SOME large dams just shouldn’t be built. They cause too much collateral
damage to nature or human societies that happen to be in the way. Some such
boondoggles become causes célèbres: the Narmada dams in India,
say, or Turkey’s controversial Ilisu project. This week we highlight another
(see “Concrete jungle”).
Belize’s Chalillo dam, on which construction could begin next month,
would flood a valley slap bang in the middle of one of the few surviving
rainforests in Central America—an oasis of rare species. Asked to compile
an assessment, biologists at the Natural History Museum in London said that the
impacts were too great and irreducible and that the dam should not be built. In
doing so they broke one of the unwritten rules for writing environmental impact
assessments for large construction projects. It’s just not the done thing to say
“no”. Only “yes, provided . . .”
A year ago, the World Commission on Dams, which is backed by the World Bank,
highlighted the dilemma scientists find themselves in. Far from being brought in
to offer an independent assessment, the job had become “to render dams
acceptable when the decision to proceed has already been taken”.
Scientists working on EIAs should be able to say no to a project. If they
can’t, the whole process will be a fraud, and the scientists themselves would be
prostituting their expertise. The Natural History Museum should be congratulated
for taking a stand.
Advertisement
