being a useful document.
b) Comments by Wulf Klohn

Comments:
The WCD Dams and Ecosystem Functions document provides a very good and timely introduction to
the many aspects of IWRM regarding biological functions of the aquatic environment. The difficulty
of the IWRM is highlighted by the fact, stated in the draft report, that to this date perhaps only 10% of
all living organisms have been scientifically described. Progress in describing and understanding the
workings of the ecosystems into which human activity is embedded is slow, also because science does
not offer an attractive career for young people. At a time when major and irreversible human-induced
changes are taking place, engineers and other practitioners have a duty to apply the precautionary
principle and not to dismiss the dangers involved in taking decisions that have largely unknown
consequences. I would recommend this report for reading to all colleagues. Comments to WCD can
be brief and commendatory - good progress is being achieved.
c) Comments by Himanshu Thakkar

1. This is, unlike many other WCD papers, remarkably open paper and inclusive of all perspectives
on large dams and their impact on ecosystems. The authors of the paper and WCD deserve to be
congratulated for this excellent paper.
2. Some of the areas that the paper has neglected include: impacts of irrigation (brought about by
dams) in command areas of irrigation projects (Only page 44 it is mentioned that "The impact of
the irrigation infrastructure can in some cases be as great as the dam".), the impact on
environment, people and communities due to submergence of lands, forests and rivers, brought
about by dams (this is supposed to be looked at by other papers, but this paper needs to mention
them), the impact of downstream impacts on people and communities, issue if dams are
sustainable solutions for water and energy needs, the health impacts of dams in all its dimensions
and seismologic & the geo-hydrological issues. It is true that some of these impacts are to be
looked into by other papers, but still a paper that looks at the Ecosystem impacts in its entirety
would be expected to make a comprehensive statement on impacts of large dams. Many of the
issues described here should be in table 3.3 (page 15), but are absent. Similarly, while
summarising the impacts of dams on ecosystems on page 46, impacts like loss of forests, lands
and rivers due to submergence, irrigation impacts of dams, etc. may also be mentioned. That
irrigation canals can have very serious negative environmental impacts is well known.
3. One other area that such a paper would be expected to look into would be the issue of basin wide
management issues. Many of the justifications of dams emanate from improper management of
river basins. And hence solution to many of the problems would not be dams, as posed by
supporters of dams, but proper management at basin wide level. (This again, it would be said, is to
be looked into by other papers, but a paper looking at ecosystems impacts of dams in its entirety
would be expected to state this.) One example is the issue of floods. Dams are proposed as flood
control options in many cases. But many times the flood result due to improper ecosystem
management. Hence, solution would not be dams, but proper management of ecosystems. This
issue should be a part of the ecosystem paper.
4. One issue that needs to be clearly brought about is that the poorest people are worst affected (and
many times the only people so affected) by ecosystems degradation as their livelihood, most of the
times, directly depends on ecosystems. This is particularly so in countries like India, where
inequities and poverty is much more wide spread. Thus, preservation of ecosystems should be of
that much more importance in such countries, not only for the reasons stated in the paper but also
because the degradation will have greatest impact on the poor people.
5. Thus, on page 80, first para of chapter 7, it should be mentioned that poorest people are most
affected by dams.
6. The statement on page 24 that "As hydropower represents the cheapest and most easily activated
form of peaking power…." needs qualifications as hydropower is seen to be cheapest only when
crucial costs are not included in the cost calculations.
7. The statement on page 23 in section 3.6.1.1 that "In general discharge control resulting from the
damming of rivers reduces flow variability downstream from the dam" is not always correct. The
dams that divert water away from the river or its basin could in fact increase flow variability.
Moreover, this is true only when dams are operated for the purpose of maintaining uniform or
minimum flows downstream of rivers. But most dams are not operated for this purpose.
8. The next statement on page 23-24 that "Although for major floodplain rivers, dams may increase
flood peaks it is normally the case that the magnitude and timing of flood peaks is reduced" is also
not always correct. The magnitude of flood peaks may be reduced till a certain magnitude of flows
(this will depend on available storage capacity and reservoir operation rules) beyond which floods
cannot be moderated. In other cases, the floods downstream may actually increase due to wrong
operation of dams. As far as duration of floods are concerned, there are cases (e.g. Hirakud dam in
Orissa and Damodar dams in Bihar-Bengal in India, some of the few dams in India that had flood
control as one of the objectives) where both duration and frequency of floods have increased.
9. Estuarine impacts discussed briefly on page 33-34 needs elaboration as they can be quite serious.
For example, in case of upcoming Sardar Sarovar Project on Narmada river in western India, the
dam is to totally cut off the non monsoon (8 months in a year) flows downstream of the dam (there
is zero provision for downstream releases), seriously affecting the rich estuarine fisheries, most
likely, destroying it completely. The estuarine fish production here is in access of 12,000 tons per
annum, most of it comprising of species Hilsa and Tiger prawns, both commercial varieties with
rich returns. But the over 10,000 fisherfolk families who depend on fisheries here have no idea
(they have not been told anything about the dam) about how a dam is going to snatch away the
livelihoods from them.
10. One of the conclusions of chapter 3, mentioned on page 45 that, "There is therefore no normative
or standard approach to address ecosystem impacts and these have to be looked at on a case by
case basis" could be a bit problematic and could be conveniently interpreted by dam supporting
perspective. The statement may be qualified.
11. On page 47, while discussing valuation of ecosystems, the issue of valuation of livelihood losses
may also be discussed. What price to put on livelihoods lost in situations where alternative
livelihoods are just not available? Similarly, the issue of cultural values, particularly for tribal
(indigenous) communities.
12. It would be useful to know the source of statement on page 52 where it is said, "Nepal is also
currently devising a national policy which involves set aside of particular river basins, or portions
thereof, from hydropower development".
13. The statement on page 54 that, "This latter method has the added advantage of renewing the
sediment load to the downstream channel….". It may be clarified how this is an advantage.
14. On page 58, at the end of section 5.2 (Decommissioning and Restoration), it may be mentioned
that what will be the fate of dam after its (finite) useful life gets over. Decommissioning costs and
options should be part of dam proposals. This is even more relevant when paper notes that in
many cases, decommissioning may not be viable option.
15. The Socio-economic impacts of dams mentioned in table 5.1 on page 63 should also include the
impacts on upstream areas and in command areas.
16. Among the capacity constraints mentioned in section 5.3.2 on page 64, it may be mentioned that
absence of existence of an institute for planning, monitoring and regulation and absence adequate
legal system and civil society could be serious constraints.
17. While discussing "Why Mitigation can Fail" in section 5.3.3 on page 64, it may be mentioned that
non dam options may not have been looked into even when they are known to exist. This may be
due to lack of transparent, accountable institutional back up.
18. On page 65 it is stated (under "Adequate legal framework and compliance mechanisms") that "the
contractual arrangement with the donor is the major means for ensuring compliance". But it needs
to be noted that in absence of transparent, accountable system of compliance, this arrangement has
generally not succeeded.
19. Regarding box on "Indicators of Ecological Integrity" on page 68, there is need for elaboration,
particularly about the results of various steps mentioned, before this can be a convincing tool for
Environmentally sound management of water resources.
20. The trends in international debate/ approach to dams described in chapter six is quite inadequate.
The chapter gives elaborate space to the trends in IEA, ICOLD, World Bank, OECD and
international conventions. But it does not adequately describe the moving force behind these
trends, that is the movements world over that has questioned dam centric, engineering centric
water resource development and have shown directions to alternatives. Due to this serious
inadequacy, the chapter reaches a conclusion that "Therefore efforts to deal with environmental
impacts of dams should concentrate on developing legitimate and accepted processes for dam
planning, design and management within a river basin context. Secondly, much effort could be
invested in improving the economic tools for analysis and improving incentives for better dam
design and operation". This is very inadequate and inappropriate conclusion at the end of and due
to an incomplete narration and analysis of trends.
21. On page 80, para 3, it is stated that, "there is today, widespread, but not complete, agreement as to
the reality and importance of these impacts and their costs". It may as well be noted that this
"agreement" has actually translated little into agreed/ compatible actions. Two paragraphs later, it
is stated, "While there is experience of good mitigation….". Here the word experience may be
qualified by words such as: "some limited".
22. On page 81, at the end of para 7.2(2) it may be noted that credible, independent (of developers)
and transparent assessment of impacts on biodiversity is first important step for this to succeed.
23. It should be mentioned in para 7.2 (3) on page 81 that the precautionary approach mentioned there
should also be applied to ongoing and past projects (for their operation and decommissioning).
24. In para 7.2 (5) on page 82 it should be mentioned that participation of local communities is
essential for this recommendation to succeed.
25. Among the measures to strengthen enforcement mentioned in para 7.2 (7) on page 82, transparent
and participatory processes should also be mentioned.
26. In table 7.1, page 84, point 5, second bullet in right hand side column, it may be added that "if
necessary, change operation of dams for this". In fifth bullet here, it may be added after "Ensure
every dam" that "(including ongoing and existing dams)". Same words also need to be added
before "lifetime" in last bullet of this point.
27. In Annex 3.2, page 92, it is mentioned that "Well-managed reservoir fisheries can be very
productive". After this it may be mentioned that "but if not properly maintained/ operated, the fish
production can also be very low and much below potential as is happening in most reservoirs, as
in India.
28. The other important point here is the comparison between reservoir fisheries and fisheries loss due
to dam. In many cases, the base line information about actual fisheries production from resources
(river (upstream and downstream) and estuary) in absence of reservoir is generally not known.
Where it is known, it is not taken note of. For example, in Narmada estuary average fish
production is over 12,000 ton per annum. The SSP reservoir, 39,000 ha in area, even at peak
production figure mentioned in Box A3.1 for India, that is 49.5 kg/ ha/ year (it would be useful to
have specific reference for these figures), can produce no more than 2,000 ton per annum fish.
Here the fish production (upstream and downstream) in absence of dam is not even accounted.
Such losses should be taken into account, which is not done, as in the case of SSP.
29. The paper does not discuss the impact of dams on downstream mangrove forests and the role of
mangrove forests in ecosystems. The beneficial role played by mangrove forests in ecosystems is
known and it is also known that dams lead to destruction of mangroves. In a recent (1999) Orissa
(eastern India) cyclone, it has been noted that the coastal areas that had mangrove forests intact
had less damage due to cyclone compared to areas that did not have mangrove forests.
d) Comments by Ikuko Morishita

Comments
I consider the report as a whole presents an image of maintenance and conservation of natural
environment as it ought to be against the situation of the world in a very organised manner and with a
degree of elaboration that almost lets us wonder if it has really been prepared in a short period of one
and half years.
However, whereas the report describes the remedy for environment distinctively with expressions of
avoidance, mitigation, compensation and restoration in its basic framework, I should say that a dam
creates new environment at its site, so it is very seldom to consider restoring the environment
afterward. In addition, it should be kept in mind that compensation (meaning creation of a similar
environment) is frequently impossible when virgin forest or natural forest is involved. In this respect,
avoidance and mitigation are considered the only major means for a dam.
The natural and social characteristics and conditions of each country should be respected. In this
respect, I propose the recommendations and options for operationalisation not be too restrictive.
We have examples of good mitigation measures in Japan, while the paper gives very limited value to
mitigation. In some cases, mitigation is only possible remedial option. I propose the role of mitigation
be more appreciated in the paper.
The followings are some further comments on individual texts.
P-13, Table 3.1:

It is necessary to consult original information sources for the descriptions concerning Japan. There are
approximately 21,000 rivers in Japan which are managed by the State or prefectures, and
approximately 35,000 if those managed by other municipalities are put together. It is, therefore, not
clear where the number of 30,000 cited in the report comes from. I also wonder how the writer could
have come to describe only two rivers had not been either dammed or modified in anyway. For your
information, the total area of reservoirs in Japan is approximately 1,800 km2, corresponding to 0.5% of
the total area of Japan. (Source: Dam Yearbook 2000)
P15 Table3.3:
I do not agree with the way of impact variables classification, which is simply based on the
interconnectedness nature of ecosystem functions. However, if I follow your classification, I would
add in the "Second Order Impact" categories filter feeding invertebrates such as hydropsyched
caddisflies and simulid black flies because they normally increase their numbers followed by
impoundment of rivers. These filter feeders feed on plankton and other organic particle discharge from
the upstream reservoirs. The colonies may dominate the benthic communities. Because caddisfly and
black fly population emerge as adult during a short period in spring or summer, often the abundance of
the flies cause nuisance to local communities.
P16 Box3.3:
In Japan, we conduct detail research not only on distribution of raptorial birds, but also on their habitat
use, such as home range and foraging area which are important for population existence, to understand
the structure of habitat. Then the structure of habitat is compared with the area affected by dam
construction. When loss or fragmentation of the habitat is predicted, suitable conservation programs
are conducted according to the predicted effects of the dam construction on the raptorial birds.
The site of the Kurosagawa Sabo Dam Project in Japan was located near the nest of a golden eagle that
is categorised as an endangered species in the red list. Because the construction work was performed
avoiding its breeding season, it took five years to complete the project. There are, therefore, cases
where construction work has been carried out in Japan considering the raptorial birds with their nest
located in gorges etc.
P19 L7:
It is unbelievable that the sediment has reached almost 1/5 of its global storage capacity. The source
book must be consulted again. In Japan, the amount of sediment in reservoirs with a total storage
capacity of 1 million m3 comes to 1.25 billion m3 that is only about 7% of the total storage capacity of
17.71 billion m3, and there are few dams whose sediment exceeds the design sediment storage capacity
(as of 1997).
And the following corroborative experiments are conducted to resolve dam sedimentation problems in
Japan.
The reduction of sand and gravel flux by dams may cause degradation and armouring of river bed
materials. As a result, water blooms have occurred and fish spawning sites have been effected.
Countermeasures have been carried out at the Naka River from 1991 to 1995, where they dug 2,000
m3/year of gravel and sand at the Nagayasuguchi Dam Reservoir and placed them on two river shores
2 km downstream from the dam. At the upper site, trucks placed the gravel and sand directly, and at
the lower site, the sand and gravel were pushed into the watercourse by bulldozers after they were
placed. Some investigations have been carried out and the analysis is now underway. Some
newspapers say, “sand’s sedimentation favourably received,” “we can see sand between the rocks and
the fish are increasing,” or “there are some places where a lot of sand has accumulated.”
P20 L5:
We would like to add: “In Japan there are cases such as that mentioned below where red tides caused
by concentrations of flagellatae also occurs in dam reservoirs where eutrophication is not very
advanced, harming the scenic beauty of the sites.”
Red tides are observed in the northern portion of Lake Biwa, Japan’s largest lake, which is less
populated and not as eutrophicated as the southern portion of the lake. Red tides are seldom observed
in southern Lake Biwa.
P21 L9:
In Japan, during winter through spring, diatoms such as Melosira sp. are common. However, in
summer, commonly, blue-greens such as Homoeothrix sp. become dominant.
P23 L12 16 "Promoting (Kohler et al. 1986)":

In Japan, among ecologists and biologists, exotic species are treated as organisms threatening existing
native fauna. For example, black bass and blue gills were introducing into natural lakes and artificial
lakes throughout Japan for recreational purposes. The damage on native fauna, ecological integrity of
the system and fisheries production is enormous.
P26 L2:
In Japan’s rivers’ whose natural flow rates fluctuate widely, downstream aquatic ecosystems are
generally preserved by supplying maintenance water from dams during dry seasons. For example, at
the Tonegawa River, at least 30 m3/s is supplied to a downstream river mouth weir, and at the
Yodogawa River, water is supplied from a dam to guarantee a flow of 60 m3/s in the same way.
P27 L8:
Because the temperature problem with the dam discharge is caused by reservoir stratification, it is
possible to almost resolve this problem by establishing a selective withdrawal facility. In Japan,
selective withdrawal facilities have been adopted at many dams recently. And there are cases of old
dams with water intakes located only at the bottom layer where selective withdrawal facilities have
been added after the start of operation.
P28 L30 Illinois River floodplain example:

I suggest reviewing literature regarding flood pulse and river-floodplain concepts described in Sparks
(1995), etc. River-floodplain is a species rich ecosystem. Many tropical forests are on floodplains as
in the Amazon River basin. Large river-floodplains tend to have high biodiversity because in many
cases, the system is mature, large, possesses complex habitat structures and is variable (Sparks 1995).
For example, large river floodplains serve as important nursery and spawning grounds and refuges
during droughts for many species of fish. From a human perspective, flood pulses in natural rivers
have been important because they carry organic matter and nutrients into the floodplains that become
fertile and enhance biological productivity. Therefore, large river-floodplain integrity is maintained
by flood pulses and river-floodplain connectivity (Junk et al, 1989).
Bayley, P. B. 1995. Understanding large river-floodplain ecosystems. Bioscience. Vol.45.no.3: 153-

158.
Sparks, R. E. 1995. Need for ecosystem management of large rivers and their floodplains. Bioscience.
Vol.45.no.3: 168-182.
Junk, W. J., P. B. Bailey, and R. E. Sparks. 1989. The flood pulse concept in river-floodplain systems.
Can. Spec. Publ. Fish. Aquatic. Sci. 106: 110-127.
P29 L3 Mississippi Delta:

Please refer to reference as follows:
National Research Council. 1992. Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems, Science, Technology, and
Public Policy. National Academy Press. Washington, D.C. p.p.33 and 177.
P33 L5 7:
The source should be indicated. It is not clear that the case studies are carried out globally or not
P44 Conclusion:
Conclusions should be based on the discussions in the main text. It is rather strange that the conclusions
discuss the rate of coastal erosion the cost incurred specifically, while there is no indication in the main
text. Other examples are "sediment entrapment can reach 99% ...." and "the global impact of dams for the
global water cycle are ...".
51:
The basic framework is categorised as avoidance, mitigation, compensation, and restoration. We think
that at dams, basically a new environment for the place is created, with restoration rarely considered.
And regarding compensation, it is difficult to provide compensation (creation of a new similar

environment) in the case of a primeval forest or natural forest . For this reason, at dams the principal
methods adopted should be avoidance or mitigation.
P54 L21 “…….with changes in water quality.”:

For example, current control system combining selective outlet and aeration circulation mitigates total
water quality problems including water temperature, eutrophication, dissolved oxygen and turbidity in
some reservoirs in Japan..
P58 L9:
In a number of countries and districts, suitable sites for dam construction are limited to some extent by
geographic, geologic, and environmental constraints. Therefore, redeveloping an existing dam while
conforming to the public water demand is another effective method of protecting the ecosystem by
avoiding constructing dams at new sites. In Japan, many efforts have been made to redevelop existing
dams; the Shinmaruyama Dam Project and the Tsugaru Dam Project for example. The Shinmaruya
Dam Project will increase the effective storage capacity to 105, 220 X 103 m3, which is about 2.7 times
as large as that of the existing dam. The Tsugaru Dam Project will increase the effective storage
capacity to 128,600 X 103 m3, which is about 3.9 times as large as that of the existing dam. These
points should also be added to the description.
P81L28:
The statement, "wherever possible dams and their impacts should be avoided" sounds as if the utility
of dams itself is denied. The expression should be changed.
P80-85 Chapter 7 general:

Such words as "any" and "every" are used abundantly in this chapter. If a standard which can be
acceptable to all countries is intended, assertive expressions meaning "dams should" needs to be
changed without exception in all cases because countries differ from each other in climate, natural
features, topographical and social conditions, the present state of social capital, and legal systems.
P83 Table 7.1

"Recognise the important role of natural ecosystem in ....":
In environmental economics, it is considered that on the value assessment of function and role of
natural ecosystem, an evaluation technique which is scientific and can meet an objective consensus
has not yet been established.
Consider the use of multi-standard decision-making that has no established technique for weighing
different standards.
P83 Table 7.1 "Recognise the importance of biodiversity and promote its conservation":
In the statement, "dams should not negatively impact any Red Data Book species," the definition of
negative impact is vague. Since most important subject for conservation is to continue existence of
populations, the expression should be put emphasis on this point and be changed to: "dams should not
negatively impact population viability of any Red Data Book species.
Despite the statement, “dams should not be built in declared National Parks or Nature Reserves,” the
standards of designating national parks and the like differ from country to country. Therefore, across
the board prohibition cannot be supported.
With reference to the statement, “dams on the main stem should be avoided,” there will be varied
conditions depending on sizes and shapes of rivers. If the gradient of a river is high and its length is
rather short as in Japan, it is believed that there are many cases where building dams in main stems is
effective from the standpoint of flood control.
P84 Table 7.1 “4.

