SOME large dams just shouldn鈥檛 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 c茅l猫bres: the Narmada dams in India,
say, or Turkey鈥檚 controversial Ilisu project. This week we highlight another
(see 鈥淐oncrete jungle鈥�).
Belize鈥檚 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鈥攁n 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鈥檚 just not the done thing to say
鈥渘o鈥�. Only 鈥測es, provided . . .鈥�
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 鈥渢o render dams
acceptable when the decision to proceed has already been taken鈥�.
杏吧原创s working on EIAs should be able to say no to a project. If they
can鈥檛, 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