BIG DAMS are back in the news. Press cameras are infatuated with the Three Gorges monster in China and, as Fred Pearce laments, governments and the World Bank 鈥渁re back in love with dams鈥� (快猫短视频, 22 March, p 29).
Such megaprojects spell disaster for people who lack clean water, Pearce contends. And the management of water is an issue of ever-increasing importance to the world, especially for its poorest inhabitants.
In the mid-1990s the World Bank stopped funding big dams, and created the highly critical World Commission on Dams (WCD). But now the pressure is on for a renewed massive diversion of funding to privatised water projects.
Advertisement
I asked the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, John Healey, about the government鈥檚 attitude to funding dams. He told me that it supports the principles of the WCD report, which concluded that dams have made an important and significant contribution to human development, but that the social and environmental costs have, in too many cases, been unacceptable.
The UK is, he said, co-funding the Dams and Development Unit, which is working to make sure that international institutions are considering financing 鈥渇ollow processes consistent with the report鈥�. And the UK鈥檚 Export Credit Guarantee Department is assisting private sector applicants for dam projects to develop environmental and social impact assessments.
This leaves me with a problem. I agree with Pearce: 鈥淲hat the poor need are projects that are cheap, local, small-scale and environmentally friendly. Privatisation will freeze them out.鈥�
Readers who share my interest in this hugely important issue ought to obtain the government鈥檚 consultation draft response to the WCD report, which is available by searching the Foreign and Commonwealth Report website at
I WAS much involved in the passing of the Conservation of Seals Act 1970. And now I am very worried about the fate of British seals. Very few civilised countries, at the present time, sanction the uncontrolled shooting of any wildlife, least of all seals.
My concern is increased by the way in which the last Scottish Parliament adjusted legislation through its draft Nature Conservation (Scotland) Bill. This acknowledges the European Union Habitats Directive 鈥� but, I must say, does so half-heartedly. It merely mandates Scottish ministers to consider the directive when deciding whether to grant a licence to shoot seals during the closed season.
Surely they should have given ministers powers to issue licences throughout the year, with tougher conditions during the closed season? Return of information about shooting is crucial to their conservation. How many seals are being shot, and by whom? What I do know is that Scotland, and the UK in general, have obligations in relation to the grey seal. If we fail in these, how can we lecture other peoples about their wildlife?