Ensure effective participation ....”:
Although it is stated that “all EIA studies should be public documents,” it should also be taken into
consideration that as in the case of Japan, some documents are unable to be published for the
protection of valuable living things.
P84 Table 7.1 “5.

Maximise adaptive capacity”:
Addition of the description, “redevelopment of existing outworn dams should be discussed in some
cases” is requested.
P84 Table 7.1 "6.

Promote incorporation of environmental management features into dam design":
Although it is stated that “every dam on a river with migratory fish should have an effective fishpass
and monitoring programme,” considering that some dams are unable to be provided with fishpasses
for structural reasons (topography, height, etc.) and that there still is a question about the downstream
migration of fishes through the fishpass for a high dam, it cannot be supported that this applies to all
dams uniformly.
As a measure to preserve water quality, other means than variable level off takes is conceivable.
Therefore, to make it a duty is not supported.
P84 Table 7.1 "7.

Promote the development of national legislative framework":
The modificative phrase, “except cases of redeveloping” is requested to be added to “ensure the
developer/owner...lifetime.”
e) Comments by Montri Suwanmontri

Here are some comments:
1) The construction of storage dam with man-made lake not only provide negative impacts to
biodiversity but also creates the new man-made ecosystem that sometimes benefit to biodiversity such
as more birds and amphibians and some new species of drawdown-area plants. This issue should be
incorporated.
2) Some policy recommendation (Table 7.1 Item 2)is likely a close-door policy that sometime may not
fair to developing countries to develop the nations which primarily rely on water resources
development. The report should address or discuss about the appropriate options and ways for
development and conservation as well.
3) How far should we go for project/sector EIA on biodiversity assessment aspect? Should it address
the relationships of the sun, the moon and flora & fauna with a project? How many experts on this
issue
available on planet? This should also be discussed in the report.
f) Comments by Patrick McCully and Collaborators

Patrick McCully, International Rivers Network
with extensive help from David L Wegner, Ecosystem Management International, Inc., and
Philip Williams, Philip Williams and Associates.
The authors have marshalled together a large amount of material on the impacts of dams and set it
within a sound analytical framework. They set out a very useful set of recommendations. They have
also made good use of submissions made to the WCD. There are however several important areas of
weakness which are outlined below.
A key part of the document which is missing is the Executive Summary. This will set the tone for the
entire document (and may be the only part many people will read) so it is vital than the Executive
Summary properly represents the rest of the report.
General comments are:
• the paper needs to assess the impacts of infrastructure and socio-economic changes associated
with dams, in particular irrigation schemes, as well as resettlement sites and informal settlement
and deforestation induced by dam development ;
• the authors have a tendency to over-emphasise uncertainties on the nature of environmental

impacts while ignoring the preponderance of evidence;
• there is a need to stress the fact that dams are simplifying riverine ecosystems by replacing a large
diversity of dynamic riverine ecosystems world-wide with more homogenous and stable reservoir
and regulated river ecosystems. One impact of this is that "weed species" such as rainbow trout
and carp have greatly expanded at the expense of native fish species with smaller ecological
niches;
• the paper needs to stress that in many parts of the world healthy ecosystems are vital for the
livelihoods of people from the most economically and politically marginalized sections of society;
• the section on decommissioning is extremely short and weak in content. Material on

decommissioning which has been sent to the WCD by IRN should be used to expand this section.
The link between decommissioning and river restoration in particular needs expanding. The
subject of decommissioning is dealt with much better in the thematic on Operations, Monitoring
and Decommissioning and some of the material from that paper should be used here;
• a clearer distinction should be made between findings and recommendations on the planning,
monitoring and effectiveness of mitigation measures for new projects, and those on restoration
measures for already completed projects.
• estuarine and offshore impacts are poorly treated. Reference should be made, for example, to how
Iron Gates Dam has changed the chemistry of the Black Sea with consequent increases in toxic
algal blooms (see Humborg et al (1999) Silicon retention in river basins: far-reaching effects on
biogeochemistry and aquatic food webs in coastal marine environments. Ambio 28(7); Humborg et
al (1997) Effect of Danube River dam on Black Sea biogeochemistry and ecosystem structure.
Nature 386, 385-388); Milliman (1997) Blessed dams or damned dams. Nature 386, 325-327)
Also the extensive writings of Rozengurt on estuarine impacts.
• the paper is weak on global impacts eg extent of land flooded world-wide, and impact on global
sediment flows. The important study of the extent of fragmentation and regulation of N.
hemisphere rivers by Dynesius and Nilsson is mentioned in Table 3.1 but should also be noted in
the text.
• more attention should be given to the need to assess cumulative impacts in assessments of new
dams and operations of existing projects;
• Another area of weakness is the lack of discussion of inter-basin transfers (see eg. ‘An Analysis of
the Effects of Inter-Basin Water Transfers in Relation to the New Water Law’, Kate Snaddon and
Bryan Davies, Freshwater Research Unit, Department of Zoology, University of Cape Town);
• Mention should be made
• a glossary of terms would be helpful. One terminological problem is that reservoirs are variously
referred to as "reservoirs", "artificial lakes", "man-made lakes", and "lakes" (eg first para p.18
"lake level fluctuations may be much larger than are normal in a natural lake" should be "reservoir
fluctuations may be much larger than are normal in a lake"). As the text states there are distinct
differences between lakes and reservoirs and it would be best to refer to "reservoirs" as reservoirs
throughout the text.
Specific Comments:
Section 2: River Basin Ecosystems and Biodiversity
The section should have an overview of global status and trends in river basin ecosystem and
biodiversity conservation - eg % of discharge affected by dams, trends in watershed condition
(deforestation, urbanisation etc.), trends in wetland loss, trends in sediment flows, trends in
biodiversity, trends in pollution, trends in river and estuarine fisheries, % of land flooded by reservoirs
etc. Some of this information is later in section 3.7 on consequence of dams for species diversity, but
an overview on this section would be helpful in showing interrelation between dam and non-dam
impacts and also stressing need to protect riverine ecosystems in general.
2.3 The first para should address the importance of healthy riverine ecosystems to the large number of
people who depend directly upon them for their livelihoods. This is particularly important as these
people tend to be among the most marginalized in society in economic and political terms. The
statement that
"The central issue of river basin development is to decide how to allocate water to maximise the
benefits it provides to society as a whole."
should note that for reasons of equity the livelihood benefits of the poorest sections should be
prioritised over benefits for richer sections of society. This statement is also unduly utilitarian - RBD
should also seek to sustain healthy riverine ecosystems because these have an intrinsic value in
themselves.
Section 3: Ecosystem Impacts of Large Dams
Box 3.1 The example shows how dams can benefit alien species to the detriment of natives. This
should be explained in the heading for the box.
3.2 The statement "This complexity makes it difficult to generalise about the impacts of dams on
ecosystems" should be reworded. There are a number of characteristics of dam impacts which are
consistent and can be generalised.
Box 3.2. The typology of dams is confused - eg it is not what is the difference between a barrage and a
run-of-river dam (I would argue that they're essentially the same), and a run-of-river diversion does
not necessarily divert water through turbines. A better classification would be 1) storage 2) RoR and
3) diversion.
"ICOLD recognises a large dam as one that is greater than 15m high"
should read "ICOLD recognises a large dam as one that is higher than 15m. Dams between 10-15m
may also be defined as "large" depending on other parameters such as reservoir size or crest length."
Table 3.1 The statement that there are more than 10,000 major reservoirs in Europe should explain
how "major reservoir" is defined.
3.3 Should discuss the river continuum concept.
Box 3.3 Construction Impacts: This box is more about transmission line impacts than construction
impacts. The material on transmission lines should be included in a section on impacts of
infrastructure and land use changes associated with dams. This would also include impacts of
resettlement, increased migration and irrigation schemes.
3.4: The note on consultants reports should state how these reports are often written as pro-project
advocacy documents by consultants linked to or hired by project developers and therefore of limited
use as scientific studies.
3.5: The paper overstates the similarity between older reservoirs and lakes. There are many differences
in behaviour as described elsewhere in this section.
3.5.1.1
"In particular temperature drives primary productivity"
should be "In particular temperature impacts primary productivity along with nutrient dynamics, and
seasonal availability of minerals and light conditions."
3.5.1.2
"Many reservoirs store almost . . . "
should read "Many reservoirs capture almost . . . "
The sentence on Glen Canyon should note that the sediment trapped equals approximately 95% of pre-
dam sediment flows.
The type of outlets on the dam also impacts reservoir trap efficiency.
Are degraded watersheds also a reason for high sediment loads in N. Africa?
3.5.1.3: "The size of the dam," should read "The size of the reservoir".
"Major biologically-induced changes" should read "Major biologically-driven changes".
"(but not always)" is tautological.
"particularly phosphorus" should read " particularly phosphorus and nitrogen"
"Eutrophication can result in" should read " Eutrophication and nitrogen pulses can result in"
"can cause oxygen depletion" should read "can cause additional oxygen depletion"
"Mercury contamination" should read "Mercury and other heavy metal contamination"
3.5.2.1: 1st para, 3rd & 4th sentences should read: "The introduction of a reservoir into a river system,
can markedly alter its primary productivity. The hydrological . . . regimes of reservoirs are unique, so
the . . . highly site and watershed specific." The final sentence should be deleted.
2nd para 1st, 2nd and 3rd sentences should read: "Upon dam closure, the river (lentic) system resets
itself as the reservoir fills. Usually, a microbial . . . nutrients as the . . . matter begins decomposition..
This stimulates a rapid development of phytoplankton."
3rd para, 1st sentence add "geographical location AND WATERSHED INPUTS". Last sentence
"productivity of tropical lakes is limited by the introduction of highly turbid waters, wind-induced
turbulence during the wet season, and chemical stratification".
3.5.2.2: Should include role of macrophytes in increasing evaporation and greenhouse gas emissions,
impeding navigation, and having negative biodiversity and fisheries impacts. The second para in Box
3.4 on invasive species concerns macrophytes and should be pasted into this section.
"support for disease vectors" should read "habitat for disease vectors"
3.5.3 The characterisation of the Pehuenche project is based solely on World Bank literature on the
dam. A less rosy picture is given by the IDB, the project’s other main funder in ‘Synthesis Report:
Environmental Regulation and Supervision of Infrastructure Investments, Office of Evaluation and
Oversight, June 1999’ (Chris Clarke at WCD has a copy of the relevant section). This notes, for
example, that for 78% of the time the project dries up 12km of one river and 5km of another and that
this has led to ongoing conflicts with downstream water users.
3.5.3.1 Needs further explanation of dangers of introducing exotics.
5th para, 1st sentence should read "During . . . an initial increase . . plant biomass which results in a
pulse of nutrients". The following sentence should be added at end of this para "Nor should it be
assumed that reservoir fish biomass will exceed pre-dam river system biomass."
3.6 Needs to stress the ecological importance of floods and the dynamic variability of the river. Also
needs to mention the importance of the primary downstream food base, the macroinvertebrates which
may be severely impacted by dams.
3.6.1.1 Dams may increase flood peaks on any river, not just major floodplain rivers.
2nd para delete "may in some cases"
p25. An explanation is needed of "increased transmission losses downstream"
3.6.1.2 1st para "Reservoirs act as thermal AND CHEMICAL regulators"
The statement that "seasonal and short-term fluctuations in water quality are regulated" is misleading
as reservoir releases can cause pulses of poor water quality. "Seasonal and short-term fluctuations in
water quality are altered" might be more accurate.
"irrigation streams" should just read "irrigation".
4th para "reservoir will be cold" should read "reservoir often is cold"
p27, 1st sentence "resolved" should read "dissipated"
3.6.1.3 "Sedimentation can degrade habitat downstream". The meaning here is unclear. Eg does it refer
to lack of sediment downstream due to reservoir sediment trapping?
3.6.1.4 1st para "controlling floods" should read "reducing floods"
p28 1st bullet should read "Reduced sediment transport can result in lowering of the riverbed
downstream . . . " Armouring of the river bed should be added to these examples.
Channel Erosion: Degradation impacts may extend far beyond "tens of kms".
Coastal Deltas: Loss of coastal wetlands should be stressed (eg Mississippi). There seems to be a typo
in the Rhone example (from 12 million tons to 12 million tons).
3.6.2.1 Should mention that algal assemblages will change in regulated rivers.
Second point should read "by augmenting or decreasing the supply of plankton"
Plankton pulses are also linked to nutrient supply.
3.6.2.2 3rd para "composition" should be "frequency" (?)
3.6.2.3: note should be made of the important study of dam impacts on downstream riparian
vegetation in Nilsson et al (1997) Long-Term Responses of River-Margin Vegetation to Water-Level
Regulation. Science 276, 2 May.
3.6.3.1 4th para: "Large woody debris . . . role in providing fish AND FOOD BASE habitat".
6th para: "fly in to drink AND FEED ON EMERGING INSECTS"
7th para: "fish biodiversity AND SURVIVAL"
8th para: "spawning, feeding, and juvenile rearing."
9th para: what is citation for the 66 case studies? What types of positive and negative impacts
occurred?
11th para: citation for Senegal example? Migratory fishes have already been blocked on many Asian
rivers - this is not just a problem for the future. Sentence here on stream dewatering should be
expanded and moved into a separate para - this is an important issue.
3.7.2: 6th para: Small dams can block migrations as well as small ones.
3.7.3: 3rd para: citation required.
4th para: how are "major reservoirs" defined?
3.8: the comment on "several dams" understates the issue - it may be dozens or even hundreds of
dams.
6th para notes the major impacts of irrigation infrastructure. Coverage of this issue should be greatly
expanded.
3.9: 1st para: 1st sentence should state "ADVERSE impact". Dams do not form a "natural" resource
base.
5th para: it is incorrect to state that there is "no normative or standard approach to address ecosystem
impacts . . . ". There are for example standard approaches based on physical processes.
Section 4. Economic and Social Implications
"disruption of ecosystem processes" should be added to the list of ecosystem changes.
4.4: This section should note that those directly dependent on riverine ecosystems for their livelihoods
tend to be among the most economically and politically marginalized sectors of society. It should also
note the need to negotiate the consent of affected communities before their resources are expropriated.
3rd sentence: should note that these costs may only become visible many years after the project is
built.
4.5: This section should recognise the role of corruption and political and economic vested interests in
promoting dam construction (i.e. the forces promoting dam construction are not just related to values).
Box 4.1 should be titled "Ethical principles for decision-makers involved in water and energy
planning"
These are a good set of principals. Some other internationally recognised rights which should be added
to this box are the right to livelihood, the right to a healthy environment, and the distinct rights of
indigenous and tribal peoples. The Box should also mention respect for civil rights.
5 Responding to the Ecosystem Impacts
A frequently promoted mitigation measure which is not covered here but which gets a lot of publicity
are animal rescue operations during reservoir filling. This issue should be discussed here with case
studies. (A brief mention of the issue is made in 3.5.3.1 and it is covered in a little more detail in
annex 5.1).
5.1: 2nd para: The final sentence needs edited to make sense.
3rd para: should read "reviews the METHODOLOGIES"
5.2.1: This section should attempt to identify where the mitigation measures described have actually
been carried out and with what level of success. If the evidence for this is not available it should be
stated.
2nd para, 1st sentence: Another "obvious option" is to find non-dam options to meet the identified
needs.
5.2.2: 1st para, 2nd sentence "mitigation measures ATTEMPT TO prevent the . . . " and "mitigation
measures ATTEMPT TO rectify continuing . . . "
1st para, last sentence is unclear in meaning and should be deleted.
7th para: encouraging agriculture in the draw-down may increase rather than minimise erosion.
9th para: the changes in physical and chemical properties may be MINIMIZED but are very rarely
likely to be "resolved".
10th para: have measures ever been taken to remove nutrients from reservoirs?
12th para: needs more explanation of viability of measures such as dredging and to give examples
where these sediment management techniques have been applied and under what circumstances they
may work.
13th para: grossly exaggerates the viability of dredging. "not always financially viable to mitigate by
dredging" should be replaced with "is very rarely financially viable to mitigate by dredging". The
phrase "a fatalistic assessment" should be deleted.
A para should be added to discuss measures to ensure downstream fish passage.
5.2.3: 3rd para: statement on Nam Theun 2 should recognise that the area supposed to be protected if
the dam is built was already to have been protected under a GEF project which was dropped because
of the proposed dam.
4th para: more space should be given to the failure of hatcheries as mitigation measures, particularly in
the US West where this is a major issue in fisheries management.
5.2.4: A separate section (5.4) should be added on river restoration. There should be a greatly
expanded section on decommissioning within this section which should include case studies of
successful decommissioning cases and dams proposed for decommissioning. Mention should be made
of the need to establish decommissioning funds for new and existing dams. Safety reasons for
decommissioning dams should also be explained. IRN has submitted to the WCD a large amount of
material on this issue which should be used here.
2nd para: decisions on decommissioning not just due to changing values but also ageing of dams,
safety concerns, and increased awareness of decommissioning successes.
4th para should mention strategies other than removal for dealing with sediment, eg stabilisation in
place or gradual erosion. It should also mention strategies for dealing with sediment contamination eg
removal or stabilisation.
5th para: the statement that "restoration may not be an environmentally acceptable option" is
nonsensical. No matter how bad a condition the catchment is in, there will surely always be scope for
restoration, and possibly more scope the worse the catchment is. The final sentence is wrongheaded
and should be deleted. Decommissioning has been shown to be viable in practice not just "in theory".
The fact that the issues are complex does not mean that decommissioning is not viable.
5.3 The IEA reference is not credible. How many of these "successful" mitigation measures were
reported by IEA members (dam operators, funders etc.) and how many by independent scientists? This
example also does not explain the significance of the impacts mitigated (eg mitigation of oil spills
during construction vs. mitigation of long-term fisheries impacts).
Another study which should be cited here is the "World Survey on Environmental Management
Practice" (International Water Power and Dam Construction, May 1991). Out of 31 national dam
agencies more than 60% stated they had no formal system for monitoring dam impacts. Without
monitoring, how can it be known whether or not mitigation is successful?
2nd para: surely that fact that the environmental clauses were "very modest" should have made them
easier to comply with?
6th para: the wording of the final sentence is biased and implies that environmental groups opinions
are unreasonable. The para should discuss how effectively the "common tools" discussed have
worked.
5.3.1: The section should also refer to the problems of ensuring downstream fish migration (it is a
common misconception that it is upstream rather than downstream passage which is the major
problem reducing salmonid migrations in the Western US).
The para on Pak Mun should refer to the WCD case study.
6th para: hatcheries have failed to mitigate fish impacts in the US. What is evidence for their success
in Brazil?
5.3.2: 1st para: mitigation is also difficult because of the inherent nature of the impacts of dam
technology on riverine ecosystems. Many impacts are technically impossible to mitigate if dams are to
provide their planned outputs.
5.3.3.2: The lack of political will to implement mitigation measures should also be discussed.
5.3.3: This section is wrongly titled. It should be something like How to Make Mitigation More
Effective. A good list of conditions is given.
1st para: "is not a foregone conclusion" should be reworded to "is unlikely".
2nd para: "is less likely to be successful" should read "is very unlikely to be successful".
3rd para: more supervision and monitoring make little difference in the absence of the
recommendation of appropriate actions and the will and ability to ensure compliance. For an example
of this see the numerous World Bank monitoring missions to the Sardar Sarovar Project in India.
7th para: "some countries" should read "many countries"
5.4.1: The last 2 sentences of the 1st para repeat those in the 1st para of 3.5.3.1. My comments on the
Pehuenche project given above are thus also valid here.
2nd para: More info should be given on how these indicators were used in Colombia and Brazil and
what were the results.
5.4.2: It would be useful to have some examples of Ecological Integrity Indicators. The present text
gives only an overview of the concept.
Box 5.8: shouldn't this be 2m3/s-1 rather than 2mm3/s-1 ?
5.5 Final para, 2nd sentence should read: "The review therefore concludes that it is very unlikely that
all impacts can be mitigated for any project. While some mitigation measures may succeed in practice
and others may be possible in principle, under actual political, economic and institutional conditions
mitigation measures will rarely be successfully implemented."
The final sentence should read: "There should therefore be a strategy of avoidance and minimisation . .
. . future."
6 Trends in the International Debate
6.1 2nd para: It should be added that dam opponents also argue that better options than dams are
available.
6.2: 2nd para: change "improving livelihood security" to "sustaining livelihoods"
Table 6.1: This is a good distillation of arguments. In the seventh box down is should be noted that
dams are also not clean because they contaminate rivers and destroy riverine ecosystems.
6.3: This gives only the positions of dam promoters. The positions of dam critics should also be given
(eg the Curitiba Declaration).
6.3.3: 1st para: It should be noted that the Bank has never been shown to have complied with its
requirement that its EAs reflect the views of affected people.
6.4: it should be noted that the progress noted in policy statement has not been reflected in practice (cf
ongoing and proposed projects such as Three Gorges, Sardar Sarovar, Maheshwar, San Roque, Ilisu
etc. etc).
3rd bullet: "physical area" rather than "space allocation"
penultimate para: Another important area where improved techniques are needed is in cumulative
impact assessments.
final 2 paras: Both of these are overly focused on dams - the focus should be on water and energy
planning in general.
7. Conclusions and Recommendations
7.1: 5th para: "mitigation is particularly problematic AND USUALLY INEFFECTIVE". It should also
be noted that compensation in problematic.
7.2 These are very well thought out recommendations.
Recommendation 5: Should include language on participatory monitoring and mechanisms to ensure

