Popular opposition to large dam projects has become a world-wide phenomenon. In numerous countries, this opposition has continued and grown for many years. The variety of ways in which opposition has emerged, grown, and influenced (or failed to influence) water development projects in various countries, provides many opportunities
for comparative study, particularly in terms of larger questions concerning the role of public debate and dissent in the development process.

In Canada, public opposition (among other factors) has led to cancellation of some major recent projects, including the Kemano project in B.C., and the Great Whale Project in Quebec. In the United States, the "big dam era" is widely considered to be over, as there no longer appear to be any sites at which this technology would win public
acceptance. Indeed, to some extent the focus of public debate has shifted towards the possibility of dismantling a few especially hated projects. In Eastern Europe, opposition to dams in the 1980s was closely related to opposition to the former communist regimes. In Hungary, Latvia, the Soviet Union and elsewhere, this opposition was seen as important in demonstrating the potential of opposition. Dam campaigns have been described as "dress-rehearsals" for campaigns that eventually led to end of these regimes.

Opposition to dam projects has been especially prominent in the South. In Thailand, years of opposition to dams led to the announcement in 1995 that dams would no longer be built within the country for power production (Thailand remains, however, a potential major customer for power generated by dams in neighbouring countries, particularly Laos). In India, the most prominent focus of dissent has been the Sardar Sarovar project. For the last ten years this project, involving construction of irrigation canals and more than 30 dams, and resulting in the forced relocation of perhaps 320,000 people, has elicited widespread opposition. This opposition has led to the withdrawal of the World Bank from the project, and to several delays in construction. Whatever the outcome of this controversy, it is widely believed to have encouraged the end of an era of dam projects in India requiring large-scale displacement.

Especially noteworthy has been the formation of large-scale international coalitions against dams, led by the International Rivers Network. Just as dam-building has become an international business, so too has opposition to dams. The spread of modern communications technology (for example, the IRN's e-mail notification system), has clearly contributed to this.

Several factors have encouraged widespread opposition to dams:

1) The fact that dams often affect many interests has led to the formation of coalitions and alliances between different parties. Fishers have combined with indigenous' peoples organizations, and with environmentalists, for example, and in some cases the resulting coalitions have matured into movements whose goals go beyond opposition to a
specific project, towards the advocacy of alternative forms of economic and political development.

2) As governments have sought to attract private investors to dam projects, this has led to more open airing of the implications of these projects, and to the publicizing of the fact that these projects may not be secure or profitable investments, but often rely on indirect or hidden subsidies. For example, the July 1996 report of the Delphi group of
investment consultants, demonstrating that the Bakun Dam was a risky investment, has received wide attention.

3) The notion that problems caused by dams are not peculiar to specific projects or regions, or are correctable through modification or better management of the projects, but, rather, are inherent in this form of technology. Goldsmith and Hildyard's compendium of the environmental and social impacts of dams was one of the first documents to gather
together the main arguments against dams, and to make this point. The implication for popular opposition to these projects is that the impacts of dams are not solvable through expertise, and therefore decisions concerning dams cannot be delegated to expertise.

Many countries, including Malaysia, make some legal provision for public participation in decisions concerning large projects that may have environmental and social impacts. A variety of criteria can be applied to the evaluation of these provisions, such as transparency, access to information, accountability, meaningful choice, and comprehensiveness of alternatives. More generally, these or other criteria can be used to
evaluate decision-making, as conducted through an environmental impact assessment process, for example, in terms of a few key factors, such as legitimacy, fairness and efficiency. Also critical is how "participation" in decisions is legally defined: it may encompass shared responsibility for decisions, or merely requirements for notification of
decisions.

Effective requirements for public participation in decisions also depend on political will, enforced by open debate about projects, and about the development process itself. Recent discussions of the social role and character of debate and dissent has focused on the concept of the "civil society" -- a political context within which individuals, groups, civic
organizations of all types are able to express themselves, debate their concerns, and, generally, mediate the relationship between the state and the citizen. The recent history of the Bakun project demonstrates how obstacles to a civil society can be formed by restricting access to information, and by discouraging the questioning of official priorities.
But it also demonstrates, paradoxically, how such a project can contribute to a civil society. In Malaysia, as elsewhere, developments eliciting immense environmental, social, and economic concerns have often led to stronger organizations of concerned citizens, because
such developments demonstrate so effectively the need for civic oversight of the exercise of state and private authority.

Nevertheless, there remains considerable momentum behind building dams. They still benefit powerful political and economic interests, and in many countries, the process of planning, promoting and building dams remains secretive and insulated from dissent. As McCully concludes, "Those who suffer because of dams -- whether directly through the
loss of their livelihoods or indirectly through government subsidies to uneconomic projects -- are rarely able to hold the dam-building bureaucrats and consultants accountable for their actions."

In several countries, opposition to dam projects has been answered by attempts to suppress this dissent. In China, activists opposed to the Three Gorges and other dam projects have been jailed. For example, the editor of Yangtze! Yangtze!, a book critical of the Three Gorges project, spent 10 months in solitary confinement. The book has also been banned in China. Similarly, in India, thousands of opponents of the Sardar Sarovar project have been subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention, and beatings, all of which appear to be part of a campaign by state governments to discourage opposition to the project.

Ultimately, it is increasingly evident that dams are remaining viable only in countries where dissent, and human rights generally, are curbed. This is likely a major reason why China and southeast Asia have become among the most active regions of dam building.

Sources:
o Fisher, William F., "Development and Resistance in the Narmada Valley," in Fisher (1995), pp. 3-46.
o Hall, Anthony, "Grassroots Action for Resettlement Planning: Brazil and Beyond," World Development, 1994, 22(12): 1793-1809.
o McCully, Silenced Rivers, pp. 282-306, provides capsule histories of opposition to dam projects, in the United States, Tasmania, Eastern Europe, Brazil, Thailand and India.
o Taylor, Bron Raymond, ed., Ecological Resistance Movements: The Global Emergence of Radical and Popular Environmentalism, (Albany: SUNY Press, 1995). [Very useful world-wide survey of popular movements. Frequent mention of opposition to dams.]
o Wiseman, Robin, "The writing on the dam," New Internationalist, May 1990: 13-15.