Introduction
The important role played by dams in the betterment of livelihoods and the economy of most places of the globe cannot be underestimated. However, dams and their construction process have also been found to impact negatively on the natural ecosystems of the place where they are situated and the indigenous people of that locality.[1] It is for such reasons that the international law and statutory regulations have provisions about the construction of dams which should be reached for a dam to be approved. In the process of approving plans for dams, the stage of decision-making is a critical stage which should integrate environmental, social, and economic dimensions. The Cotter dam project is not an exception to this. This paper is an in-depth review of the environmental assessment, decision making, and the approval process for the Cotter dam project; the paper aims to point out the various issues which were not complied with as is required by the international law and the Commonwealth law.
Environmental Assessment and Impact on the Ecosystem
The process of environmental assessment started by assessing the land ownership in the area of construction and the areas that are likely to be affected downstream and upstream. As shown in the plan, it happens that the land in the area belonged to the government of Australia or the ACTEW and was divided into zones. The zones included mountains, bush lands, and river corridors. As such, this part of the plan was very compliant with the requirements of both the commonwealth law and the international law. The international law looks to safeguard the livelihoods of downstream communities whose daily activities might be altered significantly by the marked reduction in flow downstream[2]; in this case, such communities are non-existent. Moreover, the planners do not have to worry about the environmental effects of the construction process since the construction site is far away from residential areas.
Further environmental assessment, however, showed that there were plant and animal species and various ecosystems which were likely to be interfered with. Most importantly, among the species which are likely to be interfered with are species which are known to be endangered. Of these species was the spotted-tailed quoll. The species represents the largest marsupial carnival in the Australian mainland. The ACT committee for the conservation of flora and fauna also found that there were many other endangered species in the area and that they could be affected adversely. A number of plant species, which are common in the grassland zones of the Cotter Dam Project area and have been enlisted as endangered plant species, were found to be at a risk of extinction once the plans to construct the dam came through. Furthermore, the entire grassland, including the plant species which had not been enlisted as endangered, and its ecosystem were at a risk of extinction. In such circumstances, the ACT flora and fauna committee is required by the commonwealth law, the Nature Conservation Act of 1980 to advise the responsible minister accordingly.
The planners of the Cotter Dam project did not comply with the requirements of the law. Additionally, the minister responsible was not advised on the issue accordingly. Advising the minister in good time goes beyond being just a requirement of the law, it is aimed at preserving the environment and the ecosystems. Disruption of the ecosystems can have debilitating long-term effects which could include a decrease in the water levels of the region, hence, undermining the very purpose of developing the dam in question.
Apart from their role in maintaining biodiversity by ensuring that naturally occurring ecosystems are not interfered with, the commonwealth department for environment, water, heritage, and arts has other important roles. The other roles of the department only emphasize the need for notifying the minister before embarking on the dam construction process. The department, for instance, is mandated with ensuring that the quality of air is maintained. It is, therefore, of utmost importance to notify the department before the construction begins since the construction process is likely to interfere with the quality of air especially by emitting large amounts of dust into the air. The department is also required to prevent land contamination, something which is likely to occur at the construction site considering the planners’ idea of having an oil plant at the site.
In addition, a group of ACT residents under the name ‘Save the Cotter River’ moved to prevent the approval of the Cotter dam project citing inadequate environmental assessment as their reason for the move. The fact that the residents had objections to the approval of the project alone shows incompliance with the requirements of the international law. For a project to be undertaken, it has to have the approval of the residents of that area since they are the people who are likely to be most affected by the project.[3] In essence, going ahead with a project while the residents of the area are objected to it is an infringement of the rights of those individuals.
A further controversy arose when the ACT government told the group that they have no standing in the case. The residents are the people who will be the most affected by any outcome of the dam being constructed. They should, thus, have a definite standing in any court case surrounding the dam. Any independent advisor would consider this a mistake. As such, an independent advisor would call for the halting of the construction process to call for further engagement and for the ‘Save the Cotter River’ group to have their case heard and determined. Even if the group seemed not to have a standing, the decision should have been made in a court of law; the group should not have withdrawn their case because the defendant wanted them to.