compliance with recommendations on dam operation from monitoring bodies.
Recommendation 7: Should include language on the need for developers to set aside
decommissioning funds.
Recommendation 8: Reword 2nd sentence to: "Blanket minimum flow requirements such as "10%
minimum flow" do not address the needs of riverine ecosystems." Taking account of the dynamic
nature of rivers requires optimum flows, including periodic controlled flood flows. Language should
be added on the use of retrofitting dams, changing dam operation and decommissioning dams as tools
for fostering ecosystem health.
Table 7.1: The options here are also well thought out.
Recommendation 1: Should include an option on the need to improve ability to predict cumulative
impacts and to make cumulative impact assessments obligatory for new projects and review of
operations of existing projects.
Recommendation 2: The option to avoid main stem dams is important and should be given more
visibility by moving it into section 7.2. Such an option would make a major difference in reducing the
negative impacts of dams.
The final option should read "should not be reduced during commissioning to zero or levels likely to
harm biodiversity"
Recommendation 4: Add option for developers to be forced to provide funds to communities to do

their own EIAs and review developer EIAs. Joint community-developer EIAs are another option.
Recommendation 5: 1st bullet should be reworded to: "Provide mechanisms and financial support for
regular monitoring . . . met. Monitoring should be transparent and mechanisms should be established
to ensure dam operators comply with recommended changes in dam operation.
3rd bullet: "Revise operating rules" should be "review operating rules".
Additional bullet: "Establish a fund from dam revenues for mitigation and dam decommissioning".
Annex 3.2 Reservoir Fisheries
This annex is highly one-sided and ignores numerous important issues. These include:
- the drop in fishery yields after initial filling.
- the frequent overestimation of reservoir fisheries by project proponents (eg Pak Mun and Aslantas
case studies).
- the difficulties for river fishers to adapt to reservoir fishing techniques and afford reservoir fishing
technology (and consequence that reservoir fishery benefits are often captured by migrants, eg at
Kariba and Akosombo).
- the need to compare reservoir yields not just with pre-impoundment yields in the flooded stretch of
river but also with the post-impoundment change in fisheries in the watershed as a whole, including
estuarine and near-shore areas.
- the systematic underestimation of yields from rivers and wetlands compared to reservoir yields due
to the more commercial nature of reservoir fisheries compared with the more subsistence oriented
river and wetland fisheries.
- exotic introductions are generally of a small number of species world-wide. As these invariably
displace diverse wild fisheries they lead to a reduction of global biodiversity.
Annex 3.3. Comparison of Pre vs. Post Impoundment Conditions
It is not clear what the point of this annex is. The comparisons do not seem particularly relevant as
they appear to compare the flooded stretch of river with the reservoir and do not account for the
impacts on the river up- and downstream.
Annex 3.4: Sediment Discharges
Much of this material is important and should be moved into the main text, in particular the section on
Cumulative Impact Analysis
Annex 5.1 Env Impacts and Mitigation Options
The material on 'Wildlife Rescue' and Cumulative Impact Assessment should be moved into the main
text.
g) Comments by Yogi Carolsfeld

The items that I feel important to address are these:
Biodiversity
Maintaining natural biodiversity is currently recognised as central to ensuring sustainable aquatic

resources, as mentioned in several places in the review. However, two components I think are being
missed:
a) biodiversity has an important historical element to it: i.e. the statement that “ecosystem functioning
is guided by abiotic steering variables” (p. 15) appears to be true up to the trophic level only, but is not
really true in terms of the specific biotic composition of ecosystems. It is very much this specific
composition that determines how an ecosystem responds to disturbances
b) the original biodiversity or ecosystems are not necessarily retrieved simply by repairing habitat
(corollary of (a)).
Both items are alluded to in the text, but I think not clearly enough nor with sufficient emphasis. I
think the ramifications of these issues are at the core of the controversy between biological uncertainty
and engineering precision discussed in section 5.3.2.1, and not adding enough emphasis to them are
what keeps biodiversity at the “second table” despite all kinds of rhetoric to the contrary. Biodiversity
is a distinct element that has resulted from many historical and present interactions; it is not an
unresolved engineering issue related to today’s physical world. Specifically:
Biodiversity should be included as one of the KEY indicators in assessing impact (Box 5.5 and section
7.2 (8) III). Leaving it out at this level or relegating it to a secondary role as in Box 5.5 has already
created considerable problems in getting the biodiversity issue on the development table. This has
occurred specifically in Brazil, for example, where despite many advances in water management,
legislation and biodiversity conservation, aquatic biodiversity in practice still remains an afterthought
in discussions of development projects. It also still appears to be a problem in the World Bank, as
members of their environmental group will no doubt attest, and it is pretty clear that biology will
continue to be relegated to the second level until it is included specifically in such things as these key
indicators.
Exotic Species:
The introduction of non-native ("exotic") species is mentioned several times as a means to improve the
aquatic productivity of modified reservoir ecosystems and cold raceways (e.g. p. 57 in section 5.2.3
and p. 93 of Annex 3.2), including the statement on p. 33 that this introduction is “required”. There
are, of course, very large risks associated with the introduction of species, which are also discussed in
the review, but one of the biggest risks not mentioned is that the effects are largely IRREVERSIBLE,
and may not be acceptable to future generations. There are many examples globally of introductions
that have gone awry, but it is also a hotly argued topic in many parts of the world, and portions of this
review could well be cited out of context in numerous situations. I don't think that the introduction of
"exotics" should be described as “required” anywhere in the review, though the review of their use is
appropriate. However, in ALL cases the risk component, including irreversibility, should also be
referred to, particularly as the precautionary approach to development is strongly promoted elsewhere
in the review in relation to dam planning (p. 81).
Annex 3.2 indicates that the highest reservoir fish production comes from exotic fish in Brazil and
Panama. In fact, I believe that the most productive hydroelectric reservoirs in Brazil rely on native
fish species that also bring a higher local market value. In at least the case of the Sobradinho reservoir
the introduction of exotic species was recommended, but rejected (Petrere, 1996), though one of the
species fished is an invader from elsewhere in Brazil. Some irrigation reservoirs in the Northeast of
the country are stocked with tilapia, but this practice is also now being questioned by many. The
treatment of exotic introductions in this annex should be much more precautionary and specifically
emphasise the likely irreversibility of such introductions.
Effects on Fish Biodiversity
A significant potential effect by dams on fish biodiversity not mentioned in the review is that natural
obstacles to fish dispersion are flooded. In Angelo Agostinho’s publications, he describes the example
of the Itaipu dam in Brazil that flooded Seite Quedas, a natural barrier to fish, and allowed at least
sixteen species to invade the upper Parana river, which previously held a considerably unique fish
fauna (Agostinho et al., 1995).
Diversity of Dams Impacts
The conclusions at the end of section 3 could be interpreted to say that all dams are different so their
impacts cannot be predicted. While this may be true at a certain level, and is a very important point,
the whole preceding section appears to be primarily devoted to describing impacts that are predictable.
A list of these would be a good reinforcement of the final paragraph, for example: 1) assess
importance of habitats to be impacted, 2) assess migratory value, and 3) retain stretches of natural
habitat between dams.
“Cultural” vs “information” services
Goods provided by ecosystems include a category termed "information services" (e.g. pp. 5, 7, Table
2.1). I realise that this is a citation from other authors, but it strikes me as an unfortunate misnomer:
these are actually "cultural services", with information being one of them.
Mitigation
Mitigation is discussed at length, but the conclusion to the section reads that in most situations it is
ineffective or impractical and other options should be pursued for maintaining ecosystem health.
Unfortunately, these options are not specified. The implication is that they should include avoidance,
compensation or restoration, but these are unlikely practical solutions on their own.
Participatory planning:
Heading 4 of section 7.2 should read: "Ensure effective multisector participation in planning ...."
Conclusions and recommendations:
Conclusions and recommendations are naturally going to be key elements of the review. Wording is,
of course very important, but the items must also be supported by the text of the review. Some
suggestions that I have for table 7.1 of Section 7.3 (p. 83):
Item 2 of the table: The Red Data Book appears to be presented as the final authority on endangered
species in this table. As discussed on page 38, the book does not represent aquatic species very well.
This should be clear in this table as well as in the text.
Item 3 of the table: baseline assessments of ecosystems: it should be emphasised in this

recommendation that this assessment occurs over a long enough period to accurately reflect what
happens in the ecosystem. Migratory species, for example, could easily be missed in a swat-team style
of assessment, and surveys during a particularly dry year could be very misleading.
Item 6 of the table: downstream passes or structures for fish should also be specified, as should the
design for pulse flooding where appropriate.
Item 7: the fourth point on fixed cost vs tendered process comes out of the blue and may be confusing
to the reader. Presumably the authors mean that the money available for environmental work should
be secure and applied in a manner that ensures quality work. If this is what is meant, it should be
couched in these terms; the tendering part could be a parenthetical explanation for people that are
already in the system, or this point could be explained more fully in the text of the review.
Item 7: the "intact rivers policy" should be spelled out more in this table. Without question this table
will often be read without the accompanying text and as thus should be able to stand on its own.
Cumulative effects of dams is missed in these tables and reviews, other than through this reference to
the "intact river policy". This is particularly important for migratory fish species and biodiversity and
needs to be said again clearly here.
Natural vs modified ecosystems
Section 2 of the review appears to be largely dedicated to a description of natural ecosystems and their
value, as distinct from disturbed ecosystems. This distinction comes out later in the review, but it is
quite ambiguous in this section. The authors should make it clearer in this section when they are
referring to natural ecosystems and when they are referring to all ecosystems (natural and disturbed).
Cumulative effects of dams
The cumulative effects of dams are particularly important to migratory freshwater fish that, as in South
America, require migration in order to mature, and floodplains for juvenile growth. The example of
the Itaipu dam, mentioned in Annex 3.2, is particularly telling: reservoir fisheries here are still quite
productive, but only because there are still floodplains upstream (Agostinho et. al., 1994). Once the
floodplains are permanently submerged by another dam, this fishery is likely to collapse as it has in
other Brazilian rivers with multiple dams. This sort of scenario is being repeated over and over in
Brazil, and probably also in the rest of the world, and should be more emphasised in the review:
perhaps in the summary tables of Section 7 and by citing the Itaipu example in the main text on page
43 (section 3.8).
Privatisation:
The review states that most dams are associated with governments and that, as such, their function is
generally meant for the public good. In actual fact, a significant proportion of the international
hydroelectric industry is private; in Brazil, the majority of dams are presently being privatised.
Globalisation of the economy is likely to carry this trend to many other parts of the world. A
discussion of the actual, perceived and likely impacts of privatisation on how dams operate with
respect to the environment is missing in the review, and could represent a big hole in how the WCD
looks to the future. This could be particularly important given the discussion on low levels of
compliance with regulations of international donors on p. 59.
Gas Bubble disease

The discussion on gas bubble disease and swim bladders on page 27 is wrong: swim bladder problems
arise as fish pass through the turbine and are exposed to rapid pressure changes. This results in over-
expansion of the swim bladder and frequently in death, but shows up only immediately at the dam.
Gas bubble disease is independent of the swim bladder, resulting from supersaturation of the water
with dissolved air when spillways drop into deep pools. In this situation, the water is forced to hold
more air than it should. The dissolved air passes into fish tissues, but then slowly starts coming out of
solution, forming bubbles in a variety of the tissues. This is comparable to the bends of human divers.
The problem can extend many miles downstream of the dam. Good references are:
Fidler, L.E. and Miller, S.B. 1997. British Columbia Water quality guidelines for the protection of
aquatic biota from dissolved gas supersaturation: technical report. BC Ministry of Environment,
Lands and Parks, Victoria, B.C.
Bouck, GR 1980. Etiology of gas bubble disease
h) Comments by Gaetan Guertin

This report is not a bad document, but it suffer from the authors bias towards a conservationist
perspective that gives to untouched environment an higher value than anything else. The authors tends
to forget that man made ecosystem are capable of responding to the same function and value as natural
ecosystem. They also forget that human are part of the ecosystem and by that are interacting with it in
a positive and a negative way. Considering the level of the actual population in the world, I am not
sure that by relying only on natural environment, we could be able to satisfy mankind fundamental
needs without the technology interventions.
Even though the report is well documented, a large part of the literature is not used. As for an example
there is very few citations on the LaGrande Complex in Québec Canada were we have follow-up the
environment for more than 20 years and published more than 350 articles.
At the beginning of the section on impacts of large dams, I was happy to read the authors comments
about the difficulty to generalise because of the complexity of the issues (p.11 this complexity makes
it difficult to generalise and p.12 need to treat each new dam separately), but in many case they have
put aside that comment and did to many generalisation themselves. The following examples illustrate
my point:
• Page 17 “The flooding of large areas in the tropics is especially likely to contribute to
global species extinction”
• Page 19 “Many reservoirs store almost the entire sediment load supplied by the drainage
basin.”
• Page 22 “ Large-scale impoundments are likely to extinguish entire populations of
species.”
Biodiversity Box 2.1. “Is a measure… in a region” The authors should be more specific about the term
region, by reading their conclusion we understand that a region for them is only the flooded area by a
reservoir. We agree with the principle of keeping as much biodiversity as possible but a geographical
or ecological unit must be chosen before concluding. As an example many scientist use the watershed
or the bioregion as the base unit for evaluation. The species concept must also be consider because
many opponents to development use the concept of population and micro stock in biodiversity.
Ecosystem Values. I agree with the authors that ecosystems are valuable but they should consider that
man made ecosystem (reservoir as a case) can perform the same function and have the same value or
sometime more value than untouched environment.
Box 3.2 Types of dams. I do not agree with your class of order. For me, there are two categories:
storage dams and run-of-river. A third category could include diversion: in-stream and cross-
watershed. The ICOLD criteria to recognise a large dam also include the volume of the dam and the
size of the reservoir.
For the databases you should consider that each ICOLD National Committee as its own register of
dams, not only USA.
Box 3.3 Construction impacts. This box is an over simplification and reflect the bias tendency of the
writers to overcharge the impacts. The width of the right-of-way varies with the tension of the line.
Not all powerline are 735 kV and not all right-of-way are 100m wide. In much case we have multiple
line in the same right-of-way. As for roads during construction and maintenance, in the southern part
of the province we use existing roads and in the northern part the road are build in the right-of-way.
We also have for the construction activities a list of mitigation measures and a code of conduct to
reduce the impacts.
I am not an expert in sedimentology but I can say that this section is badly covered. The authors are
always considering erosion and sedimentation as a negative situation. The sedimentation and erosion
processes are natural and normal but they some time are accelerated or reduced by man’s
interventions. Sedimentation in reservoir is not worse than in a lake or in an enlargement of a river. In
many case the sedimentation issue is created by a bad watershed management and by human activities
(agriculture, forestry, etc.) upstream of the reservoir. A recommendation on watershed management
should be proposed.
In the discussion on water quality, you should use the word retention time instead of detention time.
The monitoring we have done in LaGrande complex does not reflect your conclusions. It is the
leaching of the vegetation and of the soil that creates the increase productivity and most of the plant
biomass does not decompose. I was also surprised that you used (McCully, 1996) as a reference for
mercury, not because the description is bad but because there is better experts than him on that issue.
The book “Mercury in the Biogeochemical Cycle Natural Environments and Hydroelectric Reservoirs
of Northern Québec” by Lucotte and all, Springer 1999, is a better reference.
Box 3.4 invasive species. This situation is not specific to reservoir it is also the case in natural
environment, why emphasis more in reservoir?
Filling of reservoir does not always cause drowning of animal, in Québec we never observed that for
large mammals. For the salvage operation the study done by EDF on Petit-Sault in French Guyana
should be review by the authors for a better perspective.
I agree that small flood events may act as biological triggers for fish migration but extreme conditions
are very stressful for the fish habitat. Following the Saguenay flood in 1998, salmon habitat had to be
restored by man intervention.
On page 32, I do not understand the conclusion “ Dams block these migrations to varying degrees” in
the case of mayflies and stoneflies the adults are aerial.
In the section on species diversity, it does not mean that losses of habitat or of animals by construction
activities or flooding will directly or automatically lead to loss of species.
The conclusions on the impacts of dams are very dramatics and very affirmative but the preceding
demonstration are not as evident considering that not all existing documentation was used,
The same thing can be said about the conclusion on mitigation measures and the affirmation on page
81 concerning them is also very rigid and dogmatic considering the demonstration that was done.
Since mitigation measures are site specific we cannot generalise about their effectiveness in other
situation so categorically.
Section 6 is a good description of the present situation of the debate.
As for the recommendations and the options for operation even though I agree and fully support most
of them, some of them surprises me, considering the lack of demonstration from the document. They
are:
• Dams on the main stem should be avoided. Why it should be a case by case evaluation?
• Dams should be seen as a last resort rather…For many uses it is the contrary. In the case
of electricity I would personally prefer hydroelectricity instead of thermal.
• Fish pass and Environmental flow are not always needed it should be site specific.
• Variable level intakes are not always the best solution for water quality issues why make
it mandatory?
• Not only biologist should be include in the design team but also hydrologist,
geomorphologist, etc.
I also attach a file of my presentation in La Hague march 2000 where there is recommendations and
guidelines for better integration of dams in the environment.
i) Comments from the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation

