Description

Completed in 1999, this special evaluation study aims to determine whether ADB is adequately emphasizing the mitigation measures for adverse environmental and social impacts of hydropower projects and to provide recommendations for improving their design and implementation.

Four case studies (People's Republic of China, Indonesia, Lao People's Democratic Republic, and Malaysia) that provide a range of conditions and periods of development were evaluated.

The major issues discussed are whether

• the environmental and social impacts of the hydropower projects have been correctly identified at the design stage
• appropriate measures have been introduced to mitigate any adverse impacts identified
• the mitigation measures suggested in the environmental and social documents have been effectively implemented
• ADB, developing member countries (DMCs), and hydropower project managers have systematically monitored and evaluated the implementation of those mitigation measures and provided adequate feedback

Summary of findings

• In some of the study projects the communication and consultation process was weak, resulting in improper identification of impacts and inadequate implementation of mitigation measures.

• Failure to collect primary socio-environmental baseline data in the study projects, inaccuracies in technical review, and incomplete coverage in preparatory documents led to misidentification of impacts and weak treatment in some study projects of areas such as timely income restoration and mitigation of fisheries impacts.

• Limited use of environmental and social experts during planning and the poor review capacity in the DMC agencies resulted in creating some inconsistencies in detailed impact statements and in the summary documents.

• Inadequate or inconsistent treatment of impacts associated with auxiliary infrastructure components (such as transmission lines and access roads), nonintegration of resettlement components in the environmental assessment process, changes in project design during implementation, and weak linkages with other parallel development efforts meant that some secondary impacts of projects did not have appropriate mitigation measures.

• Studies that had a resettlement plan implemented some satisfactory social mitigation measures but failed in timeliness of compensation and income restoration programs.

Recommendations

• Impact assessments need to be prepared in local languages. Surveys of the project-affected persons and public consultation meetings should be held in all potentially affected areas, taking into account the extent of literacy and adapting to the community's culture of participation.

• Project preparatory work needs to include the collection of adequate baseline data. A description of the methodologies adopted in measuring the base conditions should also be indicated.

• Environmental and social scientists need to be an integral part of the design team for sensitive projects, supplemented by a panel of experts, as needed. ADB should oversee whether the panel's recommendations are taken into consideration by project management.

• Promulgate the draft impact assessments to stakeholders, related NGOs, universities, and international agencies to increase transparency and to support ADB's technical review responsibility.

• Ensure the implementation of important measures by way of specific assurances in the loan agreement, and monitorable targets in progress reports.

• DMC agencies and ADB should be more rigorous in screening the capacity of construction firms bidding on large hydropower projects.

• The project proponents should ensure that at the end of the defect liabilities period, an independent environmental audit is completed (as in more recent projects) to identify mitigation measures that were not met and require contractors to address the inadequacies noted.

Contents

• Executive Summary
• I. Introduction
• II. Findings and Impacts
• III. Key Issues
• IV. Main Conclusions and Recommendations
• Appendixes