The same thing can be said about the grievances of a downstream community, ‘Save the Murray-Darling Basin’, who were against the act of drawing more water from the rivers which drained into the Murray-Darling basin. The group was a well-known group and they certainly had a point. Since Cotter dam was to be an enlargement of preexisting dams, the amount of water flowing into the Murray-Darling Basin had been significantly reduced and as such withdrawing more water from any of the rivers draining into the basin would be devastating for the downstream communities. In essence, not listening to the grievances of this or any other group of downstream residents was equal to infringement on their rights.[4] Furthermore, large dams and their construction process have caused irreversible and largely negative effects of the watershed and the aquatic ecosystems accompanying them; hence the fact that this particular group actually had a point and deserved to be listened to. Again, the allegation by the ACT government that this group lacked a standing in the case was misplaced. The fact that the group was a well-known group of activists itself contradicts the thought that they could have lacked a standing. Any independent advisor would see that the group actually had a standing and an important stake in the dam. Moreover, only a court of law can determine that a certain group does not have the standing to block the approval of a construction plan; advice by the anticipated defendant not to pursue a decision due to lack of a standing should not have been adhered to.
Decision-Making and Planning
The international law, through the World’s commission for dams, listed five values which should be observed in the process of making decisions and planning for dam projects.[5] The first of these values is equity. By equity, the commission meant that the rights and requirements of all the parties should be fulfilled before the plan is implemented. As such, the value of equity was breached in several instances in the planning and decision-making phases of the Cotter dam enlargement project. As such, a decision such as stopping certain groups from moving to stop the approval of the plan on the grounds that they lacked a standing demonstrated the lack of equity.
The value of equity goes hand in hand with the value of participatory decision-making. Equity cannot be achieved when the major stakeholders and individuals or groups who are likely to have concerns about the plan to be approved are not involved in the decision-making process.[6] As seen earlier, the planners did not involve key stakeholders sufficiently hence the grievances raised. As such, this was a breach of international law.
Other key values which were to be withheld in the process of decision-making were accountability and sustainability.[7] From the plans, accountability is a value that was adhered to, however, sustainability of the plan and the dam I general is something that should have been reviewed. The energy requirements at the construction site and the distance between the main construction site and the dam itself are among the things which should have been considered in choosing the specific site and other aspects of the plan. Most importantly, construction of the dam should not interfere with the sustainability of the existing ecosystems in the area and the sustainability of the water supplies to the downstream ends of the rivers including the Murray-Darling basin. The fact that there is a group with concerns about the sustainability of water supply downstream shows that the subject was not considered in good depth in the planning phase.
The last of the values that should characterize the process of decision-making is efficiency. For the dam to be said to be efficient, it should perform as expected and the benefits of having the dam should outweigh the costs incurred. This is considered in the next section.
Costs Verses Benefits
Apart from the monetary cost of constructing the dam, many other costs are anticipated. Among this costs is the environmental pollution that is likely to result from the construction process, the changes in the surrounding ecosystems, and negative changes on the livelihoods of the people staying downstream. These and other costs of constructing the dam versus the anticipated benefits are considered below.
Constructing a dam may not only interfere with the ecosystem of a place but may also interfere with key sociocultural landmarks in the area. The construction of the Cotter dam, for instance, was found to have had destroyed an important historical feature in Australia, the stockyards of Cotter Cattle, as evidenced by archeological work. The value of this historical site in the culture of Australia could not be underestimated and as such its destruction is an undue cost which was incurred by the construction of the dam. Moreover, the historical site could have been of great economic value had it not been destroyed since it could have attracted many local and international tourists. Therefore, it was prudent for the planning committees to consider the impact of the construction of issues such as the destruction of such historical sites before going ahead to implement the plan. Even though the dam would eventually be of great benefit to the economy, preservation of such historical sites would be prudent.