SSNC Review team
Göran Eklöf, head International department of SSNC
Göran Ek, international secretary at SSNC
Per Isakson, freshwater biologist at SSNC
Gopal Siwakoti, INHURED
Chainarong Sretthachau, Southeast Asia Rivers Network(SEARIN)
Jan Wallinder, SSNC network for sustainable large dams
1. General Comments on the report:

1.1. We find the review’s conclusions generally good and that the paper gives a frank and
honest description on how harmful large dams are to ecosystems
1.2 The report draws from a large number of references to present the environmental effects
of large dams in an extensive way
1.3 However we find that the report is not strong enough in making recommendations to
the WCD on some of these most crucial issues dealing with dams and their effects on
ecosystems. We can ask for more guidelines and suggestions from the WCD, but, in our
view, we do not lack policies and procedures and the knowledge about what has to be
done from UN to the national level. The problem is their implementation, monitoring,
compensation and punishment in case of losses and violations. The WCD must speak
on these issues. It is an opportunity for all of us. We have to make sure that dams are
not going to be built in the future unless all these issues and problems as mentioned in
the report are fully addressed.
1.4. The report is not sufficiently concerned with the infrastructure issues on the
construction of large dams which also affect the non-riverine parts of the ecosystem.
Particularly the impact of the irrigation systems, and the change of the land utilisation.
According to the Thai NGO SEARIN in Thailand’s case, as well as other countries, the
development of irrigation dams includes the construction of long irrigation canals, as
well as roads along the canal, all on wetland ecosystems. So this sort of development
creates environmental impacts that reach much further than the actual dam site or
reservoir.
1.5 In a separate comment on this TR Himanshu Thakkar of SSNC’s partner South Asia
Network on Dams, Rivers and People has expressed that “One issue that needs to be
clearly brought about is that the poorest people are worst affected (and many times the
only people so affected) by ecosystems degradation as their livelihood, most of the
times, directly depends on ecosystems. This is particularly so in countries like India,
where inequities and poverty is much more wide spread. Thus, preservation of
ecosystems should be of that much more importance in such countries, not only for the
reasons stated in the paper but also because the degradation will have greatest impact
on the poor people”.
SSNC endorses this comment.

.
2. SSNC´s comments on Conclusions and Recommendations
2.1 p.80 “In most cases one or more sector of society depends upon these (ecosystem)
values (e.g. fisheries, grazing) while in some the total value of the benefit of natural
ecosystems can exceed the value of the benefits derived from dams and associated
investments in agriculture”
This is especially true regarding the case on the dependence of very large groups of
people in the South on functioning freshwater ecosystems for fishery, livelihood and
subsequent good health (as is widely known, 80-85% of the protein intake of the people
in the Mekong region is estimated to come from freshwater fish).
2.2 p.80 “The review has underlined that dams have a wide range of major impacts upon
natural ecosystems, that most of these are negative, that many are irreversible, and that
they are manifest in economic and social costs. Perhaps surprisingly, the review has
noted that there is today widespread, but not complete, agreement as to the reality and
importance of these impacts and their costs. However, in the abovementioned separate
comment on this TR Himanshu Thakkar has expressed that " It may as well be noted
that this "agreement" has actually translated little into agreed/ compatible actions. Two
paragraphs later, it is stated, "While there is experience of good mitigation….". Here
the word experience may be qualified by words such as: "some limited".
SSNC endorses this comment.
2.3 p.80 . “The review has also recognised the growing understanding of the threats to the
world’s biodiversity, and the particularly acute threats to those species that are
dependent upon freshwater. By altering the quantity and quality of water available to
natural riverine ecosystems dams add to these already significant threats.”
2.4 p.81-82 SSNC support all recommendations submitted. Regarding recommendation #

1, We wish to highlight, again, the connection between natural ecosystems and
sustainable development This is especially true regarding the case on the dependence of
very large groups of people in the South on functioning freshwater ecosystems for
fishery, livelihood and subsequent good health. In the Mekong and Amazonas regions a
number of large dams have been constructed in recent years which pose a serious threat
to the sustainable development and livelihood for the rural populations here.
We would rather have recommendation # 1 read as:
“Recognise the basic role of natural ecosystems in contributing to sustainable

development.”
2.5 p.81-82 SSNC support all recommendations submitted.
2.6 p.83-84 SSNC also support the options for Operationalising (with one
exception, see 3.2) the submitted recommendations
In particular the following
- Assess the price of natural ecosystem functions and services during feasibility studies for both
upstream and downstream values. Water does not have a zero opportunity cost.
- Dams should be seen as a last resort rather than the first choice (precautionary principle)
- Revise operating rules every 5 years to incorporate findings of monitoring programmes and mitigate
unexpected ecosystem changes.
- Ensure every dam has a proposal for how it will eventually be decommissioned especially with
regard to design features for reservoir drainage, the treatment of accumulated sediment, and
appropriate financial measures for ecosystem restoration
- Include biologists in the design team
But, we want to emphasise that in p.84 - Section 6 "Promote Incorporation…" The report states that
every dam should be equipped with an effective fishpass; we feel that the technology of fishpasses and
knowledge of the migration patterns of fish is limited. And in those terms, no fishpass is truly
effective. So the recommendation does not quite relate to what is really practised.
3. Comments on views shared by SSNC

3.1 p.16 We appreciate the report’s highlighting construction impacts of dams on ecosystems as
they are seldom mentioned in this context
3.2 p.33. We find all the examples mentioned on loss of fish species diversity
and numbers very relevant and to the point.
3.3 p.38.We support your conclusion that the number of endangered freshwater fishes
is underestimated by IUCN
3.4 p. 44-45 Overall we find that you have made the correct conclusions from the data presented
on the ecosystem impacts of large dams
3.5 p.46 Last paragraph. You are correct in highlighting the need for “those responsible for water
management need to be able to measure and value the ways that dams affect the environment.
Clearly if the values of environmental impacts are incorporated into power/agricultural sector
planning, they may well tip the balance and turn what appears to be an economically viable
project into one that is likely to have a net economic cost” This is certainly true in the case of
dams like Pak Mun and Theun Hinboun where over-optimistic prognosis of the economic
output of the dam and chronic underestimation of the value of the ecosystem affected by the
dams has caused both economical and ecological failures.
3.6 p.49. Paragraph 4.4. This is a very good summary of what has been sadly lacking in most of
the decision-making processes around large dams
3.7 p.50. Paragraph 4.6. See above!
3.8 p.51 Section 5.1. Thanks for stating so clearly that all impacts cannot be mitigated!
3.9 p.51-52 Section 5.2 This is the only way to rank responses to the negative impacts of
large dams
3.10 p.62 All chapter 5.3.2.1 provides an extensive overview of this sticky issue with a
remarkable insight. We especially support the views expressed in the
2nd-3rd paragraph, the salmon ladder in Pak Mun is a very well chosen example.
3.11 p.65 top and 5th paragraph. The sad story of the World Bank handling “completed”
dam projects comes to mind here
3.12 p.70-71. We support in full the conclusions expressed here especially the closing
statement
“In addition the weaknesses of the EIA process for many projects (cf Thematic review
V.2) reduce the possibilities for positive outcomes. This would tend to encourage a
strategy of avoidance and minimisation rather than one of mitigation if the aim is to
maintain biodiversity, and ecosystem functions and services for the foreseeable future.”
4. Critical comments on some views and findings

4.1 p.10 Box 3.1 :The patterns of change described in this section are in an unbalanced
(and unnatural) ecosystem, due to the dam and the beneficiary of the impact is an
introduced species. Thus, we find this as an example of positive impact of a dam
highly irrelevant.
4.2 p. 18 ; First Paragraph : The report makes the comparison that a reservoir, once completed,
has a level of stability similar to that of a natural lake. We do not think that there is enough
information to back up this statement, and we feel that an important point for this case is to make a
comparison between pre- and post impoundment, within the same area.
4.3 p. 21 ; Box 3.4 Regarding the floating and submerged weeds described in the 2nd paragraph:
The report mentions that the weeds pose a major threat to the efficiency of dams and irrigation
systems, also as in Thailand's case (Kew Loom Dam), some reservoirs cannot be used for recreation
and transportation because of the large number of floating weeds. Also, the treatment of the floating
weeds makes the water downstream contaminated with suspended solids, and it can damage the
fishing gear and cause health problems for fishermen downstream (as in the case of Pak Mun Dam).
4.4 p.24 In the case of floodplains, the loss of wetlands not only results from the control of the
water flow of the dam, but also from the dams which are built to prevent floods, which allow the
people to occupy the wetlands for developing for agriculture and resettlement. This leads to floods
downstream that are more severe than before the dam, and this is another reason for the loss of
wetlands. Before the dams are built, water would flow into the flood plains and be stored there during
the rainy season, before returning to the river. By storing precipitation and releasing runoff evenly,
wetlands can diminish the destructive onslaught of flood crests downstream. But after dams are built
upstream, villagers would move into the now-dry flood plains and modify the land (by agriculture and
other development). Then, when the rainy season comes again, there is no protective flood plain to
prevent severe flooding.
4.5 ; Pg. 32 Paragraph 5: In this section, there is not much mention of fish in the tropical rivers.
The fish in tropical rivers are also migratory fish, but they differ from anadromous fish because they
migrate within freshwater systems. In the case of the Mekong River, during the rainy season fish will
migrate from the Great Lake (located in the lower Mekong) and Mekong mainstream up to its
tributaries for spawning and feeding. The fish will return to the Mekong mainstream near the end of
the rainy season, and in the summer season will feed and grow in the mainstream. So when dams are
built, they block the migration pattern of fish both from the mainstream to the tributaries, and back.
Many fish are killed by the dam turbines on the migration back to the mainstream.
4.6 p.33 2nd paragraph. It would be interesting to know where the case studies reporting positive
impacts from dams on fisheries are made. Are they solely from Northern waters? In the case of
Thailand, according to Mr Chainarong Srettachau of SEARIN, there has never been a study that
shows any dam to have a positive impact on the fish. For example: In the case of Bhumipol Dam, fish
species in the Ping River decreased 50% after the dam. Reference EGAT 1987. In the case of Khao
Lam dam,59 fish species remained out of 78. And in Srinakarin dam, 20 fish species were lost.
4.7 Overall in section 3.7 there is a regrettable lack of referred studies on benthic fauna
4.8 p.55 3rd paragraph. Unfortunately we know of no current research neither any good examples-
especially from the South supporting this statement:
“Designs of fish passage facilities have evolved considerably through the years as scientists and
engineers learn more of the requirements for encouraging fish to use the passage facilities, the
specific hydraulic conditions that various fish species use to orient their migration, and the climbing
capabilities of the target species or groups of species”
4.9 p.58 1st paragraph. Decommissioning costs and options should be part of dam proposals. This
is even more relevant when paper notes that in many cases, decommissioning may not be viable
option.
4.10 p.58 Section 5.3 1st paragraph “To attempt to answer this question (effectiveness of
mitigation) we have drawn upon all reviews available to us. There is however only limited published
information in the literature on how effective mitigation plans have been in meeting their objectives in
developing and developed countries.” See comment 5.8
4.11 p. 60 Paragraph 4 : According to SEARIN, The information on Thailand is not correct.

Referring to WCD Pak Mun Case Study, there are 265 fish species in the Mun River, not 109. . In the
Case Study mentioned, it was stated that a vertical slot fishpass or a Denil fishpass would be more
effective than a pool and weir fishpass. Also, the location of the existing fishpass is not optimal.
Same Paragraph : Regarding the older fishpass that the report states to be more effective, this was not
at Pak Mun because there was no older fishpass at Pak Mun. The older fishpass mentioned in the
report is the fishladder at Kwan Payao Dam, which was built 70 years ago. The numbers mentioned in
the report (29 out of 33 species) are not accurate. The latest survey of the Ing River has identified 90
fish species, not 33 species.
When we talk of the fish species which can pass the fish ladder, we also need to have the amount of
fish that pass, not only the species. In the case of Pak Mun dam, only 2 species can pass a large
number of fish through the ladder, while other species can only pass a few fish through.
4.12 P. 63 Table 5.1 under the socio-economic "To assess the number of people……" The table
should include the people upstream, as well as in the reservoir area, not only those who live
downstream.
4.14 Pg. 64 Section 5.3.3 According to SEARIN the report raises technical issues on the capacity
constraints for conservation, mitigation etc. While these constraints do exist, it should be noted that in
3rd world countries the most major constraint is related to the lack of responsibility on the
dambuilders part, as well as the failure to enforce mitigation measures, or the mitigation plan is never
implemented, merely written out on paper. Also, the report takes a very 1st world viewpoint on such
topics as the "lack of 4 wheel-drive vehicles and proper road networks" needed to access the rivers. In
developing nations such as Thailand, the people don't think like that, and we hope that the report can
take this into account.
4.15 p.66. 1st paragraph The Pangue dam may have drowned little wildlife but has evicted
thousands of Pehuenche Indians from their homes. We wouldn’t call this dam “benign”
5. Recommendations from the review to be included in WCD´s final report
Taking into account the comments and views expressed by us in chapter 1-4 above SSNC supports the
suggested recommendations to the WCD of the review.
j) Comments by Henk Saejis
The time allowed me to assess the report was very short. It is quite possible that I have missed
sections, or failed to notice some item. Please regard my remarks as a modest contribution to a good
piece of work.
I make my remarks from the perspective of:
My experiences with the major hydraulic engineering projects that have been realised in The
Netherlands in the 20th century;
My experiences with the issues impinging on the Rhine riverbed area;
Numerous visits to and recommendations for dam projects in Korea, Brazil, Egypt, Turkey, South
Africa, Chile, Russia, Italy etc.
General
My overall impression of the report is: ‘a valuable piece of works with many facts, opinions and
standpoints, most of which I share The report does however have the appearance of being a hastily
assembled study document, in which I miss the connecting structure and any synthesis. The issues are
presented in reasonable and sufficient detail, if you know where to look, while the conclusions and
recommendations are left hanging. The key message is largely present but it takes time and
concentrated reading to find it. There really needs to be an extra level of explanation.
I miss: main conclusions.

Main conclusions in my opinion are:
There is an urgent need for management plans at the level of entire river basins. Dams could play a
role in it, but they are not the first essential matter of concern in relation to sustainable development.
[In my opinion, the report of the World Commission for Dams concentrates its attention too strictly on
reviewing the development effectiveness of dams and guidelines concerning ‘all aspects of dam
building and utilisation’. Although these are very important subjects, there is an urgent need…]
When damming parts of rivers the determining abiotic circumstances of the river basin shouldn't be
altered beyond the natural fluctuations of the natural river basin. These natural flions caused by human
activities, river basins having, as dynamic ecosystems, extensive. When the effects due to artificial
reservoirs remain within the limits of this natural resilience no harm is done to the natural system.
In that way irreversible effects on ecosystems, and following these the negative impacts on socio-
economic aspects, are avoided.
The challenge for each new project is to find out what the resilience is and how not to go beyond the
limits of that resilience. (It is important to realise that the resilience for abiotic and biotic changes
fluctuates in with the seasons.) The challenge for each existing project is to investigate what should be
corrected in order to restore a situation in which the effects of the reservoirs stay within the limits of
the resilience of the natural ecosystem of the river basin.
This conclusion also provides a logical explanation of the concept sustainable use. Disturbing a river
basin by human activity should never have a greater impact than the natural ranges and frequencies of
disturbances that the natural river basin has to deal with. The word ‘natural’ is important here: the
disturbances caused by human abuse of the river basin in the past shouldn't be taken into account of
course.
Following this overall conclusion the complete flow of a river should never be dammed, because
making a stagnant lake of a stretch of river clearly goes beyond the borders of the resilience of a
natural river. Only parts of the flow should be used for reservoirs made in bypasses of the main
stream. Dams may offer many advantages but as soon as they are on such a scale that the resilience of
the natural system is eroded, they cease to be sustainable. So, consider recommending small-scale
dams instead of large-scale dam-building
In addition the following marginal notes
Increased awareness of the natural environment and its endangered situation is one of the most
important developments of the late twentieth century. The United Nations “Declaration on the
Environment” and the Club of Rome’s message on the “Limits to Growth” left their mark on our
thinking in 1972, followed in 1987 by immediate and world-wide agreement on the convincing
concept of <<sustainable development>> as propagated in the Brundtland Report of the United
Nations on <<Our Common Future>>. In 1992 the United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development (UNCED) put the issue into a global perspective and drew up a comprehensive action
program in Agenda 21.
In my opinion initiatives such as the World Commission for Dams’ may be considered in part as the
(indirect) outcome of UNCED. The most important strategic principles formulated at this conference
were:
• Policy and management need an integrated approach at the level of an entire river basin.
• Management of water resources needs to be developed within a total package of policy measures
on human health, production, protection and distribution of food, prevention and solution of
accidental events, environmental protection and conservation of natural resources.
• Integrated water management is based on the awareness that water is an inextricable part of the
ecosystem and that water is also a social and economic asset.
• Priority must be given to (1) fulfilling basic human needs and (2) at the same time protecting the
earth’s ecosystems.
These four main recommendations should be constrains for your report. And for dam building
In Europe the water policy of the European Commission is evolving from individual guidelines
concerning different aspects (like water quality standards, pollution control, swimming water etc.) to a
more integrated framework directive on water management. An important basic principle within the
(draft) guideline is the organisation of water management at the level of an entire river basin. River
basin authorities should propose and implement (not only with respect to water quality issues!) action
programmes in order to solve the problems.
Five important steps should be undertaken:
1. As a first step, a clear description should be made of the state of the art in a river basin. What are
the general features, what are the ecological and economical characteristics, what are the human
interests? What are the borders of the natural resilience of the river basin? What sort of dams and
other infrastructure are present in the river basin.
2. Secondly, a problem definition should be made at the level of an entire river basin, including five
major area of concern: protection from flooding (1), transport (2), energy demand (3), water
availability and distribution (4) and maintenance of biodiversity and ecological services. The
abiotic factors are the basis for the biodiversity that is present. This biodiversity will continue as
long as there is abiotic diversity. Or as long as there is no substantive change to it. Within the
resilience of the ecosystem they can survive without permanent injury. (5). Socio-economic and
ecological problems should be identified. Key-factors in inhibiting sustainable development should
be identified.
3. Thirdly, a long-term cost-benefit analysis, based on sustainable development of natural resources,
should be set up for the entire river basin in its present state. Also long term cost-benefit analyses
should be made for proposed solutions (step 4).
4. Fourthly an inventory should be carried out of possible solutions to solve the problems. Active
participation of stake-holders is highly desirable. In this respect it is very important to consider a
(large) dam or a series of dams as one of the possible instruments/alternatives for solving (social)
problems, rather than as an objective in itself. When considering a dam project, the long-term costs
to society and the environment should be studied and compared with these of alternative solutions.
5. Finally, recommendations should be formulated for a sustainable management approach for the
entire river basin. A river basin action programme should be formulated and approved by the
governments and stake-holders involved.
In order to meet sustainable development objectives one should try to strike a balance between water
and other natural resources.
I would like to make some statements on the role of dams in the sustainable development of river
basins
In my opinion, the report of the World Commission for Dams concentrates its attention too strictly to
reviewing the development effectiveness of dams and guidelines concerning ‘all aspects of dam
building and utilisation’. Although these are very important subjects, there is a more urgent need for
management plans at the level of entire river basins. Dams could play a role in it, but they are not the
issue of primary concern in relation to sustainable development. They are not an objective as such, but
an instrument, which can and should be used in some cases. Unfortunately, there are not many river
systems left in which we can implement alternative solutions as well. In less than a century, virtually
all the major rivers in the world have been ‘reconstructed’ as a result of the building of dams and
reservoirs. There are now some 45,000 large dams in the world, and many more are under construction
or in preparation.
On the other hand, dams and reservoirs can in some cases offer new opportunities if one takes
advantage of changing environmental boundary conditions. The Netherlands for example, is
protected and divided by dikes and dams. The impact of this infrastructure on the original environment
has been tremendous. There have been some fundamental errors, but in the mean time by
compartmentalisation of the land has created numerous new opportunities with social and ecological
prospects. At this moment there are ongoing studies to see whether the mistakes made are amenable to
correction. A differentiation of management alternatives in neighbouring compartments (polders,
lakes, estuaries) is a distinct possibility. A diversity of ecosystems has been created, a diversity of
environments with a large variety of land and water uses. As a result, an impressive nature and
biodiversity have developed and for the inhabitants a prosperous and fertile land, with high potential.
Point by point
The report quite properly devotes a great deal of attention to the maintenance of the existing (natural)
environment. This is almost universally undervalued in decision taking and practically nowhere is
there an “awareness of ecological costs’. That while the costs of a dam are generally underestimated
and the benefits too low. Long-term cost-benefit analyses are never made, while the damage in the
long-term can be huge (For example soil pollution Rhine outlet).
Large sections of the report have been written with the underlying emphasis on dams with reservoirs
in rivers serving for storage and timed distribution of the water. There are indeed quite a variety of
dams. In my opinion there is too much emphasis on dams and collection reservoirs for providing water
storage and its timed distribution. Too little attention is paid to other types of dams designed for safety
in estuaries for example, for hydroelectricity, for collection of downstream mining residues of for
example copper mines with all their consequences. For hydroelectricity there’s quite a difference
between the dam being on the mountain or in the middle or lower reaches of the river.
[The Netherlands for example]
Of the original 8,660 km2 of estuaries in the Rhine-Maas delta in 1900, there remain only 3,930 km2
in 2000. In one century the construction of dams has led to the loss of 4,730 km2 of estuary area.
When Costanza’s key figures (1998) are applied to these estuaries and the new systems, the gross
National Nature Product of the estuaries in 1900 is estimated to have been ca. USD 19 billion / annum.
These water systems now represent a capital value of ca. USD 386 billion.
The 4730 km2 of estuaries are responsible for a loss of national nature product of USD 10.5 billion /
annum and a cash loss of ca. USD 210 billion. Compensating for this is a profit of 2,784 km2 of new
lakes and new land with a combined national nature product of USD 2.5 billion / annum and a capital
value of USD 51 billion.
The net production loss can then be estimated to be USD 8 billion and the net capital value loss to be
USD 159 billion (all amounts in 1998 exchange rate values).
These costs are never included in cost-benefit analyses. Current policy is aimed towards where
possible restoring estuaries environment. This too will cost a fortune. What are we trying to do?
There is quite rightly a great deal of attention being devoted to threats and negative effects. But too
little attention is being given to opportunities and possibilities of the new systems and their potential.
See ‘Environmental considerations……..’ and ‘Creative in a changing delta’
Based on experiences in the Delta Project in the Netherlands new directions are suggested for large-
scale hydraulic engineering projects in estuaries. Emphasis is put on greater awareness of the many
factors involved, especially on the ecological implications of the project, and the necessity to
incorporate flexibility that will make it possible to cope with changes and unexpected developments,
and on recognition of the fact that processes are being dealt with. The alternative comprising
preservation of the existing situation (the To alternative) must play a much more important role in
future preparations and decision making. If a civil engineering structure is inevitable the process of
modification and transformation undergone by an area as a result of hydraulic engineering works
must be considered at least as worthy of attention as the process of designing and constructing the
works themselves. Both processes must play an important part in decision-making, from the
preparatory stage to the after-care. A sectored approach must be avoided. Every effort must be made
to achieve an integrated approach, taking the basin as a whole as model. This demands smooth
administrative co-operation. Multifunctional considerations should be given greater weight in the
design of hydraulic projects. In this connection, more attention should be given to their function as an
eco-technical management tool. Wide freedom of management must be incorporated into the design,
to offer greater flexibility in response to changes, unanticipated events, new views on management;
and such hydrodynamic works must be seen as subsidiary (as regulatory instrument) to the ecological
and social functioning of the systems they can exert an influence on. A probabilistic approach to the
design must therefore be related not only to the primary functions and the existence of the construction
but also to the (future) requirements for modification, transformation, and management of the region
that is affected. Decisions to execute hydraulic projects in regions for which (future) management
plans do not exist must therefore be considered premature. The objective is not to resist change but to
guide it properly. Ways to achieve these goals are indicated in the thesis ‘Changing estuaries’, chapter
attached)
The learning process too is receiving too little attention both within the project and between dam
projects.
[Experiences with the Zuiderzee project and the Delta project in the nineteen-eighties have resulted in
The Netherlands in a revolution in water management that is now known as an ‘Integrated water
system approach’. This new type of water management has had its impact on the conferences in Rio de
Janeiro (1992), Dublin etc. (See also ‘Creative in a changing delta’ attached)]
Dams receive too much attention. A dam is just an instrument for controlling the physical
environment. The discussion should in fact be focussed on the problems of the river basin and
alternative solutions. A dam may certainly be appropriate but other solutions should be investigated
too.
The issue of dams can moreover not be considered in isolation. There are many other reasons for
modifying river systems (shipping, land reclaim, safety). The effects are usually a result of these
modifications combined. There are for example in the Rhine basin and its tributaries ca. 450
structures (dams, weirs, locks etc) all separately managed without any co-ordination. Result greater
discharges with greater chance of flooding and of summer droughts (See article A Quest etc.)
The almost universally adopted sectored approach to decision-taking for dams generally results in
erroneous conclusions. The requirement for and desirability of a dam should in my opinion be judged
against the background of the management of the entire basin area and all human intervention taken as
a whole.
[Currently for example in the Rhine and its tributaries expensive projects are being implemented in an
attempt to restore lost environments. I take for example ‘giving the river space as an alternative to dike
reinforcement’; or ‘restoration of the flood plains and estuaries’. These recovery projects run into the
millions and should be a lesson for new projects. It’s open to question whether a profit will result from
a long-term costs-benefit analysis.]
The soil at the outlet of the Rhine and the Meuse, the Hollands Diep Haringvliet area is heavily
polluted from contaminated silt from upstream. The costs for remediation are estimated to be in excess
of USD 75 billion. An important lesson is that one should never dam a river before dealing with
upstream pollution.
Dams are too often seen as an objective in themselves, resulting in other permanent solutions being
ignored.
Appendix A
Statements on the role of dams and reservoirs in the sustainable development of river basins.
• Sustainable development, management and use of natural (water) resources require integrated river
basin planning. The long-term conservation of natural resources and the services they deliver to
humankind (e.g. productivity, water retention, energy, clean water for all kinds of purposes,
biodiversity) is the main objective of river basin plans, in order to safeguard a multiple and wise
use for us and future generations.
• Dams and reservoirs are instruments to meet an objective and are not an objective in themselves.
During the initial stages of planning a dam project, the question should be asked whether
alternative solutions exist for problems in the river basin with lower long-term costs to society and
the environment. A dam project must fit in an integrated river basin management plan; if not and/or
if better solutions are available, the project should not be carried out or the dam should even be
demolished.
• International organisations like ICOLD and the World Commission for Dams should promote
examples of dams that contribute to sustainable development. Examples of (existing and planned)
projects, which are not contributing to sustainable development, should be mentioned to the world
explicitly.
• Dams and their environments interrelate with a degree of complexity that makes the task of the
dam engineer particularly difficult but of great interest. All dams and reservoirs become a part of
their environment and influence, modify or even transform it to a degree and within a range that
varies from project to project. Dams and reservoirs play an (unplanned) role in landscape
development, with both negative and positive effects on the quality and the use of the landscape.
Dams and reservoirs can offer new opportunities if one takes advantage of changing environmental
boundary conditions. This approach can be very important for the existence, design and execution
of a dam, a real challenge for the ingenuity of engineers in co-operation with ecologists,
environmentalists, social experts and people from many other disciplines.
• The larger a dam project, the greater will be its likely effects on the natural and social environment,
and the wider the scope of the multidisciplinary, holistic studies which it requires. Large-scale
development demands integrated planning for an entire river basin before the implementation of
the first individual project(s). When river basins are located in more than one country, such
planning presupposes international co-operation. Integrated planning includes the development of
management plans for the operation of dams and reservoirs within a river basin.
• A dam and/or reservoir project is not finished after construction. After construction, the
management of that construction starts and effects become clear. There are more alternatives to
operating a dam, taking more or less advantage of changing environmental boundary conditions.
• The market will grow for new sustainable and inventive solutions. There is a growing demand for
ingenious infrastructure and alternative solutions as a tool for achieving sustainable development,
management and use of the river basins in the world. Some existing dams will have to be adjusted
to these new insights or even have to be reconsidered.
• Decisions for the construction of water infrastructure or the management of water systems appear
to have a timeless value. In any case, they usually have consequences for centuries. Therefore long
term costs and benefits should be studied for individual project proposals together with other
possible alternatives before any decision is made at all.
• Dams and reservoirs can contribute to a better distribution of available water resources, but they are
not the only solution. A lot of attention needs to be paid to measures for reducing the growth of the
world population and raising awareness of sensible use of available water resources. Often, better
control of the quantities of water in a river only generates a feeling of abundance, so that incentives
for more efficient use are not considered. The average efficiency of irrigation in the tropics has
been estimated by the FAO to be only 30%. Water should be priced to cover its true cost.
• One of the central problems is that too much priority is given to building even more and even
bigger constructions. The emphasis should be placed much more on management than on
construction. The key question should not be “where can we build even more”, but “how do I use
efficiently and effectively the infrastructure that I already have. And how can this be improved in
relation to those questions of management”.
• Many projects are carried out to serve local, regional or national needs without taking into account
the real causes of problems and without taking into account the effects on the entire river basin.
• Decision-making in water management is quite frequently dictated by disasters. The challenge is to

meet decisions based on long-term cost-benefit analyses.
• The time has come for economists and ecologists to work together. This will certainly result in new
instruments for ecosystem management and perhaps in new applications of economics. By analogy
with the concept of eco-technology, we could call the new applications of economics for ecosystem
management “eco-economics” or abbreviated to “ecoconomics”.
• Wide-ranging consideration must be given to the question of how the river basins should be
managed internationally in the next century.
• Management of water systems should be organised at the river basin level. The basis should be laid
by an international (holistic) evaluation study, followed by a policy analysis at the river basin level.
In order to activate this international management of the river system, a step-by-step approach is
perhaps the correct method: First set-up a Co-ordinating Committee; Then set-up a River Basin
Commission; Finally, when the time comes for this, set-up a Management Authority, with
appropriate powers. The task package of this management authority might include: quantitative and
qualitative water management; environmental protection; integrated management of existing
infrastructure; ecological recovery of the river system; and co-ordination and harmonisation of new
infrastructure construction.
• Political decisions about water management issues should be motivated short-term motive, but
should be based primarily on an explicit long-term strategy.
k) Comments by Martin Perusse

General Comments
1. Considering the scope of this report and the needs of the WCD to document and to review
different thematics in order to make sound recommendations, I think this report misses the
point and is not very useful in its actual format. In fact, this report is more a pasting of
anecdotes and big numbers from which general conclusions are drawn (even if it should not be
done). This approach has no scientific ground, is tendentious and misleading. For each
example that the report takes to argue I could give an example showing the opposite.
2. The report argues that dams are a threat in every continents, especially for biodiversity. But
curiously, surveys made by international agencies such as the United Nations and the « Global
environment outlook 1997 and 2000 » do not come to the same conclusions. Global
environment outlook 1997 shows that the greatest threats to biodiversity are :
Africa : agriculture, grazing land, energy production from wood ;

Europe : agriculture, industry, transportation, tourism ;
Asia-Pacific : strong demographic growth, strong economic growth, clearing of forests,
introduction of exotic species ;
Western Asia : over-fishing, marine pollution
Latin America and the Caribbean : agriculture, animal husbandry, forestry operations, cutting
of firewood, road construction ;
North America : thermal generating stations, burning of fossil fuels.
As you can see, there are many sources of threats but dams are not the biggest problem on
earth, according to the UN.
3. The report concludes that dams have major impacts and is a threat to natural ecosystems. If we
follow on this chain of logic, countries that use massively dams for energy production for
example should see their natural capital destroyed. Canada and Quebec especially is a good
example to look at for a demonstration. Quebec produces more than 95% of its electricity
from dams. Quebec, as all of North America, is a big consumer of energy. So Quebec should
be an ecological disaster ! Well, let me tell you that it is not the case. Natural capital in
Quebec is very well preserved. Moreover, just think if Quebec would have to replace all its
dams to produce electricity... by fossil fuels ! Now you might get an ecological disaster don’t
you think.
4. The report makes it clear that the creation of a dam and a reservoir on a river will change (or
destroy if you wish) forever this ecosystem. This is a fact, a reservoir-lake is not a river.
Physical, chemical and biological characteristics are not the same. But this is not the real
problem because a reservoir has its own set of characteristics making it a different but
productive ecosystem and achieving natural functions of regulation, habitat, production and
information. There would be a problem if all rivers would ultimately be dammed and
transformed into a reservoir. That would be a loss of natural capital. But this is not the case.
Again, as an example, Quebec has only about 0,1% of its river length turned into hydroelectric
reservoirs, has less than 0,4% of its rivers dammed, has only 15 of its 430 large drainage
basins with Hydro-Quebec dams and has about 1,2% of its surface area covered with
reservoirs. Worldwide dams cover about 0,3% of the earth (HQ and GDG, 1999).
5. One must be careful concluding that one option, dams, is not a good option. One cannot
concludes that way without assessing the alternatives. It is not dams or nothing but rather
dams or something else. And in a deregulated market with more interconnections this trend
will just increase. Life cycle analysis of electricity generation options must be used before
such conclusions are to be made.
6. I think the conclusion that dams should be the last resort must be deleted. Again, one would
need a life cycle analysis of options before arriving at such conclusion. Moreover, I don’t
understand this conclusion because in the text examples of good dams are presented (Fortuna
and Pehuenche) and criteria to select good dams are shown.
7. You should have a look at a news from Reuters at the end of my comments. Worlwide
electricity consumption is expected to increase by more than 70% in the next two decades.
Fossil fuels has the lead and is expected to continue its domination. Is it what the report means
when it says that dams should be the last resort ? I am not sure than our natural capital will be
better off with such a strategy. This is rather a wake-up call that more renewable is desperately
needed including dams because new renewables like wind and solar will not be enough
considering the needs and the limitations of these options in terms of potential, economics and
level of services.
Specific Comments
3.2 page 12,
The descending order of dams and impacts may be misleading since it does not account for the level of
service of each type of dams. Storage dams do not provide for the same service as a run-of-river dam.
By doing so, one compares apples and oranges and does not acknowledge for the well recognised fact
that many small dams are more detrimental for the environment than one big dam.
Box 3.3 page 18,

This box does not acknowledge for the fact that impacts from transmission lines are not typical of
dams but of any type of production. And again, such as in table 3.1 numbers are used out of context.
What is the importance of 32 000 km of lines, or 3 200 sq km (there is an error in the text the number
should be 1350 sq km), for the province of Quebec with its 1,6 millions sq km. The use of big
numbers, mainly because they are big, has no scientific basis and is misleading. This box should also
be revised since facts from HQ and GDG study and conclusions made by IUCN authors are put
together but not always with clear reference to each other.
3.5 Upstream impacts page 20,

I do not like to read in a scientific analysis a phrase such as « Dams also often have a bottom outlet. »
Why not : Dams also often have a upper layer outlet ? ? (which is also true, I could give you many
examples). Such phrases are imprecise and tendentious. Stick to facts. Most earth dams have no
bottom outlets.
3.5.1.3 Changes in water quality, page 22,

The paragraph on mercury should be revised. It is too general to be of any use. It does not talk about
real reservoirs and populations dealing with this issue. It sticks to the chemical toxic potential but
without explaining that in many countries populations and fish have not been intoxicated with
mercury. And the use of McCully as a reference is not very serious since I do not recall him as being
an expert on the issue. Major studies done in Quebec, Sweden could be used more efficiently
(Mercury in the biogeochemical cycle by Lucotte et al.1999 Springer-Verlag).
3.5.3.1 Invertebrates, fish, birds and mammals page 25,

The phrase « As many species prefer valley bottom habitats, large-scale impoundments are likely to
extinguish entire populations of species » is not very convincing. This does not make this report a
serious scientific analysis of dams, especially without reference and clear examples. Moreover, even
with examples it is always scientifically dangerous to jump from a few examples to a well accepted
and supported fact. Same for the other phrases of this paragraph.
3.6.1.2 Water quality page 29,

The problems of low dissolved oxygen and gas bubble disease are not universal problems at all. This
is specific to some type of dams and in Quebec for example we do not have these problems. Same for
sediment transport and turbidity in 3.6.1.3.
3.6.3 Third order impacts on fauna page 35,

Again, I do not see a rigorous scientific analysis here about large woody debris. The real contribution
to streams and rivers is yet to be known, the impacts of dams not known. Moreover, wood is not
systematically removed by dam operator, this is not necessary for dam operation and it would be too
costly anyway. The text also suggest that only one point on a river contributes to downstream woody
debris, which is not true. Debris fall all along the river, including downstream of dams.
Another theoretical and not supported analysis concerns the hippos. The text talks about potential
impacts to hippos without references and without acknowledging the possible positive impacts. In fact
regulating rivers may be good for hippos since water will be provided all year long, which may be
crucial in dry season when hippos die because of the scarcity of water.
3.7 Consequences of dams for species diversity page 38,