On the issue of environmental conservation, the risk of interfering with natural ecosystems in the area is big. The number of species likely to be affected is also big. The ACT committee for flora and fauna found that nineteen different animal species were at risk of being adversely affected by the construction of the dam. Additionally, twenty different plant species, most which occur in the grassland zone were listed by the committee among the forms of life that were endangered by the construction of the dam. Moreover, the entire grassland area was threatened massively. The cost of losing all these forms of life is not something that should have been underestimated. As earlier alluded to, it is such changes in the ecosystem that can contribute to climate change which can, in turn, interfere with the very reason for the construction of the dam in the first place.[8] It would thus have been prudent for the planners to consider this cost before embarking on the construction process.
Finally, the cost incurred by humanity is what creates the biggest imbalance between costs and anticipated benefits of the Cotter dam project. Concerns that the construction of the dam would interfere with the livelihoods of the residents of the area and would undermine the activities of the people living downstream should have been enough to warrant a review or even reconsideration of the plan. As the World’s commission on dams concluded in their report, most large usually do not achieve their targets and as such should not warrant the interference of the livelihoods of people.[9]
Conclusion
Even though the ACT government had a good reason for proposing the construction of a large dam to supply more water so as to suffice the needs of the nearby urban population, there are many mishaps in their process of seeking approval for the dam construction plan. First, there is no evidence that the planners considered other options that were thought to be less injurious to humanity and the ecosystems. Additionally, as seen in the discussion above, the likely cumulative costs of constructing the dam seem to outweigh the benefits that the dam would bring. As a private advisor, I would have advocated for a review or even a reconsideration of the plan before it was approved.
Bibliography
American University International Law Review, ‘The Report of the World Commission on Dams – Executive Summary’, (2001) 16 (6) American University International Law Review 1435
Schreider SY, Jakeman AJ, Letcher RA, Nathan RJ, Neal BP, Beavis SG. ‘Detecting changes in streamflow response to changes in non-climatic catchment conditions: farm dam development in the Murray–Darling basin, Australia.’ (2002) 262(1) Journal of Hydrology. 84
[1] American University International Law Review, ‘The Report of the World Commission on Dams – Executive Summary’, (2001) 16 (6) American University International Law Review 1438
[2] Schreider SY, Jakeman AJ, Letcher RA, Nathan RJ, Neal BP, Beavis SG. ‘Detecting changes in streamflow response to changes in non-climatic catchment conditions: farm dam development in the Murray–Darling basin, Australia.’ (2002) 262(1) Journal of Hydrology. 91
[3] American University International Law Review, ‘The Report of the World Commission on Dams – Executive Summary’, (2001) 16 (6) American University International Law Review 1440
[4] American University International Law Review, ‘The Report of the World Commission on Dams – Executive Summary’, (2001) 16 (6) American University International Law Review 1440
[5] American University International Law Review, ‘The Report of the World Commission on Dams – Executive Summary’, (2001) 16 (6) American University International Law Review 1443
[6] American University International Law Review, ‘The Report of the World Commission on Dams – Executive Summary’, (2001) 16 (6) American University International Law Review 1444
[7] American University International Law Review, ‘The Report of the World Commission on Dams – Executive Summary’, (2001) 16 (6) American University International Law Review 1444
[8] Schreider SY, Jakeman AJ, Letcher RA, Nathan RJ, Neal BP, Beavis SG. ‘Detecting changes in streamflow response to changes in non-climatic catchment conditions: farm dam development in the Murray–Darling basin, Australia.’ (2002) 262(1) Journal of Hydrology. 89
[9] American University International Law Review, ‘The Report of the World Commission on Dams – Executive Summary’, (2001) 16 (6) American University International Law Review 1439