This section is tendentious because it relates indirectly species extinction to dams but without talking
about the many other threats. Agriculture, grazing, land conversion for development and outdoor
recreation vehicles (ORV) have been identified as more serious threats that dams. Saying that North
America freshwater species are the most endangered species group is false. First, the text should refer
to USA only and not to Canada. Secondly, it is said that it is the most endangered group based on the
rate of disappearance but without saying that other groups such as plant have more species
endangered. The report cannot use statistics only when it suits the argument.
3.7.1 Bivalve and gastropod molluscs page 39-41,

The report takes a few examples to relate dams and the disappearance of molluscs but without
acknowledging for other threats that are at least as important as dams, agriculture and pollution. And
the Mississippi is a very good example of multiple sources of impacts, where dams have probably one
small contribution to its deterioration.
3.7.3 Dams and waterbirds page 44,

A scientific analysis would have said that agriculture and land conversion are the biggest threats to
endangered birds not dams.
3.8 Cumulative impacts page 46-49,

Again, the use of numbers is misleading. Figure 3.7 says that only four major rivers remain
undammed. What is a major river ? Are major rivers more important than not major rivers ? What is
the ecological significance and contribution of major rivers to the Sweden environment ? And the not
major rivers of Sweden ?
The phrase « In view of the severity of these cumulative impacts.... » should be deleted. There has
been no serious and scientifically demonstrated analysis showing the cumulative impacts of dams on
the environment. The fact that cumulative impacts are included in guidelines and policies underlines
the importance to consider multiple and additive sources of impacts (and not just dams) on the
environment.
Specialists in that field acknowledge the fact that cumulative impacts is a very seductive concept but
still with major methodological constraints, suggesting that interpretation is subject to caution and that
conclusions cannot be made.
4 The economic and social implications of ecosystem impacts page 51,
Introduction : The phrase « Chapter 3 has in turn shown that dams impact upon natural ecosystems to
change these functions, usually diminishing the value of the benefits that they provide to society »
should be deleted. Chapter 3 (and I read it carefully) does not provide for such a demonstration. To
achieve such a conclusion, the report would first need the right method (which it does not have), the
report would have to consider the positive impacts of dams (which it did not do) and the report would
have to consider the alternatives to produce irrigation and electricity (if not dams then what candles or
coal...). The report seems to have an hypothesis right in mind but there is no conclusive scientific
demonstration of that hypothesis in your text. This is not good science.
This section lacks the following :
-multicriteria requires the comparison of alternatives (if you don’t build dams then what ?)
-alternatives must provide for the same level of service
-impacts of dams can also be positive (avoided emissions, watershed protection, potable water...)
-determination of all costs and benefits of all alternatives.
5 Responding to the ecosystem impacts of dams page 63,
This section talks a lot about decommissioning as a measure but without mentioning one major
consequence that would happen with its wide use. At some point the removal of dams that produce
electricity could mean producing electricity with other sources such as fossil fuels.
5.3 How effective is mitigation ? page 64-65,
The first paragraph refers to the IEA study (2000) by saying that even if many measures are proven to
be efficient one cannot imply that these measures would work in all cases. You have to admit that this
study refers to many measures in many different countries and situations. But I agree that we have to
be cautious. What I do not understand is why the report is so cautious here while in many places in the
text it is not, concluding with a few examples, often without references ? This does not seem to be a
well-balanced analysis. One cannot easily generalise on the efficiency of mitigation measures, and
neither on the impacts of dams.
Page 67 : « Fish passages have been considered singularly ineffective by some experts in Brazil... ».
Who are these experts, references ? This is not very serious.
5.3.2 Why mitigation is difficult ? page 69,
The phrase « The science of wetland and river ecosystem management and the downstream impact of
dams is still in its infancy and falls far short of 100% predictive capacity » should be deleted. First,
uncertainty is a fact of science and especially of ecology. No real scientist and ecologist is looking for
100% prediction. Any result that would achieve 100% would be considered suspicious by the
scientific community ! Secondly, I have some difficulties to follow the logic here because if it is still
in its infancy and poor in predictive power, how can it be so conclusive with all those impacts of dams
in chapter 3 or when chapter 4 says that « Chapter 3 has in turn shown that dams impact upon natural
ecosystems to change these functions, usually diminishing the value of the benefits that they provide
to society ». The analysis shows no scientific basis.
Table 5.1 page 70, this table is not very useful. We need water quality data to assess water quality
impacts. We need aquatic biota data to assess impacts on aquatic species and so on. Sure but not very
informative !
5.4 Tools for environmentally sound management of water resources page 73,
I disagree totally with the first phrase. I do not see how the report can say that mitigation is only rarely
achievable in most situations. On the contrary the IEA study shows that many measures work in
different situations and countries.
6 Trends in the international debate page 79,
I have some problems with this section because all come down to pros or cons. This is too manichean.
It is too simplistic and it does not reflect the complexity of such questions. What about the various
perspectives of stakeholders, agencies, governments, etc. ?
7 Conclusions page 88,
The scope of the conclusions is misleading because there is no clear demonstration that all dams in
many countries of the world have all those impacts and that it is always negative. There is also no
clear demonstration about mitigation. Moreover the report cannot conclude in such a way without
assessing the alternatives. It is not dams or nothing but rather dams or something else. Because of that
the recommendation that dams should be seen as a last resort is made out of the global context and
must be deleted.
Globally your recommendations are too general or too vague to be very useful, even with the
operationalisation options.
l) Comments by Robert Dobias

1. The draft document provided interesting reading and is an important contribution to the WCD
process. A few comments are provided below for the authors’ consideration, and for the most
part focus on Section 7: Conclusions and Policy Recommendations for WCD. I don’t believe
that any of the comments below mention concepts not already somewhere in the paper, but the
comments may present minor changes in emphasis or suggestions for moving the concepts
more explicitly into the paper’s policy recommendations.
A. Incorporating ecosystem considerations early in the planning process
2. The need for early incorporation of ecosystem/biodiversity concerns in the planning of dam
projects is mentioned in several places (though, unfortunately, not explicitly in Section 7.2).
This certainly is a key consideration in improving the environmental acceptability of dams.
For countries that have an active hydropower and/or irrigation development sector, there
would seem to be two primary policy measures that might be taken, one short term (1-5 years)
and one longer term (5-15 years). (Also pertains to Section 5.3)
3. Short term Where there are national energy and irrigation development plans (virtually
all countries), these plans should be assessed for their treatment of ecosystems/biological
resources (and of course social issues). If ecosystem concerns continue to be ignored in these
plans, then much of the battle is already lost in terms of improving environmental conditions
in water resource development – we will have to continue to rely on mitigation measures that
come so late in the process. Where these considerations are found to be weak or lacking, the
plans should be revised based on rapid river basin assessments to be commissioned as part of
the revision process. Because the sector development plans will already give a reasonable
indication of where and when major projects are to be implemented, the rapid assessments can
be targeted at what are likely to be just a handful of basins.
4. In most cases, the issue of financial and human resource capacity raised by the authors may in
reality not be an issue at all. This is because the work need not be done in all basins over the
short term (for reasons stated above), and because those countries with financial and human
resource constraints are also likely to be countries receiving support from bilateral and
international aid agencies. Thus the policy should be directed particularly at aid agencies as
well as governments. The private sector would, of course, be required to follow the revised
plans.
5. Longer term The longer-term policy recommendation would be for the preparation and
implementation of river basin management plans that, by definition, would consider
ecosystem conservation. This has already been mentioned by the authors, and they provide an
excellent recommendation earlier in the report regarding the preparation of plans to “set aside”
certain basins. However, this might be expanded to state that budget approval for sectoral
development should be contingent on the sectoral plans being in line with the river basin
management plans. This way, central budget agencies would be required to assess hydropower
and irrigation proposals in light of the river basin plans, and withhold funding from any
proposal that contravened these plans. At minimum, this would eliminate “surprise projects”
which so often are most destructive of the environment.
B. Use of strategic environmental assessment (SEA)
6. I believe this is mentioned in the report, but it does not seem to be explicitly mentioned in
Section 7. National policy requiring SEA for hydropower/irrigation policies and development
plans would be an important step in the early identification of unacceptable projects or project
components and related avoidance recommendations. (See also Section 5.3.3)
C. Translating EIA/EMP recommendations into project contracts
7. This would seem to be another key to limiting the potential environmental damage produced
by dams (also see Section 5.3). So much of the unsatisfactory environmental effects of dams,
at least in this part of the world, are due not to poor EIAs/EMPs (though this certainly is a
factor), but to the inability to translate EIA/EMP recommendations into project contractual
documents, especially those related to civil works. Most agencies have procurement
guidelines that include templates for tender documents, contracts, bills of quantity, and so
forth. These agencies (including the international donor agencies, which tend to use common
procurement guidelines) should be requested to review these guidelines for their effectiveness
in getting environmental recommendations into contracts. In many cases, I suspect that this
will be found sorely lacking, and perhaps limited to sweeping statements on the need to ‘add a
section’ on environmental requirements or ‘the EIA must be implemented’ (which has
virtually no legal teeth with contractors).
D. Adequate legal framework and compliance mechanisms
8. Section 5.3.3 correctly states that more supervisory missions and closer monitoring have been
recommended to ensure compliance in countries where there may be a weak legal framework
or will to implement existing legal requirements, and that these monitoring activities may
unfortunately cease when the contract expires and the donor considers the project complete.
However, this issue shouldn’t be left at that. In addition to legal capacity building, donors
could play a key role in ensuring that long-term monitoring mechanisms are included in the
project design that would carry through to the project operation stage. This is not particularly
difficult to do, but is not often done perhaps because the donors tend to lose “leverage” once a
project is completed. However, if a portion of the project proceeds are contractually
committed to monitoring and reporting during project operation, for example, then this could
be continued without further donor presence.
E. A few other observations
9. Why does the discussion of cumulative impacts of interbasin water transfers merit just a single
short paragraph on page 44? These projects are often the most destructive of biological
resources and beneficial uses.
10. In Box 4.1 on page 50, is it realistic to state that those who cause damage are liable to ensure
that the environment is restored to its former state? Clearly, this will not be possible in many
‘good” projects no matter the desire of the project proponent to do so.
11. On page 54, the authors may also mention that biomass clearance is another option to deal
with nutrient accumulation.
12. I’m a bit surprised that the environmental indicators in Box 5.5 are touted so highly by the
authors.
m) Comments by Stuart Blanch

Comments have been made in reference to specific sections and issues, with page numbers given.
Page Comment
10 I thought the chinook salmon example was inappropriate given that the species is
exotic to NZ.
13 Table 3.1. I am pretty sure that mean annual flows at the mouth of the Murray R in
the Murray-Darling Basin have fallen to 21% of natural - not 35%. For
clarification suggest you read Murray-Darling Basin Commission website.
15 Table 3.3. Thermal pollution and carbon flows/cycling should be included here in
respectively first order and second order impacts.
24 Para 2. Small to medium sized flows, which inundate floodplains and wetlands in
the Murray-Darling Basin, have been reduced more than any other aspect of the
hydrograph. This warrants special mention. For example, these sized flows have
fallen to 30% of natural in the lower Murray R.
Also, reductions in flow velocity in weir pools in the Murray R have been given as
a key cause of the decline in silver perch in NSW, leading to its recommendation
as a vulnerable species (see accompanying document).

Also, seasonal inversions of flows due to releases for rice, dairy and orchard
irrigation in the Murray are environmentally damaging. Suggest inclusion of a
graph from the Murray-Darling Basin Commission's website.
24-26 There is insufficient mention of the impacts of many weirs, acting in sequence, in
reducing instream flow variability. For example, papers by Thoms and Walker and
others in the journal Regulated Rivers Research and Management.
As in much of the document there is too much focus on data from the Colorado R
and other US rivers - there is a lot of good information from Australia that wasn't
mentioned and the report is the weaker for it.
Also, turkey nest dams or ring tanks should be mentioned. These are 4-5 metre
high dams built out of dirt on floodplains to store water, mainly for cotton. They
commonly store about 5, 000 to 10, 000 megalitres. Extractions of water for these
can greatly impact flows.
25 Second last para (The hydrological effects…) should include mention of terminal
wetlands and their shrinking from intercapetion of flows upstream. This is
particularly important in wetlands like the Ramsar listed Macquarie Marshes and
Gwydir wetlands in northern NSW.
Last para (Flow regimes are the key….). The period since last flooding is another
key feature of the hydrologic regime that should be included in the second sentence
(Flood timing, duration…). Also mention should be made of recruitment into the
seedbank and sporebank in addition to mention for fish etc,.
26 Water Quality - 600 and 1500 electrical conductivity units are emerging salinity
thresholds used in NSW for guiding flow management. Also a Q10 of 10 degrees
Celsius is probably relevant for biogeochemical processes including decomposition
rates.
Cold water pollution impacts on average 300 km below each large dam - hence
water temperatures are 5 degrees Celsius or more below normal - with a total of
about 2650 km across every major inland river in western NSW (see
accompanying paper).
28 Under Floodplains section: need to mention hydrological connectivity and
divorcing of floodplains from rivers as key impacts of flow regulation.
Also losses in floodplain area - the Ramsar listed Macquarie Marshes formed by
the Macquarie River in northern NSW are now about 50-60% of pre-dam size.
Also terrestrialisation of higher floodplains and invasion by terrestrial weeds due to
loss in flood frequency.
29 Section 3.6.2.1. Need to discuss impacts on carbon dynamics, bacterial and fungal
decomposition and higher impacts via food webs. Also filamentous blue-green
algae are important.
30 Disagree with sentence beginning Although water depth and light…. In floodplain
rivers with low velocity, water level changes are far more important than current
velocity and scouring.
Mention needs to be made of the rate at which water levels change in relation to
the photic depth - this is the key impact on photosynthesis in submersed plants.
There is no mention of submersed species in section 3.6.2.2 e.g. Vallisneria!
Water temperature impact on germination, photosynthesis and growth in
submersed species needs to be mentioned.

Also, carp favour weir pools with stable water levels - carp disturb aquatic plants
and increase turbidity.
31 Under section 3.6.3.1 A 40% reduction in flows sufficient to allow the passage of
native fish in the Lachlan River in NSW has occurred from flow regulation and
irrigation diversions.
In the Murray R floodplain mussels have invaded the main channel and the species
preferring deeper, colder water have reduced in distribution and abundance.
32 Para starting River-dwelling species… should mention impacts of slower water on
the survival of pelagic eggs of fish e.g. see the attached report on silver perch.
41 100, 000 fewer pairs of colonial nesting waterbirds are estimated to have bred in
the Macquarie Marshes in northern NSW over 12 years due to flow regulation
from Burrendong Dam and irrigation extractions.
50 Chapter 4 is too short and simplified. This is a key issue and needs more
information and analysis.
51 Section 5.2 Types of response - the first question is 'Is the dam really absolutely
necessary and are there no other options?".
53 Under Mitigating for Operational Impacts - a 'continuous supply …' is definitely
not what Australian rivers need from dams. Environmental flows here are
modelled and released according to natural flows and inflow triggers. A zero
release in summer is probably much more appropriate than a continuous release
over summer when many of the rivers here would be low or even dry.
54 Variable level offtakes are the most expensive option for mitigating thermal
pollution impacts e.g. submersed surface impellers are being investigated here and
are a fraction of the cost.
56 In 'Because much of the…' - Stocking of fish generally does not produce a self-
sustaining population. See the conclusion of the NSW Fisheries Scientific
Committee's on the effects of stocking of silver perch.
63 Under Table 5.1 - Carbon should be mentioned under 3. Water Quality.
Also, floodplains, groundwater and wetlands should be mentioned under Biotic.
Under 5.3.2.2. Feasibility is the main constraint of mitigation. Once a river is
impounded, no amount of mitigation will restore (i.e. to natural) it.
n) Comments by Musonda Mumba
A. General assessment of report

Date, authorship and structure
The draft provided for review is dated 10 March 2000 and compiled by G. Bergkamp, P. Dugan and J.
McNeely of IUCN HQ. Contributing papers were prepared by experts contracted by IUCN/UNEP,
FAO/WCD, WCD alone, and the UK Department for International Development (DFID).
The report includes 120 pages, of which approximately 85 pages are devoted to the seven main
sections:
1. Introduction
2. River Basin Ecosystems and Biodiversity

3. Ecosystem Impacts of Large Dams
4. The Economic and Social Implications of Ecosystem Impacts
5. Responding to the Ecosystem Impacts of Dams
6. Trends in the International Debate/Approach to Dams
7. Conclusions and Policy Recommendations to WCD
An Executive Summary and References will be added to the final version.

There are seven technical annexes to the report, which are cross-referenced in chapters 3 & 5. An
eighth annex lists all relevant submissions received by the WCD.
Observations on presentation and style

A key weakness is that in trying too hard to be ‘objective’ and ‘independent’ from the positions
advocated by more ‘radical’ environmental bodies, the IUCN review has lost much of its potential
weight and clarity. The compilers constantly seem to be ‘bending over backward’ to present
arguments ‘for and against’, so that it is frequently difficult for the reader to determine what
conclusion or direction the report is really advocating. Whilst this may help keep the proponents of
dams open to constructive debate, many environmental NGOs, including WWF will feel that IUCN
should reach stronger, clearer positions – particularly in the concluding chapter.
This impression is reinforced by the lack (in this version) of an executive summary and the limited
number of conclusions from individual chapters that make it into the final conclusions in chapter 7.
Highly significant statements are often buried in a mass of dense text, which is sometimes quite
difficult to follow – not because of its technical content, but because of a convoluted style. A
thorough re-edit is needed to fix this.
The structure is basically sound, though the report strays quite far from its mandate at times, with
chapter 6, in particular, indulging in a recapitulation of the overall ‘dams debate’. Whilst it is
important to recognise the progress that has been made by some international institutions in giving
attention to environmental issues, the ‘broad-brush’ approach of chapter 6 detracts from the focus of
the Thematic Review.
The immediate emphasis on biodiversity at the start of chapter 2 is misplaced, since biodiversity of
freshwater ecosystems is introduced before the ecosystems themselves have been defined and
described. The early emphasis on biodiversity may also ‘play into the hands’ of those interest groups
that would like to portray environmentalists as having a narrow nature conservation perspective.
There are many references quoted in the text. On one hand these lend authenticity and seriousness,
but they sometimes detract from the flow of the text. More significantly, a lot of key issues are ONLY
covered through a brief bracketed reference and it is assumed that interested readers have ready access
to some pretty obscure sources to get further information on these issues.
Overall conclusions and recommendations (Chapter 7)
This chapter presents some general conclusions, together with eight Recommendations to the WCD
and ‘Options for Operationalising the Recommendations’ (the latter boil down to suggestions for
implementation).
Conclusions
The conclusions are weak and poorly presented as continuous text, rather than concise, numbered
conclusions. We do not need a 120 page review to tell provide such generalities as, “there remain
significant and widespread concerns about the environmental impacts of dams”, or “the importance of
natural ecosystems is widely recognised by national governments...and international agreements”.

Amongst the few really useful statements in this short section is that:
“The review has underlined that dams have a wide range of major impacts upon natural ecosystems,
that most of these are negative, that many are irreversible and that they are manifest in economic and
social costs”.
However, it is regrettable that the there is no clear statement to the effect that large dams ALWAYS
have at least some adverse impacts on ecosystems and biodiversity.
Avoidance, mitigation, compensation and restoration are listed as the four main categories of
‘solutions’ proposed for dam impacts on ecosystems, with mitigation being described rather weakly as
“particularly problematic”, and having “usually residual impacts”. This paragraph (bottom of p.80 and
top of p.81) continues by giving an impression that mitigation is a generally attainable and acceptable
solution, providing that various conditions are met, but then concludes (more helpfully) “mitigation,
though often possible in principle, is at present not a credible option in many cases”.
Important findings in the body of the report, which should be imported into a significantly
strengthened conclusion section, are dealt with on a chapter-by-chapter basis in section B below.
Recommendations
The eight recommendations to the WCD do not really say anything very new and are presented in very
general terms. They can be summarised in only five points as:
• recognise the value of freshwater ecosystems and biodiversity conservation for sustainable
development;
• recognise and manage for uncertainty (i.e. there is no ‘one size fits all’ approach);
• ensure effective participation in planning, design and management of dams;
• when it is decided to build a dam, implement design and management measures to ensure that its
environmental impacts are minimised;
• promote development of better legislation and application of tools such as environmental flow
releases, ecosystem health indicators and site selection indicators.
The report fails to recommend clearly that the WCD should set international standards or guidelines
for any of the above issues. Instead there is a much more cautious formulation on p.83 that “the
Commission may wish to attach measurable norms or standards to these recommendations in order to
move from the policy framework to implementation”.
Important statements contained in the Recommendations heading, but which should be given more ‘up
front’ prominence as stand-alone conclusions are:
“In future, no dam should proceed if it is shown to have a high probability of having a significant
detrimental effect of species biodiversity” (Comment: the same should apply for ecosystem
functioning and environmental goods and services. More work is needed to define the meaning of
‘high probability’ and ‘significant detrimental effect’. The debate will continue to be subjective, and
ecosystems and biodiversity will continue to be lost and degraded unless international definitions and
guidelines are adopted by the WCD).
“...A high degree of uncertainty and limited predictive capacity argue forcefully for adoption of a
precautionary approach to dam development. Wherever possible dams and their impacts should be
avoided”. (Comment: this is the first of only two references to the precautionary approach in the
entire review and merits much more attention).
“It is essential that all dam projects and their impacts are subject to intensive analysis during planning
and design. This needs to be pursued through open process....”. (Comment: the report fails to follow
up this statement with meaningful ‘Options for Operationalisation’ – see below).
Options for Operationalising the Recommendations

Table 7.1 ‘Options for Operationalising the Recommendations’ (pp.83-85) needs substantially more
refinement if it is not to do more harm than good. For example, the Options suggested for
Recommendation 2 (‘Recognise the importance of biodiversity....’) include statements including:
“Dams should not be built in declared National Parks or Nature Reserves”. Does this mean that they
are perfectly OK just outside the border of a National Park/Nature Reserve? Or that they can be built
within other categories of protected area? Or that they can be built within proposed National Parks
and Nature Reserves?
“Dams should not negatively impact any Red Data Book species”. At what scale (regional, national,
continental, and global)? What about areas that are poorly covered by the Red Data Book system?
“River flows should not be reduced to zero during commissioning”. Does this mean that something
just above zero is OK, e.g. 1%, 5%, 10%, 25%... Without any further elaboration, this is at best
meaningless, and at worst highly dangerous.
“Undertake full biodiversity surveys of rivers in order to allow the least ecosystem damaging choices
and trade offs to be made” Biodiversity surveys, though important, do not in themselves provide the
necessary information base for making such decisions. A full understanding of ecosystem functioning
is required, making e.g. hydrological and sediment studies of at least equal importance. (This is in fact
recognised in the Options suggested under Recommendation 3).
Buried in the Options for Recommendation 3 (‘Recognise and manage for uncertainty’) is the
welcome statement that:
“Dams should be seen as a last resort rather than the first choice (precautionary principle)”. This
crucial finding, together with greater prominence for the precautionary approach should be clearly
expressed in the main conclusions of the review.
There is only one Option for Recommendation 4 (‘Ensure effective participation in planning, design
and management....’), namely to make EIA reports public documents. It appears to be assumed that
everything else will be taken care of by the ‘participation’ Thematic Review.
The Options for Recommendation 7 (‘Promote the development of national legislative frameworks’)
mix economic and legal instruments in a confusing way. There needs to be explicit recognition that
many countries simply do not have the political leadership, institutional capacity and/or
human/financial resources to implement better environmental legislation, even if it is developed on
paper.
B. Detailed comments on chapters 1 to 6
Chapter 1 – Introduction
Strengths:
• reasonably balanced concise statement of the ‘dams and environment’ debate.
Weaknesses:
• doesn’t really address the issue of ‘environmental restoration', which is given prominence in the
title of the Thematic Review.
Chapter 2 – River Basin Ecosystems and Biodiversity
Strengths:
• Table 2.1 is a helpful summary, which could be usefully expanded to a full page to make it more
prominent and less cramped.
Weaknesses:
• Fails to provide a convincing and forceful enough exposé of the functions, values and attributes of
freshwater ecosystems.
• Postpones adequate analysis of information on social and economic values of freshwater
ecosystems to chapter 4.
• Gives too much early emphasis to biodiversity (an ecosystem attribute) early on, before the
ecosystems themselves have been adequately introduced.
• Does not give a schematic representation of river basin ecosystem types (would be useful for non-
specialists, as per the river basin/water cycle diagram – Figure 2.1).
• Insufficient attention is given to the regional diversity of river basin ecosystems (would be useful
to have a brief summary of ‘typical’ riverine ecosystems of e.g. circumpolar, temperate, arid/semi-
arid, and tropical/sub-tropical regions.
• Religious values are not included explicitly in Table 2.1 or the accompanying text.
• The statement on p.7 that “wetlands in semi-arid and arid areas are known as prime areas for
biodiversity conservation” is misleading, since the non-specialist may conclude that wetlands in
other areas are of lesser importance for biodiversity conservation.
• Insufficient attention is given to the special importance of river basin ecosystems for migratory
species (passing mention only on p.7).
• Section 2.3 ‘Ecosystems and River Basin Development’ is poorly written and argued, especially
the contention that increased membership of environmental conventions is, in itself, a reason why
efforts should be made to avoid irreversible loss of resources.
Chapter 3 – Ecosystem Impacts of Large Dams
Strengths:
• Table 3.1 is clear and forceful in its message, as are Figures 3.5 and 3.6.
• Section 3.4 rightly draws attention to information constraints and the lamentable lack of
comprehensive studies.
• Sections 3.5, 3.6 and 3.7 present a generally convincing picture of the negative impacts of large
dams on ecosystems.
• Stresses (p. 27) that “a unique combination of climate, geology, vegetation, size of impoundment
and operational procedures produce the effect of any individual dam upon the fluvial processes
downstream. Hence a wide range of geomorphological responses can be generated by river
regulation”. (Strengthens the argument for thorough, tailor-made, case-by-case review of every
dam proposal).
• The importance of adequately assessing cumulative impacts is recognised.
• The chapter concludes that “dams have a significant and measurable impact on ecosystems. The
current state of knowledge indicates that the impacts of dams on ecosystems are profound,
complex, varied, multiple and mostly negative”.
Weaknesses:
• gets off to a bad start by stating in the second paragraph of p.10 that “loss of some ecosystems
may benefit some species but others may suffer significant loss of population or even extinction”.
This may easily be misinterpreted or deliberately distorted as implying that ecosystem loss can
have its advantages. This is not a conclusion that IUCN should be encouraging!
• Table 3.3 needs more prominence and clarity as it is effectively the key to understanding sections
3.5, 3.6. and 3.7 which are in many ways the heart of the review;
• Tends to ‘bend over backwards’ too much to show that there are sometimes positive impacts from
dams (e.g. the almost comical note in Box 3.3 that “some species of wildlife use access roads for
travel”). Also the statement on p.17 that “this report draws on the available literature while being
aware of the dangers of generalising from ‘worst case’ examples”. Some of the possible ‘worst
case’ and therefore, presumably, ‘too controversial’ examples have been conveniently overlooked,
so that e.g. impacts of the Three Gorges Dam are not mentioned anywhere.
• Incorrect contention on p.18 that “once a reservoir has formed and has reached a state of stability,
its subsequent dynamic behaviour is very similar as that of a natural lake” (this is subsequently
shown to be incorrect, but still needs putting right).
• Not all asserted impacts are supported by examples. (Value and credibility of review would be
enhanced by fixing these gaps, e.g. sedimentation impacts asserted at end of section 3.6.1.3).
• Insufficient care is given to identifying (for the benefit of non-ecologists) which impacts are most
likely to occur in which regions of the world. e.g. clarification needed in section 3.5.2.2 that the
aquatic macrophytes may support disease vectors in tropical regions.
• Introduction to section 3.6 should recognise that downstream impacts may be felt thousands of
kilometres away (not only tens or hundreds) and that the impacts are frequently transboundary.
• The sections on floodplains and coastal deltas on pp.28-29 are rather sparse in comparison with
the very serious known impacts. The importance of FUNCTIONING floodplains and deltas for
human beings is not adequately addressed either here or in chapter 4.
• The assessment of 66 case studies mentioned in paragraph two of p.33 is not referenced.
• The section on dams and waterbirds should refer specifically to the transboundary issue of
migratory species. The potential loss of tundra of international importance for migratory geese
due to flooding by a proposed dam in Iceland is a good example.
Chapter 4 – The Economic and Social Implications of Ecosystem Impacts
Strengths:
None discernible.
Weaknesses:
• This chapter is highly deficient in terms of presenting the available evidence for the social and
economic importance of naturally functioning riverine ecosystems. There is no real sense here of
the immense number of people that depend on freshwater ecosystems for their livelihoods, with
only one, partial, example: Hadejia-Nguru floodplain in Nigeria.
• Section 4.5 suggests – highly simplistically and naively – that central, regional or local
governments are likely to base decisions about dams around the goal of “the greatest possible
happiness for the greatest number of people”.
• Box 4.1 ‘Ethical principles for decision-makers’ is parachuted-in with no reference. Are these
IUCN’s ethical principles? If not, whose?
Chapter 5 – Responding to the Ecosystem Impacts of Dams
Strengths:
• Useful classification of avoidance, mitigation, compensation and restoration.

• The limitations of mitigation are well presented; it is clearly not the panacea that some interest
groups portray (however, there is an incorrect statement at the foot of p.52 where it is claimed that
mitigation measures for new dams prevent the occurrence of anticipated adverse effects. By
definition, mitigation only reduces adverse effects; it does not avoid them).
• Emphasises that the main measure to reduce the ecosystem impacts associated with dam
construction is “to provide a continuous supply of water to the reaches downstream from the
project and to the extent possible to provide that water in a way that mimics the natural hydrologic
regime of the river”.
• Fair assessment of indicators for hydro-project site selection (section 5.4.1) and indicators of
ecological integrity (section 5.4.2).
• Recognition in relation to Environmental Flow Requirements (EFRs – section 5.4.3) that “even the
most successful EFR will only partially mitigate against the effects of a dam on a river” (foot of
p.69).
Weaknesses:
• The wrap-up sentence for the whole chapter (p.71) is another classic example of the review
‘bending over backwards’ not to upset pro-dam interest groups. After setting out five stringent
conditions that ALL have to be fulfilled for mitigation to be likely to succeed, and stressing that if
ANY ONE of these conditions is absent, then the ecosystem values will likely be lost, it is
concluded “This would tend to encourage a strategy of avoidance and minimisation rather than
one of mitigation if the aim is to maintain biodiversity, and ecosystem functions and services for
the foreseeable future”. “...would tend to encourage” should be replaced with “dictates”!
• Avoidance, compensation, and restoration are not given the same in-depth treatment as mitigation.
• There is a tendency to suggest that mitigation works OK in developed countries, but not in
developing countries (see section 5.3.2.2). This is dangerous, since it implies that mitigation is
mainly limited by resource availability. This is clearly wrong in the light of imperfect scientific
knowledge of ecosystem behaviour and mitigation ‘science’, as emphasised at the beginning of
section 5.4.
• p.53 mentions ‘numerous compilations’ of best practice guidelines for dam construction, but does
not reference any of them.
• Insufficient attention given to the shortcomings of ‘compensation’ as a solution; the review is not
sufficiently critical of ‘out of basin’ compensation, or ‘in kind’ versus ‘out of kind compensation’.
There is a pervasive implication that compensation is possible. Study after study shows that so-
called compensation schemes rarely, if ever compensate for the functions and values which have
been lost. The sterile ‘no net loss’ debate in the US is a good example.
• In the framework of ‘avoidance, mention of ‘set aside’ (p. 52) of some river basins for
environmental protection may imply that other basins can then be freely developed without regard
for environmental protection.
• Restoration (i.e. dam decommissioning) is given a somewhat dismissive treatment. The review
appears to take the approach that restoration is only likely to be an option in a tiny number of
cases, probably smaller dams, and in any case brings lots of problems and risks. IUCN and the
rest of the conservation community should be taking a more cutting edge approach, calling for
improved techniques for dam decommissioning to be developed.
Chapter 6 – Trends in the International Debate/Approach to Dams
Strengths:
• Summarises some of the key arguments of the ‘anti’ and ‘pro’ dam lobbies.
• Acknowledges the policy positions and guidelines etc. issued by IEA, ICOLD, The World Bank,
and OECD.
• Underlines that better methods of economic valuation are needed, together with clearer guidelines
on how costs and benefits can be distributed (e.g. appropriate institutions for promoting equitable
water use.
Weaknesses:
• Ranges into territory beyond the scope of this Thematic Review and therefore loses some of the
focus of previous chapters.
• Through characterising the dam debate as ‘anti’ and ‘pro’, tends to promote further polarisation of
the argument.
• Implies that IUCN is a completely neutral bystander, which is, of course (or shouldn’t be) the
case.
• Does not critically evaluate the extent to which good words in position papers and guidelines of
international organisations have been put into practice.
• The ‘international conventions’ section does not give sufficient coverage to the relevant
requirements of Ramsar or CBD, and does not mention that other global conventions (e.g. Climate
Change, CCCD, CITES and CMS are all relevant too.
C. Comparison of report findings with WWF International Policy Paper
Element of WWF Strategy on Dams: Conserving and protecting important ecosystems & sites
The review strengthens the internationally authoritative literature on the potential adverse impacts of
large dams on ecosystems. It also clearly sets out the limitations of mitigation and gives more
credibility to avoidance as a strategy.
The review is weak in its references to dams and protected areas (or proposed protected areas) which
will be some of the key sites of interest to WWF.
WWF should press for a much fuller treatment of the issue of dams and protected areas, as well as
more in-depth coverage of the socio-economic values of naturally functioning freshwater ecosystems.
Element of WWF Strategy on Dams: Supporting removal of redundant dams
The review is rather negative about restoration of dams through decommissioning, and gives little help
on other restoration and/or rehabilitation options for upstream downstream ecosystems damaged by
dam construction. WWF should call for better leadership in restoration science and practice from
IUCN and WCD.
Element of WWF Strategy on Dams: Mitigate adverse effects of other existing dams
The review sets clear criteria which have to be met if a mitigation effort is likely to stand a high
chance of success.
Element of WWF Strategy on Dams: Supporting the World Commission on Dams
The review strengthens the position of WWF with regard to its calls for WCD to:
- adopt a catchment approach;

- avoid a universal solution to dam construction;
- focus on general policy guidelines.
BUT, the report does not go far enough towards stating clearly the areas in which WCD should show
leadership by developing and adopting guidelines relating specifically to environmental impacts.
It also fails to address WWF’s calls to support the development and transfer of the most appropriate
and efficient technologies, or the estimation and recovery of full costs.
o) Comments by By Tor Ziegler & Hans Olav Ibrekk

1) General
Next to the resettlement issue, - ecosystem functions, and particularly the question of Operationalising
environmental reserve and maintenance flows, is one of the most contentious issues related to dams.
For the operational life-span of the dam, this is probably the issue where the need for a sound
decision-process, knowledge-base for trade-offs and management of water allocations is most needed,
and where science is yet in its infancy.
The draft report provides considerable perspective on the ecosystem functions related to dams, and
how these concerns should be integrated into decision-making, implementation and operation of dams.
In our view, the paper still needs considerable work if it is to provide balanced state-of-the-art
knowledge of this issue in a compressed form (as one may regard about 80 pages or less to be for such
a comprehensive subject). Parts of the report still has character of a compilation of excerpts from
submissions and not a good enough attempt to carefully review these and to prioritise them. Most
important are however the RECOMMENDATIONS made in the report, see below.
In its approach, the paper emphasises maintaining biodiversity (function-oriented). The document is
less explicit on the bio-productivity of regulated rivers (service-oriented). To local stakeholders, the
latter is the main concern, although the former certainly is one key prerequisite for long-term
sustainability of maintaining services. The introductory chapter mentions the "pressures on diversity
and productivity of the world's natural resources", and hence provides readers with expectations of
more comprehensive treatment of the productivity-issue than can be found in subsequent chapters. It
would have been good to expand on the productivity issue to make the report more "down-to-earth".
We do however realise the significance of also providing the broader and long-term oriented
biodiversity picture in relation to environmental sustainability of water resources management.
For the introductory chapter we believe it would have been helpful to readers if a paragraph had
pointed to how awareness of environmental qualities and values of societies evolve/change as
transition from traditional rural to more market-based, science-oriented and industrial forms of
economy takes place. Of course, the Commissioners know this.
The definition of the impacted ecosystems (only water or terrestrial or both) is not clear. In some
chapters reference is made to impacts due to construction activities on terrestrial ecosystems. The
paper would have benefited from a more stringent definition of what components of the various
impacted ecosystems it is addressing.
A key measure for maintaining ecosystem services is often the flow required in the river for such
maintenance (freshwater, wetlands, riparian areas, aquifers and estuaries). The draft report refers to
minimum flows, instream flows and environmental flows as more or less synonymous, which they to
our understanding are not. A clearer definition of "environmental flows" is missing. Instream flows
for instance (as opposed to offstream flows) are what is released into the existing river bed where
several "commercial" uses may be nested together with "environmental flows", e.g. like irrigation
water on its way to its use area or released for navigational purposes, or as underwater from a hydro-
plant. A typology of regulated flows should be provided. It is necessary to distinguish between river-
stretches where an environmental flow is maintained solely for environmental reserve, e. g. bypassing
a hydropower diversion, or released for environmental maintenance in a river that is transferred

elsewhere by a dam, - and those where multipurpose releases are nested.
There is for instance usually a difference between what flows are ideal for angling/fishing, and what
flows are required for maintaining biodiversity and fish productivity. Are both the fish rearing and
angling requirements implicit in the notion environmental flows?
To the dam-owner/operator a release that does not meet the utilitarian purpose for which the
investment is made is seen as more expensive than what is a nested release, where trade-
offs/compromises are considered less costly. In several cases, the owner and regulatory agencies are
also often willing to combine measures like fish-stocking, construction of weirs to create pools, etc for
maintenance of ecosystem services, if that can "save" water for primary purpose use. Needless to say
this will increasingly be an issue, as private sector more and more comes into ownership and operation
of dams.
Diversions of water and of inter-basin transfers that certainly have biodiversity, -productivity and
other impact implications in the delivering- as well as in the receiving end are dealt with only
superficially in the report.
There is a reference to that the present paper interphases with other WCD thematics. However, there
seems to be little harmonisation between the various thematic papers in the sense that there will be
some key issues that several review papers will deal with and overlaps are unavoidable. To what
extent have the various authors harmonised the content of their papers? (e.g. the effectiveness of EIA
and mitigation measures - an issue which the conclusion of this paper mainly rests on, see below).
-----
In the following, comments are first given about the final recommendations, and subsequently on
other substance and conclusions of the draft report:
2) The Recommendations to the Commission

Chapter 7 concludes that ecosystem goods and services have direct and indirect economic value to
local, national and regional economies, and also contingency value. It is of course essential that these
concerns be factored into decision-making and management of dams and more broadly into natural
resources management. It is also pointed to that total value of such benefits can exceed the benefits
from dams and associated investments in agriculture. The latter must more often be the exception than
the rule, in which case the dam should not be built.
It is also pointed to how governments widely have committed to international agreements on

biodiversity. It may be argued to what extent specific sites, stretches or rivers are critical, and to what
extent specific dam options lead to conversion or degradation of critical natural habitats. Some
countries have adopted the principle of maintaining some rivers (and their biodiversity and habitats)
intact, while they develop others "harder", still observing that stakeholders dependent on ecosystem
services are considered through compensation or mitigation measures. In the trade-off decision
processes, our experience is that productivity counts more than diversity, in spite of their
interdependence. This is not likely to change before a real compelling reason can be given that will
convince investors “why biodiversity in our project?”.
Biodiversity "sells" best at the national regulatory level, less well at the local level where it is
productivity that is the concern of stakeholders.
Today, there is general consensus on that dams have a number of adverse impacts that to varying
degrees have become manifest in economic and social costs. It is not so surprising that there in much
of the dam building sector globally is fairly widespread agreement as to the reality of these impacts
and costs. Surprising to some may be that there is convergence among champions in the different
camps in the dams debate of how to reach better decision-making and management of dams. It is in
practical implementation that capacity to do what is "right" first and foremost is lacking.
The review succeeds in raising a general understanding and awareness of that dam building presents a
threat to the world's freshwater biodiversity. It would have been good if one ore two regions of the
world had been analysed (even cursory) to even better document such cumulative effects. In the case
of Sweden with all its dams shown in figure 3.7, it is hotly debated between biologists there whether
the dams have led to a reduction in biodiversity as such, although there is agreement on that there is a
threat and that numbers of e.g. salmon have decreased. However, it is not clear whether this is due to
the dams alone, or whether pollution of the Baltic, overfishing in the seas, etc, are contributing and
perhaps even more important causes.
In relation to finding solutions to dealing with impacts the approaches should indeed be measures for
avoidance, mitigation, compensation and restoration as outlined, and that there exist numerous
examples of how such approaches can be implemented. In general it can also be agreed that mitigation
is particularly problematic or rather, challenging. However, the statement as it reads in chapter 7 is
sweeping, and does not reflect best practice examples of which there are a number. There will usually
remain residual impacts, but by applying more adaptive approaches to planning and management,
setting river use objectives and monitoring adequately as management tools, singular or combined
mitigation measures can succeed if objectives are realistic.
The 5 bullet-points that outline the prerequisite for good mitigation represent the ideal case, and these
conditions unfortunately exist only or mainly in OECD countries as find expression in the moves
towards river restoration in these countries. A consorted effort is needed to get developing countries
up to this level. However, to write off mitigation altogether in other (developing countries) cases is
again a bit sweeping. This does not contradict that alternative approaches as those recommended
should also be pursued.
The 8 points outlined next represent best practice approach. For clarity, it would be good to add bio-
productivity to biodiversity in recommendation no 2. This will "sell" better in developing countries
where there in many cases are large poor riparian populations having freshwater products as a basis for
their subsistence economies. However good this safeguard approach may be, experience shows that it
is in implementation that these ideals often are not complied with. Even more needed than these 8
recommendations is a recommendation for HOW TO START MOVING IN THE DIRECTION
INDICATED IN THE PRESENT DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS. Some of the bullet-points in
section 7.3, meant to illustrate operationalisation options, are very good and may indicate how to move
in the "right" direction. But there is a danger in becoming to prescriptive, and not reach results on the
ground. Would it be an idea to prioritise what are experienced to be the most important points, or
should that prioritisation be left to the Commission itself (if they wish to pursue such and approach)?
The paper concludes that the effectiveness of mitigation is little and subsequently encourages a
strategy of avoidance and minimisation rather than one of mitigation. This is perhaps the most
important conclusion in the paper, one which needs to be clearly supported in terms of findings.
Mitigation or the Environment Management Plan (EMP) are not flawed as instruments, but they are
not being implemented the way they should. Implementation failures do not necessarily lead to the
conclusion cited above. By increasing the effectiveness and efficacy of mitigation (institutional
capacity, enforcement and all these other catch words) a lot can be accomplished. Some impacts can
not be mitigated properly (to make a fire you need to burn something or to make an omelette you have
to crush some eggs) but the main decisive question should be if the residual impacts are acceptable or
not.
Of the 8 recommendations, some also belong in other thematic reviews (e.g. participation, legal
framework). The recommendations follow from the paper's general conclusion of avoidance and
minimisation, e.g. the precautionary principle. From applying the recommendations strictly, one might
easily conclude that no dams should be built at all. Statements like - wherever possible dams and their
impacts should be avoided! - are not helpful as a recommendation!
However, the attempt at Operationalising the recommendations are much better although the options
could as said have been prioritised.
3) Examining the nature of river basin ecosystems

The introduction tells us that 99% of the volume of freshwater is in lakes and 1% in rivers. How much
is in reservoirs? (about 0,13 % or 5 500km3 according to numbers found elsewhere in the draft).
There could have been a reference to the productivity of biomass in wetlands which represent some of
the highest values per m2 in the world.
Box 2.2 refers to the economic value of biomes. It should be more correct to term it annual economic
rent. This value (if correct) is a moving target, and the “price” is likely to rise with increasing scarcity
as these areas are encroached upon further. Question is, what purpose does this illustration serve in
practical terms. Theoretical magnetising is sometimes a fad.
The categorisation of ecosystem functions into regulation, production, habitat and information
functions is helpful.
Section 2.3 gets to the crux of the matter:

“Understand well the costs and benefits to society in decisions for allocating water to maintain
ecosystems or to support agriculture, industry and domestic uses, and recognise that societal values
usually undergo changes with time.”
4) Current understanding of the nature of the impact of dams on ecosystems

Chapter 3 is quite comprehensive and in the conclusion argues values at the global level. This is an
illustration that creates some perspective on the significance of ecosystem goods, but as with the
reminder about international conventions it remains rather academic, and raises the question of how to
operationalise measures for maintenance of these services in developing and industrialised economies.
Hopefully this is what the Commission will do.
As earlier stated, in our opinion it would have been even more helpful to have an analysis of
cumulative impacts in one or two regions of the world to get more meat on the bone. The closest the
report gets is with the reference to molluscs in North America. However, the many cases of adverse
impacts sited leaves no doubt that that dams generally impact biodiversity adversely.
Although dams undeniably create adverse impacts, there are usually other factors at work with land-
use, pollution, etc too. There is no mention of how to separate between such impacts and those created
solely by dams.
Box 3.2 could have listed Transfers.
Table 3.3 with the Petts Categories could also have referred to ice-formation (important in managed
flows in northern rivers), groundwater along reservoirs and in riparian areas, and water temperature
issues.
On Valuation of ecosystems in Chapter 4, the valuation of the global environment is as said interesting
from an academic point of view but not very operational. This is a critical issue since we are not able
to convince decision-makers, or our colleagues for that matter, to integrate environment based on
global importance or ethical values. We often will need hard facts at project level, preferably of a
quantitative nature, to be heard. The paper provides little guidance on how to arrive at such figures.
Furthermore, the discussion of ethical principles for decision-makers is interesting but probably
deserves a more thorough discussion in another place, probably outside this document, but within the
WCD-process.
The problem that EIAs are not integrated in the decision-making process or that EMPs are not
implemented does not necessarily lead to opting for avoidance. We assume that the EIA paper will
adequately address this issue.
5) Status of the approaches to addressing consequences

Chapter 5 on responding to the ecosystem impacts of dams aims to bring out where practice and the
ability to address consequences of dams on ecosystems stands today.
First of all, the sequence: avoid the worst; mitigate and reduce where acceptable; compensate what can
not be mitigated; and restore what went wrong; - is advised in all good textbooks today. Again, the
crux of the matter is to implement adequate measures and make sure that good intentions work.
The draft text largely presents impacts and corresponding mitigation measures without any attempt at
prioritising them. The report comes out with a negative assessment of experiences with mitigation, as
commented on above. In the conclusion a strategy of avoidance and minimisation rather than one of
mitigation is encouraged - “if the aim is to maintain biodiversity, ecosystem functions and services”.
We agree on that this should be the strategy if you want to maintain these values 100%.
However, in many real-world cases trade-offs are made, and in the assessment of tangible and
intangible costs and benefits, it frequently happens that strictly economic/utilitarian benefits are seen
as sufficiently large to accept 10- 20-30-50 75-100% reduction, as long as mitigation that reduces
impacts or compensation in- or out-of-kind is conceived as adequate by affected stakeholders. One
approach that can be used (where capacity is present) is to set an attainable environmental
objective/target for mitigation, and commit the dam owner to meet the objective in dam
implementation and operation. There exist good practice on this approach.
Avoid (no change)

Examples of good practice are cited in the text, we have little to add other than that the distinction
between what normally is conceived as avoidance and what is mitigation is not well demonstrated in
the examples sited for avoidance (e.g. the caribou case).
Mitigate or reduce
Here the text advises design of operating regime to eliminate, offset or reduce ecosystem impacts to
acceptable levels. This is where setting objectives rather than prescribing set “window-dressing”
measures that do not work satisfactorily may provide an option that will make dam owners find the
best measures to meet objective ( or be penalised). This may in some cases imply application of a
combination of mitigation measures if that is most cost-effective. Use of weirs and stream bed
engineering to create/improve habitats and use less water was not mentioned among the list of
measures mentioned in the text.
Compensate
The border between mitigation and compensation is blurred and should be defined, (the in-kind
compensation measures mentioned contribute to the blur). An out-of-kind type that was not mentioned
is creation of a fund for discretionary use by environmental interests. However, it is mentioned
elsewhere that reservoir aqua-culture provides ecosystem services/products that even may create
considerable development opportunities like in the cases cited from Indonesia.
Restore or decommission
The Glen Canyon case is mentioned where an estimated 3 million people/ recreationers visit the
reservoir every year. It would be good if the concluding statement: “It is perhaps because of these
considerations that all dams removed today are relatively small” could be elaborated a bit on. It sounds
like the recreational attraction is the only use that justifies many dams today!!!
Effectiveness of mitigation
Like farming, effectiveness of cultivating soil or mitigating impacts on ecosystems depends very much
on the skill of those who design and implement mitigation measures. One important factor is indeed to
adequately formulate environmental clauses (or objectives) and compliance with these, and the cost of
mitigation should be justified by the outcome.
Bank reviews and mitigation effectiveness

With due respect for the kind of multilaterals the World Bank represents, we are a typical develop-
new-projects institution with little experience in long-time operation of dams. This may account for
some of our limitations in ensuring compliance, especially as there are no carrots or sticks available
for enforcement.
Fish passes need skilled expertise and management (design, monitoring and feed-back) to work.
Scientific uncertainty/
It may be of interest to draw attention to experimental and adaptable rules of operations for dams that
are used for some dams on the northern hemisphere, and like the artificial floods in the Manantali dam
(Senegal) and several other cases in Africa. The northern hemisphere cases rely heavily on stakeholder
consultation, monitoring and feed-back in order to make amendments for scientific uncertainty in
assessing flow requirements.
DAMS ARE NOT LIKE CLOCKS YOU CAN SET AND WIND, AND THAT WILL RUN
ACCORDING TO “SCHEDULE” REGARDLESS. MOST LARGE DAMS REQUIRE CAREFUL
MANAGEMENT THROUGHOUT THEIR LIFETIMES!
Capacity-building for planning, design, implementation and operation is absolutely essential, but takes
time and resources for building adequate skills.
6)Assessment of the areas of convergence and divergence on issues

To our understanding, the principles and guidelines of IEA, ICOLD and the World Bank show
considerable convergence. Bilateral and national EIA guidelines are equally important and could have
been elaborated more on. The role of the private sector, commercial banks' EA-systems etc. are not
addressed.
7) Concluding remarks
This draft review is very interesting reading, has brought a considerable number of interested people
on board the WCD process, and we trust, will inform the Commissioners (who themselves have a lot
of practical knowledge) on the very important issue of ecosystem functions and environmental
restoration, - enough for them to make their own wise recommendations.
In order for this material to be published as a knowledge base and guidance for future decision-making
(if that is contemplated), it will in our view still need significant firming up/quality control/balancing,
as well as further peer review and editing, before any publication is advisable.
p) Comments by Takehiro Nakamura

I have earlier commented on the Instream flows paper and on the three draft reports prepared under the
UNEP/IUCN sub-project (for improvements of the drafts prepared by IUCN consultants). Therefore,
my comments below are related more to integrity of the whole report, or on the contents concerned
about major technical issues.
1. The issue of ‘first filling’ is not given sufficient attention. During the period of first filling, strict
control of how much water is used for filling and how much is used for release to downstream to
maintain downstream ecosystem and flood regimes. The condition during this period is more
severe than the operation period of dams. Further, during this period, nutrients and other materials
from the areas being inundated enter the reservoir water body. Especially, under the tropical
conditions, poor operation of first filling may lead to eutrophication and/or outbreak of malaria,
bilharzia and other diseases.
2. Public health issues such as malaria and bilharzia are considered as one of environmental health
issues in relation to dams.
3. In association with the water level changes in both upstream and downstream of dams,
groundwater tables fluctuate. This has impacts on the “river basin ecosystem” (part of the title of
Chapter 2). This aspect has not been sufficiently covered.
4. The term “wetlands” are used in several places in Chapter 2. In the Ramsar definition, reservoirs,
lakes and rivers themselves can be wetlands, and special care should be taken of the terminology.
5. In terms of relevant data base, UNEP and International Lake Environment Committee (ILEC) has
developed a survey of World Lakes, which also includes limited numbers of dams. Further,
UNEP and WCMC recently published a book, “Freshwater Biodiversity: a preliminary global
assessment”, which can also serve as data/information sources.
6. Another environmental issue relevant to dams is impacts of floods on riverine and floodplain
ecosystems, caused by uncoordinated release of reservoir waters. In particularly, when there are a
series of dams along a river, uncoordinated release of water may cause floods or inundation in
some part of the river, which might have impacts on floodplain ecosystem. Such a case was
observed in the Aral Sea Basin.
7. Accumulation of pollutants adsorbed to sediments settling in the reservoirs may take place,
providing the reservoirs with the nature of ‘chemical reservoirs’. Depending on equilibrium
between the pollutant concentration in the sediments and that in water, such pollutant may be
released to water.
8. We have observed the cases (such as San Francisco River or Senegal River) where construction of
dams impacts not only delta areas but also a wider range of coastal areas, due to change in balance
between freshwater input and coastal current.
9. As indicated, there are mitigation measures and compensations schemes. What is the general
trend of international financial mechanism towards development of dams and towards mitigation
measures in monetary term? What financing mechanism goes towards what areas?
10. River basin management is a mechanism not only for sediment control but also for cost-efficient
and effective water management mechanism, if it is carried out in an integrated manner. Under
the river basin management schemes, dam options can be compared with other options.

Dams, Ecosystem Functions and Environmental Restoration

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Dams, Ecosystem Functions and Environmental Restoration

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

WCD Thematic Review

Environmental Issues II.1

Dams, Ecosystem Functions and

Prepared for the World Commission on Dams (WCD) by:

Ger Bergkamp, Matthew McCartney, Pat Dugan, Jeff McNeely and

Based on contributions from:

Secretariat of the World Commission on Dams

Please cite this report as follows:

The WCD Knowledge Base

• Regional Consultations – Hanoi, Colombo, Sao Paulo and Cairo

• Cross-check Survey of 125 dams

Financial and in-kind Contributors

List of Tables ............................................................................................................................xi

List of Boxes............................................................................................................................ xii

2. River Basin Ecosystems and Biodiversity .....................................................................3

3. Ecosystem Impacts of Large Dams ..............................................................................14

4. Responding to the Ecosystem Impacts of Dams .........................................................55

4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 55

5. Trends in the International Debate/Approach to Dams ............................................75

6. Conclusions and Policy Recommendations for WCD ................................................84

Annex 1: Potential Environmental Impacts of Dams, Reservoirs and Hydroelectric

Annex 2: Reservoir Fisheries ..............................................................................................104

Annex 3: Comparison of Pre vs. Post Impoundment Conditions.....................................107

Annex 4: Sediment Discharges ...........................................................................................108

Annex 5: Large Dam Projects: Adverse Environmental Impacts and Mitigation

Annex 6: Environmental Flow Requirements (EFR) ......................................................114

Annex 7: Example of Mitigation Measures ......................................................................116

Appendix I – List of Contributing Papers to Thematic Review II.1 ...............................117

Appendix II - Submissions for Thematic Review II.1 .......................................................119

Box 1.1: Why large dams are built

Irrigation only 37%

(Source: ICOLD World Register of Large Dams, 1998)

2. River Basin Ecosystems and Biodiversity

Box 2.1: Important ecological concepts of rivers and floodplains

2.2 Why Ecosystems are Valuable

2.2.1 Ecosystems as Regulators

REGULATION FUNCTIONS PRODUCTION FUNCTIONS

• Maintenance of biogeochemical cycling • Food (e.g. edible plants and animals)

• Aesthetic information (e.g. valued scenery)

2.2.2 Ecosystems as Habitats

Box 2.2: Why biological diversity is important

2.2.3 Ecosystems as Providers of Resources

2.2.4 Ecosystems as Providers of Information

2.3 The value of ecosystem goods and services

2.3.1 Economic valuation techniques

2.3.2 The Monetary Value of Freshwater Ecosystems

2.4 Ecosystems and River Basin Development

Box 2.3: Watershed Management

Watershed management programs generally include a variety of subprograms designed to reduce

2.5 International and national recognition of ecosystem values

Box 2.4: International recognition of ecosystem values

Convention on Biological Diversity of June 5, 1992

Figure 2.2: Cumulative number of countries ratifying the main environmental

3. Ecosystem Impacts of Large Dams

3.2 Scale and Variability of Impacts

Box 3.1: Types of dams, in descending order of impacts on ecosystems

Storage dams Large reservoirs with or without river diversions.

Run-of-river Uses flow with limited or no storage and no river diversion.

Table 3.1: The potential scale of the impacts of dams

River Example of Scale of Impact Source

Table 3.2: Some databases of dams

3.3 Framework for Analysis

Second-Order Impact Plankton and Periphyton